Another commentator proposed the following dilemma:
A logic The Paradox of Omnipotence 1. Either God can create a stone which he cannot lift, or he cannot create a stone which he cannot lift. 2. If God can create a stone which he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent (since he cannot lift the stone in question). 3. If God cannot create a stone which he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent (since he cannot create the stone in question).
4. Therefore God is not omnipotent.
Note that if we grant that God is not omnipotent this would not disprove God’s existence but demonstrate that human beings have been mistaken regarding one of His attributes.
Now, can God create a stone which He cannot lift (or create a square circle, or a burrito so hot that He cannot eat it, etc.). Restricting the answer to only the word “Yes” or the word “No” is a false dichotomy—this is A logic.
The syllogism is not valid and therefore the conclusion “Therefore God is not omnipotent” is false.
Yet, note that strictly speaking God is not omnipotent since the Bible states, for example, that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2). But we appear to be considering a faulty definition of omnipotence.
I begin by asserting that God cannot create a stone which He cannot lift because God is a rational being who does not do anything that violated His nature. Omnipotence should perhaps be thought of as being the ability to do that which is rational and not be thought of as the ability or to do anything and everything—even things that are contradictory. God cannot create a stone which He cannot lift because such illogic, irrationality, is contrary to His very nature and character.
The commentator continued by stating,
And for other fun info use google.
Alrighty then! If you consider Atheist-Pre-Sunday-School to be fun then, by all means.
They also wrote,
Why should i worship God, even if he does exist. Do you worship Bill Gates because he is richer than you? Or force others to worship him?
I have not had a gander at God’s bank account. In any case, this is tantamount to a Q&A I already provided above.
They also wrote,
Does God require us to worship him? Vain!(which incidentally is one of the seven sins) I would also say sc rew [sic] you God. May you rot with your ****** creations in the forsaken ‘heaven’ forever. And I pray to God that he ‘forgives’ me for saying that.
(Hey what is heaven? Do we get to indulge in good food, sex doing nothing else? Why couldnt [sic] he have allowed to do this without being born in earth in the first place).
The issue of referring to God as vain is tantamount to a Q&A I already provided above. I too pray that God forgives the commentator of whatever they need forgiven.
Heaven is a temporary environment that is inhabited by the deceased who chose to live with God forever. Eternal life will be lived in the “new heavens” and “new Earth” in the “new Jerusalem.” There will be food in the eternal abode but no sexual relations but there will be much else: the eternally abiding with God will be the ultimate heuristic experience as in the personal presence of God Himself and in a creation unstained by sin the possibilities are limitless (metaphorically speaking).
The question about why we could not be “allowed to do this without being born in earth in the first place” is rather odd: can you not “indulge in good food, sex doing nothing else”? But I think that the question is why, if we can do that in the here in now why does the Bible assert a heaven in which to do the same? It is not the same and we do not have a very detailed picture of what eternity will be like; such a description would require the Bible to be eternally written as it would be constantly updated with eternal descriptions. But let us grant that in the New Jerusalem we will do the same as we do here; even in such a scenario it will be done in a sin free environment. For example, food will be for enjoyment and sustenance and not for comforting psychologically challenging reasons, as food addiction, towards deleterious health related effects, etc.
The Biblical scenario is that of an initial prefect creation populated by human beings who posses free will and caused the fall into sin which has a deleterious effect upon the creation as a whole. Next comes the offer of forgiveness. Next comes the solidification of the free will choice as those who chose forgiveness—a rejection of sin—are provided with an abode in which to live out this eternal choice. Likewise, those who chose not to have their sins forgiven—who chose, as it were, to keep their sin—likewise are provided with an abode in which to live out this eternal choice.
They also wrote,
And Adam was created in the image of God, how could he be imperfect?
The Bible makes clear that both Adam and Eve, both male and female, were created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). They were created with the ability to choose—free will. They chose imperfection. God knows that true love requires choice and so free will was necessary. Free will requires choice for and against. They chose against.
But if they were perfect they would never have chosen against. This is a misunderstanding of what it means to be created in the image of God which appears to mean that they possessed certain likewise attributes such as personhood, volition, rationale, etc. There is no indication that they were perfect or that it follows that “in the image of God” means perfect; after all, an image is not the thing itself.
They also wrote,
Also, Ken(edit) are you a sexist? A follower of the bible must be so. You know Eve and the original sin, all that crap.
No, Ken(edited or unedited) is not a sexist and neither must a follower of the Bible. Let us imagine that, what I take the statement to be, Eve was the cause of the original sin: if this is a fact then stating it is not sexist but merely a factual statement (the comment section to my post Biblical Women is saturated with misconceptions such as that made in the question/assertion). Moreover, this betrays a misunderstanding of the Biblical position on the original sin’s cause as the Bible states,
…If I covered my transgressions as Adam… (Job 31:33)
…For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive… (1st Corinthians 15:22)
…through one man sin entered the world…death reigned from Adam……the transgression of Adam… (Romans 5:12, 14).
Oh, the Biblical emphasis, the fault for original sin, is placed on Adam and not on Eve—well then Ken(edit) must be a sexist? A follower of the bible must be so. You know Adam and the original sin, all that…stuff. If a mollusk had caused the original sin then I would be asked if I am engaging in specism, I must be, etc.
They also wrote,
You know brian [sic] you lose the right to reason as you are [bold]trying[/bold] now since knowledge is the original sin right. Shouldn’t you strive to remove all knowledge from your mind? And grovel, praise, grovel more at the feet of God? What a fascinating life! [[bold]…[/bold] in original]
Apparently, they think that since knowledge was the original sin we should be attempting to rid ourselves or knowledge. It would require knowledge to acquire the knowledge to rid ourselves of knowledge. In any case, this assertion is saturated with fallacies. The original sin was not knowledge but was—you guessed it—sin.
God told Adam and Eve, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat” (Genesis 2:16-17). Ah, there it is; knowledge was the sin—hit the delete button of your brains everyone. We will get back to that.
In order for free will to be truly free there had to be something in the garden which allowed for the possibility of choosing against God—it had to, it must, be there.
The original sin was choosing against that which God had stated, for when Eve is asked “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” she explains that they could eat the fruit of the trees of the garden with the exception of one. Hereafter she is encouraged to rebel by the offer of a specific contradiction of that which God had stated. Satan’s primary seed of doubt was the question “Has God indeed said…” and this has been the very same seed of doubt that he has used ever since. In fact, atheism is premised upon the question “Has God indeed said” and they respond “No, as there is no God to say anything.” Well, let us go back to the sexism issue for a moment as it is clear that it was Eve’s fault—right? Not so. Note that, “when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.” This is why the Bible goes on to state, “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (1st Timothy 2:14). Thus, the reason that sin came into the world via the man-male-Adam is that, apparently, while Eve was a victim of deception he chose to sin.
Adam chose the knowledge of good and evil: his eyes where thereafter opened to all of the possibilities of evildoing; all of the evil choices he could make in all situations that would arise. Thus, there is quite a lot wrapped up in an apparently simple act of eating a forbidden fruit.
They also wrote,
Most religions(yes there are other religions all with their own gods,prophets,incarnates,etc,e tc… [sic] if you didnt [sic] know that) atleast [sic] try to define sins properly. But, christianity [sic] fails even at that.
Yes, I have heard rumors that there are other religions (even though, strictly speaking, Christianity is not a religion). This is obviously a reductio ad absurdum whereby it is being implied, or so I infer, that there is no taxonomy, as it where, of sin within Christian theology. This is clearly fallacious. In fact, one of the important benefits and elucidations of the Christian conception of sin is that it identifies that sin begins with a thought. Be vigilant of the thought and you will avoid many a sin. I wrote an entire essay on this point entitled On the Life of Our Thoughts.
What would you rather do? Would you rather fight a forest or city fire? Or would you rather wet your finger tips and put out that little tiny match with that little tiny flame which would turn into a forest or city fire? Put out that little tiny flame and you will not have to fight a forest or city fire.
They also wrote,
Also, some of the faults you pointed out Ken(edit) are themself [sic] faulty.
evilbible.com didnt [sic] deny that Bible didnt [sic] condemn rape. evilbible.com just said God asked men to commit these hideneous [sic] actions inspite [sic] of that.
If this is a fault of mine a quote or two from evilbible.com should be provided. Evilbible.com claims that God not only does not condemn rape but that God commands rape the evidence is in my parsed post Atheism, the Bible, Rape and EvilBible.com.
Lastly, I would like to point out that for all of the questions, comments, assertions, fallacies, personal besmirchments, etc. I would be surprised if any of the commentators actually read anything that I wrote discrediting evilbible.com beyond the basic text that I provided at the Q&A website.
Rather, instead of meeting the argument on the argument’s own grounds they seemed very pleased to serve up undercooked red herrings of every sort. They seemed to pull out their old bag of tricks in order to provide themselves an excuse for not engaging in actual skepticism and matching up what evilbible.com claimed versus the reality of the Bible’s text.
They replaced reasoned discourse with belligerence, replaced scholarship with emotionally charged assertions, replaced intellectual integrity with ad homenims and peppered it all with arguments from outrage, arguments from partial information, arguments to ridicule, arguments to embarrass, etc.
The only thing in which they succeeded was in discrediting themselves by openly displaying their lack of knowledge of various subjects.
May this essay will be heuristic.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.