Quote:
Scott Hebert said:
Quote:
quantum_mechani said:
Quote:
BigDaddy said:
He said, "It is only when you say that everything he is supposed to have said and done is the absolute truth that things start seem a little rickety."
Which intends that an omnipotent being can't do whatever it likes. Therefore, if that was the "heart" of his arguement, a misunderstanding was made about what is possible. Or possibly a "fear" of admitting that something that powerful AND kind might exist. I honestly meant no cheap shot.
|
There is a huge difference between if an omniscient being could do something, and having evidence that they did take a particular action.
|
Um, did you mean 'omnipotent' there?
And I will also put the question to you. What would you consider evidence?
|
Yes, I did mean omnipotent. The difference between my acceptance of Julius Caesar, and my skepticism of a guy named jesus performing miracles is that one requires no change to the detected laws of physics. So, I am much more willing to believe accounts of Julius's existence. If the bible were filled only with an account of what jesus ate for breakfast everyday, I would have little cause to doubt it.
Since so many things do fit in with physic's model of the universes, and the only thing going against it is few thousand year old accounts, I'm inclined to side with the former. Note that this has nothing to do with the existence of a god, merely one particular group of peoples opinions as to what a god's attributes should be.