Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Off-Topic Ordeals » A question to all the married men

This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
A question to all the married men
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

I said it in the last thread

Right; they could host their own shows on Fox News. They know if they continually spout off the same nonsense, that it will stick somewhere.

Neil Black
Member #7,867
October 2006
avatar

Evert said:

Anyway. Since I don't believe gods exist, whether they're omnipotent or not is a somewhat irrelevant and pointless question

If you're using the "an omnipotent being cannot logically exist" argument to say that God can't exist, then it becomes pretty durn relevant. And the "the Bible doesn't say God is omnipotent" argument was brought up in response to that.

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

Quote:

???

Was there some confusion? The point is that reality doesn't care what either of us believed. The game's instruction manual says X, so in the context of the game X is true. The Bible says X about God, so in the context of Christianity X is true. Belief is irrelevant.

Evert said:

Just pointed out that different people, although they all identify themselves as Christian (or believers otherwise), say different and conflicting things. If that annoys you and upsets you, well, tough.

This is a human condition; why would it upset me? I do it, you do it. You can't get two random people to agree on pizza toppings, ffs.

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

The game's instruction manual says X, so in the context of the game X is true. The Bible says X about God, so in the context of Christianity X is true. Belief is irrelevant.

I don't believe either game manuals or the bible are necessarily correct. Weight loss ads and politicians promises are also quite misleading. Of the four, I'd put most faith in game manuals, as it's in their self interest to have it as accurate as possible.

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

Neil Black
Member #7,867
October 2006
avatar

I don't believe either game manuals or the bible are necessarily correct.

His point is that, if you're going to argue that Christianity is false (or true), then you need to argue about what the Bible actually says. Not what people claim the Bible says because it makes them comfortable or supports their lifestyle or whatever.

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

Tell me which version of the bible is the truth, then. King James?

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

Neil Black
Member #7,867
October 2006
avatar

I prefer the TNIV, myself. If you want to do in-depth textual criticism, though, you should probably learn the original languages.

For questions like "does the Bible say God is omnipotent", though, any decent translation will be sufficient.

EDIT:

23 answered much better below.

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

Tell me which version of the bible is the truth, then. King James?

Well, hang on, let's keep this in context of the original discussion before we get too off-track. Which version of the Bible doesn't say that God isn't omnipotent?

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

Not what people claim the Bible says because it makes them comfortable or supports their lifestyle or whatever.

Eh, not this stupid reasoning either. If you want to mock people who call themselves Christians, then you mock what they believe, regardless of what the Bible says.

But the thing regarding this issue, is that it is not commonly believed that God is omnipotent within Christian circles (especially among scholars and pastors), at least not in the ways they are laughing at here in this thread. So the only thing here that is showing is their ignorance about Christian groups.

Yes, most Christians use the word omnipotent, but you cannot give it your own non-Christian definition and then laugh at it. That's just bogus.

There are so many valid things that you could use to make fun of Christianity. It's simply unnecessary to make something like this up.

Neil Black
Member #7,867
October 2006
avatar

If you want to mock people who call themselves Christians, then you mock what they believe, regardless of the Bible says.

Sure, if you just want to mock them. If you want to actually argue against Christianity, though... that's a different question.

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

You're getting confused. These people here aren't claiming that Jesus or Paul or the Bible taught that God can do contradictory things.

They are claiming that people who call themselves Christians today believe that. Then they mock them. It matters not what the Bible says. And that much of their argument is valid.

Then you come back with some silly statement like, "but they aren't true Christians." Again, that is irrelevant. Nobody on the outside cares if they are "true" or not. The only thing along these lines that's relevant is to say, "I don't believe that." Then they cannot mock you, but they can still justifiably mock other Christians who do.

But in this particular topic, their mocking just shows ignorance over what the majority of Christians actually believe. Yes, Christians will say God is omnipotent, but they will not say he can do everything.

The silliness with the rock example is pointless, because all you have to do is ask "Can God lie?" So the only thing they are left with is to mock how Christians define omnipotence. And at that point, who cares?

When you start making fun of the name given to a doctrine, instead of the doctrine itself, you're obviously in 100% troll mode.

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

When you start making fun of the name given to a doctrine, instead of the doctrine yourself, you're obviously in 100% troll mode.

Pretty much that.

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

Neil Walker
Member #210
April 2000
avatar

I'm just glad I know that there is no god. I just pity those who spend half their day praying to something that isn't actually there and believing in something that simply does not exist.

Neil.
MAME Cabinet Blog / AXL LIBRARY (a games framework) / AXL Documentation and Tutorial

wii:0356-1384-6687-2022, kart:3308-4806-6002. XBOX:chucklepie

Evert
Member #794
November 2000
avatar

If you're using the "an omnipotent being cannot logically exist" argument to say that God can't exist

I didn't.

Quote:

And the "the Bible doesn't say God is omnipotent" argument was brought up in response to that.

Nope, it was brought up in response to me pointing out that someone else posted God is omnipotent while generally people like 23 like to make a big deal about how he isn't. In case you didn't pick up on it, the person making the original statement is a Christian. Now I'm sure that statement was very much tongue-in-cheek, and so was my response to it, mainly alluding to the fact that we have one Christian saying "God is omnipotent" and others getting their undies in a twist about how he isn't.
He's your God, go figure it out!
In fact, the entire divine taco business is so tongue-in-cheek that I can't believe people think it's a serious argument.

The Bible says X about God, so in the context of Christianity X is true.

Ah, but you know it's not that simple. People split hairs endlessly about the interpretation of the texts in the Bible. Clearly not everyone agrees on what the Bible actually says. Even in the context of Christianity.

Yes, most Christians use the word omnipotent, but you cannot give it your own non-Christian definition and then laugh at it. That's just bogus.

Well, if we're going to argue that, then it's actually the reverse. The word omnipotent has a well-defined meaning, quite literally meaning "able to do anything". You Christians can't just go and take a word, stick your own definition on it and then blame others for not using your definition. That is bogus.
Which ultimately boils down to (again) that if you're going to debate something (very remotely) like this, you need to clearly define what you mean by a particular word before you use it in a discussion. Otherwise you may as well argue semantics, which is not useful.

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

Evert said:

The word omnipotent has a well-defined meaning, quite literally meaning "able to do anything

Does it? It seems to mean literally "all powerful" which I think is quite different from "able to do anything." And as I've said before, if the literal definition of omnipotence includes contradictory things, then the word ought to be thrown out of the dictionary, because you could never possibly attribute the word to anything.

But obviously that part is just a debate on semantics, like you have said.

Quote:

stick your own definition on it and then blame others for not using your definition. That is bogus.

In what context is omnipotence used in the scientific world? I'm pretty sure it stems mostly from a religious context...

It's understandable that a non-Christian person may be confused by the Christian doctrine of omnipotence. It's not understandable to continually pretend you've never heard about what it really means, continuing to spread nonsense Fox News style.

Neil Black
Member #7,867
October 2006
avatar

Evert said:

Well, if we're going to argue that, then it's actually the reverse. The word omnipotent has a well-defined meaning, quite literally meaning "able to do anything". You Christians can't just go and take a word, stick your own definition on it and then blame others for not using your definition. That is bogus.

me points at non-Christians making their own definition of "faith" and then blaming Christians for not using it. :P

But yeah, you've got a good point there. We shouldn't use the word omnipotent because it clearly means something we don't intend.

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

Evert said:

Ah, but you know it's not that simple. People split hairs endlessly about the interpretation of the texts in the Bible. Clearly not everyone agrees on what the Bible actually says. Even in the context of Christianity.

It is that simple. People are not. People argue endlessly about this, but they argue endlessly about everything. You can't show me a Bible that doesn't say God can't lie. You can say otherwise, and I respect your right to an opinion. But thinking otherwise is about as effective as that guy thinking he could do super moves in MvC3 with qcfqcf+P. He can think what he likes. Beliefs are irrelevant.

Quote:

The word omnipotent has a well-defined meaning, quite literally meaning "able to do anything".

I've always felt the hyperbole is built into this word, since nothing can make a rock so big it can't lift it and still be omnipotent. God is, for all practical intents and purposes, omnipotent. Is he literally? No. But we assume you're smart enough to figure out what we mean.

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

Vanneto
Member #8,643
May 2007

This is all well and fine... Very amusing indeed.

The only thing that keeps me awake at night is that if Christians are wrong (and you are) and there is no afterlife, then the non-believers cant say the mighty "I told you so" or "IN YOUR FACE".

Damn. If there is a God, you win, if there isn't, you wont know. Its win-win for you. >:(

In capitalist America bank robs you.

Tobias Dammers
Member #2,604
August 2002
avatar

The Bible says X about God, so in the context of Christianity X is true.

The key combinations in the game are falsifyable. What the Bible says about God is not. Non-belief in those key combinations can be countered simply by demonstrating that they work. Non-belief in God cannot be countered this way.

---
Me make music: Triofobie
---
"We need Tobias and his awesome trombone, too." - Johan Halmén

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

Vanneto said:

Damn. If there is a God, you win, if there isn't, you wont know. Its win-win for you. >:(

As my mom said, with a knowing nod "You'll find out". Put on ignore.

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

The key combinations in the game are falsifyable. What the Bible says about God is not.

Are you incapable of reading it for some reason? Or are you misunderstanding this entire discussion?

Let's try a similar example. Can you easily verify from The Lord of the Rings that Frodo was the ringbearer? Is this falsifiable?

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

God is, for all practical intents and purposes, omnipotent. Is he literally? No.

But again, I wonder when the word "omnipotent" came into use. I've always assumed it was used to label the concept of a god's "all powerfulness." Does it have context outside of that? If not, then there's really no abuse of the terminology.

Now if the original meaning of omnipotence was that gods could do logically contradictory things, then yes, the modern day meaning has definitely changed.

Omnipotence is better understood by the following questions:

  • Can you create a rock so big that nobody else can lift it? (Yes)


  • Can somebody else create a rock so big that you cannot lift it? (No)

If you want to poke holes at Christianity about this topic, then it's much better to ask questions of the following nature:

"Since God can do anything he wants and he does not want anybody to perish, then why does he allow people to perish?"

Then you'll get into a long, heated debate about how Adam and Eve sinning 6000 years ago is justification for sending somebody who never heard the name of Jesus to hell for eternity.

Now you're debating real topics that hit at the true paradoxes of Christianity.

Evert
Member #794
November 2000
avatar

It seems to mean literally "all powerful" which I think is quite different from "able to do anything."

Able to do anything is literally what it says in my dictionary here. Regardless, omnipotens is from omnia ("all") and potens, which comes from posse "to be able to", either litterally or figuratively ("to be empowered to", "to be capable of"). I suppose one could pick either translation, but there is no difference between those two meanings in the original (I'm not actually sure how they're supposed to be different though).

Quote:

In what context is omnipotence used in the scientific world? I'm pretty sure it stems mostly from a religious context...

Almost (but that doesn't mean you shouldn't specify what it means), but I think it can be used (or was historically used) in the meaning of "having supreme authority", for instance to describe a king or a dictator. You could, of course, apply that meaning directly to God - with the caveat that it will confuse the issue if people interpret it to mean "all powerful".
Perhaps that is the original statement: God as ultimate sovereign, with dominion over all. Perhaps it was intended to be understood in both ways, as a praise (and a pun at the same time).

Is he literally? No. But we assume you're smart enough to figure out what we mean.

I always think Jesus thought the same thing when he told people to not be frightened of God because deep down he loved them as a father... :P

Onewing
Member #6,152
August 2005
avatar

God is in the realm of the unknown, to say with fact that he exists is the same as saying that the Flying Spahghetti Monster exists. But, to say that it is a fact that God does not exist, that is the same as saying all things unknown do not exist. I hope that when people here say "because God doesn't exist" (or, for argument's sake, "Shiva doesn't exist"), what they're implying is that the probability of the higher power's existence is so low it might as well be nil. I just want to clarify, because it does bug me when people say so matter-of-factly that God doesn't exist, kind of how it would bug the non-believers if I ended every post with "May God be with you."

------------
Solo-Games.org | My Tech Blog: The Digital Helm

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

Evert said:

Perhaps that is the original statement: God as ultimate sovereign, with dominion over all.

Maybe. Modern day Christianity definitely has distinct doctrines: God's Sovereignty and God's Omnipotence. There's actually little disagreement on what omnipotence means, but what his sovereignty includes is a widely debated topic.



Go to: