It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
First off of course I meant to use the word need because I never said god was restricted in using Light in this instance. Again, this is just simple English.
We're talking about Genesis 1 and the way god Created the universe. So saying god needed light after he created the heavens and the earth isn't saying god was restricted in using light when he created the universe.
This is just basic common sense and use of the English language.
So using the word need in a context of a debate about Genesis doesn't exclude god creating the universe in other ways.
It's sort of sad that you have to use an illogical strawman in a debate about Genesis. Of course god needed Light because the Debate is about Genesis and in verse 3 it says:
3 And god said, Let there be light: and there was light.
When it comes to Omnipotence, I told you time and time again that omnipotence doesn't mean god can go against his nature.
If this being is bringing into existence this popcorn and he needs the energy from the vacuum does he cease to be Omnipotent?
AN OMNIPOTENT BEING WOULD CEASE TO BE OMNIPOTENT IF HE NEEDED SOMETHING THAT ALREADY EXISTED.
Well than he isn't omnipotent if there are limits to what he can and cannot do. Unless we are using point two in the definition of omnipotent you posted above. "Having very great or unlimited authority or power." So maybe it is a case of God having great but not unlimited power?
Seems like a sneaky attempt around the paradox imho. It still doesn't mean he can't lift it, just that he is choosing not to.
Question: How does he regain the power he has emptied himself of?
I respectfully disagree that this is common sense in the context of a discussion of omnipotence. Again, "need" is a word loaded with subtle meanings beyond those of "simple English" in a discussion like this.
On this particular point, we agree. Which is why I think the thread in general is... I used the word silly before, but that may have been overly harsh. Maybe superfluous? If you believe that god is defined as absolutely omnipotent, and again I'd encourage you to read the link I provided earlier to differentiate between the various kinds of omnipotence that have been used to describe god over the years, then asking if god could have done something in particular way seems irrelevant. If he's absolutely omnipotent, he could have done it in any way he chose to do so.
He doesn't cease to be anything. If he needs something to create something else, then by definition he was never absolutely omnipotent to begin with. He may have been one of the "lesser" forms of omnipotent as described by some scholars, but there seems to be quite a bit of debate within Christianity regarding what "flavor" of omnipotent god is described as, not even considering the debate from those in other Abrahamic religions or from outside the Abrahamic religions.
originally posted by: neoholographic
Again, you're making the illogical argument that non believers make time and time again. I don't know if you're a believer or not but I have heard this argument before and it didn't make sense then and it doesn't make sense now.
Of course you don't want to be logical because the whole point of these debates is to try and make God look illogical. It's a tried and tired tactic.
Now, you talk about God lying and deceiving.
Again, the verses you mentioned are consistent with Gods nature. This is consistent with free will.
originally posted by: neoholographic
God can't lie.
Let's say I'm God and I create a universe with beings and I give them free will.
I'm God, so I know which beings will reject me and which beings will accept me. God knows whose hearts are open to accept him and which hearts are hardened and will never accept him.
So when it says I the Lord deceives that prophet it's because God is protecting those who are open to accepting him or who he sees will accept them and removing those who may try to corrupt them.
If an atheist whose heart is hardened and who will never accept God is about to work with and slow down a man that will accept God and lead a lot of people to Christ, the atheist can be sent a strong delusion or lying spirit to get them to accept another job in order to keep them out of this mans way.
This is perfectly consistent with God's nature.
God knows who will accept him or who has a hardened heart and will reject him. At certain points, God doesn't need non believers trying to impede the progress of believers so he sends them a lying or deceiving spirit. This is consistent with free will and if a person wants to have a hardened heart and reject God they have every right to do so.
originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: neoholographic
So you now agree that lying is consistent with the nature of God? Because before, you made the argument that he is incapable of lying.
God created the universe in an instant....maybe out of light
Then, God restored the heavens and earth in 6 days so that man could dwell on it
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Blue Shift
It is kind of sick story when you think about it. Killing babies is kind of in my "its wrong no matter what" category. Why not just kill the Pharaoh and be done with it? Why waste time with all the plagues and stuff?