A philosophical debate with a Christian

[warpus]

No. If a being were truly omnipotent, he can do anything. Logical fallacies make the Christian god look bad, so now I've seen Christians have softened their stand from one of absolute omnipotence to logically bound omnipotence, but that's nonsense - the infinite is not bound.

Ok, so explain how a being with 7 legs can have an even number of legs

 

[Zarn]

Why talk to lunatic heretics? The same thing always comes out.

 

[GenMarshall]

Why talk to lunatic heretics? The same thing always comes out.

You can say that again. The only ones that I would debate with are ones whom respect other people's faiths, not criticize them or ignore what the other person is saying.

 

[Mise]

Omnipotence doesn't mean that you can do things that are logically impossible..

Exactly... Just cos you can express it in words doesn't mean it's possible, and just because you can't express it in words doesn't mean it's impossible. Frankly, all this talk of "omnipotence" is bullfeathers; a strawman. There are far better reasons to disbelieve in God than that, and insisting on some absurd definition of "omnipotent" only serves to obfuscate those reasons in illogical nonsense.

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

Exactly... Just cos you can express it in words doesn't mean it's possible, and just because you can't express it in words doesn't mean it's impossible. Frankly, all this talk of "omnipotence" is bullfeathers; a strawman. There are far better reasons to disbelieve in God than that, and insisting on some absurd definition of "omnipotent" only serves to obfuscate those reasons in illogical nonsense.

Yup, logic.

 

[Bill3000]

Yup, logic.

Yes, but the arguments for and against God are far, far more complex than what the average person might care to think about.

 

[punkbass2000]

No. If a being were truly omnipotent, he can do anything. Logical fallacies make the Christian god look bad, so now I've seen Christians have softened their stand from one of absolute omnipotence to logically bound omnipotence, but that's nonsense - the infinite is not bound.

The subtle point here, I think, is that at this stage you throw rational discourse out the window. If what you say is true, then God can even do gibberish. To ask rhetorically if God can create a stone he cannot lift is to ask if God can "ndoiucnwpjhiaib ]os'onf'j'nn ooijnl".

 

[Lotus49]

On another forum (an Orkut community), I came across this Christian who was spoiling for a fight. He challenged anyone to debate him. Sucker as I am for these sort of debates, I took it up.

What I found particularly interesting was that he had concisely presented the most important Christian doctrines, which made my job (of refutation) all the easier. The whole thing was so well-presented that I thought it a great opportunity to post it to CFC, and to open a similar debate here. Note that I want this debate to be philosophical, so I expect at least a minimum level of understanding of the issues involved.

Here I will reproduce the first round of that conversation (he first tries to address the problem of evil) (the bits in quotes are his, the normal text is my reply):



What do CFCs resident Christians think of this? I would like to engage in further debate if someone else would.

I have a simple answer for you. It's written on both the Old and New Testaments in the Bible, that God permits his people (including Jesus Himself when he was among us) to be tested by evil.

I believe the test(s) were meant to be passed, bringing greater glory to the Lord, and His creations. But, God gave us free will, and thus the ability to fail the tests... from the beginning, and the track record has continued along that pattern.

Evil exists for the purpose of testing. Testing to see whether or not we are ready for greater responsibilities, and greater power. If you fail at this level, then you are not ready.

Evil exists / is tolerated for a limited time (in the grand scheme), for this purpose. Think of it as: quality control. And obviously it (the test) is necessary, because few pass with flying colors.

It's a shame that it requires screwing up, and learning from mistakes - in order to 'build character'. But, in my observation, that is exactly how we function, in this Creation.

 

[scipian]

I don't have time to read the entire debate (I'll do it tomorrow after school) but I did find one glaring mistake on your part. Yes, God could make a universe which was completely perfect in which we would never rebel. However, he gives us a certain amount of free-will and he wants us to have a choice between his side and the side of evil. He would not have true followers if we automatically and irreversibly were forced to love him. If that were true, he could just as easily have robots as living breathing human beings. Having a choice and choosing him shows that we want him. It has to be a choice between God and his main "adversary", the devil.

 

[aelf]

The subtle point here, I think, is that at this stage you throw rational discourse out the window. If what you say is true, then God can even do gibberish. To ask rhetorically if God can create a stone he cannot lift is to ask if God can "ndoiucnwpjhiaib ]os'onf'j'nn ooijnl".

Very good point. Why can't people just accept the fact that no one can win such a debate?

Anyway, there's a clear flaw in the OP's logic. You say that God is omnipotent and therefore he should be able to create conditions where good can exist without evil and coexist perfectly with free will. But later you go on to say that God cannot be ethereal and material at the same time because these two conditions have conflicting properties. Erm.

Well, my interpretation is this: God is omnipotent. But in the beginning, he had decided that logic and the laws of universe would be a certain way, and thereafter he is unwilling to break them himself. He did cheat once in a while, but he didn't change anything in any fundamental way. And I don't think God is all good. He must be somewhat like us, or else he couldn't have based our characteristics on himself (assuming you accept that we are created in the image of God). I don't think he is omniscient either. He knows everything in the present and in the past, but I don't think he can tell the future as far as human fate is concerned. He can probably see all the possibilities, but ultimately we have to be able to decide our own fate if we are to have any free will.

But that's just my take. I guess that's what religion has to be at the end of the day - a matter of personal faith. As long as it does not wrong other people.

 

[Smidlee]

This is one of those if God is omnipotent then can He ...... that He can't.......? which is nothing but conflict of man-made definitions.

 

[Quasar1011]

No. If a being were truly omnipotent, he can do anything.

That's neither correct, nor logical. A better definition of omnipotence, would be a being with all power and the ability to do anything it wants to do. If a being had all power, who could force it to do something it didn't want to do?

God is omnipotent. But there are certains things He cannot do. Here's one:

Hebrews 6:18
God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged.

Why is it impossible for God to lie? He doesn't want to! God is holy and perfect, and full of truth. Lying is simply not in His character.