Lots of bashing for the belief of God....

[GameOver22]

sapphi_snake said:

GameOver22 said:

God didn't create logical rules. They are a product of his rational nature. Being eternal and rational, the logical rules derive from God's essential characteristics, and these rules have existed for eternity. The rules do not exist outside God, and God did not create them. The rules exists consonant with God because his characteristic of rationality embodies logical rules (we wouldn't consider someone rational who did not acknowledge logical rules), and God is supremely rational.

WIth regard to your final sentence, the problem is coming from the fact that you are redefining the word. If you take any word, you can come up with many different definitions for that word, and they will not agree with eachother. For example, this is the problem at the root of your debate with Delio about homosexuality. Both of you are using different definitions of natural but treating them like they are the same. When theologians use the word omnipotence, they utilize it within a specific context. Changing the context of the definition and then arguing the word is non-sense doesn't prove anything because it is ignoring the fact that words are context-sensitive. Point being, your definition of omnipotence is one of the definitions, but it has been abandoned by theologians and atheists because it results in logical absurdities. Whenever you hear the word omnipotence used in a religious discussion (at least a proffessional one), I guarantee you they will be using the word in the way I defined it.

Seems to me like the only reason theologians changed the definition was to conver up the fact that their beleifs were irrational in the first place. Ah, I don't know why I engage in such conversations. They are just so pointless, when you can always bend reality.

If thats how you feel, then I do not think there is any way to change your mind. I will point out that many definitions and explanations operate in this manner. When you find something that conflicts with an idea or definition, you often attempt to further clarify the definition in order to eliminate the ambiguity or inconsistencies. This is true for many definitions or ideas and is not reserved to religious questions. You will find that atheism has undergone drastic changes as it has become apparent that atheistic conceptions of the universe did not mesh with science. The same goes for redefining science as it became apparent that classical definitions did not agree with developments in quantum physics.

Point being, it is not that the definitions change because they wish to cover up inaccuracies. They change becuase it becomes apparent that past definitions were inaccurate or inadequate. The definition of omnipotence has changed because the idea has evolved, and the term has become more refined as philosophers recognized the absurdities that result with the idea of an all-powerful being that can cause contradictions (a further understanding of logic forced them to clarify the defintion). The main point is that changing the meaning of a term is not a bad thing. Just because a term had some meaning in the 6th century does not mean that defintion is the right definition. The definition could just be inaccurate or be in need of further clarification given recent developments (one scientific example being the evolution of the term "atom").