View Single Post
Old 10-02-2006, 12:37 PM   #34
Canuckfish
Canuckfish's Avatar
USER INFO »
Status: Illusion
Posts: 17
Joined: Sep 2006
Currently: Offline
Re: I found this interesting.

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS) As far as I've always heard, God is besides omniscient also omnipotent, which means he can do anything, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Omnipotent does not mean the ability to do anything. If I were omnipotent, I could walk through walls, I could not, however, both walk through a wall, and not walk through a wall at the same time.

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)
I don't get it, God did create us in his image, didn't he. So if he cannot do anything against his nature, why can we do things against his/our nature. Or did he create us with a different nature? Why did he create us as sinners than? Isn't it against his nature to create something that can act against his nature?

Adam and Eve were not created as sinners. They were created with the ability to sin. There is a difference. Creating them with the ability to sin, is not against God's nature.

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS) It's the question of the chicken and the egg. You say that nothing can come from nothing, but in the same sentence you state that God was the origin and therefore always was and therefore does not need a cause. This is circular logic, if every effect needs a cause, so does God, unless he was created by God's God.

I realize that this is not my argument, but this is why I argue presuppositionaly rather than evidentially (in that case ontologically).Of course you would have to prove that God is an 'effect' to make your case, but you have a point.

The presuppositionalist says that God must exist for you to make sense even of causality. The preconditions of intelligibility require universal, abstract, invariant laws, which you cannot account for in your worldview. Feel free to try however.

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS) The problem with believing in God is, that God must be the answer to everything, but he isn't. While a non-believer can simply say, I do not know.

There are no true agnostics. If an agnostic were consisten with his belief, he would go to church half the time.

Thanks for your good points.

Cheers
Reply With Quote