There is no Omnipotence Paradox

No, YOU are not paying attention.

Your version of god is an idle superstition for which there is no evidence. There is therefore no difference between your appeal to some imaginary superpower and that of any other magical belief.

Pure unadulterated double talk.

The only logic that exists is the "worlds logic and reason." You abandon it when you assert that there is different "logic" in "the kingdom of God."

That different "logic" is magic. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

 

Ah yes.... existence ... the one absolute in order for science to give serious consideration. Therefore, they are outside of 'existence' (outside of nature) (outside of what is natural) therefore they are supernatural.... therefore they are created through occult measures.

Now science is left with no excuse. Considering that science can now cause to manifest that which is not 'natural' or "do not normally exist", then it becomes imperative that science focus on the subject of God and let science prove that which does not 'exist' (according to all you non-theists). So get at it all you scientists... fulfill your obligations to mankind.

 

Nothing in that paragraph makes sense. Things either exist or they do not. Things that can exist do not have to exist all the time.

Nothing supernatural required.

 

Hang tight, tiger. Although you attempt to make your arguments seem like they are logical, there is no logic to them at all.

In your first sentence, you said, in effect, that this "element" was supernatural. That isn't true. The particles from which the atom are constructed are quite natural. Lots of things don't normally exist in nature but humans make them - automobiles, breakfast cereal, the list goes on. This element isn't any different. Where the allusion to the occult comes is nowhere supported in what you say. That is an emotional statement, not a logical one.

In the second sentence you ask someone else to prove the existence of something you believe exists. Those people accept the existence of something when there is evidence for its existence. There is no such thing as evidence of something that does not exist. In other words, it is up to you to produce the evidence, not someone else. Someone else doesn't share your belief. If it exists, then produce the evidence. It can't go the other way around.

 

You believe in the Christian God, who has the attribute of omniscience, and therefore, free will cannot exist. I do not believe in either God or omniscience, therefore free will exists and I can safely assert "of course".

This may be a bit misleading. As far as God is concerned, no one can prove anything. However, in regard to omniscience, it is mutually exclusive from free will. This isn't about "belief" - they both cannot exist. It is pure logical deduction.

 

What is supernatural is the fact that, as you said, "They simply do not normally exist." If they did "normally exist", then there would have been no need for the scientists playing around in that occult cesspool in order to cause them to exist. And further, like you said above, "Things either exist or they do not."


Your final statement above is the inclusion of the potential existence of God. Just because science has not learned the rules of the spiritual realm, does not mean that those rules are not applicable.... even in the real world.

BTW: Nothing in your statements make any sense either, as you are contradicting yourself with statements like "They simply do not normally exist.", and ""Things either exist or they do not.", and "Things that can exist do not have to exist all the time." "..can exist.." is a futuristic indicator and is based on a set of probabilities... NUMEROLOGY.

 

duplicate post.

 

Oh I agree with you one hundred percent. They are not supernatural in their component parts. Yet at the same time, scientists lay claim to having 'created a new element'. Elements are in themselves basic components in nature. If they are modified, then they are not a 'creation' but a modification of that which already was existing. So if you want to slam me for making a conclusion based on their LIE, then go ahead, but also let it be known about how those scientists are telling a lie.

Now let us jump head long into all the various studies of philosophy and make a full fledged determination of what does it mean to "exist". Laying aside the man-made definitions of the word 'exist' and view it solely from the philosophical points of view. When and where does 'existence' become recognizable? Pay particular attention to the use of the word "recognizable" from the root word "recognize" from the "Latin recognoscere to know again, from re- + cognoscere to know, ascertain". Learn your words dear friend... they are a powerful tool and do aid in comprehension of what is being stated.

If you do not recognize God, then it is because you never knew God in the first place.

 

I think that your life is predetermined from a purely natural and psychological standpoint. What makes your claim more valid than mine ? It doesn't matter if there is a deity backing up predetermination.

I understand this.

 

Insert "Duh" here.... except of course for the idiotic insertion of the word "occult."

Science has no good reason to suspect that such rules even exist. certainly, there is no evidence for them. As LaPlace told Napoleon. "Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là."

These are not difficult concepts. I cannot account for the intellectual deficit that prevents you from understanding them. There are certainly no contradictions.

"Can exist" is not a futuristic indicator at all. It merely characterizes some things in contrast to other things that "can't exist.'

 

Hey, you are the one who introduced the usage of the word "occult" in this thread. So, if you insist on it being 'idiotic' then I will not argue with you when you are discrediting your own sensibility.

Science has no 'good reason' (other than funding) for a lot of the things that it undertakes, but the scientists still get involved. As for what LaPlace told Napoleon... well, it is probably a good thing that Napoleon understood the language, else Napoleon might have thought the guy was cursing him. BTW: This is an English speaking forum. If you are going to use foreign languages, then you also need to provide translations. Else your post can be considered trolling, flame baiting, spamming, or a number of other things. For all I know, you could be advertising some product.

Should I have thought that you would have provided any other response? Re-Claiming the same thing does not offer any support for the claim.

And when something does not exist and there is a possibility of it existing, then it cannot exist in the present or it would be referred to as "existing", NOT "can exist". 'Can exist' is a probability of some future event. Learn the English language. See definition of "can"

 

Yes I did. And to this point I am still the only one using it honestly and correctly.

Use babelfish if you are concerned about illicit commerce.

Of course not. Why would I have provided any other response than the appropriate one?

That was a tautology.

Or past event, or present event. It is entirely time independent.

And the irony meters explode all across the eastern seaboard.

 

Not hardly. I previously asked you to provide a showing of what you meant by that term, and all you have provided are ambiguous statements that are irrelevant opinions.

My real concern is your use of the English language,,,, not so much about the commercial aspect of it. Though you should be concerned about the commercial applications of written words. They can create a tortuous condition. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/tortuous

Concealment.

No! That is reality.

 

Pay attention please. Magic is an illusion. It is performed as an illusion by the one doing it. The one who is doing it knows it is an illusion. The Christian believes because the Spirit of God has opened his eyes to that belief. He knows because the Spirit of God has born him again. The Christian is not putting forth an illusion or trickery. He knows God, and knows what he presents is real. It is Supernatural. Spirit. Real.

Sorry, your logic and reason only exist in this world. But the Christian exercises logic and reason in regards to spritual things, things of God. Actually, your logic and reason which is of this world, is foolishness to God. And, foolishness to Christians. Nothing more or less than foolishness.

Quantrill

 

Good post Dude. Truly... they have no RE-COGNITION of God.

 

It seems I was misunderstanding you then. What leads you to believe that things are predetermined based on nature and psychology?

 

Amen to that brother.

Quantrill