Yes omnipotent being that exist within our physical/materialistic/secular senses are impossible as your example proves. However, this God that we believe in is of a spiritual sense (hence why you can't physically prove that God exists) so you can't apply such humanly "physical" restrictions like "heavy" or "stone" if God is suppose to be omnipotent in this sense. It's like trying to judge Starcraft's First Person Shooter appeal; it doesn't work that way.

Religion, except things like Deitistic Satanism and the like, are not innately harmful. While I trust very little in the Bible, you can't automatically assume anything in a textbook is true. I've already discovered two problems in my science textbook that are not due to lack of updates. I believe you should respect anyones beliefs, but I found it more true myself that more uber-religious people are prone to not being open. Of course, I've met uber-atheists of the same type.
On the other hand, the number of uber-religious people (aka people like that Baptist church) are a very small minority, and I'm positive a large portion of any religion not aforementioned would not condone their actions. For example, my mother is a strong Catholic and Republican and believes they should have the right to have civil unions / partnerships, etc.

Are you saying that that God is not omnipotent? If a being was omnipotent it would not matter if it was spiritual because an omnipotent being should be able to do anything and can take a physical form?

No that's not what I'm saying. We believe God to be omnipotent but you have to realize that like Bedazed was saying when we're talking about omnipotence beyond our human restriction such as one applied to a supernatural being, it's not about can/can't or do/don't. Omnipotence is more about unlimited authority.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 12 2008, 11:32 pm by MillenniumArmy.

That's not the same at all.

Religion manipulates people's minds to declare a fight on someone that goes against them. Therefore, religious wars.

Any Military uses science as a weapon to kill people, because they know how it works and they know it will kill people. Therefore, nuclear/chemical/etc warfare.

Science says how to kill people, and religion says why(or why not).

Evolution is a fact, and a scientific theory. Many here seem to hold a common misconception about what "theory" means in the scientific community.





Theory vs. fact
>> The argument that evolution is a theory, not a fact, has often been made against the exclusive teaching of evolution. The argument is related to a common misconception about the technical meaning of "theory" that is used by scientists. In common usage, "theory" often refers to conjectures, hypotheses, and unproven assumptions. However, in science, "theory" usually means "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena."

>> Exploring this issue, paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote:

>> “Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.”

There is no such thing as an "uber-atheist", only an atheist who is a dick about it.

It isn't the goal of any scientist to contradict religion, only to find out facts. If they do happen to contradict religious doctrines, then so be it, but it's not an attack on religion. A common misconception is that science and religion go against each other, but it's apples and oranges, really. Religion is not a science (no matter how many people may go to college saying it is) and science is not a religion. Kind of like how the media always say "Islam and the West", when it's really "Islam and Christianity".

I, personally, am atheist because I don't understand why an omniscient omnipotent entity would need his creations to believe that he exists but would do nothing to prove it, so I don't really understand why this argument happens. Believe what you like, but don't force it on other people.

You're getting way too far extreme here. Religion has been the residual place to gain tranquility for many humans since the beginning of sentience, which is also the reason why there are still so many religious people out there even with the current advances in science- and also proves the fact that science does not contradict our current religious teachings.
And if that is what you're saying about Science, then Science is innately evil and murdering. Why don't you also say we should halt all scientific developements and go back to sticks and stones?
Look, if you aren't going to post without thinking first- you should just not post to not further any deteoriating your looks. It also looks like you're so blinded by your own opinions, you can't even seem to grasp that not every religious people are like what you say.

Whether or not anyone likes it, a vast majority is supposedly going to hell because they don't believe in a certain religion.

If you're Jewish, you're going to hell. If you're Muslim, you're going to hell. If you're Christian, you're going to hell. Now, don't take the things I just stated to heart. What I'm saying is well what if you are a Christian? Doesn't that mean you're going to hell because you aren't part of a different religion?

Alright. Good thing you added that disclaimer because I was about to say you're not making any sense.

I don't get your example because those abrahamic religions that don't really say the believers of other abrahmaic religions will go to hell?

...

Now you're being too critical and jumping for falsifying accusing. I'm just stating which does what. Sigh, god damn it.

Just so you know, I am way too busy on the forum game I'm establishing...

Because only Abrahamic religions have the concept of 'Hell'- and they're all saying that the other three will 'go to hell' and 'we will go to heaven'. I am wondering if he tried to say that, but couldn't word it correctly.

My point exactly, thank you. I just couldn't explain it correctly

Why is such a thing so bothersome to you?

Evolution is a theory that is slowly being proven. However, until we have extensive research, you could still consider it "Theory".
Religion is also another theory. There is little "scientific" evidence to prove religion, but then you'd argue "LUL BUT DATZ SYENSE".

To put it simply, they are both theories, with the previous being proven ever so better as time progresses.


We must also remember however that not all Religions are about "God" striking you down if you do some jackass thing. Infact, I must say that I am a Bhuddist. Though I was raised that way, does it mean I disapprove of a "God"? Nonsense. Religion was created by humans to further the survival of humans.

Examples:

A young boy is out in the woods playing, and carefree. His father tells him that if he's out there at night, monsters will get him. This is in response to wolves hunting down the child.
A human declares that you must follow the obligations of such a relgion or else you will suffer. The suffer COULD be supernatural, but more importantly, it is durring your life. If you steal from someone, you will no longer be trust worthy.

Science = Theory
Religion = Theory
Science != Religion

Science = Expose the Truth to attempt to further mankind
Religion = Expose Morals to attempt to further mankind

In the end, they're both the sames, but slightly modified, like the two sides of a coin. They may have differences, but their goals are all the same. Religion and Science are all there to further us, and if we bicker constantly, you tell me what happens.

The thing is though, whats the point in doing the research to prove if a God did exist? In the end the believers won't believe you anyway.

Please stop it.

Gravity hasn't been proven either. Neither has anything in biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, or geology. They just match up with every single instance that we've witnessed. Darwin wasn't correct in all of his assumptions, that's understandable: neither were Aristotle or any of the originators of any scientific theory. The scientific method has continued to evolve his findings to give us the evolution of today. The simple truth, though, is that evolution matches up perfectly with every scientific finding.

Nothing can be "proven" outside of pure mathematics, and even then you must take things for granted.

I recall reading a closed thread on this topic a while ago where a Creationist raised a good deal of questions of how Evolution could explain various events. I'd be more than happy to answer such questions if someone has any.

That very much disturbs me.

FaZ-, your definition of 'proven' is quite off from what everybody else defines it as. And Gravity has been proven 'mathematically' and it is the sole reason why Isaac Newton practically invented differentiation and integral calculus in the first place. Did you know mathematics itself fails because you know you cannot prove or give any proof to 1+1=2? So stop giving false facts. Even mathematics base itself on faith. We believe 1+1 is 2.
I hope you already know this topic was about to end really nicely but then you just had to post something really highly unrelated to the entire topic.