Omnipotence or Incoherence?

Iizbakaokay said:
I woke up with a massive tent between my pants. I guess it's something related to my puberty or something. Discuss.

Swagernator said:
And why are we discussing this on anime site ?

justcaolan said:
NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBBBBBBBBBBBBBBOOOOODDDDDDDDDDDDDDYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY CCCCCCCCCCCCCAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

deg said:
which god from the countless number of gods we are talking about though?

but
1. god does not need to be human like, the word lift can mean god can use telekinesis if it wishes
2. then he is not omnipotent because he cannot go pass that limitation, and does that mean humanity is better than god? because humanity is like a creator too
3. thats why its a paradox

Vulze said:
You can literally say anything past this assumption, and it doesn't make the argument sensible. Quite on the contrary. You assume it's incomprehensible only to make sense of it afterwards. It's a bit silly.

Yarub said:
First of all. God needs to create a stone. It then enlists that the stone must have an unliftable characteristic; weight and mass do not matter hence the unliftability. The issue here is that, the premise, demands that God must do an action, which is to lift. You would need a hand of some sort. A force to apply and bodily tension to sustain your lifting of the said creation. Here is the first downfall of the paradox: It encompasses that God must have human characteristics which contradict our assumption.

Yarub said:
The second downfall is the law that governs creation as always inferior to its creator. You simply cannot create something that is more capable of being you (in case of our topic, God himself creating a boulder that is mightier than God, referencing the infinite nature of the boulder) than yourself. It is not coherent in any sense. The only sensible conclusion that can justify this, would be the creation of another God by God. This is the demise of this argument since a paradox that leads to a possibly infinite sequences of paradoxes is not to be intellectually considered valid and thought of as folly.

Capabilities
Users of this power are devoid of any and all benevolent traits, thus making them the true evil incarnate and the source of all negative aspects of existence. Like its counterpart, this power has two versions:

Inherent Omnimalevolence: to perceive and adapt perfectly to all evil concepts.
Total Omnimalevolence: to be absolutely evil and surpass all forms of benevolence.
The user is capable of being universally evil, but they can also deceive others into thinking they are actually good. Users can also spread their evil on cosmic and apocalyptic scales, simply by their presence or the power of their malicious will; they can corrupt anyone they desire, destroy virtually anything and cause terrible events to take place. In short, the user is the undisputed source of ALL EVIL whether it's natural, or in this case, supernatural. In all the cosmos, they are devoid of all redeemable qualities, and are also completely ruthless, unforgivable, dangerous, fraudulent, and highly manipulative.

Yarub said:

To make my argument sensible,
[...]
- God is beyond human comprehensibility even in the abstract and is therefore illogical in essence.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

You would need a hand of some sort.

SadMadoka said:

This quote alone disproves the typical version of God. (Which is self-contradictory and cannot exist, therefore does not exist.)

Even ignoring that, there's no evidence for the existence of any deity. The burden of proof is on those who make a positive claim, so if you say there is such a being, you're the one who has to prove it. (No one has ever done so.)


You'd think it would be a simple matter for an omnipotent being to create a hand. lol

As for the stone paradox, well, omnipotence isn't real anyway, so there ya go.

BlakexEkalb said:
But there's evidence that there was the Big Bang or any other thing? Believing in a deity all comes down to having faith in it. You can be oblivious to a creator, or you can mock the fools who believe in such a thing. Either way, respecting what people believe is the right thing. "(No one has ever done so)" I'm sure anyone can say that to anything that resolves around the reason for creation. Once again, it comes down faith.

SadMadoka said:

This quote alone disproves the typical version of God. (Which is self-contradictory and cannot exist, therefore does not exist.)

Even ignoring that, there's no evidence for the existence of any deity. The burden of proof is on those who make a positive claim, so if you say there is such a being, you're the one who has to prove it. (No one has ever done so.)


You'd think it would be a simple matter for an omnipotent being to create a hand. lol

As for the stone paradox, well, omnipotence isn't real anyway, so there ya go.

BlakexEkalb said:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Incorrect
He is able to prevent evil.

Is he able but not willing? Incorrect
He was always willing.

Is he both able and willing? Correct
To answer where evil comes from: it has been said it came from Satan, who saw that he wanted to be above God, which is the first instance of sin in the universe. From his actions, he was sent away from God. Then when humans were created, who were made to follow God, they took influence from Satan and that is the reason why we are all sinners. As a result of our actions, God gave us a gift and curse: the ability to choose. We are able to turn back towards him, or turn away and neglect his existence in search for our own desires of a perfect world.

Is he neither able nor willing? Incorrect

SadMadoka said:

And, once again...there's no evidence to support these claims. The point is that evil/suffering exists in the world and a deity does not prevent it from happening, meaning that such a being is either not all-loving, not all-powerful, or nonexistent. The whole devil and sin thing is just a scapegoat and cop-out because people otherwise wouldn't be able to explain these contradictions without resorting to the obvious conclusion that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving being is incompatible with the real world.

SadMadoka said:

This quote alone disproves the typical version of God. (Which is self-contradictory and cannot exist, therefore does not exist.)

Even ignoring that, there's no evidence for the existence of any deity. The burden of proof is on those who make a positive claim, so if you say there is such a being, you're the one who has to prove it. (No one has ever done so.)


You'd think it would be a simple matter for an omnipotent being to create a hand. lol

As for the stone paradox, well, omnipotence isn't real anyway, so there ya go.

BlakexEkalb said:
It's a punishment, and one that we deserved. That is the reason he doesn't prevent it, as we directly said no to our creator and listened to the person who said "no" first.

Soverign said:


I don't know about all that. The first humans was unaware of even the concepts of good, evil, and shame. Sure they disobeyed, but it was not out of malice. God kinda overreacted there by cursing all them to hard labour, death, and subordination. I mean, the serpent had it coming though.
Though to be fair AI will grant us the second tree anyways, the Tree of Life, which is ironic, well if fundies don't destroy the world first.

BlakexEkalb said:


I'm basing what I say off of the Christian God. So in my case, they did know who God was as he would walk with them through the Garden of Eden. It doesn't seem like much of an overreaction as we all sin against God every day. However when they had first sinned, the only other sinner that existed was from Satan.

Soverign said:


Of course they knew who God was. Their creator and provider in Eden. Supposedly faith on Earth will grant you Heaven or something. Which is a return to ignorance, since there is no way in hell you are getting there as you are now. You know on account that God was non too pleased about them learning such taboo concepts. Ignorance is bliss as they say. Also, again, God seems to have failed in anticipating the Serpent and adequately protecting his innocent creation.

BlakexEkalb said:


There's a reason why God's human form (Jesus) let himself die at the hands of pathetic weaklings like us. His death let whoever believing in him have eternal life, or Heaven. God allowed us to choose whether or not to satisfy our desires. He clearly said "Eat from the Tree of Life are you will die". The Devil said "You will not die, for God just doesn't want you to be like him, knowing right from wrong. You will become your own God", essentially what he said. We chose to be sinful in the beginning, and now we die in the end. Jesus' death allowed a change in that, so if you believe in him you will go to Heaven. If you choose to stay in your sin and become your own God you will be sent to Hell. God doesn't want to be the puppet master, however if you disobey him and try to control something that you didn't have control of in the first place, you will inevitably fail in the end.

Soverign said:


Lol. No. See you will not die. I mean, sure you will die in a very real physical sense, but even going to hell is in fact, an afterlife. Albeit a negative one granted.
Also, God did in fact seem to have changed his mind there. I mean, don't get me wrong, I liked the J Man's modernization of Judaism and all personally.
One simply cannot choose to be sinful, if one does not know it is a sin in the first place. Disobedience is not a sin. I can tell you all I want to not stick your finger in fire, but you will never truly understand until you do, exactly why you should not do so.
There is even a caveat for that about what happens to the righteous who through no fault of their own never come to know God. Like, you was born in a bunker with no bibles or something.

BlakexEkalb said:


You are right. While WE never chose to be sinful, Adam and Eve (first male and female) did. They were the pinnacle of human existence, as they had God face to face tell them what is right and wrong. Their ignorance and doubts about God was their downfall. Disobedience IS a sin, actually. Disobey your parents is a sin. Disobeying your government (albeit if the government is corrupt and forcing horrid things) is a sin. Not listening to your creator is a sin. As for the bunker scenerio, I have no answer for that. Whether there was an instance in their life they had somehow known God, I wouldn't know.

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Soverign said:


It is rather unfortunate the J Man didn't get to finish his superior, less barbaric rewrite though. I suppose he did get the last laugh with Judaism basically being consigned to a reservation though.

I mean, the Apostles did what they could with what they had.

Grey-Zone said:

According to some of the sources of the existence of an omnipotent god, humans are created "in the image of god", so it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that god might have hands or at least something hand-like, based on that. Of course it can be counter-argued that "the hand is not specifically part of the aforementioned image", e.g. if the part about the image was only limited to something intagable like the soul itself.

Still, it's at least a plausible criticism, so it can't simply be handwaved away by calling it a paradox.

Grey-Zone said:

This part is faulty. There is a reason why people view something like a singularity as a very plausible scenario. You know? The thing about how we may create AI that develops so fast that it overcomes us, its "creators", and might one day become independent to the extent, that it starts viewing its creators as "unneccasary existences" and get rid of us?

Isn't it reasonable to assume that therefore God, by creating self-learning beings like us, might be surpassed/overthrown by us at some point as well? Or at least by our creation? Or our own creation's creation which is even better? Or by our creation's creation's creation? Or even by our creation's^100 creation?


The idea that a creation that gained it's independency can't surpass its creator isn't really based on anything. You only used that as an axiom, but why? There is absolutely no neccessity for that assumption, at least as far as I am aware of?

Hatred said:
first of all,not all people have heard that infamous paradox because i didn't know about it until today

Railey2 said:


and you're done. What can even be said if this is one of your premises? Do you see the absurdity of this? There is no argument.

SadMadoka said:

Even ignoring that, there's no evidence for the existence of any deity. The burden of proof is on those who make a positive claim, so if you say there is such a being, you're the one who has to prove it. (No one has ever done so.)

SadMadoka said:

You'd think it would be a simple matter for an omnipotent being to create a hand. lol

As for the stone paradox, well, omnipotence isn't real anyway, so there ya go.

Finalbeta said:
God is a weird concept but I still like to be religious xd

Yarub said:

Let's think of it this way, a fish may as well never surpass a human in general. It was not built to obtain, manipulate and create thought processes that demand consciousness of the being and intellect. Same argument goes for God. God is God -- Humans are humans. Humans may one day obtain God-like abilities (Control weather/Terraform their environment) but they themselves cannot achieve the absolute status of God. An AI might do human-like activities, but it is not in any form human. This goes on to even the creation's^100 creation.

The idea isn't about surpassing, it's about being. We are assuming God is the most perfect being that exists or is present. Therefore, he cannot be surpassed and in my previous paragraph I illustrated that even obtaining the same level of being is not possible.

Yarub said:


The second downfall is the law that governs creation as always inferior to its creator. You simply cannot create something that is more capable of being you (in case of our topic,

Railey2 said:
How do we have chess engines that destroy every living chess player then? We can clearly create things that are better than us.

If giving birth to a child counts as "creating" life, then we can also create life that is superior. Children regularly surpass their parents in various categories, be it physical strength, intellect, health, or all three at once. It happens.

I don't know how you could believe something that's so obviously wrong and has so many apparent counter examples, unless you're parroting the delusions from some poor indoctrinated idiots that poison the intellectual climate wherever they go.


You're also completely missing the point of the stone paradox. The point is to prove the logical impossibility of omnipotence, and if you're getting hung up on the "human characteristics" thingie, you can simply make up another example to fit the bill.

Can god create an atom with such strong attracting forces, that he can not split it?

And there you go. It doesn't matter if it's a stone, an atom, or whatever. Your "refutation" is off.

BlakexEkalb said:


I don't understand how you're able to just drop the stone paradox and say "It makes no sense to US, so it's illogical". God is beyond normal conditions and law of physics. We always look for ways to disprove God by saying "Create something that you can't do", but if you want to know a paradox:

A man said to God "Make a stone that you can't lift, God!"
God responded "I can do all".
Man responded back "Yeah, but create something you CAN'T do".
God said back "I can do all, I can create a rock that is unliftable to me, but at the same time lift it up".

That's a paradox. God is able to do all, that means he is able to do every single thing. He's unable to lift the rock, and he's able to at the same time.

Also, in the Bible it clearly says "Do not put the Lord your God to the test". God does not need to be tested by weak humans, he doesn't need to prove himself.

Railey2 said:
@BlakexEkalb Then we're back to what my first reply in this thread said.

If your worldview permits what's clearly a logical impossibility, you've left the realm of reason and entered the realm of arbitrary madness, allowing you to justify whatever you want with whatever spurious line of reasoning you see fit.

At that point there's nothing to talk about and I'm wasting my time.

Railey2 said:
@Grey-Zone If we can agree on anything in this thread, it should be that none of us should be talking about quantum physics as if we had the tiniest semblance of an idea of what's going on there.
Even more so if we're trying to use it in a philosophical argument.

Railey2 said:
@BlakexEkalb Then we're back to what my first reply in this thread said.

If your worldview permits what's clearly a logical impossibility, you've left the realm of reason and entered the realm of arbitrary madness, allowing you to justify whatever you want with whatever spurious line of reasoning you see fit.

At that point there's nothing to talk about and I'm wasting my time.

BlakexEkalb said:
Sorry, you must've not read what I posted. Clearly said that God gave humans a choice of either Hell or Heaven. It's a punishment, and one that we deserved. That is the reason he doesn't prevent it, as we directly said no to our creator and listened to the person who said "no" first. And yes, I'm aware of it coming back down to believing, but directly trying to slander a side for not agreeing with it is not cool. So saying "it's a scrape goat" can be offensive (I'm not offended, not a softie like some people but it is still slandering).

The problem of evil refers to the challenge of reconciling belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God, with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. The problem may be described either experientially or theoretically. The experiential problem is the difficulty in believing in a concept of a loving God when confronted by suffering or evil in the real world, such as from epidemics, or wars, or murder, or rape or terror attacks wherein innocent children, women, men or a loved one becomes a victim. The problem of evil is also a theoretical one, usually described and studied by religion scholars in two varieties: the logical problem and the evidential problem.
Logical problem of evil

Originating with Greek philosopher Epicurus, the logical argument from evil is as follows:

If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.
There is evil in the world.
Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist.

This argument is of the form modus tollens, and is logically valid: If its premises are true, the conclusion follows of necessity. To show that the first premise is plausible, subsequent versions tend to expand on it, such as this modern example:

God exists.
God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.
An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.
A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
If there exists an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God, then no evil exists.
Evil exists (logical contradiction).

hazarddex said:
but how does not willing translate to malevolent? does that make all bystanders to a crime malevolent? the act of witness, but not interfering is not necessarily evil. nor is it good. it is a neutral stance,

by definition malevolent would require them having or showing a wish to do evil.

but by doing nothing it is neither benevolent or malevolent. the act of nothing is the act of indifference.

so the fact is that statesmen automatically fails to acknowledge that a neutral stance exist makes it false.

the opposite of love is not hate its indifference.

another way to view this is perhaps its god favors no single individual over another.

Yarub said:
Lmao, disbelieving in something because nobody has proven it (But there are geeneral public and intellectual support) reminds me of 10th century AD level of thought

katsucats said:
The rejection of belief that any deities exist is not the rejection that any deities exist. GG. Thanks for playing.

Yarub said:
If you read my post, you'd understand that I was arguing for the existence of God.

SadMadoka said:

You're the one who doesn't get it at all.

You're just spouting dogma, making more unsubstantiated claims without addressing the contradictions.

Slander? lol. No. It's called logic.

It's not my fault if you don't comprehend that I already proved you are objectively wrong before this discussion even began. It's not a matter of opinion.

This comes down to the problem of evil, linked above. Here's a snippet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

You can't resolve this philosophical dilemma logically, because any attempt to do so would inevitably be indefensible, contradictory nonsense, so you resort to scapegoats and cop-outs like the devil and sin.

The concept of a devil is a scapegoat ("a person who is blamed for the wrongdoings, mistakes, or faults of others, especially for reasons of expediency") because you're just shifting the blame from the one who created a system to one who merely participated in it. The concept of sin is a cop-out ("an excuse designed to shirk responsibility") because it completely ignores the alleged qualities of God, invoking a mystical force that he somehow couldn't prevent from existing despite being all-powerful, and somehow requires an infinite punishment for a finite crime despite him being all-loving.

In other words, you're avoiding the issue by throwing buzzwords around without realizing what they imply. Contradiction after contradiction... All you have are non-explanations parroted from a book written by superstitious ancient people who had a poor understanding of how the universe works.

Think of it this way: Ponder a being who could not possibly allow suffering to exist, with the will and ability to prevent all suffering. The existence of suffering, in itself, logically disproves the existence of such a being. They're mutually exclusive conditions. Granted, the example above is a bit more complex, but the same principle applies.

If you honestly believe that anyone deserves to be tortured forever (or any length of time, for that matter), then you are an evil monster.

If he was all-loving, he wouldn't torture anyone endlessly like a deranged psychopath, and if he was all-powerful, he would have the power to prevent the situation entirely.

It becomes even more ridiculous when you bring omniscience into the equation. According to this line of reasoning, he knew beforehand that beings he created would be tortured forever (meaning they weren't making real choices, if it was preordained)...yet, either way, you have the audacity to claim this is a loving being who has the power to do anything...except, of course, create a world without suffering or eternal torture. It's utter madness.

Watch this five-minute video.


Everything I've said wasn't even necessary, because, once again, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that something exists.


We're not talking about a human bystander; we're talking about a being who (for the purposes of this discussion) created everything in the first place and is supposed to possess the qualities of omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience. See the more in-depth problem of evil quote above.

If you love someone, that means you care about them rather than being indifferent.

If one were to posit a deity who is indifferent or malevolent, or not all-powerful, all-knowing, and/or all-loving, I wouldn't be able to logically disprove it in the manner of the prior example.


You've got it backwards. Believing something without evidence is the height of insanity, and is the dangerously ignorant mindset of the Dark Ages.

Anyone with a grasp of science, logic, and reality knows that you need evidence to justify believing something. If you have no evidence for something, you literally have no reason to believe it. I'm assuming you don't believe in the thousands of other gods in mythology throughout history, right? Same goes for Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and any other random crap you can imagine, but don't believe in...because there's no evidence.

Proof and evidence are two distinct things, by the way. Proof lies in the realm of logic and mathematics, whereas there is only evidence in science. (There are also weaker, more casual types of proof that aren't actually proof, such as social proof.)

Believing something is true does not make it true. The popularity of an idea has no bearing on its validity.

One of the main reasons so many hold these particular beliefs is that countless people were slaughtered and tortured in their name, building the foundation for political control.

As for "intellectual support"...no true intellectual could take such absurd things seriously.

Since I suspect you misunderstand what constitutes disbelief, I'll leave you with this quote:



I see no argument; just...incoherence. :P

hazarddex said:
true, but if god loves everyone then that means god wouldn't pick a side in conflicts between humans. is how i see it.

SadMadoka said:

Gah. You didn't have to quote the entire thing. XD

You're missing the point here. If he so wished, an all-powerful being would be able to create a system where conflict, suffering, and so on don't exist. And just look at all the other "bad" things in the universe that don't involve conflicts between humans. Many animals eat each other alive just to survive, for instance. If such a system was intentionally designed, then the designer is malevolent, and if it does not function as originally intended, then the designer is incompetent, not omnipotent.

SadMadoka said:

You're the one who doesn't get it at all.

You're just spouting dogma, making more unsubstantiated claims without addressing the contradictions.

Slander? lol. No. It's called logic.

It's not my fault if you don't comprehend that I already proved you are objectively wrong before this discussion even began. It's not a matter of opinion.

This comes down to the problem of evil, linked above. Here's a snippet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

You can't resolve this philosophical dilemma logically, because any attempt to do so would inevitably be indefensible, contradictory nonsense, so you resort to scapegoats and cop-outs like the devil and sin.

The concept of a devil is a scapegoat ("a person who is blamed for the wrongdoings, mistakes, or faults of others, especially for reasons of expediency") because you're just shifting the blame from the one who created a system to one who merely participated in it. The concept of sin is a cop-out ("an excuse designed to shirk responsibility") because it completely ignores the alleged qualities of God, invoking a mystical force that he somehow couldn't prevent from existing despite being all-powerful, and somehow requires an infinite punishment for a finite crime despite him being all-loving.

In other words, you're avoiding the issue by throwing buzzwords around without realizing what they imply. Contradiction after contradiction... All you have are non-explanations parroted from a book written by superstitious ancient people who had a poor understanding of how the universe works.

Think of it this way: Ponder a being who could not possibly allow suffering to exist, with the will and ability to prevent all suffering. The existence of suffering, in itself, logically disproves the existence of such a being. They're mutually exclusive conditions. Granted, the example above is a bit more complex, but the same principle applies.

If you honestly believe that anyone deserves to be tortured forever (or any length of time, for that matter), then you are an evil monster.

If he was all-loving, he wouldn't torture anyone endlessly like a deranged psychopath, and if he was all-powerful, he would have the power to prevent the situation entirely.

It becomes even more ridiculous when you bring omniscience into the equation. According to this line of reasoning, he knew beforehand that beings he created would be tortured forever (meaning they weren't making real choices, if it was preordained)...yet, either way, you have the audacity to claim this is a loving being who has the power to do anything...except, of course, create a world without suffering or eternal torture. It's utter madness.

Watch this five-minute video.


Everything I've said wasn't even necessary, because, once again, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that something exists.


We're not talking about a human bystander; we're talking about a being who (for the purposes of this discussion) created everything in the first place and is supposed to possess the qualities of omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience. See the more in-depth problem of evil quote above.

If you love someone, that means you care about them rather than being indifferent.

If one were to posit a deity who is indifferent or malevolent, or not all-powerful, all-knowing, and/or all-loving, I wouldn't be able to logically disprove it in the manner of the prior example.


You've got it backwards. Believing something without evidence is the height of insanity, and is the dangerously ignorant mindset of the Dark Ages.

Anyone with a grasp of science, logic, and reality knows that you need evidence to justify believing something. If you have no evidence for something, you literally have no reason to believe it. I'm assuming you don't believe in the thousands of other gods in mythology throughout history, right? Same goes for Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and any other random crap you can imagine, but don't believe in...because there's no evidence.

Proof and evidence are two distinct things, by the way. Proof lies in the realm of logic and mathematics, whereas there is only evidence in science. (There are also weaker, more casual types of proof that aren't actually proof, such as social proof.)

Believing something is true does not make it true. The popularity of an idea has no bearing on its validity.

One of the main reasons so many hold these particular beliefs is that countless people were slaughtered and tortured in their name, building the foundation for political control.

As for "intellectual support"...no true intellectual could take such absurd things seriously.

Since I suspect you misunderstand what constitutes disbelief, I'll leave you with this quote:



I see no argument; just...incoherence. :P

hazarddex said:


They could, but humanity was also said to be gifted with free will. Would not such a system strip that away?

hazarddex said:
They could, but humanity was also said to be gifted with free will. Would not such a system strip that away?

BlakexEkalb said:
I don't feel like typing anymore, as I've already answered all of your questions and you're just repeating your statements in different ways. I've answered all your questions, you're just rejecting any point that is illogical to your understanding. All comes down to faith, no matter what way you argue. Human logic can only get us so far in the discovery of the universe, people seem to forget this.

BlakexEkalb said:
Humanity was also specially created by God. Animals were create different to be controlled by humans.