If...

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Dusty
If god made a boulder so heavy, that he himself could not lift it...

Would it be contradictory to his power?

Naz
...but God can lift everything.

Black Dalek
Dusty..Dusty..Dusty..The REAL question should be..

If god made a breast so heavy, that he himself could not lift it...

Would it be contradictory to his power?

dave_kodak
maybe....

but i say it simply means he needs to put down the xbox and work out

Barker
Originally posted by Naz
...but God can lift everything.

Dusty
Originally posted by Black Dalek
Dusty..Dusty..Dusty..The REAL question should be..

If god made a breast so heavy, that he himself could not lift it...

Would it be contradictory to his power?

Hmm..

Chicken breast?

Dusty
Originally posted by Naz
...but God can lift everything.

Your mom is so fat, not even God can lift her spirits!

Naz
Originally posted by Dusty
Your mom is so fat, not even God can lift her spirits!

I lol'd.

Black Dalek
Originally posted by Dusty
Hmm..

Chicken breast?

No, a woman's breast. Be a chicken breast then, its evidence God is black.

Barker
Originally posted by Dusty
Your mom is so fat, not even God can lift her spirits!
But spirits don't have weight.

But if I'm wrong, then they don't exist. herbnone

Dusty
Originally posted by Barker
But spirits don't have weight.

How do you know?

Röland
Originally posted by Dusty
How do you know?

Don't question Barker he has his own logic that is always right...somehow.....

Barker
Originally posted by Dusty
How do you know?
tohsrug

AOR
Thomas Aquinas acknowledged difficulty in comprehending God's power. Aquinas wrote that while "all confess that God is omnipotent...it seems difficult to explain in what God's omnipotence precisely consists." In the scholastic understanding, omnipotence is generally understood to be compatible with certain limitations upon God's power, as opposed to implying infinite abilities. There are certain things that even an omnipotent God cannot do. Medieval theologians drew attention to some fairly trivial examples of restrictions upon the power of God. The statement "God can do anything" is only sensible with an assumed suppressed clause, "that implies the perfection of true power." This standard scholastic answer allows that creaturely acts such as walking can be performed by humans but not by God. Rather than an advantage in power, human acts such as walking, sitting or giving birth were possible only because of a defect in human power. The ability to sin, for example, is not a power but a defect or an infirmity. In response to questions of God performing impossibilities (such as making square circles) Aquinas says that "Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God."

Or in this case contradictory to his power...

Grimm22
Jesus is a ninja no expression

The Power of God + the skills of a ninja = Nothing is impossible

AOR
Originally posted by Grimm22
Jesus is a ninja no expression

The Power of God + the skills of a ninja = Nothing is impossible

I got my money on the Thing winning

Black Dalek
Originally posted by AOR
Thomas Aquinas acknowledged difficulty in comprehending God's power. Aquinas wrote that while "all confess that God is omnipotent...it seems difficult to explain in what God's omnipotence precisely consists." In the scholastic understanding, omnipotence is generally understood to be compatible with certain limitations upon God's power, as opposed to implying infinite abilities. There are certain things that even an omnipotent God cannot do. Medieval theologians drew attention to some fairly trivial examples of restrictions upon the power of God. The statement "God can do anything" is only sensible with an assumed suppressed clause, "that implies the perfection of true power." This standard scholastic answer allows that creaturely acts such as walking can be performed by humans but not by God. Rather than an advantage in power, human acts such as walking, sitting or giving birth were possible only because of a defect in human power. The ability to sin, for example, is not a power but a defect or an infirmity. In response to questions of God performing impossibilities (such as making square circles) Aquinas says that "Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God."

Or in this case contradictory to his power...

You should be arrested.

AOR
Originally posted by Black Dalek
You should be arrested.

Why, because none of you have an intellectual refute to the statement?




Or because I took it from wikipedia ninja

Dusty
Originally posted by AOR
Thomas Aquinas acknowledged difficulty in comprehending God's power. Aquinas wrote that while "all confess that God is omnipotent...it seems difficult to explain in what God's omnipotence precisely consists." In the scholastic understanding, omnipotence is generally understood to be compatible with certain limitations upon God's power, as opposed to implying infinite abilities. There are certain things that even an omnipotent God cannot do. Medieval theologians drew attention to some fairly trivial examples of restrictions upon the power of God. The statement "God can do anything" is only sensible with an assumed suppressed clause, "that implies the perfection of true power." This standard scholastic answer allows that creaturely acts such as walking can be performed by humans but not by God. Rather than an advantage in power, human acts such as walking, sitting or giving birth were possible only because of a defect in human power. The ability to sin, for example, is not a power but a defect or an infirmity. In response to questions of God performing impossibilities (such as making square circles) Aquinas says that "Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God."

Or in this case contradictory to his power...

I don't think it would be contradictory to God's power.

God would go over to Elvis, or James Brown or something and say, "Hey, dude. You see that boulder? I made that shit. I can't even lift that thing. That's just how beast I am".

And James brown would be all like, "You're a beast.."

Barker
Originally posted by AOR
Thomas Aquinas acknowledged difficulty in comprehending God's power. Aquinas wrote that while "all confess that God is omnipotent...it seems difficult to explain in what God's omnipotence precisely consists." In the scholastic understanding, omnipotence is generally understood to be compatible with certain limitations upon God's power, as opposed to implying infinite abilities. There are certain things that even an omnipotent God cannot do. Medieval theologians drew attention to some fairly trivial examples of restrictions upon the power of God. The statement "God can do anything" is only sensible with an assumed suppressed clause, "that implies the perfection of true power." This standard scholastic answer allows that creaturely acts such as walking can be performed by humans but not by God. Rather than an advantage in power, human acts such as walking, sitting or giving birth were possible only because of a defect in human power. The ability to sin, for example, is not a power but a defect or an infirmity. In response to questions of God performing impossibilities (such as making square circles) Aquinas says that "Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God."

Or in this case contradictory to his power...
Theologians and philosophers have ascribed a number of attributes to God, including omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. He has been described as incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the greatest conceivable existent. These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars, including St Augustine, Al-Ghazali, and Maimonides.

Many medieval philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God, while attempting to comprehend the precise implications of God's attributes. Reconciling some of those attributes generated important philosophical problems and debates. For example, God's omniscience implies that God knows how free agents will choose to act. If God does know this, their apparent free will might be illusory, or foreknowledge does not imply predestination; and if God does not know it, God is not omniscient.

The last few hundred years of philosophy have seen sustained attacks on the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments for God's existence. Against these, theists (or fideists) argue that faith is not a product of reason, but requires risk. There would be no risk, they say, if the arguments for God's existence were as solid as the laws of logic, a position famously summed up by Pascal as: "The heart has reasons which reason knows not of."

Theologians attempt to explicate (and in some cases systematize) beliefs; some express their own experience of the divine. Theologians ask questions such as, "What is the nature of God?" "What does it mean for God to be singular?" "If people believe in God as a duality or trinity, what do these terms signify?" "Is God transcendent, immanent, or some mix of the two?" "What is the relationship between God and the universe, and God and humankind?"

Owned. herbnone

AOR
Originally posted by Barker
Theologians and philosophers have ascribed a number of attributes to God, including omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. He has been described as incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the greatest conceivable existent. These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars, including St Augustine, Al-Ghazali, and Maimonides.

Many medieval philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God, while attempting to comprehend the precise implications of God's attributes. Reconciling some of those attributes generated important philosophical problems and debates. For example, God's omniscience implies that God knows how free agents will choose to act. If God does know this, their apparent free will might be illusory, or foreknowledge does not imply predestination; and if God does not know it, God is not omniscient.

The last few hundred years of philosophy have seen sustained attacks on the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments for God's existence. Against these, theists (or fideists) argue that faith is not a product of reason, but requires risk. There would be no risk, they say, if the arguments for God's existence were as solid as the laws of logic, a position famously summed up by Pascal as: "The heart has reasons which reason knows not of."

Theologians attempt to explicate (and in some cases systematize) beliefs; some express their own experience of the divine. Theologians ask questions such as, "What is the nature of God?" "What does it mean for God to be singular?" "If people believe in God as a duality or trinity, what do these terms signify?" "Is God transcendent, immanent, or some mix of the two?" "What is the relationship between God and the universe, and God and humankind?"

Owned. herbnone

Negative theology - also known as the Via Negativa (Latin for "Negative Way"wink and Apophatic theology - is a theology that attempts to describe God by negation, to speak of God only in terms of what may not be said about God.

In brief, the attempt is to gain and express knowledge of God by describing what God is not (apophasis), rather than by describing what God is. The apophatic tradition is often allied with or expressed in tandem with the approach of mysticism, which focuses on a spontaneous or cultivated individual experience of the divine reality beyond the realm of ordinary perception, an experience often unmediated by the structures of traditional organized religion.

In negative theology, it is recognized that we can never truly define God in words. All that can be done is to say, it isn't this, but also, it isn't that either. In the end, the student must transcend words to understand the nature of the Divine. In this sense, negative theology is not a denial. Rather, it is an assertion that whatever the Divine may be, when we attempt to capture it in human words, we must inevitably fall short

herbhmh

Dusty

JacopeX
Originally posted by Dusty
If god made a boulder so heavy, that he himself could not lift it...

Would it be contradictory to his power? = Impossible question.

Barker

((The_Anomaly))
Originally posted by Grimm22
Jesus is a ninja no expression

The Power of God + the skills of a ninja = Nothing is impossible

laughing

Strangelove
Originally posted by Dusty
If god made a boulder so heavy, that he himself could not lift it...

Would it be contradictory to his power? Since God isn't a corporeal being or even gives a rip about this island Earth, it don't matter none.

Storm
Please use the following link: Could god challenge himself?

Thank you.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.