Most religions that capitalize "God" portray him as an perfect, omnipotent being. Do you acknowledge other religions (Hinduism and Shinto for example) that use the word "god" in a different sense? Do you accept the possibility that God is not all-powerful, or that there is more than one god?

(Yes, I know Hinduism doctrine states that all gods are reincarnations of Brahma, not actual separate deities. It somewhat depends on what sect of Hinduism you ask.)

This thread is just dying for some famous question that I just remembered.

Could God make a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?

This puts his omnipotence into question if he really existed.

God and gods have completely different meanings. And sorry, do you speak Hindi? I am not trying to beg the question to you, but I am uncertain of how much their language roughly translates to English. Is it God, god or deity. Because they have different meanings. A god could be of something of 'superior', but not 'ultimate' power. A deity could be anything that's revered by the people of a culture, or religion. If something is truly omnipotent, then it is the God. See the difference?

What if he could make a burrito so hot that he himself could eat it, and not eat it at the same time? Omnipotence just is, there's nothing impossible for omnipotence. You can eat, and not eat at the same time- or taste without tasting, feel without feeling, eat without eating, hot but not hot, and maybe exist, without existing, time without time, and see without seeing. I mean, if paradox-like stuff isn't possible for an omnipotent being, then it really isn't omnipotent at all. Because paradoxes are one of the easiest things a Human can think of, and there are, there must be lots of things we can't even start to imagine. If you felt this was dumb, then see your 'thing' that you thought it was clever- it isn't really. How would you know what omnipotence would be like? Oh wait, you don't. Because you are Human, or I presume that you are. Or must you be the famous talking rabbit? Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids!

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Dec 25 2009, 4:59 am by BeDazed.

I see what you're saying about the definition of "God. "It might be easier to use it in this sense: Greek gods, Norse gods, etc. Whether this topic was to debate whether "A" god exists or if "ANY" gods exist I am not sure. Once again I ask the question: CAN two or more gods coexist? A good example might be the Zoroastrian gods-- one of pure good and one of pure evil.

If you put it that way, not just a god, but a race of 'gods' could exist. Billions of them, in which I'd just rename them to a more 'equivalent' term as 'Alien', just as we are 'Alien' to them.

But can two omnipotent 'Gods' coexist?
If two Gods were separate and sovereign, then they are not God. Just entities of great power.

Not really. If I may use a quote that puts it well:

Do you speak Greek? (I have also wondered how well the bible translates into english) the word "god" still denotes the ultimate power.

Well, that is at least- how I defined my stand on these subjects. The Greek gods were hardly depicted as ultimate. They merely lived forever, and were indestructible. What a load of crap. I know this gets off topic by alot, but those kind of things would be possible if we advanced in science. Things like medical science, nano-technology of the future could possibly grant us immortality, and adamant bodies. It's no big deal.

I'll jump in on this discussion.

This thread is about whether or not God exists, but my question for you is would you change and serve God even if He revealed Himself to you? People could use many excuses to say that it wasn't God, and that it was just a figment of their imagination, or that the brain somehow reproduced a replicated image of what you thought God looked like.

I find that people who talk about lack of evidence for the existence of God are just using it as an excuse to not even attempt to search for God. If they really cared, they wouldn't care that there is a lack of evidence.

That is a good reason to not search for god or gods. Why should you search for something that there is a lack of evidence for? Because you believe in something with blind faith? You did not really explain why should they care?

What Poison said is actually right on the spot. If that is a "good reason to not search for god or gods", it can also be considered "a good reason to search for god or gods". It depends on what you want; you could take it either way.

As to your words in bold: Because a lack of evidence is never evidence. You choose to believe that god(s) don't exist out of blind faith, just like how many religious people choose to be so out of blind faith (unless you aren't actually atheist, and just playing devil's advocate). As to why someone should care: The difference between god existing and not could mean the difference between eternity happy and eternity in hell, it can also mean the difference in a purposeful life and a pointless life. Also, as I stated in a previous post, your beliefs can directly affect your actions as if they were true.

It seems that our topic has come to the consensus that god cannot be proven or disproven rationally and reasonably, due to a lack of evidence in either direction. From this point on, you can choose to believe that god(s) exist(s), or not. Out of those options you have really a very free choice. Most people at this point just choose to believe in whatever makes them the most comfortable, whatever they want to believe in. Atheists and religious folk alike, usually believe in what they do because their belief benefits them in some way. A lot of people make up their mind that there is or isn't a god beforehand, and then choose a belief that corresponds to their pre-made decision, rather than choosing the option that seems most probable.

A lot of people choose to not believe that a god(s) exist(s) simply because they don't like the idea of having a god rule over everything, and not because the belief that no gods exist is more probable than them existing.

You should choose your world view off of what you think is true (or most probable), not what you want to be true. I am an agnostic because I am unable to choose a world view based off of what I think is the most probable to be true.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 27 2009, 1:15 am by CecilSunkure.

What poison said is absolutely illogical. It cannot go both ways. If you do nothing, nothing happens. Doing something with misinformation can be disastrous. If you were a doctor and you make a misdiagnosis you can potentially harm the patients. Unreasonable cause can have negative effects. Lack of evidence is a good reason to do nothing because neutrality can produce no harm. But when people use blind faith and dogma, historically, unreasonable actions have lead to different genocides and other atrocities all in the name of some belief.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 28 2009, 1:34 am by Vrael. Reason: fixed a homonym typo

One, inaction can also cause harm.
Two, relying on logic has created the most genocidal events in history, the World Wars.


You assume that there is only one action, and one inaction- while we live in an environment filled with actions, or inactions. In this kind of sticky situation, inaction may also cause harm. Inaction, may also be used against you in court. Inaction, is a very bad thing.

Do, and have a slight chance to live. Or don't and die. Doctors do not always have certain answers. They always look for possibilities, and give medications, treatments mostly out of guessing. Same symptoms have various causes, and some symptoms are not easily detectable. But of incomplete data, doctors still do. Because inaction will cause more harm then action will.

And last but not least, logic is a belief too. If everything goes by logic, a lot of things like genocide? They will all be justified. Africans? They always war on each other, hungry, begging bastards. It would be more efficient if they were wiped off the map.
Prisoners? Human trash, they are better off if they didn't exist. We'd be better off killing them, inhumanely. It would be more efficient, logical, and undisputably cheap.
Gays, Lesbians? Are they animals, or Human? Such trash. It would be better if they were eradicated, like any other pests.
Muslims? Oh they like to suicide- die, well we'd gladly make them die.
North Koreans? Well, one government has caused us more harm, money then their lives cost. It would've been better if we had bombed them years ago. Well, it shouldn't be too hard now.
You know what the religion of Logic is? Nazism. Totalitarianism. Nationalism. Patriotism. Look where that got us.

THAT is logic without rationalism. Rationalism, ethics, and common sense can work to counteract logic. People rarely use just one doctrine to justify actions.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 28 2009, 1:38 am by Vrael. Reason: http://www.staredit.net/193986/

Doctors do not do wild guesses they use any information possible to try to get a conclusion.
Genocides were justified using dogmatic approaches not logic.
You have presented many dogmatic principles without reason in this post. Why are gays trash? Why should Muslims die?
I cannot find the term "religion of logic" anywhere.
Nazism, Totalitarianism...ect are all things that have some form of blind faith and dogma. Logic is not a belief.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 28 2009, 1:44 am by Vrael. Reason: let poison speak for himself

Let's try and get back on topic, this looks like it's heading in the direction of a dispute over logic, and in the manner the argument has begun there is no relevant link to the existence or non-existence of a God or Gods. If there is one and this part of the discussion is critical to an argument, show how and why that is so.

Furthermore, the grounding of everything from civilizations to the operation of refridgerators is based in logic, and it is also embedded in the SEN Terms of Service that we will be bound by logic:
Both because logic is crucial to the operation of our site and because it's completely silly to argue about logic, from this point forward everyone must and will accept logic as a valid method of argumentation, regardless of whether you personally believe it is valid or not.

Note: this does not mean that simply because something is 'logical' it is right or gives you license to dismiss another argument, nor does it mean that there are no other methods of argumentation, nor does it mean that one method is superior to another, nor should it be misconstrued in any other way.

I didn't intend for my post to convey that you should follow blindly, just that even if someone tells you "this is this because of this", you can try and find a different way of looking at it logically. However, sometimes you have to accept things without having any decent explanation for it, or else what would be the purpose of faith?

I'll jump in on this lovely conversation here. I am an agnostic, which as I'm sure you all know are sort of the fence-sitters of the whole argument.

As far as I know (feel free to prove me wrong), humanity does not yet have the means of disproving or proving the existence of God. Therefor both atheistic and religious lines of argumentation will always clash in stalemate as neither can prove the other wrong.

This is why I choose to be agnostic, we don't KNOW the answers, yet people still debate this I do not understand and would like to know why you do it please.

As far as I see its a gamble no matter what you look at it. You flip a coin, heads no god tail theres a god, problem is the coin doesn't land till you die. You could be religious all your life, expending time and energy following your religions specific rituals, prayer, etc. over your entire life accumulating to many many hours, only to die and discover that there is no afterlife and you just rot in the ground, and all that time you spent in life was wasted.

Or you could live your life as you see fit as an atheist, only to die and discover that there is indeed an afterlife and God, and that because you didn't worship him you have to suffer for eternity. BL either way.

So I just go with being agnostic, I don't care either way. In fact, I would rather PREFER their not be an afterlife, and after I die thats it I'm gone. Because if there IS an afterlife, I have no intention whatsoever of having Jesus be the scapegoat for my sins, I'd rather go to hell and get my deserved punishment, rather then go to Heaven and enjoy paradise as a forgiven sinner.

Also I would just like to add that many say the greatest part of being in Heaven is being in the presence of God, which I do not even find appealing. I mean sure I would be curious to meet my creator but its not really something I care about too much.

Please give your thoughts on my point of view I am interested greatly.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 2 2010, 6:28 am by Pinky.

I don't consider it wasted time. Anyway, if I have the wrong religion, I'm covered in several others, and if there is no afterlife, well, like I said, I don't consider it to be wasted time, so no loss.

I can't see why you wouldn't want to go to heaven...

Well heaven is very similiar to God isn't it. No one can prove or disprove it, and no one really knows for sure what actually goes on up there. All I know is that its full to the brim with forgiven sinners, and I would rather face my crimes then live undeservedly in Paradise.

And how can you NOT consider it a waste of time? All those hours had no purpose, no meaning (assuming God DOESN"T exist).