The Trinity

[_JAK]

If you have a point here, it’s invisible.

Nehor states:

The correct response is that omnipotence is able to do anything that is not intrinsically impossible (I.e. that you can make nonsense into sense by adding God to it).

No evidence for God has been established. Hence such claimed God is irrelevant.

Why is something “intrinsically impossible.” That’s your phrase. The statement declares that your God is limited. Just what is your God responsible for?

If your God is all powerful, nothing is “intrinsically impossible.” Further, YOU can, or any God pundit CAN construct the “impossible” and have God do the impossible. Is that a contradiction in terms? Yes. But that’s what the God claim in the word and characterization OMNIPOTENT must mean: God can make a rock bigger than he can throw, AND being omnipotent, God can throw it.

Otherwise, you self-contradict your claim of “omnipotence.”

It’s double talk in which you are engaged, Nehor. It's nonsense.

If nature limits God, then nature is greater than God.

Hence, we should disregard God claims absent any transparent evidence for those claims.

JAK

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi JAK, you said:

If nature limits God, then nature is greater than God. Hence, we should disregard God claims absent any transparent evidence for those claims.

Fun stuff! OTOH, what-if "God" & "Nature" are 'One'? Since/if neither is an entity, is there any distinction without 'substance'? Does it 'matter' ;-) Warm regards, Roger

[_Mercury]

Hi JAK, you said:

If nature limits God, then nature is greater than God. Hence, we should disregard God claims absent any transparent evidence for those claims.

Fun stuff! OTOH, what-if "God" & "Nature" are 'One'? Since/if neither is an entity, is there any distinction without 'substance'? Does it 'matter' ;-) Warm regards, Roger

Given the LDS view of god, how can a human being be nature and god at the same time? In Mormon theology this is inconsistent.

[_JAK]

Hi JAK, you said:

If nature limits God, then nature is greater than God. Hence, we should disregard God claims absent any transparent evidence for those claims.

Fun stuff! OTOH, what-if "God" & "Nature" are 'One'? Since/if neither is an entity, is there any distinction without 'substance'? Does it 'matter' ;-) Warm regards, Roger

It seems as if you are addressing definition for God in the multitude of claims made for the invented entity.

That’s fine. One can do that.

My comment was in the light of the specific comment of Nehor. Those who claim “omnipotence” as a characterization of God entertain an absurdity. It demonstrates the kinds of problems inherent in a fundamentalist/literalist approach to the Bible.

You might enjoy:

Problem of Evil

A Paradox

Redefining Omnipotent
Scroll down for text

Two Questions

JAK

[_JAK]

Given the LDS view of god, how can a human being be nature and god at the same time? In Mormon theology this is inconsistent.

Is there only one LDS view? I’m skeptical, Mercury.

As for Mormon theology, it’s one among many Christian theologies particularly following the Protestant Reformation (1517). Ensuing that historic period, we have seen the rise of contradictory reformationists/reconstructionists.

Protestant Reformation

Reconstructionism

JAK

[_JAK]

How does not doing the intrinsically impossible make God subject to any higher power? Reality doesn't have contradictions within it....it just does what he tells it to do. That someone can play with words and make up insanity is not a strong evidence against (or for) God.

If you limit your God to nature, that entity is not omnipotent. What does omnipotent mean?

If it means all powerful, nothing is beyond doing. Hence, God is an inherent contradiction.

Your assertion “Reality doesn't have contradictions within it...” begs the question: what is reality?.

Once a religious doctrine would have been: Man cannot fly. Or, the cliché: If God had intended man to fly, God would have given him wings.

God notions are irrelevant. Information is relevant.

Once, a religious doctrine would have declared: Man becomes ill because it’s God’s will. That doctrine preceded the information we humans have discovered about germs, viruses, and other genuine causes of illness. God notions have not been established as causal link to illness -- or death for that matter.

God claims are word games. Religious mythologies do not agree on God claims. Since none has been established as reliable, God claims should be disregarded. The claims are irrelevant.

You keep making God claims as if they were reliable. You haven't established that.

JAK

[_rcrocket]

If you limit your God to nature, that entity is not omnipotent. What does omnipotent mean?

If it means all powerful, nothing is beyond doing. Hence, God is an inherent contradiction.

I know that is what Plotinus said, but what scriptural source do you have for the proposition that matters is inherently limited?

rcrocket

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Selah, are you still here or have you given up on this bunch of smart alecks?

I think the real question is whether God actually gives a rip whether we understand his nature or not.

[_Roger Morrison]

Merc, you said:

Given the LDS view of god, how can a human being be nature and god at the same time? In Mormon theology this is inconsistent.

What credibility does 'Mormon theology" have??

Luc Mac, You said something like, "...does "God" care??" To which i answer: "God" could care less what people think of "God"! To not do that "God" would be VERY INFANTILE!!! Aren't we always admonishing our kids, "It doesn't matter what 'people' think/say about You. It's what You think of yourself!!" Maybe we should advise "God" 'case he don't know that, eh?? Warm regards, Roger :-)