Assuming God Exists, Could an Omnipotent God,
- Thread starter JudeBrando
- Start date
"assuming..." that God is a god and not a figment of someone's imagination.
Were there any other gods of other nations around at the time the Jews presumed that a god of their very own existed? Did these other gods give laws to their followers through their priest/kings and books too?
Should we go by the sheer volume of the texts? In that case, should we worship Vishnu or Shiva? All in all though, I think it can be proved that Ahura-Mazda is the one true god.
temporalillusion
Technical Admin
Sure, so the question then becomes why didn't he/she/en/it?
paiute
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2004
- Messages
- 1,394
He would just use Amazon, like everyone else.
Psi Baba
Homo Skepticalis
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2001
- Messages
- 4,027
But would it qualify for free shipping?
Ladies should always come first. So you should put she/he/it.
But then she/he can be abbreviated to s/he.
So altogether when you want to refer to god it is best to use s/he/it. To indicate that you are not sure what pronoun to use.
Ok….notice the sleight of hand….notice the legerdemain….. initially you said “as HE intends”. Now you have omitted the phrase saying just “a book” with no mention of the intentional aspect of the book.
Yes s/he/it can deliver A book….any book….. But the question of more import is “can he deliver a book AS HE INTENDS”.
The answer is obviously YES…s/he/it can…..but s/he/it BLATANTLY DID NOT DO SO.
UNLESS you want to show us such a book….. because none of the current scriptures that humanity knows about is in any way a BOOK WORTHY OF BEING DESCRIBED AS OF GODLY INTENT.
So obviously despite being capable of delivering to us any book…..an omnipotent god has apparently not bothered, or if s/he/it has bothered then it has been BLOTTED OUT by evil humans.
However, the Bible may yet prove to be as s/he/it has intended all along
Vitiating, Vague, contradictory, auto-refuting, nonfactual, malevolent, morally abhorrent, scientifically imbecilic, schism inducing, belligerent, and evil.
And if we were to infer a character description of its author we would not be able to conclude other than that s/he/it isInfanticidal, Megalomaniacal, Homicidal, Racist, LYING, RAPING, INCESTUAL, Jealous, Lustful, Gluttonous, Greedy, Slothful, Envious, Vain, Pompous, Wrathful, Vengeful, Deceitful, Egotistical, Malevolent, Benighted and a moronic hypocrite .
Besides, if you are referring to the Bible then unless you can read Ancient Hebrew….then this god has not delivered this book to YOU or your ancestors or your culture….you are only able to read a translation of a translation of a translation which is a print of a print of a print copied of a copy of a copy of a copy from a none existing never seen original written by the hands of parched, emaciated, retarded, desert dwelling, tent residing, reeking sheep herders, who despite all of this managed to eventually dominate your apparently less impressive culture and to supplant your ancestral gods and even your ancestral names and heritage.
So it is quite obvious that whatever book you are referring to, it is NOT by any contortions, warping, wriggling, or writhing of any imaginative casuistic apologetics, the book delivered by any omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god worthy of the title that actually CARES ABOUT YOU or had you in mind except maybe as a “dog” (Matthew 15:26) lapping off the floor “crumbs fallen from the tables of the masters” (Matthew 15:27).
Last edited:
Lowpro
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2011
- Messages
- 5,399
Well I think we're talking about God, the UPS guy. We haven't gotten to his author status yet, though I see you've taken the liberty of addressing it.
You just know YHWH likes to sport the brown short shorts
temporalillusion
Technical Admin
Ladies should always come first. So you should put she/he/it.
But then she/he can be abbreviated to s/he.
So altogether when you want to refer to god it is best to use s/he/it. To indicate that you are not sure what pronoun to use.
Holy s/he/it!
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,137
Or we could say that he has caused the browning of many a short.
There's a product for that.
Attachments
citizenzen
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,454
... lose track of the only two people He's created because they were hiding behind the trunks of trees?
Genesis 3:8 - And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
Genesis 3:9 - And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
Genesis 3:9 - And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
Yes. He could.
I've misjudged Jude all this time. If you look through his OPs, his usual style has been to present questions or quotes for our opinion. The tone of the OPs, and his own words, had convinced me that Jude was using this strategy to "slyly" (in his own mind) advocate for a theist point of view.
But this OP is the most brilliant and convincing argument for atheism I've ever seen! If x then y is a classic statement in logic. We know that y is obviously false (an omnipotent God clearly did not get an accurate book delivered to us explaining history and his goals for the world). Then x must be false.
Jude, I commend you! I will use this argument with all my theist friends. I'm sure I get many of them to reconsider their beliefs!
But this OP is the most brilliant and convincing argument for atheism I've ever seen! If x then y is a classic statement in logic. We know that y is obviously false (an omnipotent God clearly did not get an accurate book delivered to us explaining history and his goals for the world). Then x must be false.
Jude, I commend you! I will use this argument with all my theist friends. I'm sure I get many of them to reconsider their beliefs!
Although I am an atheist, I've sometimes toyed with the idea of an not so potent god who is trying hard, but is not too good at it. It fits in better with real life. But, if any of the bible is true, he'd still have to be a nasty piece of work. God forgets to tell Adam and Eve about good and evil, yet (after he finally finds them hiding behind the trees- good going God!) he punishes them and all their descendants because they ate of the fruit that taught them of good and evil.
citizenzen
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,454
Genesis 1:27 - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 1:31 - And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Genesis 1:31 - And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
God ... omnipotent, all-knowing, all-powerful Creator of the Universe and everything in it ... but not too good at judging the quality of His own work.
If an omnipotent god exists then hes as close to pure evil as you can get. The book would be irrelevant.
Rather than a "God of the gaps", a "God of the short bus?"
JudeBrando
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2011
- Messages
- 1,692
So altogether when you want to refer to god it is best to use s/he/it. To indicate that you are not sure what pronoun to use.
"The way I see it, you've got to say s/he/it..."
Or maybe everything and anything is fine, it's all good, perfect in fact, except for this one thing, just don't do this one thing, so they promptly do that one thing, and then Adam blames God, just like many still do...
If so, you judge God as inferior...God ... omnipotent, all-knowing, all-powerful Creator of the Universe and everything in it ... but not too good at judging the quality of His own work.
So anyone or anything opposing such "pure evil" must be good then, right?
"Assuming God exists," but since you say "hes as close to pure evil as you can get," what do you then say of Satan?
Last edited: