God's Omnipotence

Iacchus · 22nd November 2005, 07:43 AM

From this thread

Originally Posted by BJQ87

Can God create an object to heavy for him to lift? Yes. Then can God lift it? Yes. But God does not do such a thing, he has the ability to do it, but he does not.

So then you ask how I could know God won't change the laws of logic? How could I know that God won't break promises, sin, cause himself not to exist?

Is not breaking his promises a limitation to power? no. Is not being able to sin a limitation to power? no. Is not being able to not exist a limitation to power? no.

On the other hand, it is my limitation of power to have the ability to break promises, sin, and not exist.

So, how can one maintain consistency, in every single last detail, without the explicit power to do so?

Mercutio · 22nd November 2005, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by Iacchus

From this thread

So, how can one maintain consistency, in every single last detail, without the explicit power to do so?

...which is circularly inferred from maintaining consistency.

Not to mention, you beg the question by making up the attributes to begin with! What if I defined your god as puny and impotent, but consistently so? You could make the same claims of consistency and the power to be that way then, too...

Sheesh...

DarkMagician · 22nd November 2005, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by Iacchus

God's Omnipotence

Doesn't he know there's medication for that?

ReFLeX · 22nd November 2005, 08:00 AM

My God, Iacchus, not AGAIN.

2 minutes ago

Iacchus · 22nd November 2005, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by Mercutio

...which is circularly inferred from maintaining consistency.

Not to mention, you beg the question by making up the attributes to begin with! What if I defined your god as puny and impotent, but consistently so? You could make the same claims of consistency and the power to be that way then, too...

Sheesh...

Well, what does omnipotency suggest to you then? Shouldn't it be circularly defined if, it were to maintain power over all things? It all comes from the same place does it not?

Mercutio · 22nd November 2005, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Well, what does omnipotency suggest to you then?

Fictional characters.

Quote:

Shouldn't it be circularly defined if, it were to maintain power over all things?

No. Your circular definition renders it meaningless. It is not a definition at all.

Quote:

It all comes from the same place does it not?

Your fevered imagination? Yes, I suppose so.

3point14 · 22nd November 2005, 08:11 AM

I think I must be more thick than I thought.

Not only do I not understand what he's trying to say, I also can't understand some of the words he's trying to use in the context they're placed in.

Is it just me?

Iacchus · 22nd November 2005, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by 3point14

I think I must be more thick than I thought.

Not only do I not understand what he's trying to say, I also can't understand some of the words he's trying to use in the context they're placed in.

Is it just me?

If one has the power to maintain everything that one says, with nothing to stand in contrast to it, how can one not be omnipotent in that regard?

DarkMagician · 22nd November 2005, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by 3point14

I think I must be more thick than I thought.

Not only do I not understand what he's trying to say, I also can't understand some of the words he's trying to use in the context they're placed in.

Is it just me?

Monkey fish toaster? Mayo lichen fish man key funny dwive.

ReFLeX · 22nd November 2005, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Well, what does omnipotency suggest to you then? Shouldn't it be circularly defined if, it were to maintain power over all things?

Err. No. Omni = all. Potency = power. Omnipotency = all-powerful.

If an explanation is circular then you haven't defined anything.

Iacchus · 22nd November 2005, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by Mercutio

No. Your circular definition renders it meaningless. It is not a definition at all.

Yes, and perhaps you should begin to speak in terms of wholeness, instead of the scatter-brained philosophy you propose? Are you at all familiar with the story of Humpty Dumpty?

fruit_loup · 22nd November 2005, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by 3point14

I think I must be more thick than I thought.

Not only do I not understand what he's trying to say, I also can't understand some of the words he's trying to use in the context they're placed in.

Is it just me?

No you are not alone. Iacchus is the sort of person who attempts to use confusion to make himself or herself feel intelligent and worthwhile. At the core they know there is no arguement and thus they try even harder to confuse and use all sorts of backward logic. I have found it is best to just pretend that Iacchus is the result of a mother-to-be consuming large quantities of alcohol and go on with my reading.

ReFLeX · 22nd November 2005, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by Iacchus

If one has the power to maintain everything that one says, with nothing to stand in contrast to it, how can one not be omnipotent in that regard?

Because they still might not have ALL powers!

There's a guy who's all alone on Neptune, and he has the power to maintain everything he says, as long as he doesn't say anything he knows isn't true. I guess he must be omnipotent too.

fruit_loup · 22nd November 2005, 08:27 AM

What he says:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Yes, and perhaps you should begin to speak in terms of wholeness, instead of the scatter-brained philosophy you propose? Are you at all familiar with the story of Humpty Dumpty?

What he means:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

I have absolutely nothing to offer to any form of intelligent conversation. I will now try and sound smart by deriding your statement as if I am privy to some great knowledge and then offer an example of logic so poorly compiled that it would put George W. Bush to shame.

Hrm, I think I like this what he says what he means thing. Anyone else game for it?

3point14 · 22nd November 2005, 08:28 AM

Quote:

If one has the power to maintain everything that one says, with nothing to stand in contrast to it, how can one not be omnipotent in that regard?

This sounds more like a definition of omnipotence than an argument?
(although I'm still struggling)

Quote:

Monkey fish toaster? Mayo lichen fish man key funny dwive.

This made more sense and made me smile.

Iacchus · 22nd November 2005, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by fruit_loup

What he says:

What he means:

Hrm, I think I like this what he says what he means thing. Anyone else game for it?

No, we should not discount the whole, in favor of our piecemeal version of it. For we are very likely not going to wind up with what we started with. All parts are related to the whole, therefore all parts must be contained circularly within the whole.

KingMerv00 · 22nd November 2005, 09:44 AM

Lemme test something:

Iacchus,

Are you different from the computer on which you are typing?

c4ts · 22nd November 2005, 09:55 AM

I suppose he thinks the whole universe operates based on what he wants to be true...

Iacchus · 22nd November 2005, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Lemme test something:

Iacchus,

Are you different from the computer on which you are typing?

Non sequitur.

KingMerv00 · 22nd November 2005, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Non sequitur.

Actually, you are right but I'm trying to test something.

Iacchus · 22nd November 2005, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by c4ts

I suppose he thinks the whole universe operates based on what he wants to be true...

No, I prefer to think of myself in terms of a living functioning entity, that's all. And if you find that to be wholly self-referential, that's your problem.

Kumar · 22nd November 2005, 10:17 AM

GOD, being with "omnipotent" but still indescribable & infinite properties, can do everything himself by forming/creating/concentrating, HIS complexes. OK? One out of those complexes may be you.

Iacchus · 22nd November 2005, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Actually, you are right but I'm trying to test something.

So? Can you be more specific?

Iacchus · 22nd November 2005, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by ReFLeX

Err. No. Omni = all. Potency = power. Omnipotency = all-powerful.

Which is to say everything falls under its domain.

Quote:

If an explanation is circular then you haven't defined anything.

So, how do you speak of anything that doesn't fall outside of a particular domain? It would be wholly self-referential to that domain would it not?

lwsichsldt · 23rd November 2005, 05:42 AM

So if God is omnipotence he should be able to kill himself.
Now there are two possibilities either he can kill himself or not. If he can kill himself he is able to die so he isn't omnipotence.
And if he can not kill himself he is not omnipotence.

So the only possible conclusion is God is not omnipotence.

Z · 23rd November 2005, 06:54 AM

On the subject of omnipotence:

"Naomi! Sex, at noon! Taxes," I moan.

I bet God can't do that. In fact, I'll bet 1/666th of my soul that God can't post another, better palindrome in the post immediately following mine, against 1/666th of His powers.

Iacchus · 23rd November 2005, 07:22 AM

1/666 x 666/1 = 666/666 = 1/1 = 1

Kumar · 23rd November 2005, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by lwsichsldt

So if God is omnipotence he should be able to kill himself.
Now there are two possibilities either he can kill himself or not. If he can kill himself he is able to die so he isn't omnipotence.
And if he can not kill himself he is not omnipotence.

So the only possible conclusion is God is not omnipotence.

Good point. But few so called as God or alike it, may be dead but may have not yet been dead in people's heart, faith & become "immortal". Does it not justify both?

Iacchus · 23rd November 2005, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by Iacchus

1/666 x 666/1 = 666/666 = 1/1 = 1

So, come to find out, after all, that there is only one master over reality.

Iacchus · 23rd November 2005, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by lwsichsldt

So if God is omnipotence he should be able to kill himself.
Now there are two possibilities either he can kill himself or not. If he can kill himself he is able to die so he isn't omnipotence.
And if he can not kill himself he is not omnipotence.

So the only possible conclusion is God is not omnipotence.

Yes, but how could wholeness destroy itself? ... If it was a matter of could, does it mean He would? It would certainly be within His power not to.

BJQ87 · 23rd November 2005, 08:15 AM

"So if God is omnipotence he should be able to kill himself.
Now there are two possibilities either he can kill himself or not. If he can kill himself he is able to die so he isn't omnipotence.
And if he can not kill himself he is not omnipotence.

So the only possible conclusion is God is not omnipotence."

Killing himself would mean completely getting rid of his power, this is opposite of omnipotence.

Moochie · 23rd November 2005, 08:27 AM

Hmmm. If you create something/one in your mind, of course you can endow this creation with whatever you want to endow it with. Stan Lee capitalized on this idea decades ago.

Regards,

M.

lwsichsldt · 23rd November 2005, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Yes, but how could wholeness destroy itself? ... If it was a matter of could, does it mean He would? It would certainly be within His power not to.

It is not the matter of how he kills himself or even if he would. It is about the possibility of him being able to do so and that alone is the point against God's Omnipotence.

Iacchus · 23rd November 2005, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by lwsichsldt

It is not the matter of how he kills himself or even if he would. It is about the possibility of him being able to do so and that alone is the point against God's Omnipotence.

The thing is, only He would have the power to do so.

Z · 23rd November 2005, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by Iacchus

1/666 x 666/1 = 666/666 = 1/1 = 1

W00T! I now possess 1/666th of God's powers!

Of course, 1/666th of nothing is still nothing...

BTW - does anyone else find it just SAD - I mean, tragic in the extreme - that Iacchus will post something, then quote his own post in a reply? Is that pathetic, or what?

HeyLeroy · 23rd November 2005, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Yes, and perhaps you should begin to speak in terms of wholeness, instead of the scatter-brained philosophy you propose? Are you at all familiar with the story of Humpty Dumpty?

Humpty Dumpty was pushed.

HeyLeroy · 23rd November 2005, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by zaayrdragon

On the subject of omnipotence:

"Naomi! Sex, at noon! Taxes," I moan.

I bet God can't do that. In fact, I'll bet 1/666th of my soul that God can't post another, better palindrome in the post immediately following mine, against 1/666th of His powers.

A man, a plan, a canal; Panama!

I feel a kitten coming on.

(edited for punctuation)

Iacchus · 23rd November 2005, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by zaayrdragon

BTW - does anyone else find it just SAD - I mean, tragic in the extreme - that Iacchus will post something, then quote his own post in a reply? Is that pathetic, or what?

Pathetic? No. It's just that every once in awhile even I need a little back up.

Mercutio · 23rd November 2005, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Pathetic? No. It's just that every once in awhile even I need a little back up.

Yes, please...back up.

Iacchus · 23rd November 2005, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by HeyLeroy

Humpty Dumpty was pushed.

Was he? Or, maybe he was just a big "egg head" and got a little bit top heavy?

22nd November 2005, 07:43 AM	#1
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	God's Omnipotence From this thread Originally Posted by BJQ87 Can God create an object to heavy for him to lift? Yes. Then can God lift it? Yes. But God does not do such a thing, he has the ability to do it, but he does not. So then you ask how I could know God won't change the laws of logic? How could I know that God won't break promises, sin, cause himself not to exist? Is not breaking his promises a limitation to power? no. Is not being able to sin a limitation to power? no. Is not being able to not exist a limitation to power? no. On the other hand, it is my limitation of power to have the ability to break promises, sin, and not exist. So, how can one maintain consistency, in every single last detail, without the explicit power to do so?

22nd November 2005, 07:49 AM	#2
Mercutio Shakespeare's Sock Puppet Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Live Free Or Die Posts: 16,325	Originally Posted by Iacchus From this thread So, how can one maintain consistency, in every single last detail, without the explicit power to do so? ...which is circularly inferred from maintaining consistency. Not to mention, you beg the question by making up the attributes to begin with! What if I defined your god as puny and impotent, but consistently so? You could make the same claims of consistency and the power to be that way then, too... Sheesh...
	__________________ "But to see her was to love her Love but her, and love forever."

22nd November 2005, 07:56 AM	#3
DarkMagician Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Des Moines, IA Posts: 1,539	Originally Posted by Iacchus God's Omnipotence Doesn't he know there's medication for that?
	__________________ Sometimes going by "Nyke" \| "Pascal's Wager: Believe in Unicorns, or one might kick you in the nads!" \| "There is no hope for humanity. Reason is dead and we dance on the corpse. Tra la la la la!" --c4ts \| Intelligent Design & Expelled Exposed \| I'm on dial-up. If you want to reply to me, summarize please.

22nd November 2005, 08:00 AM	#4
ReFLeX Pool Shark Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The Canadian OC Posts: 1,144	My God, Iacchus, not AGAIN. 2 minutes ago
	__________________ Believing is seeing. Animals were harmed in the making of this post. Popularity contests: good, or democratic?

22nd November 2005, 08:04 AM	#5
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Originally Posted by Mercutio ...which is circularly inferred from maintaining consistency. Not to mention, you beg the question by making up the attributes to begin with! What if I defined your god as puny and impotent, but consistently so? You could make the same claims of consistency and the power to be that way then, too... Sheesh... Well, what does omnipotency suggest to you then? Shouldn't it be circularly defined if, it were to maintain power over all things? It all comes from the same place does it not?
	Last edited by Iacchus; 22nd November 2005 at 08:26 AM.

22nd November 2005, 08:06 AM	#6
Mercutio Shakespeare's Sock Puppet Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Live Free Or Die Posts: 16,325	Originally Posted by Iacchus Well, what does omnipotency suggest to you then? Fictional characters. Quote: Shouldn't it be circularly defined if, it were to maintain power over all things? No. Your circular definition renders it meaningless. It is not a definition at all. Quote: It all comes from the same place does it not? Your fevered imagination? Yes, I suppose so.
	__________________ "But to see her was to love her Love but her, and love forever."

22nd November 2005, 08:11 AM	#7
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: London ish Posts: 3,596	I think I must be more thick than I thought. Not only do I not understand what he's trying to say, I also can't understand some of the words he's trying to use in the context they're placed in. Is it just me?

22nd November 2005, 08:18 AM	#8
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Originally Posted by 3point14 I think I must be more thick than I thought. Not only do I not understand what he's trying to say, I also can't understand some of the words he's trying to use in the context they're placed in. Is it just me? If one has the power to maintain everything that one says, with nothing to stand in contrast to it, how can one not be omnipotent in that regard?

22nd November 2005, 08:19 AM	#9
DarkMagician Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Des Moines, IA Posts: 1,539	Originally Posted by 3point14 I think I must be more thick than I thought. Not only do I not understand what he's trying to say, I also can't understand some of the words he's trying to use in the context they're placed in. Is it just me? Monkey fish toaster? Mayo lichen fish man key funny dwive.
	__________________ Sometimes going by "Nyke" \| "Pascal's Wager: Believe in Unicorns, or one might kick you in the nads!" \| "There is no hope for humanity. Reason is dead and we dance on the corpse. Tra la la la la!" --c4ts \| Intelligent Design & Expelled Exposed \| I'm on dial-up. If you want to reply to me, summarize please.

22nd November 2005, 08:24 AM	#11
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Originally Posted by Mercutio No. Your circular definition renders it meaningless. It is not a definition at all. Yes, and perhaps you should begin to speak in terms of wholeness, instead of the scatter-brained philosophy you propose? Are you at all familiar with the story of Humpty Dumpty?

22nd November 2005, 08:24 AM	#12
fruit_loup Student Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 36	Originally Posted by 3point14 I think I must be more thick than I thought. Not only do I not understand what he's trying to say, I also can't understand some of the words he's trying to use in the context they're placed in. Is it just me? No you are not alone. Iacchus is the sort of person who attempts to use confusion to make himself or herself feel intelligent and worthwhile. At the core they know there is no arguement and thus they try even harder to confuse and use all sorts of backward logic. I have found it is best to just pretend that Iacchus is the result of a mother-to-be consuming large quantities of alcohol and go on with my reading.
fruit_loup Student Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 36

22nd November 2005, 08:24 AM	#13
ReFLeX Pool Shark Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The Canadian OC Posts: 1,144	Originally Posted by Iacchus If one has the power to maintain everything that one says, with nothing to stand in contrast to it, how can one not be omnipotent in that regard? Because they still might not have ALL powers! There's a guy who's all alone on Neptune, and he has the power to maintain everything he says, as long as he doesn't say anything he knows isn't true. I guess he must be omnipotent too.
	__________________ Believing is seeing. Animals were harmed in the making of this post. Popularity contests: good, or democratic?

22nd November 2005, 08:27 AM	#14
fruit_loup Student Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 36	What he says: Originally Posted by Iacchus Yes, and perhaps you should begin to speak in terms of wholeness, instead of the scatter-brained philosophy you propose? Are you at all familiar with the story of Humpty Dumpty? What he means: Originally Posted by Iacchus I have absolutely nothing to offer to any form of intelligent conversation. I will now try and sound smart by deriding your statement as if I am privy to some great knowledge and then offer an example of logic so poorly compiled that it would put George W. Bush to shame. Hrm, I think I like this what he says what he means thing. Anyone else game for it?
fruit_loup Student Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 36

22nd November 2005, 08:28 AM	#15
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: London ish Posts: 3,596	Quote: If one has the power to maintain everything that one says, with nothing to stand in contrast to it, how can one not be omnipotent in that regard? This sounds more like a definition of omnipotence than an argument? (although I'm still struggling) Quote: Monkey fish toaster? Mayo lichen fish man key funny dwive. This made more sense and made me smile.

22nd November 2005, 08:54 AM	#16
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Originally Posted by fruit_loup What he says: What he means: Hrm, I think I like this what he says what he means thing. Anyone else game for it? No, we should not discount the whole, in favor of our piecemeal version of it. For we are very likely not going to wind up with what we started with. All parts are related to the whole, therefore all parts must be contained circularly within the whole.

22nd November 2005, 09:44 AM	#17
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Lemme test something: Iacchus, Are you different from the computer on which you are typing?
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

22nd November 2005, 09:55 AM	#18
c4ts Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Your base Posts: 8,427	I suppose he thinks the whole universe operates based on what he wants to be true...
	__________________ Ha ha ha ha.... Stupid signature size limit.

22nd November 2005, 09:56 AM	#19
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 Lemme test something: Iacchus, Are you different from the computer on which you are typing? Non sequitur.

22nd November 2005, 09:57 AM	#20
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by Iacchus Non sequitur. Actually, you are right but I'm trying to test something.
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

22nd November 2005, 10:03 AM	#21
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Originally Posted by c4ts I suppose he thinks the whole universe operates based on what he wants to be true... No, I prefer to think of myself in terms of a living functioning entity, that's all. And if you find that to be wholly self-referential, that's your problem.

22nd November 2005, 10:17 AM	#22
Kumar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 8,567	GOD, being with "omnipotent" but still indescribable & infinite properties, can do everything himself by forming/creating/concentrating, HIS complexes. OK? One out of those complexes may be you.
Kumar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 8,567	__________________ Noble/Logical non-technical views only, no commitments.Live & Let Live. Keep the eyes open till anything is existing in mass but yet unclear. Can Chemical Medicines+Potentised Remedies be the solution for many unclear disorder to cover both Matter & Energy. Last edited by Kumar; 22nd November 2005 at 10:30 AM.

22nd November 2005, 10:19 AM	#23
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 Actually, you are right but I'm trying to test something. So? Can you be more specific?

22nd November 2005, 10:34 AM	#24
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Originally Posted by ReFLeX Err. No. Omni = all. Potency = power. Omnipotency = all-powerful. Which is to say everything falls under its domain. Quote: If an explanation is circular then you haven't defined anything. So, how do you speak of anything that doesn't fall outside of a particular domain? It would be wholly self-referential to that domain would it not?

23rd November 2005, 05:42 AM	#25
lwsichsldt New Blood Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 11	So if God is omnipotence he should be able to kill himself. Now there are two possibilities either he can kill himself or not. If he can kill himself he is able to die so he isn't omnipotence. And if he can not kill himself he is not omnipotence. So the only possible conclusion is God is not omnipotence.
lwsichsldt New Blood Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 11

23rd November 2005, 06:54 AM	#26
Z D.D.D. Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: In a den in my lair, on the edge of your mind. Posts: 9,166	On the subject of omnipotence: "Naomi! Sex, at noon! Taxes," I moan. I bet God can't do that. In fact, I'll bet 1/666th of my soul that God can't post another, better palindrome in the post immediately following mine, against 1/666th of His powers.
	__________________ Merry Yarglemas!

23rd November 2005, 07:22 AM	#27
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	1/666 x 666/1 = 666/666 = 1/1 = 1

23rd November 2005, 07:38 AM	#28
Kumar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 8,567	Originally Posted by lwsichsldt So if God is omnipotence he should be able to kill himself. Now there are two possibilities either he can kill himself or not. If he can kill himself he is able to die so he isn't omnipotence. And if he can not kill himself he is not omnipotence. So the only possible conclusion is God is not omnipotence. Good point. But few so called as God or alike it, may be dead but may have not yet been dead in people's heart, faith & become "immortal". Does it not justify both?
Kumar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 8,567	__________________ Noble/Logical non-technical views only, no commitments.Live & Let Live. Keep the eyes open till anything is existing in mass but yet unclear. Can Chemical Medicines+Potentised Remedies be the solution for many unclear disorder to cover both Matter & Energy.

23rd November 2005, 07:53 AM	#29
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Originally Posted by Iacchus 1/666 x 666/1 = 666/666 = 1/1 = 1 So, come to find out, after all, that there is only one master over reality.

23rd November 2005, 08:01 AM	#30
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Originally Posted by lwsichsldt So if God is omnipotence he should be able to kill himself. Now there are two possibilities either he can kill himself or not. If he can kill himself he is able to die so he isn't omnipotence. And if he can not kill himself he is not omnipotence. So the only possible conclusion is God is not omnipotence. Yes, but how could wholeness destroy itself? ... If it was a matter of could, does it mean He would? It would certainly be within His power not to.

23rd November 2005, 08:15 AM	#31
BJQ87 Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: fresYES Posts: 473	"So if God is omnipotence he should be able to kill himself. Now there are two possibilities either he can kill himself or not. If he can kill himself he is able to die so he isn't omnipotence. And if he can not kill himself he is not omnipotence. So the only possible conclusion is God is not omnipotence." Killing himself would mean completely getting rid of his power, this is opposite of omnipotence.

23rd November 2005, 08:27 AM	#32
Moochie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,495	Hmmm. If you create something/one in your mind, of course you can endow this creation with whatever you want to endow it with. Stan Lee capitalized on this idea decades ago. Regards, M.
Moochie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,495

23rd November 2005, 08:42 AM	#33
lwsichsldt New Blood Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 11	Originally Posted by Iacchus Yes, but how could wholeness destroy itself? ... If it was a matter of could, does it mean He would? It would certainly be within His power not to. It is not the matter of how he kills himself or even if he would. It is about the possibility of him being able to do so and that alone is the point against God's Omnipotence.
lwsichsldt New Blood Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 11

23rd November 2005, 09:09 AM	#34
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Originally Posted by lwsichsldt It is not the matter of how he kills himself or even if he would. It is about the possibility of him being able to do so and that alone is the point against God's Omnipotence. The thing is, only He would have the power to do so.

23rd November 2005, 09:21 AM	#35
Z D.D.D. Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: In a den in my lair, on the edge of your mind. Posts: 9,166	Originally Posted by Iacchus 1/666 x 666/1 = 666/666 = 1/1 = 1 W00T! I now possess 1/666th of God's powers! Of course, 1/666th of nothing is still nothing... BTW - does anyone else find it just SAD - I mean, tragic in the extreme - that Iacchus will post something, then quote his own post in a reply? Is that pathetic, or what?
	__________________ Merry Yarglemas!

23rd November 2005, 09:25 AM	#36
HeyLeroy Vegan Cannibal Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Going off the rails on the Crazy Train. Posts: 5,565	Originally Posted by Iacchus Yes, and perhaps you should begin to speak in terms of wholeness, instead of the scatter-brained philosophy you propose? Are you at all familiar with the story of Humpty Dumpty? Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
	__________________ Cows are in large numbers, and do not serve any other purpose, other than to eat grass, and moo -- makaya325 I ♥ my kids. I ♠ my dog. I ♣ my baby Harp Seal.