Topic: I have a question | |
---|---|
could God microwave a burrito so hot that even he couldn't eat it
|
|
|
|
sure God can do anything
|
|
|
|
lol...he probably doesn't even need the microwave
|
|
|
|
Who?
|
|
|
|
ya ut if he did then he couldnt eat it and then he couldnt do anything and so the whole theory of god is out the window
|
|
|
|
Ummm, I see someone is bored ...But anywho, I think God can do that
|
|
|
|
Nope. Sorry, a Burrito could not physically withstand the heat. God - 0 Burrito - 1 Next. |
|
|
|
sure God can do anything Can he create a rock so big he cannot lift it? |
|
|
|
Nope. Sorry, a Burrito could not physically withstand the heat. God - 0 Burrito - 1 Next. But if god made the burrito to start with, then he could make it fire retardant! |
|
|
|
But if god made the burrito to start with, then he could make it fire retardant! But would it be a burrito then? This is where phiolosophy and reality clash. |
|
|
|
could God microwave a burrito so hot that even he couldn't eat it No, I hear he is off Mexican food. The last time he had it the universe was created. Booooommmmm!!!!! Lord forgive me I could not resist this Line. |
|
|
|
ya ut if he did then he couldnt eat it and then he couldnt do anything and so the whole theory of god is out the window GOD IS EVERYTHING AND EVERYTHING IS GOD.ALL COMES FROM HIM AND ALL RETURNS TO HIM. We are his entertainment by the way. |
|
|
|
This "definition" of "omnipotence" requires that God must be able to fail to be omnipotent. Since an omnipotent being cannot fail, this "definition" makes God an impossiblity. Therefore, the definition is false.
|
|
|
|
This "definition" of "omnipotence" requires that God must be able to fail to be omnipotent. Since an omnipotent being cannot fail, this "definition" makes God an impossiblity. Therefore, the definition is false. I see you're making progress. If you continue to follow that line of reasoning, you quickly see that the biblical doctrine defines God in ways that completely contradict the stories that it tells about the God. Therefore the doctrine is false. For example, the Bible suggests that God is a fatherly figure, but it never behaves in a fatherly way. Therefore the original doctrine must be false. It also suggest that God is wise and all-loving. But then it goes on to tell story after story where God solves problems using unwise, unloving, and violent methods. Therefore the doctrine must be false. It's easy as pie once you get the gist of it. |
|
|
|
This "definition" of "omnipotence" requires that God must be able to fail to be omnipotent. Since an omnipotent being cannot fail, this "definition" makes God an impossiblity. Therefore, the definition is false. I see you're making progress. If you continue to follow that line of reasoning, you quickly see that the biblical doctrine defines God in ways that completely contradict the stories that it tells about the God. Therefore the doctrine is false. For example, the Bible suggests that God is a fatherly figure, but it never behaves in a fatherly way. Therefore the original doctrine must be false. It also suggest that God is wise and all-loving. But then it goes on to tell story after story where God solves problems using unwise, unloving, and violent methods. Therefore the doctrine must be false. It's easy as pie once you get the gist of it. Yes, if I applied faulty logic and false definitions, I would come to the same conclusion as you. But since I use the correct definitions and proper logic, I have come to a different conclusion. |
|
|
|
I doubt they have high power settings on the microwaves up in heaven, so na, god wouldn't need to worry about "lava cheese" which seems to plaque us humans down on earth.
|
|
|
|
Yes, if I applied faulty logic and false definitions, I would come to the same conclusion as you. But since I use the correct definitions and proper logic, I have come to a different conclusion. You're doing just find Spider. Just keep moving forward a little bit at time. You've already discovered that God can't be omnipotent, that's a good start. |
|
|
|
Sure she could, why would she want to when she could nuke up a chuckwagon instead?
|
|
|
|
Yes, if I applied faulty logic and false definitions, I would come to the same conclusion as you. But since I use the correct definitions and proper logic, I have come to a different conclusion. You're doing just find Spider. Just keep moving forward a little bit at time. You've already discovered that God can't be omnipotent, that's a good start. By your silly definition, God couldn't be omnipotent. By your definitions, your god couldn't exist at all. But Christians and Jews have a God who does exist and isn't made up with a foundation of shifting sand. |
|
|
|
Yes, if I applied faulty logic and false definitions, I would come to the same conclusion as you. But since I use the correct definitions and proper logic, I have come to a different conclusion. You're doing just find Spider. Just keep moving forward a little bit at time. You've already discovered that God can't be omnipotent, that's a good start. By your silly definition, God couldn't be omnipotent. By your definitions, your god couldn't exist at all. But Christians and Jews have a God who does exist and isn't made up with a foundation of shifting sand. Dont forget the Muslims - they have a god that exists too. oh, and the Shintoists and the Buddhists and not forgetting Zoroastrians believe in one God too ... |
|
|