 PringleMan
Female, 13-17, Canada
 1364 Posts
|
Saturday, October 30, 2010 8:24:18 PM
what are you doing discussing god!? look at her boobs! she has boobs! moving boobs! don't bring all of the problems of god and religion here, you won't get any of the answers you want any way. |
|
 meepmaker
Male, 30-39, Southern US
6716 Posts
|
Tuesday, October 19, 2010 1:00:07 PM
It moved. |
|
 ROK9
Male, 18-29, Western US
1838 Posts
|
Sunday, October 10, 2010 6:28:28 PM
yes please |
|
 Bacir
Male, 18-29, Western US
13 Posts
|
Thursday, October 07, 2010 5:47:25 PM
And either way, it is impossible for god to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, as is so commonly preached. It boils down to the problem of evil.
If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then how is there evil in the world? |
|
Bacir
Male, 18-29, Western US
13 Posts
|
Thursday, October 07, 2010 5:39:52 PM
I could be wrong here, but isn't it some sort of blasphemy to claim to know the nature of god? |
|
 chesspoly
Male, 18-29, Western US
10 Posts
|
Thursday, October 07, 2010 12:38:43 PM
omnipotence doesn't necessarily entail being able to do everything. there are lots of things God can't do and still be omnipotent. God can't sin. God cannot cease to exist. God cannot be imperfect. Basically, God cannot do anything contrary to his nature. You would expect something like God to be consistent in this manner. So when you say if God can create an immovable object, it's an incoherent objection. Its saying well a perfect being could be not perfect. it just doesn't make any sense to say something like that. so its not a refutation of any kind.
but i don't see how you could say there is no God when there are jugs like that. If there is no God, then there is no beauty. But these are amazing. therefore, God exists. |
|
 fivezones
Male, 40-49, Western US
1028 Posts
|
Wednesday, October 06, 2010 9:30:44 PM
Somehow I think she should be stiring chocolate milk |
|
 Northernwolf
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
305 Posts
|
Wednesday, October 06, 2010 8:48:06 PM
@SarahColleen THE POWER OF TITS COMPELS YOU!
|
|
Armond
Male, 18-29, Western US
50 Posts
|
Wednesday, October 06, 2010 8:04:00 PM
@Disco, Konoer, if a being is omnipotent, he should be able to do anything, right? Shouldn't that also include being able to create anything? (There's even biblical precedent for that - god apparently created a ton of water and flooded the world.) An immovable object should then fall under the category of "things" and thus "things an omnipotent being could create". But an omnipotent being should be able to move any object. Thus the flaw of omnipotence, and why I believe it doesn't exist. |
|
 SarahColleen
Female, 18-29, Western US
1225 Posts
|
Wednesday, October 06, 2010 7:48:31 PM
I think I just became a lesbian... those things are...mesmerizing... look at them go. I'm hypnotized.. |
|
 Koner_Rox
Male, 18-29, Western US
111 Posts
|
Wednesday, October 06, 2010 6:58:48 PM
@Armond
Facepalm |
|
 flyingpie
Male, 13-17, Eastern US
471 Posts
|
Wednesday, October 06, 2010 5:33:50 PM
well said northernwolf |
|
 collegebound
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
3480 Posts
|
Wednesday, October 06, 2010 4:59:18 PM
ITS A TRAP!!!! |
|
 Discobiscuit
Male, 18-29, Western US
543 Posts
|
Wednesday, October 06, 2010 3:57:09 PM
Armond, you just went full retard. |
|
Armond
Male, 18-29, Western US
50 Posts
|
Wednesday, October 06, 2010 1:56:50 PM
"By definition, God is omnipotent. There is nothing he cannot do."
Can an unstoppable force make an unmovable object? |
|
 almightybob1
Male, 18-29, Europe
4278 Posts
|
Wednesday, October 06, 2010 1:39:24 PM
@BigMordecai
Your proof (although I wouldn't call anything either of us has said proofs, they only exist in maths) relies on your assertion that it is impossible to convey meaning through human language for every situation. You do not demonstrate that this is the case.
You also fail to demonstrate that an incomplete language would inevitably result in directly contradicting answers to the same question.
Further, your assertion that God could not do something (here, accurately convey his moral code) is nonsensical. By definition, God is omnipotent. There is nothing he cannot do. Language would be no impediment to an omnipotent being. Hell, he could just hardwire the moral code into our brains.
So no, the argument is not moot. Your fundamental assumptions are flawed. |
|
Northernwolf
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
305 Posts
|
Wednesday, October 06, 2010 12:51:24 PM
JUST LOOK AT THE BOOBS YOU TWITS! |
|
 mithraela
Female, 18-29, Western US
536 Posts
|
Wednesday, October 06, 2010 12:46:30 PM
It wouldn't jerk like that if the person who made it pasted the reverse of this to the end of it. |
|
 BrimstoneOne
Male, 30-39, Canada
2232 Posts
|
Wednesday, October 06, 2010 12:44:14 PM
That is a really nice wiggle shes got |
|
 britt566
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
2313 Posts
|
Wednesday, October 06, 2010 12:42:28 PM
"GOD is REAL!"
"I DISAGREE!"
There now STOP and agree to disagree. |
|
 Solvent
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
2709 Posts
|
Wednesday, October 06, 2010 12:41:02 PM
It truly is sad how some people would rather argue about religion instead of looking at boobies. |
|
britt566
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
2313 Posts
|
Wednesday, October 06, 2010 12:39:40 PM
booooooobies |
|
BigMordecai
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
94 Posts
|
Wednesday, October 06, 2010 12:03:16 PM
@almightybob
I gave a proof showing your point is moot and simultaneously everyone who argues with you.
You are using a proof by contradiction (though it is not very rigorous), assuming that a correct religion is defined by an ultimate morality which is consistent. I defined it following some arguments of everyone's and a very very general definition for rigor. Every situation/question possible has a right or wrong answer. What I forgot to write was that there is more than one answer or possible action, ie morality does not give the trivial answer set only of having no permutations. Your proof of contradiction by having two inconsistent -written- or communicated statements is moot by the fact that my proof shows that any lingual expression of an ultimate morality as defined using fundamental assumptions, must have a lingual contradiction so your point carries no meaning. |
|
shpook
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
67 Posts
|
Wednesday, October 06, 2010 11:41:06 AM
LOL, this post is about TATAs, not religion. I don't give a damn if she was Buddhist, those are some bouncy TATAs. |
|
lazerdude
Male, 13-17, Europe
222 Posts
|
Wednesday, October 06, 2010 11:27:08 AM
Theres probably some 82 year old man having a good time watching that. Nah wait, he likes little childen doesnt he. |
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}