Yutsie: there is nothing but God,

& Nothing is God.

Yutsie: religion can show you the way to the true reality beyond all appearances - God.

Religion can show me what Religion wants me to see, hear or feel in the name of whatever particular Religion it is. Or, punish me, if I choose not to believe in whatever Religion it is that demands that, "I believe." That doesn't make the Religion Real, nor does it make God Real.

Science can show you the way to the true reality beyond all appearances even better.

How long do you want to keep going in circles, grateful?

<<No, it should be impossible even when he is omnipotent in the same sense as the triangle statement.>>

Then he’s not omnipotent because his power has a limit, hence the paradox. I’ve already been through this with you many times now. You are merely refusing to see the paradoxes and contradictions in your statements.

<<This [Quranic verse] implies nothing can exist without God and in particular “a situation in which He is not God” cannot exist.>>

That would be a form of circular reasoning that I spoke of earlier known as ‘Begging the Question’, because you have inserted your conclusion into the premise. It’s fallacious.

<<So to ask "Can God create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift?" is to ask whether God can create a situation which cannot exist.>>

Yes, and if he can’t, then his power is not unlimited; therefore, he is not omnipotent.

This contradicts nothing I’ve said.

Seriously, grateful, I suggest you find some more useful intellectual pursuits. Over thousands of years, not one theologian has overcome the omnipotence paradox, so what makes you think that you - some dude on the internet - is going to do it now?

Dear Jay,

I have done my best to explain to you about God and religion, but it seems that you are not willing to learn from me, that you rather prefer the opinions of others as your main source of information. I make no demands and I mete no punishments.

Rhian,
You say that Peter Selleck believes that creation (i.e. God creating) has nothing to do with our origins. Well, that hardly makes much sense. I'll read again the Bible's opening ten words, and go from there. But really, I'm as confused as ever about what Selleck might actually believe.

You say you are concerned with the Biblical text. If the Pope and others want to toy with metaphoric readings in something as straight forward as Genesis, then I suppose that's their right. With some imagination, you could read just about anything into any text. But if you're going to look at the words in context, where do you go in the Bible to see evolution?

I would hope that the Pope et al would look at the text consistently and intelligently. There may be value in spending time and energy explaining why the text doesn't really mean what it seems to be saying, but it's the 'young earth' creationists alone that seemingly care about what's actually written in the text. For example, when I look at the lengthy account of the Great Flood in Genesis, I don't know why the writer would have included such specificity of detail sustained over several chapters if he wasn't concerned with historic detail. Could all of those details have metaphorical meanings?

AJ,
Thanks for your clarifications on those points concerning Don Batten's article.

However, I fail to see why you accuse Don of dishonesty for plainly stating what he believes. He explains that atheists believe that everything came about by purely material processes. That is, they are materialists. Is this not so? Or are there atheists who believe the universe came about from non-material processes?

Don has not created a straw man, but he has highlighted the conundrum of whether those who don't believe in God believe the universe came from something or nothing. He doesn't ignore the guts of Alan Guth's inflation theory. He addresses it. So does the universe come from something or nothing? It's complex, as would suggest the title of Lawrence Krauss's book.

AJ,
I don't believe Don's article contains the fallacies you allege.

His main idea is that physical properties alone fail to explain the universe we observe. By implication, it would be reasonable to look to a non physical source or cause for what we observe. That's logical, it's not special pleading. I think Don could have spent more time explaining why such an alternative is reasonable, but with essays there are word limits, and his focus was on the inadequacies of the purely physical explanation.

You say he was begging the question, but which question was he begging? You speak of the question of whether God exists. Without doubt, Don would be making the assumption God exists. That's central to his worldview. He's the CEO of a Bible based Christian apologetics ministry. If he wasn't fully convinced that God exists before he opened his mouth, then he's definitely in the wrong job. Everybody in this discussion comes with their assumptions and presuppositions. No one comes with a blank slate. So if you want to accuse him of holding certain assumptions, go right ahead. It's something we all do. It's unavoidable. Again, as in my previous paragraph, we ask what the focus of the article is. Don is addressing the question of whether physical properties alone can explain some of the world's wonders. The question of God's existence is not the principal thrust of his ideas.

Some accuse Don of falling back to a 'God of the gaps' type of thinking, that is, to focus on what is not known or not well understood, and allow God to fill that void. By contrary, he is not speaking about what we are ignorant. His focus is on that which we know, the ever increasing knowledge and data base being unveiled by modern investigative techniques. As Thomas Nagel said, "given what is known about the chemical basis of biology and genetics, what is the likelihood that self-reproducing life forms should have come into existence spontaneously on the early earth, solely through the operation of the laws of physics and chemistry?"

SDM: I'll read again the Bible's opening ten words, and go from there.

The Bible is a man made invention. It's the distorted story of one Nations History.

SDM: For example, when I look at the lengthy account of the Great Flood in Genesis, I don't know why the writer would have included such specificity of detail sustained over several chapters if he wasn't concerned with historic detail.

The story of the Great Flood is a combined story of the flooding of the Dead Sea. Around 100000 BC the Ice Age ended. The Dead Sea was a lake at that time.

The worlds Seas rose but the Dead Sea remained very low. An El Nino event happened which caused heavy rain to saturate the land around the Bosporus. Then area was struck by a big Earthquake that opened up the gap between the Marmara Sea & the Black Sea. The Wash from the intake into the Black Sea is very visible in Google Earth. This was not the only significant event of this nature that happened around the same time, give or take a few thousand years.

Another big event was the opening of the English Channel by a Tidal Wave, created when a big shelf of Ice in Norway broke off. I suspect events like this happened all over the World. The Outwash from this event is also visible on Google Earth.

Yutsie: I have done my best to explain to you about God and religion.

Ditto.