A truly omnipotent God has no limitations; it is not constrained to make sense or to even be consistent. Much like comic book writers.

scott1328 wrote:A truly omnipotent God has no limitations; it is not constrained to make sense or to even be consistent. Much like comic book writers.

The term 'omnipotent God' is wholly constrained to be a consistent concept or else it is a meaningless concept to philosophy.

An omnipotent God is not constrained by your philosophy.

archibald wrote:I would say 'the floor is all yours' but you talk so much shite I'm not sure I want to read it.

You're not even capable of assessing my thoughts, such is the depth of your own. And you can probably guess from the length of my tenure here how much I give a fuck about what you or anyone thinks of me. So, don't waste your breath. If you carry on attacking me I won't report you, I'll just address your posts and expose the feebleness of your mind. Carry on... squire.

scott1328 wrote:An omnipotent God is not constrained by your philosophy.

Philosophy is constrained to be reasonable, Sir. This is not my philosophy.

An omnipotent God is not constrained by reason.

scott1328 wrote:An omnipotent God is not constrained by reason.

Since philosophy itself is constrained to reason and since [then] the term 'omnipotent God' is constrained to be reasonable in order to be meaningful, it follows that the judgement of philosophy (not just me) is that your statement is irrational and therefore erroneous. Further, you cannot have used reason to have come to this conclusion for the aforementioned constraints don't allow for it. Therefore, it seems, to use a phrase, that you have plucked it from your bottom.

An omnipotent God is not constrained by rationality

scott1328 wrote:An omnipotent God is not constrained by rationality

What's the point of plucking the same irrational nonsense twice out of the same hole? Or is there an echo up there?

Edit: Oh wait, you might be making another point. That an omnipotent God could act irrationally, like 'a human'?

If so then I apologise. But you could have made yourself clearer.

Actually, you are missing the entire point. Perhaps Romansh could explain it better. He has been using this mode of arguing his case for years now.

scott1328 wrote:Actually, you are missing the entire point. Perhaps Romansh could explain it better. He has been using this mode of arguing his case for years now.

Romansh has been plucking statements out of his arse for years?

No.

archibald wrote:

Arnold Layne wrote:I have still made a choice to carry on reading.

I can accept that that is both possible and true.

Well, that's a relief!

jamest wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
God is a unique/solitary entity. He is therefore confined to loneliness. He possesses no capacity to engage freely in a state of interactions and combinations.

Wtf do you think is happening here then? Is your God, which you claim not be omnipotent, also not omnipresent?

At this rate you'll be claiming that God works at Tesco in Milton Keynes.

Of course God is omnipresent. But this universe of interactions and combinations is just a false representation of Reality.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
If the original Source of consciousness exists in a state of confinement then where else in the Universe do you expect to encounter freedom?

This is like watching a dog barking at a tree because the branches are creaking in the wind. "Help! Somebody's trapped in there and is crying to get out!"

If the logic is inconsistent, then dismantle it!
Let me ask you this Cito: do you have faith that a unifying model of the Universe will eventually be found?

LucidFlight wrote:The Bran Flakes I had for breakfast are currently in a state of confinement. Just moments ago, they were free to roam the milky universe of my bowl.

The apparent freedom that we observe in this Universe is entirely illusory.

Destroyer wrote:

jamest wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
God is a unique/solitary entity. He is therefore confined to loneliness. He possesses no capacity to engage freely in a state of interactions and combinations.

Wtf do you think is happening here then? Is your God, which you claim not be omnipotent, also not omnipresent?

At this rate you'll be claiming that God works at Tesco in Milton Keynes.

Of course God is omnipresent. But this universe of interactions and combinations is just a false representation of Reality.

Then please explain how your omnipresent God is not omnipotent.

... There are two senses in which the term omnipotent can be used wrt God:

a) Not contingent upon anything else for any event which happens.
b) Not limited to producing the experience of any event.

You must believe the first option, since you claim to believe that God is omnipresent and omnipresence negates the independent existence of anything else beyond God - if God is everywhere then there is no place for anything else to exist independently of God. Therefore, God is omnipotent in the sense that nothing else has any power to effect change - God is 'all powerful' because it's the only entity which has any power.

Because of this, only the appearance/experience of an event is possible (real events require the existence of more than one entity). Therefore, please explain why you think God is not omnipotent - not able to produce the appearance/experience of anything conceivable - as you have previously claimed.

Destroyer wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:The Bran Flakes I had for breakfast are currently in a state of confinement. Just moments ago, they were free to roam the milky universe of my bowl.

The apparent freedom that we observe in this Universe is entirely illusory.

Could the same be said of the so called god without free will we don't observe?

jamest wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

jamest wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
God is a unique/solitary entity. He is therefore confined to loneliness. He possesses no capacity to engage freely in a state of interactions and combinations.

Wtf do you think is happening here then? Is your God, which you claim not be omnipotent, also not omnipresent?

At this rate you'll be claiming that God works at Tesco in Milton Keynes.

Of course God is omnipresent. But this universe of interactions and combinations is just a false representation of Reality.

Then please explain how your omnipresent God is not omnipotent.

... There are two senses in which the term omnipotent can be used wrt God:

a) Not contingent upon anything else for any event which happens.
b) Not limited to producing the experience of any event.

You must believe the first option, since you claim to believe that God is omnipresent and omnipresence negates the independent existence of anything else beyond God - if God is everywhere then there is no place for anything else to exist independently of God. Therefore, God is omnipotent in the sense that nothing else has any power to effect change - God is 'all powerful' because it's the only entity which has any power.

Because of this, only the appearance/experience of an event is possible (real events require the existence of more than one entity). Therefore, please explain why you think God is not omnipotent - not able to produce the appearance/experience of anything conceivable - as you have previously claimed.

I have already given you an elaborate definition of God via PM. If you have any questions then I suggest that you reexamine that definition. If you still remain confused, then PM me again and I will be only too happy to accommodate you.

romansh wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:The Bran Flakes I had for breakfast are currently in a state of confinement. Just moments ago, they were free to roam the milky universe of my bowl.

The apparent freedom that we observe in this Universe is entirely illusory.

Could the same be said of the so called god without free will we don't observe?

No. He is indeed illusory in this universe; but not entirely so.