MEXICANCOMMANDO said:
Basically. It assumes:
(A) That God is the Christian God. Although I agree, that YHWH is THE God, it seems weird that an Atheist 'picks' only to focus on YHWH.
(B) God is a female? hahaha! What is this founded on?
(C) Thirdly is contradicts itself. It states that God, if there is a God, must be omnipotent. Yet no matter how omnipotent God is he must still be bound by logic? Kinda defeats the purpose of omnipotance.
(D) The article states that an Enlightened person will denounce Religion? Then why are there Harvard, Princeton, Stanford alumni and professors that devote their lives to Religious studies and then never lose faith? What makes me laugh are the Atheist that devote their lives to Religious studies for the purpose of disproving religion, why would they devote so much time and effort into disproving something that they find to be made up?
(A) That God is the Christian God. Although I agree, that YHWH is THE God, it seems weird that an Atheist 'picks' only to focus on YHWH.
(B) God is a female? hahaha! What is this founded on?
(C) Thirdly is contradicts itself. It states that God, if there is a God, must be omnipotent. Yet no matter how omnipotent God is he must still be bound by logic? Kinda defeats the purpose of omnipotance.
(D) The article states that an Enlightened person will denounce Religion? Then why are there Harvard, Princeton, Stanford alumni and professors that devote their lives to Religious studies and then never lose faith? What makes me laugh are the Atheist that devote their lives to Religious studies for the purpose of disproving religion, why would they devote so much time and effort into disproving something that they find to be made up?
2. nowhere does it assume that
3. Some people say that he can only do things that are logically possible to do, but what is? Is it logically possible to walk on water? Is it logically possible to rise from the dead? Is it logically possible to stand above time, space and all other dimensions - and still exist? I'd say that everything which violates the laws of physics are logically impossible and thus omnipotence is logically impossible. Besides if omnipotence is a relative quality there is no way to tell omnipotence from non-omnipotence. For omnipotence to be a valid expression it must be absolute, but we have no objective criteria to measure omnipotence so the word itself is useless.
4. what baffles me is how you people follow an intangeable being which has never been proven to exist. the only reason you believe in it is because of heresay