So either He can or He can not do something given the context of his all powerfulness. You stated you don't mean to use it as an arguemnt against a god, then why bring it up? I mean you must have posted the rock so heavy, or the 4 sided triangle questions at least 1000 times. What is the point?
for the record i blame god for my tendency to like the dirtiest and filthiest sins. yunno, it is almost as if the religions were designed to make me feel guilty. hmm, i think i may be on to something here.. or maybe...maybe the religions that happened to have ways for humans to feel guilty about sin were more successful because humans like guilt! hmmmm. perhaps religions just teach us about ourselves, eh? maybe we love to seek redemption? from sins that are not even actually bad? and maybe this tendency infects every issue? hmmm, make me wonder..
the point is what i just said. these problems are not something that proves anything about god. clearly he can be as illogical as he wants. by believing in him we concede that pretty early on. if merely demonstrating that god was illogial was something that we cared about, we would have ditched the myths long ago. my understanding of faith and belief is that you dont have to care about that stuff anymore. if you want to think that transubstantiation is real and you drink jesus blood, so be it. there is no real point in explaining it away. the point again, is that all, and i mean literally all, of the rules are trashed at the door to religion. there is no point in proving this or that is absurd. of course it is absurd. thats the point isnt it? if it were not absurd it would be called sanity or reality. so again, if you god cant make a square circle, that is fine. my god can do that. he can do anything. since we are both making it up, its cool. there is no point of reference so the whole discussion is without any meaning whatsoever.
let me further the point, and i apologize for being boring. when we ask, did god create sin, that is not a real question. if i say "yes he did", thats cool. or if i say "he definitely didnt", thats cool too. none of this has anything to do with anything real. it is like discussing which of santa's reindeer flies the fastest. i can argue that blitzen can gallop through the sky like a rocket because his father is like the reindeer secretariat and his mom is a lightning bolt. it is a discussion without any significance or meaning. i know the original intent was to point out the absurdity. but that is lost on christians. they take the question and run with it as if it is real. and that is both funny and perhaps a bit tragic.
The argument isn't whether darkness exists, clearly there are places where the absence of light exist. According to how I defined darkness in my previous statement, darkness is merely the absence of light. Therefore, I would argue that the absence of light, doesn't mean darkness was "created."
I see it as neither tragic nor funny. I think it demonstrates a wholly disingenuous way of engaging dialogue on the part of the questioner. Why pose the question in a manner to evoke a response when the only intent is to berate the respondent? Why not be honest and say from the beginning things like "you Christians and your leprachaunology are dumb." The fact that Christians can logically answer these questions makes the original point moot. You are the only person I know that even remotely attempts to promote atheism in an intellectually honest manner. Most atheists like to put up the front that they are interested in actual conversations. You resort to this sometimes, but are mostly above the fray, so thanks.
