False. That is a popilar misconception pointed out as such to Pope Pius XII by the Catholic priest and physicist George Lemaître.
I didn’t claim or imply “perfection is self-defeating”; rather the equivocating and inconsistent way you use the term is nonsensical. Clearly, by any ordinary use of “perfect”, “all powerful” is perfect and, by comparison, less-than-“all powerful” is not perfect; in other words, “perfectly powerful”, at the very least, includes “all powerful”, which defeats (your) OOO-God apologia and returns to the conclusion of Epicurus’ Riddle: “Then why call him God?”
You are indeed. No one is wanting to prove my existence. I don’t need to prove my own existence. You are suddenly changing the subject from the existence of God to existence of a person. This is a serious confusion and misleading the debate.
Not at all. Edwin Hubble observed evidence of cosmic expansion and the CMB is the observable limit of the universe when it’s current development was only about 380,000 years old. Neither are evidence of a “beginning of tne universe”, only indirect evidences of a universe that superluminally expanded to about 90% of its (observable) size from an exponentially smaller-radius, higher energy-density (hotter) state.
Humans and material objects can be seen when in the observable space and time physically. The reason that you cannot see a human being is he is not in the space and time within your sight.
God is supposed to be omnipresent which transcends space and time, and can exist everywhere and through all times. So human existence and existence of God are in totally different.
Even if humans cannot be seen, God must be still visible. You just need to prove it. We are debating here how can you prove the existence of God (not humans), and what is the general faults found in the arguments.
You are confusing human existence and God existence. They are not the same. This type of silly confusions and misleading claims are one of the generic failures in arguement for the existence of God.
Its evidence that what we label the universe (spacetime, the laws of physics, the existence of matter and the four fundamental forces) began to exist 13.8 billion years ago. Some folks insist anything prior to the big bang is also the universe but not in any manner in which we define the universe today.
superluminally expanded to about 90% of its (observable) size from an exponentially smaller-radius, higher energy-density (hotter) state.
At which time it became what we know as the universe. It wasn’t the same as ice turning into water…not remotely.
It actually doesn’t matter to my claim the universe was intentionally caused. It doesn’t depend on when the universe (as we know it) was caused. It depends on the myriads of conditions, laws of physics and properties of matter that caused life to exist. 13 billion years ago the universe was dark cold and incapable of causing life. It spend 9 billions years creating all the conditions that would enable a planet earth to exist. You say it was happenstance I say otherwise.
Your argument is that “all powerful” is perfect and, “perfectly powerful”, at the very least, includes “all powerful”.
My argument is that perfectly powerful is not the same as all powerful because perfect power can be used only for good and not for evil, while all powerful/absolute power can be used for good as well as evil. This makes all powerful/absolute power imperfect.
But God’s perfect goodness can restraint all powerful/absolute power from evil, absolute power then becomes perfect power, in the hand of God, which cannot be used for evil.
