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".

Reply 29

lou p lou

OP

2

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

Reply 30

pedy1986

13

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 :tongue:

Reply 31

Adhsur

15

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 :tongue:

I don't like that argument. It's ridiculous.

Reply 32

pedy1986

13

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 :tongue:

)

Reply 33

Adhsur

15

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 :tongue:

)

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.

Reply 34

lou p lou

OP

2

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 :tongue:

)

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

Reply 35

Camford

12

Adhsur

I don't like that argument. It's ridiculous.

That's philosophy for you.

Reply 36

lou p lou

OP

2

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

Reply 37

pedy1986

13

Philosophy isn't ridicioulous! :tongue:

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 :smile:

Reply 38

lou p lou

OP

2

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 :smile:

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

Reply 39

Adhsur

15

corey

Philosophy isn't ridicioulous! :tongue:

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 :smile:

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. :smile:

religious puzzle...

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you