Turn on thread page Beta

religious puzzle... watch

Announcements
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    Yes, we all understand the ramifications of the question itself - we're not stupid. It's the answer we're trying to work out.
    His answer is there in the last bit.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    His answer is there in the last bit.
    adshur have a look in your inbox honey.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BIG_MASKALL)
    adshur have a look in your inbox honey.
    I hate to think what you've left there.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BIG_MASKALL)
    adshur have a look in your inbox honey.
    I have.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    I hate to think what you've left there.
    It certainly isn't surprising what he wrote, considering it's maskall.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    *sigh*, do you even bother to read what people say?, your so remarkably blunt, maybe you should learn some social skills
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    It certainly isn't surprising what he wrote, considering it's maskall.
    Touche. And congrats on your 2500th post a while back, by the way.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    Touche. And congrats on your 2500th post a while back, by the way.
    Thank you
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lou p lou)
    lol, i'm not missing your point... (this was my point for starting the thread). i was just curious if anyone could expalin it in anyway without coming to the conclusion that god is not omnipotent.

    lou xxx
    To the best of my knowledge, God probably doesn't have any form. That's probably why we, the mortals, can't see God. And this may be the explaination to why the high priests couple of hundreds years claimed that they have seen God, too. Basically because those priest were immortal, at least they thought they were anyway. I'm an atheist. So I don't really care whether God can or can't.

    If you want to find out a perfect answer, go down to your local church and ask the priest/father there. I'm sure you will get a satisfactory answer.

    Oh, and, you are not the first one to ask this question. Therefore, there must be something somewhere that will keep your God "Omnipotent".
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Camford)
    Oh, and, you are not the first one to ask this question. Therefore, there must be something somewhere that will keep your God "Omnipotent".
    hmmmm, that's what i reckoned. someone asked me this today + i figured someone must have come up with some kind of explanation....

    lou xxx
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    well lou lou, i've just dragged my notes I had on it out and aside the the previous argument Swinbourne argued that;

    omnipotence is God's power and by creating the stone he cannot lift will remove the power of omnipotence, however it does not follow that he will.

    Fact that God can abandon his omnipotence does not entail he will those were his words...

    I find that the least plausable argument ever but a proposed solution
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    well lou lou, i've just dragged my notes I had on it out and aside the the previous argument Swinbourne argued that;

    omnipotence is God's power and by creating the stone he cannot lift will remove the power of omnipotence, however it does not follow that he will.

    Fact that God can abandon his omnipotence does not entail he will those were his words...

    I find that the least plausable argument ever but a proposed solution
    I don't like that argument. It's ridiculous.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah I know, but most of swinbourne's arguements are, typical modern philosopher!

    The more I read of him, the more i detest him (though i'm sure he loves me )
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    Yeah I know, but most of swinbourne's arguements are, typical modern philosopher!

    The more I read of him, the more i detest him (though i'm sure he loves me )
    Some of his stuff is good - in fact I quoted him in my exam. Have you got those books by Peter Cole? They're exceptionally good for the syllabuses.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    Yeah I know, but most of swinbourne's arguements are, typical modern philosopher!

    The more I read of him, the more i detest him (though i'm sure he loves me )
    isn't he a d***? isn't he the stupid one who came up with the principles of credulity and testimony? stupid stupid man...

    lou xxx
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    I don't like that argument. It's ridiculous.
    That's philosophy for you.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    Some of his stuff is good - in fact I quoted him in my exam. Have you got those books by Peter Cole? They're exceptionally good for the syllabuses.
    i got those books- at the mo i'm using philosophy of religion. you mean the lickle grey ones don't you? they are pretty good.

    lou xxx
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Philosophy isn't ridicioulous!

    hmm... I havent got those books, I only have Brian Davies book on philosophy of religion, which I have found quite helpful. What are the Peter Cole books - worth a buy, what are there titles?

    Not really sure if he came up with them... but if there stupid he might of! Then again, he his arguments didn't make me laugh as much (internally of course!) as pascal
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    Not really sure if he came up with them... but if there stupid he might of! Then again, he his arguments didn't make me laugh as much (internally of course!) as pascal
    i remembered that they are definately his- the principle of credulity is that the what appears to have happened is likely to have. the principle of testimony is that if someone says something it probably happened.

    who cares...?

    lou xxx
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    Philosophy isn't ridicioulous!

    hmm... I havent got those books, I only have Brian Davies book on philosophy of religion, which I have found quite helpful. What are the Peter Cole books - worth a buy, what are there titles?

    Not really sure if he came up with them... but if there stupid he might of! Then again, he his arguments didn't make me laugh as much (internally of course!) as pascal
    They are in a series called "Access to Philosophy"...very concise with lots of clear explanations and a lot on what various philosophers say about different topics etc - there's a theory of knowledge one and a philosophy of religion one that I used for AS. Search on Amazon.
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.