I don't see how God could plausibly exist (Christian definition of God)

[TrueHeart]

Lol did you read my post? Did you have any 'concept of the concept' I was making? And do you know what a Strawman Fallacy is? Please demonstrate how I created a distorted view of the Christian concept of God, that being an All-knowing, All-powerfull Supernatural being that created our Universe, and by Definition has to be Outside of Time itself.

Also, I'm not going to read a book about Theology, I have no reason to respect it.

I apologize. I thought you were serious. But thanks for responding so quickly: I won't waste my time anymore.

[reason]

'God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged.' - Hebrews 16:8

God is not omnipotent, according to Hebrews.

[Oberon]

I reject religion because of The Big Picture. The Big Picture, to me, is starting chronologically at the beginning of the Universe and working your way to this point in time, scientifically of course. (If there are any errors in the science please forgive me lol)

You're getting your science mixed up with your philosophy. Can the Material abolish the Absolute?

Ambrose Bierce noted the modern tendency to discard the mythologies of the past in favor of mythologies newly minted. None of us is as smart as we think we are.

Especially me.

[Totenkindly]

'God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged.' - Hebrews 16:8

God is not omnipotent, according to Hebrews.

To clarify: Because God can't lie, he's not omnipotent?

Aren't we mixing "raw capability" with "intrinsic character" here? Just curious.

Since I am strong athesit I will join the show.

I think that Didums is doing good job here.

From what I know many people say that this entire god thing is actally about love.

That is totally wrong aproach because if the god is so interested in love as those people say he is , he would have made many things in a much different way.

Probaby the most obvious part in this argument is that, nuclear weapons should not be possible if their god created this reality.

I am not finished but I will be back.

Good, since I'd like to hear what you think a world of love would feasibly look like.

[reason]

Aren't we mixing "raw capability" with "intrinsic character" here? Just curious.

I don't think so. It says 'impossible' i.e. not a possibility. Furthermore, I think there are other examples in The Bible where God's authority is given limitations, though I couldn't find them when writing that post. Of course, the people who wrote or said this in The Bible might be wrong or their comments may be interpreted differently. In any case, it hardly seems to be a foregone conclusion that God is omnipotent, especially the Christian God.

On that note: I don't see how Didums could plausibly exist.

Edit: ... and Dawkins is a teapot.

[Totenkindly]

I don't think so. It says 'impossible' i.e. not a possibility. Furthermore, I think there are other examples in The Bible where God's authority is given limitations, though I couldn't find them when writing that post. Of course, the people who wrote or said this in The Bible might be wrong or their comments may be interpreted differently. In any case, it hardly seems to be a foregone conclusion that God is omnipotent, especially the Christian God.

All right.

I guess I sort of separate them as I have said -- into matters of intent vs matters of conviction. For example, I might be potent enough to take someone's bicycle and throw it off the roof of a building... but it would be against my character to do so.

(Especially if they were not on it... I mean, I wouldn't want to lug that damned thing up there without being able to toss them off the roof too if I was going to all the trouble!)

So you might say, as it was said here, that it's "impossible" for me to do something like that... but it doesn't mean I couldn't, from a pure potency perspective.

So that is how I personally view verses like this as well. Not a matter of omnipotence (which describes potency and is a measure of "raw capability") but a matter of character, which is something else to me, a matter of quality and not quantity.

In the big scheme, too, I am at a point in my beliefs where I'm not sure if it is constructive to try to weave a consistent large-scale theology from a collection of books covering such a large period of time, cultures, authors, and purposes. We might be searching for consistency (such as "Is God omnipotent or not?") among text that is inherently inconsistent. But I know the inerrantists (not you, but them) as a group prefer to approach it as if such a framework can be distilled.

On that note: I don't see how Didums could plausibly exist.

Who?

Edit: ... and Dawkins is a teapot.

Short and stout?

[sassafrassquatch]

You're getting your science mixed up with your philosophy. Can the Material abolish the Absolute?

Ambrose Bierce noted the modern tendency to discard the mythologies of the past in favor of mythologies newly minted. None of us is as smart as we think we are.

Especially me.

Please tell me you're not calling science a myth.

[SillySapienne]

Science, via the scientific method, understands, accepts and considers human fallibility!!!

It seeks to understand the nature of the universe, to classify its elements and to understand the laws behind its mechanisms and processes, science seeks to know what is and why it is, period.

All accepted scientific laws and theories are subject to change should new information come to light.

Science/scientists seek to discover, understand, postulate and conjecture information regarding nature based on the rigid scientific method supported by significant amounts of EVIDENCE.

I subscribe to a wonderful periodical, Science News, and ever week I am FASCINATED by the numerous discoveries made in various scientific domains/fields.

Science is a dynamically growing process/means of discovery.

The bible and most sects of Christianity, however, seem/are pretty stagnant and archaic, in my opinion.

And I would like to share one of my favorite book dedications I've ever read, from the text, Understanding Evolution, the authors wrote,

"To those readers who are seeking promising answers rather than final ones"

[murkrow]

I'd like to know, accepting for an instant the absolutely ridiculosity of christian God, why are people so willing to follow him?

[gokartride]

absolutely ridiculosity of christian God

Sounds like you are talking about the cartoon version of the christian God. The God Jesus himself spoke about was not necessarily rediculous, although many christians can sure make it seem that way.

why are people so willing to follow him?

There are several versions (in different cultures, christian and not) of ancient literature speaking of "the two ways." One way (the good way) leads to well-being and wholeness (for us and others)...and the other (the bad way) is less functional and leads to harm of ourselves and others. The dynamics of these "two ways" has been observed playing out over and over since ancient times...and there is real wisdom here. The teachings of Jesus was strongly aligned with "the good way." The good way creates, and enables persons to live in the dignity and inner freedom that is our right. I think/hope people follow the christian God basically because of Jesus' teachings. That so few really do this very well is sad on many levels.