Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?

2007-07-17T21:53:41Z

Bobsanchez: /* Hypocricy without Faith */

Why were entries here deleted? Who deleted them? [[User:Seekcommon]]

So, Is the Bible infallible? Should all Christians and Jews believe everything the Bible says and live by ALL it's rules?

:Surely not. It is up to us as discerning people to pick and choose between the various statements and sentiments within the testaments to determine what is and isn't relevant today. For example, according to the [[capital punishment|article]], capital punishment is not generally supported by Christians for non-murder offenses, despite Exodus 21 listing its appropriateness for many more minor offenses. This means something very powerful. It means that we Christians cannot say "this is right because the Bible says so", but have to say "this is right because I deem that passage still relevant". It means we need to be responsible for our views. Thus the controversy over grey issues such as [[homosexuality]]. [[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 10:39, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
: Then why is a section of the conservative community upset over Darwin and evolution and such? Dismissing evolution as mere theory demonstrates a fundamental ignorance and illiteracy when it comes to science and theories and arguments. Why does so much of science terrifies a significant fraction of the conservative movement? Is science a creation of the Devil then? Was Darwin put on this earth by the Devil to confound God fearing humans? Why did the Catholic Church persecute Galileo for saying the Earth goes round the Sun? And why did it take them 300+ years to say "Sorry"? It remains an issue of power and having people who can follow them no matter what and the Bible is held as that hammer to keep people down when needed. [[User:Seekcommon|Seekcommon]]

::Absolutely. As a Christian, I would be the first to admit the hypocrisy of our faith over the last few centuries. The main reason for this, of course, is that the church is made up of many many people, each with their own viewpoint. I see no reason why the modern Catholic church should apologise for the treatment of Galileo, any more than Britain should apologise to the aboriginals of America and Australia, or for the burning of Protestants or Catholics under the respective Tudor king or queen of England. It is something done by our ancestors, and not by us. What matters is what we say today. There is no reason why science and religion can't coexist. I accept that almost all Christians no longer believe the early chapters of the Old Testament actually happened. They are, I believe, generally accepted to be metaphors - an easy handle for people to understand God's achievement in creating the World. In times gone by, this is illustrated nicely by the idea of Him creating everything in 6 days in nice stages. To the modern reader, this no longer makes sense (the concept of a day being a length of time before the Solar System was created is meaningless in itself). The modern thinker, then, can rejoice in God's creation of the Universe. The divine energy that created the big bang. The force that gave everything direction. The mind that thought through the rules of physics, and the purity of mathematics. The guiding hand that let today's species exist. The gifts of spirituality, of self-awareness, and the immortal soul. I think understanding more about the nature of the universe makes God seem all the more wonderful. [[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 22:03, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The bible simply cannot be taken literally, mostly because it contradicts itself everywhere. Let's look at the gospels of Luke and Matthew. One says Jesus' relation to David was 27 entries long, the other says 42. Also, the Old Testament clearly states that only a descendent of David can be Christ the messiah. Since Joseph supposedly possessed David in his lineage, and since Christ was of virgin birth, does this mean that Jesus was not the messiah? Also, what about the other gospels that aren't integrated into the bible, such as ones that describe Jesus mischievously casting spells on his friends and turning mud into birds. Additionally, the gospel of Matthew states that Mary and Joseph came to Bethlehem during one of Caesar Augustus' census activities. However, there was no census until 6 AD, and it was done by Qurinius, not Caesar Augustus. It's all just fairy tales, and poorly-integrated fairy tales at that as well.

:Fairy tale is unnecessarily harsh. Neither Matthew nor Luke were historians, in the modern interpretation of the word. In those times history was presented very differently from how it is now. The central message was brought through, as well as all the key points, and the other detail was embellished around it. An example is Joseph's home town. Both authors knew that the important points were that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and Joseph and Mary had lived in Nazareth. In Luke, they lived in Nazareth first, then traveled to Bethlehem for a census. In Matthew, they lived in Bethlehem, then fled to Nazareth via Egypt. This embellishment still done today - preachers often invent details in the story in order to make the message stronger, or make the characters more personable. People even think that the animals were all put on the Ark in twos, despite the text of the Bible saying the clean ones were in sevens. I think the authors would be upset to know that people were concentrating on the irrelavent detail instead of the main ideas.[[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 17:37, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

==Hypocricy without Faith==
I know the Bible to be the true Word of God because I have studied it for decades. Those Truths are the reasons why I am, as well as others, are driven to study it. There are no grave errors or inconsistencies within the Bible. This is only professed by those who hate Christians and Jews that keep repeating it in the vain hope someone will believe them. Just because you don't get it doesn't make it errant. It only betrays the level of their ignorance and illiteracy. Such as those who claim to be Christian and then proceed to criticise and slander the basis of their supposed beliefs. A Christian nows the difference between living under the Law of the Old Testament and living under Grace of the New Testament.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 22:55, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm a sinner; I eat shellfish and wear clothes made out of two materials. Guess I'm going to hell for that.
:The real issue is whether or not the Bible is still relevant in todays society; do you really think God meant for us to be ignorant and unresponsive, and live the same way until the end of time?
:God knew that when we gained more knowledge, we would (hopefully) put it to use. But, unfortunately, we have not; there is still a ''debate'' over homosexuality. We will never know which modern Bible is accurate (if any); It has been translated so much that it has been overly politicized. And lots of the Bible is pretty hard to take seriously, such as a global flood; instant, recent creation; destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire and brimstone, etc. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:19, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::Knowledge without understanding is useless. What you eat or wear has nothing to do with whether or not you're a sinner. The Bible I'm reading hasn't been politicized, and hasn't changed for over 2,000 years. Geological evidence of the global flood is everywhere. Archeological evidence of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah has already been proven with the materials that make fire and brimstone right there amongst the ruins. The same with a young Earth. Scientifically and archeologically documented. I've seen and read it. Rejecting God's Word is a choice you can make on your own. Making false and misleading statements that are ignorant of the facts is mere politics. As well as just plain hard to take seriously.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:38, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

As Roopilots6 I have studied the Bible for many years and the more I read the more convinced I am that it is accurate in every sense.It seems those who read it without the properly prayerful attitude and desire for truth don't get much out of it. Modern archeological discoveries repeatedly confirm the accounts in the Bible. God states that He is unchanging and that heaven and earth will disappear before one scrap of His word will. From my point of view if He said 5000 years ago that crabs were unclean as food I'm not about to argue the point. He made them so He ought to know and in light of the pollution in today's world I'm not too enthused about consuming bottom feeders anyway.~~InHisImage

Okay, InHisImage, and Roopilots6, I have studied the Bible for many years as well, and I desperately wanted to believe it, but I couldn't. Read the account of when the Israelites left Egypt. God repeatedly punished the people of Egypt for something the Pharaoh was doing, when God could have simply pulled the people out himself. Then it says Pharaoh finally consented, and God HARDENED HIS HEART. That means God wanted to murder the first born. And what about all the Israelites who were born and died in the 400 years they were enslaved? They couldn't follow the rituals, so did they go to hell? Yes, they did. As well as everyone else before the laws were put down. And what about other nations during that time? Not their fault they weren't God's chosen people. So, they go to hell. Not my idea of a loving, tolerant god. - Bob Sanchez
: 1) I don't see anywhere in those passages about those people going to hell. Who said everybody went to hell prior to the law? Check out Romans 1-2. People without the law are judged by their conscience.
: 2) When you say you don't believe the Bible, do you mean you don't think it reflects ''history'', or that you don't find the God it portrays to be ''attractive''? Those are two entirely different propositions.
: 3) I don't find the title of those discussion to be a particularly meaningful question. How do you test whether "Bible" = Infallible Word of God? Where do you get your Infallible word? From the Bible! The only thing you can compare it to and test it against is ... itself. A=A. All you can do is determine whether you find the book to be ''credible'' or not. That's a whole other inquiry. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:16, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

It implied thay went to hell, as they couldn't follow the law or Jesus. I read Romans 1-2, and have some questions:
1.)Why he says only through faith and not actions can you be saved, but in this passage it says all your actions are judged, and you're punished accordingly. Uh, clarify.
2.)It also says in this passage that God does not show favortism; He had "chosen people" in the form of Israelites, again an example of the Bible contradicting itself.
3.)Romans 2:12 : "God will punish the Gentiles when they sin, even though they never had God's written law. And he will punish the jews when they sin, for they do have the law." Alright, then.
And, you didn't answer why God made Pharaoh change his mind. Which also, I just remembered, violates free will.
I don't believe the God of the Bible is attractive. I do believe a guy named Jesus was around, and that he was crucified, and etc. Now whether or not it goes down like it says in the Bible exactly, I don't know. - Bob Sanchez

Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?

2007-07-17T21:53:25Z

Bobsanchez: /* Hypocricy without Faith */

Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?

2007-07-17T21:52:53Z

Bobsanchez: /* Hypocricy without Faith */

Why were entries here deleted? Who deleted them? [[User:Seekcommon]]

So, Is the Bible infallible? Should all Christians and Jews believe everything the Bible says and live by ALL it's rules?

:Surely not. It is up to us as discerning people to pick and choose between the various statements and sentiments within the testaments to determine what is and isn't relevant today. For example, according to the [[capital punishment|article]], capital punishment is not generally supported by Christians for non-murder offenses, despite Exodus 21 listing its appropriateness for many more minor offenses. This means something very powerful. It means that we Christians cannot say "this is right because the Bible says so", but have to say "this is right because I deem that passage still relevant". It means we need to be responsible for our views. Thus the controversy over grey issues such as [[homosexuality]]. [[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 10:39, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
: Then why is a section of the conservative community upset over Darwin and evolution and such? Dismissing evolution as mere theory demonstrates a fundamental ignorance and illiteracy when it comes to science and theories and arguments. Why does so much of science terrifies a significant fraction of the conservative movement? Is science a creation of the Devil then? Was Darwin put on this earth by the Devil to confound God fearing humans? Why did the Catholic Church persecute Galileo for saying the Earth goes round the Sun? And why did it take them 300+ years to say "Sorry"? It remains an issue of power and having people who can follow them no matter what and the Bible is held as that hammer to keep people down when needed. [[User:Seekcommon|Seekcommon]]

::Absolutely. As a Christian, I would be the first to admit the hypocrisy of our faith over the last few centuries. The main reason for this, of course, is that the church is made up of many many people, each with their own viewpoint. I see no reason why the modern Catholic church should apologise for the treatment of Galileo, any more than Britain should apologise to the aboriginals of America and Australia, or for the burning of Protestants or Catholics under the respective Tudor king or queen of England. It is something done by our ancestors, and not by us. What matters is what we say today. There is no reason why science and religion can't coexist. I accept that almost all Christians no longer believe the early chapters of the Old Testament actually happened. They are, I believe, generally accepted to be metaphors - an easy handle for people to understand God's achievement in creating the World. In times gone by, this is illustrated nicely by the idea of Him creating everything in 6 days in nice stages. To the modern reader, this no longer makes sense (the concept of a day being a length of time before the Solar System was created is meaningless in itself). The modern thinker, then, can rejoice in God's creation of the Universe. The divine energy that created the big bang. The force that gave everything direction. The mind that thought through the rules of physics, and the purity of mathematics. The guiding hand that let today's species exist. The gifts of spirituality, of self-awareness, and the immortal soul. I think understanding more about the nature of the universe makes God seem all the more wonderful. [[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 22:03, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The bible simply cannot be taken literally, mostly because it contradicts itself everywhere. Let's look at the gospels of Luke and Matthew. One says Jesus' relation to David was 27 entries long, the other says 42. Also, the Old Testament clearly states that only a descendent of David can be Christ the messiah. Since Joseph supposedly possessed David in his lineage, and since Christ was of virgin birth, does this mean that Jesus was not the messiah? Also, what about the other gospels that aren't integrated into the bible, such as ones that describe Jesus mischievously casting spells on his friends and turning mud into birds. Additionally, the gospel of Matthew states that Mary and Joseph came to Bethlehem during one of Caesar Augustus' census activities. However, there was no census until 6 AD, and it was done by Qurinius, not Caesar Augustus. It's all just fairy tales, and poorly-integrated fairy tales at that as well.

:Fairy tale is unnecessarily harsh. Neither Matthew nor Luke were historians, in the modern interpretation of the word. In those times history was presented very differently from how it is now. The central message was brought through, as well as all the key points, and the other detail was embellished around it. An example is Joseph's home town. Both authors knew that the important points were that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and Joseph and Mary had lived in Nazareth. In Luke, they lived in Nazareth first, then traveled to Bethlehem for a census. In Matthew, they lived in Bethlehem, then fled to Nazareth via Egypt. This embellishment still done today - preachers often invent details in the story in order to make the message stronger, or make the characters more personable. People even think that the animals were all put on the Ark in twos, despite the text of the Bible saying the clean ones were in sevens. I think the authors would be upset to know that people were concentrating on the irrelavent detail instead of the main ideas.[[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 17:37, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

==Hypocricy without Faith==
I know the Bible to be the true Word of God because I have studied it for decades. Those Truths are the reasons why I am, as well as others, are driven to study it. There are no grave errors or inconsistencies within the Bible. This is only professed by those who hate Christians and Jews that keep repeating it in the vain hope someone will believe them. Just because you don't get it doesn't make it errant. It only betrays the level of their ignorance and illiteracy. Such as those who claim to be Christian and then proceed to criticise and slander the basis of their supposed beliefs. A Christian nows the difference between living under the Law of the Old Testament and living under Grace of the New Testament.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 22:55, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm a sinner; I eat shellfish and wear clothes made out of two materials. Guess I'm going to hell for that.
:The real issue is whether or not the Bible is still relevant in todays society; do you really think God meant for us to be ignorant and unresponsive, and live the same way until the end of time?
:God knew that when we gained more knowledge, we would (hopefully) put it to use. But, unfortunately, we have not; there is still a ''debate'' over homosexuality. We will never know which modern Bible is accurate (if any); It has been translated so much that it has been overly politicized. And lots of the Bible is pretty hard to take seriously, such as a global flood; instant, recent creation; destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire and brimstone, etc. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:19, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::Knowledge without understanding is useless. What you eat or wear has nothing to do with whether or not you're a sinner. The Bible I'm reading hasn't been politicized, and hasn't changed for over 2,000 years. Geological evidence of the global flood is everywhere. Archeological evidence of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah has already been proven with the materials that make fire and brimstone right there amongst the ruins. The same with a young Earth. Scientifically and archeologically documented. I've seen and read it. Rejecting God's Word is a choice you can make on your own. Making false and misleading statements that are ignorant of the facts is mere politics. As well as just plain hard to take seriously.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:38, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

As Roopilots6 I have studied the Bible for many years and the more I read the more convinced I am that it is accurate in every sense.It seems those who read it without the properly prayerful attitude and desire for truth don't get much out of it. Modern archeological discoveries repeatedly confirm the accounts in the Bible. God states that He is unchanging and that heaven and earth will disappear before one scrap of His word will. From my point of view if He said 5000 years ago that crabs were unclean as food I'm not about to argue the point. He made them so He ought to know and in light of the pollution in today's world I'm not too enthused about consuming bottom feeders anyway.~~InHisImage

Okay, InHisImage, and Roopilots6, I have studied the Bible for many years as well, and I desperately wanted to believe it, but I couldn't. Read the account of when the Israelites left Egypt. God repeatedly punished the people of Egypt for something the Pharaoh was doing, when God could have simply pulled the people out himself. Then it says Pharaoh finally consented, and God HARDENED HIS HEART. That means God wanted to murder the first born. And what about all the Israelites who were born and died in the 400 years they were enslaved? They couldn't follow the rituals, so did they go to hell? Yes, they did. As well as everyone else before the laws were put down. And what about other nations during that time? Not their fault they weren't God's chosen people. So, they go to hell. Not my idea of a loving, tolerant god. - Bob Sanchez
: 1) I don't see anywhere in those passages about those people going to hell. Who said everybody went to hell prior to the law? Check out Romans 1-2. People without the law are judged by their conscience.
: 2) When you say you don't believe the Bible, do you mean you don't think it reflects ''history'', or that you don't find the God it portrays to be ''attractive''? Those are two entirely different propositions.
: 3) I don't find the title of those discussion to be a particularly meaningful question. How do you test whether "Bible" = Infallible Word of God? Where do you get your Infallible word? From the Bible! The only thing you can compare it to and test it against is ... itself. A=A. All you can do is determine whether you find the book to be ''credible'' or not. That's a whole other inquiry. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:16, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

It implied thay went to hell, as they couldn't follow the law or Jesus. I read Romans 1-2, and have some questions:
1.)Why he says only through faith and not actions can you be saved, but in this passage it says all your actions are judged, and you're punished accordingly. Uh, clarify.
2.)It also says in this passage that God does not show favortism; He had "chosen people" in the form of Israelites, again an example of the Bible contradicting itself.
3.)Romans 2:12 : "God will punish the Gentiles when they sin, even though they never had God's written law. And he will punish the jews when they sin, for they do have the law." Alright, then.

And, you didn't answer why God made Pharaoh change his mind. Which also, I just remembered, violates free will.
I don't believe the God of the Bible is attractive. I do believe a guy named Jesus was around, and that he was crucified, and etc. Now whether or not it goes down like it says in the Bible exactly, I don't know. - Bob Sanchez

Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?

2007-07-17T21:51:33Z

Bobsanchez: /* Hypocricy without Faith */

Why were entries here deleted? Who deleted them? [[User:Seekcommon]]

So, Is the Bible infallible? Should all Christians and Jews believe everything the Bible says and live by ALL it's rules?

:Surely not. It is up to us as discerning people to pick and choose between the various statements and sentiments within the testaments to determine what is and isn't relevant today. For example, according to the [[capital punishment|article]], capital punishment is not generally supported by Christians for non-murder offenses, despite Exodus 21 listing its appropriateness for many more minor offenses. This means something very powerful. It means that we Christians cannot say "this is right because the Bible says so", but have to say "this is right because I deem that passage still relevant". It means we need to be responsible for our views. Thus the controversy over grey issues such as [[homosexuality]]. [[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 10:39, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
: Then why is a section of the conservative community upset over Darwin and evolution and such? Dismissing evolution as mere theory demonstrates a fundamental ignorance and illiteracy when it comes to science and theories and arguments. Why does so much of science terrifies a significant fraction of the conservative movement? Is science a creation of the Devil then? Was Darwin put on this earth by the Devil to confound God fearing humans? Why did the Catholic Church persecute Galileo for saying the Earth goes round the Sun? And why did it take them 300+ years to say "Sorry"? It remains an issue of power and having people who can follow them no matter what and the Bible is held as that hammer to keep people down when needed. [[User:Seekcommon|Seekcommon]]

::Absolutely. As a Christian, I would be the first to admit the hypocrisy of our faith over the last few centuries. The main reason for this, of course, is that the church is made up of many many people, each with their own viewpoint. I see no reason why the modern Catholic church should apologise for the treatment of Galileo, any more than Britain should apologise to the aboriginals of America and Australia, or for the burning of Protestants or Catholics under the respective Tudor king or queen of England. It is something done by our ancestors, and not by us. What matters is what we say today. There is no reason why science and religion can't coexist. I accept that almost all Christians no longer believe the early chapters of the Old Testament actually happened. They are, I believe, generally accepted to be metaphors - an easy handle for people to understand God's achievement in creating the World. In times gone by, this is illustrated nicely by the idea of Him creating everything in 6 days in nice stages. To the modern reader, this no longer makes sense (the concept of a day being a length of time before the Solar System was created is meaningless in itself). The modern thinker, then, can rejoice in God's creation of the Universe. The divine energy that created the big bang. The force that gave everything direction. The mind that thought through the rules of physics, and the purity of mathematics. The guiding hand that let today's species exist. The gifts of spirituality, of self-awareness, and the immortal soul. I think understanding more about the nature of the universe makes God seem all the more wonderful. [[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 22:03, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The bible simply cannot be taken literally, mostly because it contradicts itself everywhere. Let's look at the gospels of Luke and Matthew. One says Jesus' relation to David was 27 entries long, the other says 42. Also, the Old Testament clearly states that only a descendent of David can be Christ the messiah. Since Joseph supposedly possessed David in his lineage, and since Christ was of virgin birth, does this mean that Jesus was not the messiah? Also, what about the other gospels that aren't integrated into the bible, such as ones that describe Jesus mischievously casting spells on his friends and turning mud into birds. Additionally, the gospel of Matthew states that Mary and Joseph came to Bethlehem during one of Caesar Augustus' census activities. However, there was no census until 6 AD, and it was done by Qurinius, not Caesar Augustus. It's all just fairy tales, and poorly-integrated fairy tales at that as well.

:Fairy tale is unnecessarily harsh. Neither Matthew nor Luke were historians, in the modern interpretation of the word. In those times history was presented very differently from how it is now. The central message was brought through, as well as all the key points, and the other detail was embellished around it. An example is Joseph's home town. Both authors knew that the important points were that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and Joseph and Mary had lived in Nazareth. In Luke, they lived in Nazareth first, then traveled to Bethlehem for a census. In Matthew, they lived in Bethlehem, then fled to Nazareth via Egypt. This embellishment still done today - preachers often invent details in the story in order to make the message stronger, or make the characters more personable. People even think that the animals were all put on the Ark in twos, despite the text of the Bible saying the clean ones were in sevens. I think the authors would be upset to know that people were concentrating on the irrelavent detail instead of the main ideas.[[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 17:37, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

==Hypocricy without Faith==
I know the Bible to be the true Word of God because I have studied it for decades. Those Truths are the reasons why I am, as well as others, are driven to study it. There are no grave errors or inconsistencies within the Bible. This is only professed by those who hate Christians and Jews that keep repeating it in the vain hope someone will believe them. Just because you don't get it doesn't make it errant. It only betrays the level of their ignorance and illiteracy. Such as those who claim to be Christian and then proceed to criticise and slander the basis of their supposed beliefs. A Christian nows the difference between living under the Law of the Old Testament and living under Grace of the New Testament.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 22:55, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm a sinner; I eat shellfish and wear clothes made out of two materials. Guess I'm going to hell for that.
:The real issue is whether or not the Bible is still relevant in todays society; do you really think God meant for us to be ignorant and unresponsive, and live the same way until the end of time?
:God knew that when we gained more knowledge, we would (hopefully) put it to use. But, unfortunately, we have not; there is still a ''debate'' over homosexuality. We will never know which modern Bible is accurate (if any); It has been translated so much that it has been overly politicized. And lots of the Bible is pretty hard to take seriously, such as a global flood; instant, recent creation; destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire and brimstone, etc. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:19, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::Knowledge without understanding is useless. What you eat or wear has nothing to do with whether or not you're a sinner. The Bible I'm reading hasn't been politicized, and hasn't changed for over 2,000 years. Geological evidence of the global flood is everywhere. Archeological evidence of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah has already been proven with the materials that make fire and brimstone right there amongst the ruins. The same with a young Earth. Scientifically and archeologically documented. I've seen and read it. Rejecting God's Word is a choice you can make on your own. Making false and misleading statements that are ignorant of the facts is mere politics. As well as just plain hard to take seriously.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:38, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

As Roopilots6 I have studied the Bible for many years and the more I read the more convinced I am that it is accurate in every sense.It seems those who read it without the properly prayerful attitude and desire for truth don't get much out of it. Modern archeological discoveries repeatedly confirm the accounts in the Bible. God states that He is unchanging and that heaven and earth will disappear before one scrap of His word will. From my point of view if He said 5000 years ago that crabs were unclean as food I'm not about to argue the point. He made them so He ought to know and in light of the pollution in today's world I'm not too enthused about consuming bottom feeders anyway.~~InHisImage

Okay, InHisImage, and Roopilots6, I have studied the Bible for many years as well, and I desperately wanted to believe it, but I couldn't. Read the account of when the Israelites left Egypt. God repeatedly punished the people of Egypt for something the Pharaoh was doing, when God could have simply pulled the people out himself. Then it says Pharaoh finally consented, and God HARDENED HIS HEART. That means God wanted to murder the first born. And what about all the Israelites who were born and died in the 400 years they were enslaved? They couldn't follow the rituals, so did they go to hell? Yes, they did. As well as everyone else before the laws were put down. And what about other nations during that time? Not their fault they weren't God's chosen people. So, they go to hell. Not my idea of a loving, tolerant god. - Bob Sanchez
: 1) I don't see anywhere in those passages about those people going to hell. Who said everybody went to hell prior to the law? Check out Romans 1-2. People without the law are judged by their conscience.
: 2) When you say you don't believe the Bible, do you mean you don't think it reflects ''history'', or that you don't find the God it portrays to be ''attractive''? Those are two entirely different propositions.
: 3) I don't find the title of those discussion to be a particularly meaningful question. How do you test whether "Bible" = Infallible Word of God? Where do you get your Infallible word? From the Bible! The only thing you can compare it to and test it against is ... itself. A=A. All you can do is determine whether you find the book to be ''credible'' or not. That's a whole other inquiry. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:16, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

1.)Why he says only through faith and not actions can you be saved, but in this passage it says all your actions are judged, and you're punished accordingly. Uh, clarify.
2.)It also says in this passage that God does not show favortism; He had "chosen people" in the form of Israelites, again an example of the Bible contradicting itself.
3.)Romans 2:12 : "God will punish the Gentiles when they sin, even though they never had God's written law. And he will punish the jews when they sin, for they do have the law." Alright, then.

And, you didn't answer why God made Pharaoh change his mind. Which also, I just remembered, violates free will.
I don't believe the God of the Bible is attractive. I do believe a guy named Jesus was around, and that he was crucified, and etc. Now whether or not it goes down like it says in the Bible exactly, I don't know. - Bob Sanchez

Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?

2007-07-17T21:50:59Z

Bobsanchez: /* Hypocricy without Faith */

Why were entries here deleted? Who deleted them? [[User:Seekcommon]]

So, Is the Bible infallible? Should all Christians and Jews believe everything the Bible says and live by ALL it's rules?

:Surely not. It is up to us as discerning people to pick and choose between the various statements and sentiments within the testaments to determine what is and isn't relevant today. For example, according to the [[capital punishment|article]], capital punishment is not generally supported by Christians for non-murder offenses, despite Exodus 21 listing its appropriateness for many more minor offenses. This means something very powerful. It means that we Christians cannot say "this is right because the Bible says so", but have to say "this is right because I deem that passage still relevant". It means we need to be responsible for our views. Thus the controversy over grey issues such as [[homosexuality]]. [[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 10:39, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
: Then why is a section of the conservative community upset over Darwin and evolution and such? Dismissing evolution as mere theory demonstrates a fundamental ignorance and illiteracy when it comes to science and theories and arguments. Why does so much of science terrifies a significant fraction of the conservative movement? Is science a creation of the Devil then? Was Darwin put on this earth by the Devil to confound God fearing humans? Why did the Catholic Church persecute Galileo for saying the Earth goes round the Sun? And why did it take them 300+ years to say "Sorry"? It remains an issue of power and having people who can follow them no matter what and the Bible is held as that hammer to keep people down when needed. [[User:Seekcommon|Seekcommon]]

::Absolutely. As a Christian, I would be the first to admit the hypocrisy of our faith over the last few centuries. The main reason for this, of course, is that the church is made up of many many people, each with their own viewpoint. I see no reason why the modern Catholic church should apologise for the treatment of Galileo, any more than Britain should apologise to the aboriginals of America and Australia, or for the burning of Protestants or Catholics under the respective Tudor king or queen of England. It is something done by our ancestors, and not by us. What matters is what we say today. There is no reason why science and religion can't coexist. I accept that almost all Christians no longer believe the early chapters of the Old Testament actually happened. They are, I believe, generally accepted to be metaphors - an easy handle for people to understand God's achievement in creating the World. In times gone by, this is illustrated nicely by the idea of Him creating everything in 6 days in nice stages. To the modern reader, this no longer makes sense (the concept of a day being a length of time before the Solar System was created is meaningless in itself). The modern thinker, then, can rejoice in God's creation of the Universe. The divine energy that created the big bang. The force that gave everything direction. The mind that thought through the rules of physics, and the purity of mathematics. The guiding hand that let today's species exist. The gifts of spirituality, of self-awareness, and the immortal soul. I think understanding more about the nature of the universe makes God seem all the more wonderful. [[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 22:03, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The bible simply cannot be taken literally, mostly because it contradicts itself everywhere. Let's look at the gospels of Luke and Matthew. One says Jesus' relation to David was 27 entries long, the other says 42. Also, the Old Testament clearly states that only a descendent of David can be Christ the messiah. Since Joseph supposedly possessed David in his lineage, and since Christ was of virgin birth, does this mean that Jesus was not the messiah? Also, what about the other gospels that aren't integrated into the bible, such as ones that describe Jesus mischievously casting spells on his friends and turning mud into birds. Additionally, the gospel of Matthew states that Mary and Joseph came to Bethlehem during one of Caesar Augustus' census activities. However, there was no census until 6 AD, and it was done by Qurinius, not Caesar Augustus. It's all just fairy tales, and poorly-integrated fairy tales at that as well.

:Fairy tale is unnecessarily harsh. Neither Matthew nor Luke were historians, in the modern interpretation of the word. In those times history was presented very differently from how it is now. The central message was brought through, as well as all the key points, and the other detail was embellished around it. An example is Joseph's home town. Both authors knew that the important points were that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and Joseph and Mary had lived in Nazareth. In Luke, they lived in Nazareth first, then traveled to Bethlehem for a census. In Matthew, they lived in Bethlehem, then fled to Nazareth via Egypt. This embellishment still done today - preachers often invent details in the story in order to make the message stronger, or make the characters more personable. People even think that the animals were all put on the Ark in twos, despite the text of the Bible saying the clean ones were in sevens. I think the authors would be upset to know that people were concentrating on the irrelavent detail instead of the main ideas.[[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 17:37, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

==Hypocricy without Faith==
I know the Bible to be the true Word of God because I have studied it for decades. Those Truths are the reasons why I am, as well as others, are driven to study it. There are no grave errors or inconsistencies within the Bible. This is only professed by those who hate Christians and Jews that keep repeating it in the vain hope someone will believe them. Just because you don't get it doesn't make it errant. It only betrays the level of their ignorance and illiteracy. Such as those who claim to be Christian and then proceed to criticise and slander the basis of their supposed beliefs. A Christian nows the difference between living under the Law of the Old Testament and living under Grace of the New Testament.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 22:55, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm a sinner; I eat shellfish and wear clothes made out of two materials. Guess I'm going to hell for that.
:The real issue is whether or not the Bible is still relevant in todays society; do you really think God meant for us to be ignorant and unresponsive, and live the same way until the end of time?
:God knew that when we gained more knowledge, we would (hopefully) put it to use. But, unfortunately, we have not; there is still a ''debate'' over homosexuality. We will never know which modern Bible is accurate (if any); It has been translated so much that it has been overly politicized. And lots of the Bible is pretty hard to take seriously, such as a global flood; instant, recent creation; destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire and brimstone, etc. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:19, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::Knowledge without understanding is useless. What you eat or wear has nothing to do with whether or not you're a sinner. The Bible I'm reading hasn't been politicized, and hasn't changed for over 2,000 years. Geological evidence of the global flood is everywhere. Archeological evidence of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah has already been proven with the materials that make fire and brimstone right there amongst the ruins. The same with a young Earth. Scientifically and archeologically documented. I've seen and read it. Rejecting God's Word is a choice you can make on your own. Making false and misleading statements that are ignorant of the facts is mere politics. As well as just plain hard to take seriously.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:38, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

As Roopilots6 I have studied the Bible for many years and the more I read the more convinced I am that it is accurate in every sense.It seems those who read it without the properly prayerful attitude and desire for truth don't get much out of it. Modern archeological discoveries repeatedly confirm the accounts in the Bible. God states that He is unchanging and that heaven and earth will disappear before one scrap of His word will. From my point of view if He said 5000 years ago that crabs were unclean as food I'm not about to argue the point. He made them so He ought to know and in light of the pollution in today's world I'm not too enthused about consuming bottom feeders anyway.~~InHisImage

Okay, InHisImage, and Roopilots6, I have studied the Bible for many years as well, and I desperately wanted to believe it, but I couldn't. Read the account of when the Israelites left Egypt. God repeatedly punished the people of Egypt for something the Pharaoh was doing, when God could have simply pulled the people out himself. Then it says Pharaoh finally consented, and God HARDENED HIS HEART. That means God wanted to murder the first born. And what about all the Israelites who were born and died in the 400 years they were enslaved? They couldn't follow the rituals, so did they go to hell? Yes, they did. As well as everyone else before the laws were put down. And what about other nations during that time? Not their fault they weren't God's chosen people. So, they go to hell. Not my idea of a loving, tolerant god. - Bob Sanchez
: 1) I don't see anywhere in those passages about those people going to hell. Who said everybody went to hell prior to the law? Check out Romans 1-2. People without the law are judged by their conscience.
: 2) When you say you don't believe the Bible, do you mean you don't think it reflects ''history'', or that you don't find the God it portrays to be ''attractive''? Those are two entirely different propositions.
: 3) I don't find the title of those discussion to be a particularly meaningful question. How do you test whether "Bible" = Infallible Word of God? Where do you get your Infallible word? From the Bible! The only thing you can compare it to and test it against is ... itself. A=A. All you can do is determine whether you find the book to be ''credible'' or not. That's a whole other inquiry. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:16, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

No, it doesn't specifically say the people go to hell, but as they couldn't follow the law, or put their faith in Jesus, it is implied that yes, they go to hell. I read Romans 1-2, and am wondering:
1.)Why he says only through faith and not actions can you be saved, but in this passage it says all your actions are judged, and you're punished accordingly. Uh, clarify.
2.)It also says in this passage that God does not show favortism; He had "chosen people" in the form of Israelites, again an example of the Bible contradicting itself.
3.)Romans 2:12 : "God will punish the Gentiles when they sin, even though they never had God's written law. And he will punish the jews when they sin, for they do have the law." Alright, then.

And, you didn't answer why God made Pharaoh change his mind. Which also, I just remembered, violates free will.
I don't believe the God of the Bible is attractive. I do believe a guy named Jesus was around, and that he was crucified, and etc. Now whether or not it goes down like it says in the Bible exactly, I don't know. - Bob Sanchez

Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?

2007-07-17T21:50:28Z

Bobsanchez: /* Hypocricy without Faith */

Why were entries here deleted? Who deleted them? [[User:Seekcommon]]

So, Is the Bible infallible? Should all Christians and Jews believe everything the Bible says and live by ALL it's rules?

:Surely not. It is up to us as discerning people to pick and choose between the various statements and sentiments within the testaments to determine what is and isn't relevant today. For example, according to the [[capital punishment|article]], capital punishment is not generally supported by Christians for non-murder offenses, despite Exodus 21 listing its appropriateness for many more minor offenses. This means something very powerful. It means that we Christians cannot say "this is right because the Bible says so", but have to say "this is right because I deem that passage still relevant". It means we need to be responsible for our views. Thus the controversy over grey issues such as [[homosexuality]]. [[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 10:39, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
: Then why is a section of the conservative community upset over Darwin and evolution and such? Dismissing evolution as mere theory demonstrates a fundamental ignorance and illiteracy when it comes to science and theories and arguments. Why does so much of science terrifies a significant fraction of the conservative movement? Is science a creation of the Devil then? Was Darwin put on this earth by the Devil to confound God fearing humans? Why did the Catholic Church persecute Galileo for saying the Earth goes round the Sun? And why did it take them 300+ years to say "Sorry"? It remains an issue of power and having people who can follow them no matter what and the Bible is held as that hammer to keep people down when needed. [[User:Seekcommon|Seekcommon]]

::Absolutely. As a Christian, I would be the first to admit the hypocrisy of our faith over the last few centuries. The main reason for this, of course, is that the church is made up of many many people, each with their own viewpoint. I see no reason why the modern Catholic church should apologise for the treatment of Galileo, any more than Britain should apologise to the aboriginals of America and Australia, or for the burning of Protestants or Catholics under the respective Tudor king or queen of England. It is something done by our ancestors, and not by us. What matters is what we say today. There is no reason why science and religion can't coexist. I accept that almost all Christians no longer believe the early chapters of the Old Testament actually happened. They are, I believe, generally accepted to be metaphors - an easy handle for people to understand God's achievement in creating the World. In times gone by, this is illustrated nicely by the idea of Him creating everything in 6 days in nice stages. To the modern reader, this no longer makes sense (the concept of a day being a length of time before the Solar System was created is meaningless in itself). The modern thinker, then, can rejoice in God's creation of the Universe. The divine energy that created the big bang. The force that gave everything direction. The mind that thought through the rules of physics, and the purity of mathematics. The guiding hand that let today's species exist. The gifts of spirituality, of self-awareness, and the immortal soul. I think understanding more about the nature of the universe makes God seem all the more wonderful. [[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 22:03, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The bible simply cannot be taken literally, mostly because it contradicts itself everywhere. Let's look at the gospels of Luke and Matthew. One says Jesus' relation to David was 27 entries long, the other says 42. Also, the Old Testament clearly states that only a descendent of David can be Christ the messiah. Since Joseph supposedly possessed David in his lineage, and since Christ was of virgin birth, does this mean that Jesus was not the messiah? Also, what about the other gospels that aren't integrated into the bible, such as ones that describe Jesus mischievously casting spells on his friends and turning mud into birds. Additionally, the gospel of Matthew states that Mary and Joseph came to Bethlehem during one of Caesar Augustus' census activities. However, there was no census until 6 AD, and it was done by Qurinius, not Caesar Augustus. It's all just fairy tales, and poorly-integrated fairy tales at that as well.

:Fairy tale is unnecessarily harsh. Neither Matthew nor Luke were historians, in the modern interpretation of the word. In those times history was presented very differently from how it is now. The central message was brought through, as well as all the key points, and the other detail was embellished around it. An example is Joseph's home town. Both authors knew that the important points were that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and Joseph and Mary had lived in Nazareth. In Luke, they lived in Nazareth first, then traveled to Bethlehem for a census. In Matthew, they lived in Bethlehem, then fled to Nazareth via Egypt. This embellishment still done today - preachers often invent details in the story in order to make the message stronger, or make the characters more personable. People even think that the animals were all put on the Ark in twos, despite the text of the Bible saying the clean ones were in sevens. I think the authors would be upset to know that people were concentrating on the irrelavent detail instead of the main ideas.[[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 17:37, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

==Hypocricy without Faith==
I know the Bible to be the true Word of God because I have studied it for decades. Those Truths are the reasons why I am, as well as others, are driven to study it. There are no grave errors or inconsistencies within the Bible. This is only professed by those who hate Christians and Jews that keep repeating it in the vain hope someone will believe them. Just because you don't get it doesn't make it errant. It only betrays the level of their ignorance and illiteracy. Such as those who claim to be Christian and then proceed to criticise and slander the basis of their supposed beliefs. A Christian nows the difference between living under the Law of the Old Testament and living under Grace of the New Testament.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 22:55, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm a sinner; I eat shellfish and wear clothes made out of two materials. Guess I'm going to hell for that.
:The real issue is whether or not the Bible is still relevant in todays society; do you really think God meant for us to be ignorant and unresponsive, and live the same way until the end of time?
:God knew that when we gained more knowledge, we would (hopefully) put it to use. But, unfortunately, we have not; there is still a ''debate'' over homosexuality. We will never know which modern Bible is accurate (if any); It has been translated so much that it has been overly politicized. And lots of the Bible is pretty hard to take seriously, such as a global flood; instant, recent creation; destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire and brimstone, etc. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:19, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::Knowledge without understanding is useless. What you eat or wear has nothing to do with whether or not you're a sinner. The Bible I'm reading hasn't been politicized, and hasn't changed for over 2,000 years. Geological evidence of the global flood is everywhere. Archeological evidence of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah has already been proven with the materials that make fire and brimstone right there amongst the ruins. The same with a young Earth. Scientifically and archeologically documented. I've seen and read it. Rejecting God's Word is a choice you can make on your own. Making false and misleading statements that are ignorant of the facts is mere politics. As well as just plain hard to take seriously.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:38, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

As Roopilots6 I have studied the Bible for many years and the more I read the more convinced I am that it is accurate in every sense.It seems those who read it without the properly prayerful attitude and desire for truth don't get much out of it. Modern archeological discoveries repeatedly confirm the accounts in the Bible. God states that He is unchanging and that heaven and earth will disappear before one scrap of His word will. From my point of view if He said 5000 years ago that crabs were unclean as food I'm not about to argue the point. He made them so He ought to know and in light of the pollution in today's world I'm not too enthused about consuming bottom feeders anyway.~~InHisImage

Okay, InHisImage, and Roopilots6, I have studied the Bible for many years as well, and I desperately wanted to believe it, but I couldn't. Read the account of when the Israelites left Egypt. God repeatedly punished the people of Egypt for something the Pharaoh was doing, when God could have simply pulled the people out himself. Then it says Pharaoh finally consented, and God HARDENED HIS HEART. That means God wanted to murder the first born. And what about all the Israelites who were born and died in the 400 years they were enslaved? They couldn't follow the rituals, so did they go to hell? Yes, they did. As well as everyone else before the laws were put down. And what about other nations during that time? Not their fault they weren't God's chosen people. So, they go to hell. Not my idea of a loving, tolerant god. - Bob Sanchez
: 1) I don't see anywhere in those passages about those people going to hell. Who said everybody went to hell prior to the law? Check out Romans 1-2. People without the law are judged by their conscience.
: 2) When you say you don't believe the Bible, do you mean you don't think it reflects ''history'', or that you don't find the God it portrays to be ''attractive''? Those are two entirely different propositions.
: 3) I don't find the title of those discussion to be a particularly meaningful question. How do you test whether "Bible" = Infallible Word of God? Where do you get your Infallible word? From the Bible! The only thing you can compare it to and test it against is ... itself. A=A. All you can do is determine whether you find the book to be ''credible'' or not. That's a whole other inquiry. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:16, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

No, it doesn't specifically say the people go to hell, but as they couldn't follow the law, or put their faith in Jesus, it is implied that yes, they go to hell. I read Romans 1-2, and am wondering
1.)Why he says only through faith and not actions can you be saved, but in this passage it says all your actions are judged, and you're punished accordingly. Uh, clarify.
2.)It also says in this passage that God does not show favortism; He had "chosen people" in the form of Israelites, again an example of the Bible contradicting itself.
3.)Romans 2:12 : "God will punish the Gentiles when they sin, even though they never had God's written law. And he will punish the jews when they sin, for they do have the law." Alright, then.

And, you didn't answer why God made Pharaoh change his mind. Which also, I just remembered, violates free will.
I don't believe the God of the Bible is attractive. I do believe a guy named Jesus was around, and that he was crucified, and etc. Now whether or not it goes down like it says in the Bible exactly, I don't know. - Bob Sanchez

Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?

2007-07-17T01:07:38Z

Bobsanchez: /* Hypocricy without Faith */

Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?

2007-07-17T01:07:19Z

Bobsanchez: /* Hypocricy without Faith */

Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?

2007-07-17T00:54:31Z

Bobsanchez: /* Absurd */

{{debate-religion}}

Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Discuss--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

This old one... its supposed to be a paradox showing the omnipotence is impossible: If God can create the rock, He must not be all-powerful because He cannot lift it. If He cant create the rock, then He still isn't all powerful. Either way, no all-powerful being. Personally, I think God just has no reason to create such a rock, so why would He? - BornAgainBrit

Because he wants to disprove his own existence. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

But you can't assume that God is temporally limited like us mere mortals. He can create the rock so heavy he can't lift it one minute, then, the next minute, he lifts it. Just because we can't conceive of it, doesn't mean God can't lift it. -mittromney

:He'd get YOU to lift it. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::No! No matter how heavy the rock would be, God would still be able to lift it because he is the Almighty.
:::"He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved." (Psalm 62:6)
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Traditional Paradox of God==
God is omnipotent Therefore he can But since he is omnipotent He can lift the rock he cannot lift Therefore God is a paradox and cannot exist

[[User:Helios|Helios]] loves the creator of this page and will worship him as though he were a paradoxical God.

The part that people miss is assuming that God is picking the rock up with a pair of arms like a human. God isn't a human. God doesn't have a physical body. God can't lift rocks. God makes the rock lift itself.
:Doesn't "lifting" assume an "up"? What is an omnipresent being standing on when lifting a rock? I think this question is broken. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:55, 16 May 2007
(EDT)

Alright, then can he make a rock so large he cannot make it move? And another thing disproving that he exists; it says in Genesis it took him six days to create the universe. A perfect, all-powerful god would have created it instantly. And some say that maybe he took his time, etc. That doesn't work either, because if he was perfect, everything he did would be as efficient as possible, and that would mean instantly. And, on top of that, he had to rest from the effort. Now, granted, creating a universe in only six days, and only resting for one is still pretty impressive, but that doesn't mean omnipotence.- Bob Sanchez

== Absurd ==

This question is absurd and this revolves around the question of what omnipotence is. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything" then you hit this problem. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything that may be done" then the problem does not exist.

Lets take an alternative form of this argument:
# If God is omnipotent, then God can create a square circle
# God cannot create a square circle
# Therefore, God is not omnipotent

This is of the form
#p -> q
#~q
#therefore ~p
which is a valid argument form known as modus tollens. To attack this argument it is necessary to look at the premises. The second premise is fair so the first must be examined. This can be broken down into:
##God is omnipotent
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle

Theistic scholar/philosophers do not claim the omnipotence of God, but rather that God is the maximally powerful being. That God can do anything that can be done. With the modified argument:
##God the maximally powerful being
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle
It falls apart and the first premise of the argument fails. Ultimately, this does not limit God's power - He can do anything that can be done and create anything that can exist.

This can then be summed up in:
* God is the maximally powerful being.
* That which cannot exist, cannot be created.
There is no paradox here, and any claim otherwise rests on absurdity.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Let's apply this argument by logical constraint to a few other Christian doctrines, then, shall we?

Example 1:
## For a woman to beome pregnant, she must be inseminated.
## Virgins have not been inseminated
## Mary was a virgin
## Therefore, Mary was not pregnant.

Example 2:
## Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself. (Premise)
## The universe exists. (Premise)
## Therefore, the universe has a cause outside of itself.
## We call that cause God (cosmological argument).
## God exits (Premise)
## Therefore, God has a cause outside of itself.

So - god is too weak to create a squared circle. I get that - but what about the rock?

"Any claim otherwise rests on absurdity"? You seem fairly confident that by using a lot of logical jargon and organizing your post in a way that intimates you know what you're talking about, you can circumvent the inherent logical fallacy that you're assuming you can conceptualize what can exist and what can be created. If you claim to know what can and what cannot be created, such as, for example, a rock that God can't lift, shouldn't that be in the entry for hubris? -mittromney
: I am simply stating the solution to the paradox of omnipotence that was given back as an answer in one of the religious studies classes I took at a Catholic highschool and again in a university class on "Philosophy and Religion." At best, the paradox of omnipotence is a strawman argument. [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/impossiblerock.html] [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/omnipotence.html] [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Omnipotence_Paradox] [http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/articles/omnipyparadox.html] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox] Thomas Aquinas said it well "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles. For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that lines drawn from the center to the circumference were not equal, or that a triangle did not have three angles equal to two right angles." - granted this is founded on euclidean space, but it goes back to the question of can God break the laws of the universe that He created. Alternatively, you can go to Augustine of Hippo and read "For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Isn't the fact that your quote from Aquinas included a notion that was later proved to be totally incorrect by Einstein absolutely damning for your argument that humans can adequately perceive and evaluate logical concepts? I guess I'm curious how any of what you say deals properly with the idea that God is totally superior in every way, and therefore to say He can or can't do something is pointless hubris a fortiori? -mittromney
: It depends if you take it literally or what he was trying to say. The question is can God do something that is against the rules of logic? If you don't like the triangle example that Aquinas gave, then use four sided triangles or square circles in place of them. Read the first sentence again and you will see that these are perfectly valid substitutions - "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::So you're saying that we should just choose a new facially contradictory idea, and go ahead with that, while my whole point was that we're totally incapable of evaluating what's consistent and what's contradictory? I'm not sure how choosing new examples of things we assume to be not true helps you at all... -mittromney
::: You are suggesting that Aquinas is proven wrong because he used a definition of a triangle that only worked in euclidean space. This false-paradox is a straw man for an atheistic world view that is based on a particular definition of omnipotence - it is just as bad as creationists giving straw man arguments that are counter evolution (do note, I am not a creationist). If you wish to argue that a logical impossibility is not beyond omnipotence, then you can work from the Cartesian viewpoint of the trickster god or demon that allows 2+2=5, though that is more a question of belief and knowledge than omnipotence. If you wish to argue about omnipotence with a theistic philosopher, then it is necessary to work from that definition of omnipotence. I am presenting that definition and showing how the rest of the question falls to absurdity when this definition is used - which does not limit omnipotence. Simply said, God can do anything that can be done. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, I don't think you properly respond to what I'm saying. I claim the idea of a logical impossibility is a hobgoblin of mediocre minds: We have no idea what's logically possible or impossible. To say we do, and subsequently to claim that somehow human logic limits the omnipotence of god, is foolhardy. What I was suggesting with your Aquinas example is that things which may at one point in time appear to be facially and obviously contradictory can, in the future, be shown to actually be possible, and the original belief was therefore just an incorrect human assumption and not "logic". How that argument is a false-paradox straw man is beyond me: It appears you just throw those terms around to try to demonstrate that you're familiar with logical jargon in the hopes that the other side will assume you know better than they do. When you argue through implicit authority (not to even bring up the Descartes reference), you sound like a liberal who belongs at wiki... -mittromney
: I would urge you to ask your priest or minister the question of the rock so heavy. You will likely get a similar answer to mine (and that of Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo). Omnipotence is a human definition with words that are constrained by our language. Head to the seminary and you will find half a dozen different definitions of omnipotence and various theologians arguing for and against each one being the correct interpretation of the word. You will even find Judaism (which also asserts the omnipotent God) claims that God works through persuasion rather than action - the creation of possibility rather than miracles or violations of natural law - that His omnipotence is shown through that means. Other branches of Christianity use "God cannot make you sin" as part of its philosophy, that if God was to make you sin then you would not have free will and thus would not be sinning. The only reason to pose the paradox of omnipotence is to try to assert that God does not have such power. My take on it (and I agree with those sources I have linked above) is that the proper definition of omnipotence is "to have any power that can be had" or to be the maximally powerful being and as such the question of the rock or a square circle or a four sided triangle becomes a silly question - that which cannot exist cannot be created. If you wish to assert a different definition and solution to this question, then by all means do so. However, I have not seen any reasonable argument against this position from you yet. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

"Maximally powerful" doesn't mean "all-powerful". Your arguement implies that the Bible was incorrect in naming God as omnipotent, which completely destroys the foundation for faith in Christianity: The belief that the Bible is without error. - Bob Sanchez
----

Can God predict the future? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]]

How heavy do you think the rock that god can't lift would be? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe 1*10^abs(1/0) kg.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shhhhh, you supposed to use lbs.! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Guys, you are debating the wrong question which is really only a red herring. The real question that each must answer is this: "Will a man become so filled with pride and enamored with thoughts of his own intellectual superiority as to use a silly logical argument as an excuse to close his mind and his heart to the truth of the Gospel and thus reject his only hope of salvation?" --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 10:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: Or perhaps the real question is, "Why do so many people blindly follow religious stories and texts with nothing to go on but faith with out any facts?". But that's another question for another debate. Lets just stick to the original question.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Aaaaagh you just disprooved god[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

God can make the rock, but every time He tries to lift it the planet he's standing on crumbles under His feet. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 00:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?

2007-07-17T00:46:22Z

Bobsanchez: /* Traditional Paradox of God */

{{debate-religion}}

Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Discuss--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

This old one... its supposed to be a paradox showing the omnipotence is impossible: If God can create the rock, He must not be all-powerful because He cannot lift it. If He cant create the rock, then He still isn't all powerful. Either way, no all-powerful being. Personally, I think God just has no reason to create such a rock, so why would He? - BornAgainBrit

Because he wants to disprove his own existence. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

But you can't assume that God is temporally limited like us mere mortals. He can create the rock so heavy he can't lift it one minute, then, the next minute, he lifts it. Just because we can't conceive of it, doesn't mean God can't lift it. -mittromney

:He'd get YOU to lift it. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::No! No matter how heavy the rock would be, God would still be able to lift it because he is the Almighty.
:::"He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved." (Psalm 62:6)
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Traditional Paradox of God==
God is omnipotent Therefore he can But since he is omnipotent He can lift the rock he cannot lift Therefore God is a paradox and cannot exist

[[User:Helios|Helios]] loves the creator of this page and will worship him as though he were a paradoxical God.

The part that people miss is assuming that God is picking the rock up with a pair of arms like a human. God isn't a human. God doesn't have a physical body. God can't lift rocks. God makes the rock lift itself.
:Doesn't "lifting" assume an "up"? What is an omnipresent being standing on when lifting a rock? I think this question is broken. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:55, 16 May 2007
(EDT)

Alright, then can he make a rock so large he cannot make it move? And another thing disproving that he exists; it says in Genesis it took him six days to create the universe. A perfect, all-powerful god would have created it instantly. And some say that maybe he took his time, etc. That doesn't work either, because if he was perfect, everything he did would be as efficient as possible, and that would mean instantly. And, on top of that, he had to rest from the effort. Now, granted, creating a universe in only six days, and only resting for one is still pretty impressive, but that doesn't mean omnipotence.- Bob Sanchez

== Absurd ==

This question is absurd and this revolves around the question of what omnipotence is. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything" then you hit this problem. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything that may be done" then the problem does not exist.

Lets take an alternative form of this argument:
# If God is omnipotent, then God can create a square circle
# God cannot create a square circle
# Therefore, God is not omnipotent

This is of the form
#p -> q
#~q
#therefore ~p
which is a valid argument form known as modus tollens. To attack this argument it is necessary to look at the premises. The second premise is fair so the first must be examined. This can be broken down into:
##God is omnipotent
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle

Theistic scholar/philosophers do not claim the omnipotence of God, but rather that God is the maximally powerful being. That God can do anything that can be done. With the modified argument:
##God the maximally powerful being
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle
It falls apart and the first premise of the argument fails. Ultimately, this does not limit God's power - He can do anything that can be done and create anything that can exist.

This can then be summed up in:
* God is the maximally powerful being.
* That which cannot exist, cannot be created.
There is no paradox here, and any claim otherwise rests on absurdity.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Let's apply this argument by logical constraint to a few other Christian doctrines, then, shall we?

Example 1:
## For a woman to beome pregnant, she must be inseminated.
## Virgins have not been inseminated
## Mary was a virgin
## Therefore, Mary was not pregnant.

Example 2:
## Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself. (Premise)
## The universe exists. (Premise)
## Therefore, the universe has a cause outside of itself.
## We call that cause God (cosmological argument).
## God exits (Premise)
## Therefore, God has a cause outside of itself.

So - god is too weak to create a squared circle. I get that - but what about the rock?

"Any claim otherwise rests on absurdity"? You seem fairly confident that by using a lot of logical jargon and organizing your post in a way that intimates you know what you're talking about, you can circumvent the inherent logical fallacy that you're assuming you can conceptualize what can exist and what can be created. If you claim to know what can and what cannot be created, such as, for example, a rock that God can't lift, shouldn't that be in the entry for hubris? -mittromney
: I am simply stating the solution to the paradox of omnipotence that was given back as an answer in one of the religious studies classes I took at a Catholic highschool and again in a university class on "Philosophy and Religion." At best, the paradox of omnipotence is a strawman argument. [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/impossiblerock.html] [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/omnipotence.html] [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Omnipotence_Paradox] [http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/articles/omnipyparadox.html] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox] Thomas Aquinas said it well "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles. For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that lines drawn from the center to the circumference were not equal, or that a triangle did not have three angles equal to two right angles." - granted this is founded on euclidean space, but it goes back to the question of can God break the laws of the universe that He created. Alternatively, you can go to Augustine of Hippo and read "For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Isn't the fact that your quote from Aquinas included a notion that was later proved to be totally incorrect by Einstein absolutely damning for your argument that humans can adequately perceive and evaluate logical concepts? I guess I'm curious how any of what you say deals properly with the idea that God is totally superior in every way, and therefore to say He can or can't do something is pointless hubris a fortiori? -mittromney
: It depends if you take it literally or what he was trying to say. The question is can God do something that is against the rules of logic? If you don't like the triangle example that Aquinas gave, then use four sided triangles or square circles in place of them. Read the first sentence again and you will see that these are perfectly valid substitutions - "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::So you're saying that we should just choose a new facially contradictory idea, and go ahead with that, while my whole point was that we're totally incapable of evaluating what's consistent and what's contradictory? I'm not sure how choosing new examples of things we assume to be not true helps you at all... -mittromney
::: You are suggesting that Aquinas is proven wrong because he used a definition of a triangle that only worked in euclidean space. This false-paradox is a straw man for an atheistic world view that is based on a particular definition of omnipotence - it is just as bad as creationists giving straw man arguments that are counter evolution (do note, I am not a creationist). If you wish to argue that a logical impossibility is not beyond omnipotence, then you can work from the Cartesian viewpoint of the trickster god or demon that allows 2+2=5, though that is more a question of belief and knowledge than omnipotence. If you wish to argue about omnipotence with a theistic philosopher, then it is necessary to work from that definition of omnipotence. I am presenting that definition and showing how the rest of the question falls to absurdity when this definition is used - which does not limit omnipotence. Simply said, God can do anything that can be done. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, I don't think you properly respond to what I'm saying. I claim the idea of a logical impossibility is a hobgoblin of mediocre minds: We have no idea what's logically possible or impossible. To say we do, and subsequently to claim that somehow human logic limits the omnipotence of god, is foolhardy. What I was suggesting with your Aquinas example is that things which may at one point in time appear to be facially and obviously contradictory can, in the future, be shown to actually be possible, and the original belief was therefore just an incorrect human assumption and not "logic". How that argument is a false-paradox straw man is beyond me: It appears you just throw those terms around to try to demonstrate that you're familiar with logical jargon in the hopes that the other side will assume you know better than they do. When you argue through implicit authority (not to even bring up the Descartes reference), you sound like a liberal who belongs at wiki... -mittromney
: I would urge you to ask your priest or minister the question of the rock so heavy. You will likely get a similar answer to mine (and that of Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo). Omnipotence is a human definition with words that are constrained by our language. Head to the seminary and you will find half a dozen different definitions of omnipotence and various theologians arguing for and against each one being the correct interpretation of the word. You will even find Judaism (which also asserts the omnipotent God) claims that God works through persuasion rather than action - the creation of possibility rather than miracles or violations of natural law - that His omnipotence is shown through that means. Other branches of Christianity use "God cannot make you sin" as part of its philosophy, that if God was to make you sin then you would not have free will and thus would not be sinning. The only reason to pose the paradox of omnipotence is to try to assert that God does not have such power. My take on it (and I agree with those sources I have linked above) is that the proper definition of omnipotence is "to have any power that can be had" or to be the maximally powerful being and as such the question of the rock or a square circle or a four sided triangle becomes a silly question - that which cannot exist cannot be created. If you wish to assert a different definition and solution to this question, then by all means do so. However, I have not seen any reasonable argument against this position from you yet. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
----

Can God predict the future? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]]

How heavy do you think the rock that god can't lift would be? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe 1*10^abs(1/0) kg.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shhhhh, you supposed to use lbs.! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Guys, you are debating the wrong question which is really only a red herring. The real question that each must answer is this: "Will a man become so filled with pride and enamored with thoughts of his own intellectual superiority as to use a silly logical argument as an excuse to close his mind and his heart to the truth of the Gospel and thus reject his only hope of salvation?" --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 10:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: Or perhaps the real question is, "Why do so many people blindly follow religious stories and texts with nothing to go on but faith with out any facts?". But that's another question for another debate. Lets just stick to the original question.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Aaaaagh you just disprooved god[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

God can make the rock, but every time He tries to lift it the planet he's standing on crumbles under His feet. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 00:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?

2007-07-17T00:45:51Z

Bobsanchez: /* Traditional Paradox of God */

{{debate-religion}}

Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Discuss--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

This old one... its supposed to be a paradox showing the omnipotence is impossible: If God can create the rock, He must not be all-powerful because He cannot lift it. If He cant create the rock, then He still isn't all powerful. Either way, no all-powerful being. Personally, I think God just has no reason to create such a rock, so why would He? - BornAgainBrit

Because he wants to disprove his own existence. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

But you can't assume that God is temporally limited like us mere mortals. He can create the rock so heavy he can't lift it one minute, then, the next minute, he lifts it. Just because we can't conceive of it, doesn't mean God can't lift it. -mittromney

:He'd get YOU to lift it. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::No! No matter how heavy the rock would be, God would still be able to lift it because he is the Almighty.
:::"He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved." (Psalm 62:6)
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Traditional Paradox of God==
God is omnipotent Therefore he can But since he is omnipotent He can lift the rock he cannot lift Therefore God is a paradox and cannot exist

[[User:Helios|Helios]] loves the creator of this page and will worship him as though he were a paradoxical God.

The part that people miss is assuming that God is picking the rock up with a pair of arms like a human. God isn't a human. God doesn't have a physical body. God can't lift rocks. God makes the rock lift itself.
:Doesn't "lifting" assume an "up"? What is an omnipresent being standing on when lifting a rock? I think this question is broken. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:55, 16 May 2007
(EDT)

Alright, then can he make a rock so large he cannot make it move? And another thing disproving that he exists; it says in Genesis it took him six days to create the universe. A perfect, all-powerful god would have created it instantly. And some say that maybe he took his time, etc. That doesn't work either, because if he was perfect, everything he did would be as efficient as possible, and that would mean instantly. And, on top of that, he had to rest from the effort. Now, granted, creating a universe in only six days, and only resting for one is still pretty impressive, but that doesn't mean omnipotence.

== Absurd ==

This question is absurd and this revolves around the question of what omnipotence is. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything" then you hit this problem. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything that may be done" then the problem does not exist.

Lets take an alternative form of this argument:
# If God is omnipotent, then God can create a square circle
# God cannot create a square circle
# Therefore, God is not omnipotent

This is of the form
#p -> q
#~q
#therefore ~p
which is a valid argument form known as modus tollens. To attack this argument it is necessary to look at the premises. The second premise is fair so the first must be examined. This can be broken down into:
##God is omnipotent
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle

Theistic scholar/philosophers do not claim the omnipotence of God, but rather that God is the maximally powerful being. That God can do anything that can be done. With the modified argument:
##God the maximally powerful being
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle
It falls apart and the first premise of the argument fails. Ultimately, this does not limit God's power - He can do anything that can be done and create anything that can exist.

This can then be summed up in:
* God is the maximally powerful being.
* That which cannot exist, cannot be created.
There is no paradox here, and any claim otherwise rests on absurdity.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Let's apply this argument by logical constraint to a few other Christian doctrines, then, shall we?

Example 1:
## For a woman to beome pregnant, she must be inseminated.
## Virgins have not been inseminated
## Mary was a virgin
## Therefore, Mary was not pregnant.

Example 2:
## Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself. (Premise)
## The universe exists. (Premise)
## Therefore, the universe has a cause outside of itself.
## We call that cause God (cosmological argument).
## God exits (Premise)
## Therefore, God has a cause outside of itself.

So - god is too weak to create a squared circle. I get that - but what about the rock?

"Any claim otherwise rests on absurdity"? You seem fairly confident that by using a lot of logical jargon and organizing your post in a way that intimates you know what you're talking about, you can circumvent the inherent logical fallacy that you're assuming you can conceptualize what can exist and what can be created. If you claim to know what can and what cannot be created, such as, for example, a rock that God can't lift, shouldn't that be in the entry for hubris? -mittromney
: I am simply stating the solution to the paradox of omnipotence that was given back as an answer in one of the religious studies classes I took at a Catholic highschool and again in a university class on "Philosophy and Religion." At best, the paradox of omnipotence is a strawman argument. [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/impossiblerock.html] [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/omnipotence.html] [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Omnipotence_Paradox] [http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/articles/omnipyparadox.html] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox] Thomas Aquinas said it well "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles. For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that lines drawn from the center to the circumference were not equal, or that a triangle did not have three angles equal to two right angles." - granted this is founded on euclidean space, but it goes back to the question of can God break the laws of the universe that He created. Alternatively, you can go to Augustine of Hippo and read "For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Isn't the fact that your quote from Aquinas included a notion that was later proved to be totally incorrect by Einstein absolutely damning for your argument that humans can adequately perceive and evaluate logical concepts? I guess I'm curious how any of what you say deals properly with the idea that God is totally superior in every way, and therefore to say He can or can't do something is pointless hubris a fortiori? -mittromney
: It depends if you take it literally or what he was trying to say. The question is can God do something that is against the rules of logic? If you don't like the triangle example that Aquinas gave, then use four sided triangles or square circles in place of them. Read the first sentence again and you will see that these are perfectly valid substitutions - "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::So you're saying that we should just choose a new facially contradictory idea, and go ahead with that, while my whole point was that we're totally incapable of evaluating what's consistent and what's contradictory? I'm not sure how choosing new examples of things we assume to be not true helps you at all... -mittromney
::: You are suggesting that Aquinas is proven wrong because he used a definition of a triangle that only worked in euclidean space. This false-paradox is a straw man for an atheistic world view that is based on a particular definition of omnipotence - it is just as bad as creationists giving straw man arguments that are counter evolution (do note, I am not a creationist). If you wish to argue that a logical impossibility is not beyond omnipotence, then you can work from the Cartesian viewpoint of the trickster god or demon that allows 2+2=5, though that is more a question of belief and knowledge than omnipotence. If you wish to argue about omnipotence with a theistic philosopher, then it is necessary to work from that definition of omnipotence. I am presenting that definition and showing how the rest of the question falls to absurdity when this definition is used - which does not limit omnipotence. Simply said, God can do anything that can be done. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, I don't think you properly respond to what I'm saying. I claim the idea of a logical impossibility is a hobgoblin of mediocre minds: We have no idea what's logically possible or impossible. To say we do, and subsequently to claim that somehow human logic limits the omnipotence of god, is foolhardy. What I was suggesting with your Aquinas example is that things which may at one point in time appear to be facially and obviously contradictory can, in the future, be shown to actually be possible, and the original belief was therefore just an incorrect human assumption and not "logic". How that argument is a false-paradox straw man is beyond me: It appears you just throw those terms around to try to demonstrate that you're familiar with logical jargon in the hopes that the other side will assume you know better than they do. When you argue through implicit authority (not to even bring up the Descartes reference), you sound like a liberal who belongs at wiki... -mittromney
: I would urge you to ask your priest or minister the question of the rock so heavy. You will likely get a similar answer to mine (and that of Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo). Omnipotence is a human definition with words that are constrained by our language. Head to the seminary and you will find half a dozen different definitions of omnipotence and various theologians arguing for and against each one being the correct interpretation of the word. You will even find Judaism (which also asserts the omnipotent God) claims that God works through persuasion rather than action - the creation of possibility rather than miracles or violations of natural law - that His omnipotence is shown through that means. Other branches of Christianity use "God cannot make you sin" as part of its philosophy, that if God was to make you sin then you would not have free will and thus would not be sinning. The only reason to pose the paradox of omnipotence is to try to assert that God does not have such power. My take on it (and I agree with those sources I have linked above) is that the proper definition of omnipotence is "to have any power that can be had" or to be the maximally powerful being and as such the question of the rock or a square circle or a four sided triangle becomes a silly question - that which cannot exist cannot be created. If you wish to assert a different definition and solution to this question, then by all means do so. However, I have not seen any reasonable argument against this position from you yet. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
----

Can God predict the future? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]]

How heavy do you think the rock that god can't lift would be? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe 1*10^abs(1/0) kg.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shhhhh, you supposed to use lbs.! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Guys, you are debating the wrong question which is really only a red herring. The real question that each must answer is this: "Will a man become so filled with pride and enamored with thoughts of his own intellectual superiority as to use a silly logical argument as an excuse to close his mind and his heart to the truth of the Gospel and thus reject his only hope of salvation?" --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 10:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: Or perhaps the real question is, "Why do so many people blindly follow religious stories and texts with nothing to go on but faith with out any facts?". But that's another question for another debate. Lets just stick to the original question.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Aaaaagh you just disprooved god[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

God can make the rock, but every time He tries to lift it the planet he's standing on crumbles under His feet. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 00:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)