Originally Posted by
Ethereal
Guess it's my turn to say: Umad?
YUP. HE MAD
Don't sweat it fella,
I know you worked hard at presenting your recycled theory here.
I've already contributed plenty to this thread,
and if that was not the case, then why lower yourself to argue with a God fearing, God loving cretin like myself?
So far you've compared my intellect to that of a kindergartner,
yet you continue to reply to my posts.
Not saying too much about yourself my friend, now is it?
Well, this is going to be my final post in this thread.
I will respect your wishes and depart,
since it seems it doesn't matter what I post,
You sir, will just deem it nonsense.
Logic can only disprove theistic proofs. Disproving theistic proofs does not mean there is no God. It only means that the proofs thus presented are insufficient. Anytime I speak of God, I speak of God in the Bible.
In the Bible, God the father is the creator.(clearing up the earlier confusion)
Anyway,
Logic can only disprove theistic proofs that are presented and negating such proofs is not a refutation of all possible proofs since no one can know or present all possible proofs of God's existence. Therefore, negation of proofs does not disprove God's existence.
The omnipotence argument:
Human languages do not contain words that correctly describe this supernatural characteristic of God.
This makes complete sense according to the characteristics of God in the scripture.
We are dealing with a logical paradox here..plain and simple.
It falls into the same category as; an irresistible force meeting an immovable object. If a force is truly irresistible, it can move any object. Conversely, if an object is truly immovable, it can resist any force.
Arguments like these don't really disprove God being all powerful..
They prove that Man has an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of this aspect of God's nature. They simply prove what everyone already knows - that human language is not perfect and is not capable of fully describing God's divine nature.
Here is a perfect example of this, and we were just discussing this in my Theology class about 3 weeks ago.
Isaiah 40:22
"It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in."
The word translated “circle” here is the Hebrew word chuwg which is also translated “circuit,” or “compass” (depending on the context). That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded, or arched—not something that is flat or square.
At this time, there was no word for sphere in Hebrew,
So as you see, the scribe that wrote for Isaiah had to use what was familiar to them to best describe God's message given to the prophet.
Interesting side fact here:
The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 BC. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested that the earth might be a sphere in this book On the Heavens. (just sayin)
So are you getting my point here..?
I started with it , and I will end with it.
The prophets did their best with the language they spoke,
to best convey God's message.
Whether it was perfect or not has been a subject of skepticism for many, many years. That is all.