Skeptic Bible Study: An omnipotent god?

Back



The OT says that the Christian god isn't omnipotent. Here are some of the verses that underscore Yahweh's limitations.

Channel: People & Blogs
Uploaded: April 4, 2008 at 3:35 am
Author: JohnLArmstrong

Length: 00:06:12
Rating: 4.84
Views: 2850

Tags: skeptic bible study Christian deism omnipotent god Old Testiment

Video Comments:
bobinmass (October 11, 2008 at 10:32 pm)
Can God create a stone that God can not lift?

If he can NOT create that stone, then he is not omnipotent.

If he can create that stone, then he can not lift it and he is not omnipotent.

Therefore, God is NOT omnipotent.
Diomedes01 (September 7, 2008 at 7:51 am)
If as you articulate, it is a matter of 'faith', then simply accept that you have no proof and are merely relying on your so-called instinct of faith.
The problem is Christians attempt to pass off their faith as "absolutely true". By your own admission, you can never actually know. You hide behind a veil of "unwavering faith" yet try to pass off your beliefs are being factual. You can't have both. Have your faith. I want proof. Until you can provide some, you have no argument.
jwilkerson2004 (October 10, 2008 at 10:52 am)
Well im not sure if i want any proof, because then there would be no reason for faith. If we could prove anything, then why would we need faith. Thats the whole point in believing. The only proof i can offer up are experiences that i have had with God. I know that it's not going to change your mind, but thats the only way I know that God is real.
jwilkerson2004 (September 6, 2008 at 10:10 am)
First of all, I would like to apologize to John. I do not intend to insult him or to argue with him. I'd rather have more of a conversational tone. So i am sorry for my earlier remarks.
Diomedes01 (September 6, 2008 at 8:37 am)
Then no amount of empirical proof could ever "prove" the existence of a god. Therefore, no one should or could make the claim. For anything that supposedly exists outside our "reality" is impossible to measure. Thus, we can never make absolute claims pertaining to his existence, now can we?
Remember, it is the religious that need to provide the empirical evidence. If by their own admission, that is impossible, than no one can claim with any certainty that any god exists.
jwilkerson2004 (September 6, 2008 at 10:24 am)
The relgious don't need to prove anything. The main part of the Christian relgion,is based on faith. So making a claim about a God that is outside of our "reality" is one based on faith, not on a fact. The fact that so many people try to disprove Christianty is funny, because you also can't disprove a "God" or "Higher Being." I know the next statment will be "Christians need to provide the evidence."
jwilkerson2004 (September 6, 2008 at 10:32 am)
But yet isn't funny how there is a whole youtube series on debunking the christian religion, when according to that statment, shouldn't even be necessary since it's the Christians who should be giving evidence and not the unbelievers trying to disprove it.
JohnLArmstrong (September 6, 2008 at 5:05 pm)
If Christians would leave everyone else alone, we'd have no debate. Because Christians feel the need to kick down bedroom doors, burn books and use our tax dollars, cramming their beliefs down our throat, that we're having this discussion at all.
jwilkerson2004 (October 10, 2008 at 11:03 am)
I don't believe everyone that claims to be christian, really is christian. Some of those things have been done, and they aren't the best way of going about things. Usually their motive is good, but the end result is negative. Most christians don't go around burning books, and yelling at people, telling them that they are going to hell, but thats what people remember most. Christ always said to come to people with love. Thats what should be shown.
jwilkerson2004 (September 5, 2008 at 5:47 pm)
Im not going to deny that, but you put the word "christian" so general it's makes you more ignorant than right. You are doing exactly what you say the "christians" are doing, yet you say yours is different, cause it's right based on so called "facts," and "inconsistencies" but yet i see many of the same "flaws" in you rationale.