Evidence for God from Science

I don't know about this math proving God stuff, but I did consider it a miracle when I passed Algebra 2 in highschool.

jlay wrote:I don't know about this math proving God stuff, but I did consider it a miracle when I passed Algebra 2 in highschool.

Amen!
-
-
-

h1a8 wrote:Many atheists claim that the biblical God can't exist by the usual Omnipotent Omniscient arguments.
At first I failed to see where the bible claims that God is omnipotent until I found this

In Matt. 19:26 it says,
But Jesus beheld, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Now if Omnipotent means able to do all things that are logically possible, then how would I combat the claim that God should be able to do even the logically impossible since He can do all things.

Tell the person attempting to argue the construct of omnipotence and omniscience that when they develop the capacity to understand its infinite capacity then they will be in a place to assert its limits.

While God introduces us to his omniscience and omnipotence and gives us a slight frame of reference with regard to some of its features in no way are we to treat either as comprehensively revealed or understood by us, otherwise we would be just those things and we are not.

So when someone ventures into the speculative with regard to an element they have no complete or even remotely substantial grasp of, they are left boxing shadows and straw men.

If an atheist has a problem with omnipotence you can always buy him a prescription of Viagra.

Lmao. That's potency. Not omnipotence.

CliffsofBurton wrote:There is rational. There is Irrational. Then there is JohnGreg.

Its like a new category.

I think when he was talking about sacred geometry, he was referring largely to the Divine Proportion.

1.618 to 1

I had totally forgotten about his posts. I guess he's gone. He reminds me somewhat of the robot guy in Red Dwarf. His cry for honesty may have been heartfelt, but still,

Red Dwarf, Oh my gosh, I have forgotten about that show...how wonderfully bizarre and funny

Ignoring, for the moment, the more humorous direction this thread has taken, let me note that I don't like defining omnipotence as "the ability to do anything that is logically possible." I think it gives too much away. We may as well keep the definition, "the ability to do anything."

The reason I don't see a need for the final clause is because it is simply redundant. Logically impossible things turn out not to be things at all. They are non-things, and as such, we refer to them as non-sense. For example, square-circles are not things. They are self-contradictories. As such, they have no meaning, and that is the bottom line: things have meaning; non-things, don't. So when we say that God can do anything, we are saying something that has meaning. If we say, "Oh yeah, well can God haoweoihfw?!?" then you can't say yes or no, because the question is meaningless. In the same way, questions like, "Can God create a god greater than Himself?" have precisely the same amount of meaning.

So let's keep the traditional definition and if someone tries to disprove God by one of these ignorant arguments, we can explain the deficiency in their reasoning. Every chance we get to educate someone, we should take. Once they have been cured of their igorance, then they can either embrace the truth or fall into something worse . . . "stupidity" comes to mind.

Returning to the moment:

I think I was able to make sense of that Johngreg's comments if I crossed my eyes while I read it . . .

Did that work?! Was he writing in code?! What did he say?! LOL!