...I am now atheist.

[Fippe94]

There are some serious problems with assuming god being omniscient, omnipotent and good at the same time. I think you are gonna have to give up either god's omnipotence, or god's omniscience.

[OldTrees]

There are some serious problems with assuming god being omniscient, omnipotent and good at the same time. I think you are gonna have to give up either god's omnipotence, or god's omniscience.

I believe only omnipotence (and omniscience as a proposed subset of omnipotence) are being discussed right now, so I don't think we need to examine the problem of evil (omnipotent, omniscient, & omnibenevolent) at this time.

[Fippe94]

Hmm, you're right. However, ElementalDearWatson did point out some issues with omniscience+omnipotence as well.

[OldTrees]

Hmm, you're right. However, ElementalDearWatson did point out some issues with omniscience+omnipotence as well.

Omnipotence is hard to define without it being self contradicting. (Ex: Does it contain "Can be able to can't be able")

That is why I often wonder if it is merely a hyperbolic term to describe a much more consistent concept.
For example: The laws of reality result from lines of code. An "omnipotent" (hyperbole) being is an object that can edit almost any part of that code. The ability for an "omnipotent" being to edit the code is part of the code.

[ElementalDearWatson]

That is why I often wonder if it is merely a hyperbolic term to describe a much more consistent concept.

I think that's because you've applied more thought to it than the majority of people who use the term to describe something that they believe in.

[MasterofPun]

There really doesn't need to be a perfectly logical understanding of God - in fact - if there is - then God is less than what He claims to be. Human logic has its limitations and weaknesses - particularly in the supernatural (which is a tricky word to define).

[Blacksmith]

There really doesn't need to be a perfectly logical understanding of God It's true, especially if he dosen't exist. - in fact - if there is - then God is less than what He claims to be.Why? Human logic has its limitations and weaknesses - particularly in the supernatural (which is a tricky word to define).Supernatural= things that can't be explained by logic?

I never thought the question of weather god exist or not to be the important question. The important question is weather or not there is a religion that sounds reasonable, is worth believing in and has been consequent without any changes in it's existence. So far all I've encountered has been far far from.

[MasterofPun]

Could you be a bit more clear please on what characteristics you are looking for? I'm not sure I understand your thoughts.

The Bible has never changed since it was written. It never will change. God will never change. That seems pretty constant to me, but I'm guessing I don't understand what you are saying.

[batboy2002]

master pun i had the question does god exsist and i went back between yes and no then one day i decited that everything has a logical answer now my mind is clear and i'm looking to the future and not the past have you looked at the paradox can god make a boulder heavier then he can move this is my fav by far

[Aves]

The Bible has never changed since it was written. It never will change. God will never change. That seems pretty constant to me, but I'm guessing I don't understand what you are saying.

Language is not static. It changes and evolves as its people do. This is why we have such things as High and Vulgar Latin, or Old, Middle, and Modern English, or indeed, different languages. The Bible was written in (an ancient form of) Hebrew and Greek. This was translated into Latin in the Roman Empire, and from Latin into the languages of various successor and contemporary states. To say that the language of the Bible has never changed would be patently false. If you say instead that the meaning of the words in the Bible has never changed, that is more plausible, but still troublesome to consider when you factor in the nature of translation. It is impossible to perfectly translate cultural subtext, language specific idioms, and relevant background knowledge without expanding the book twice over for notation; words in one language may have different historical backgrounds, connotations, and implications than in another, or they may even not have an appropriate substitution.

This, of course, says nothing about the hundreds of different interpretations people have laid over the Bible. That doesn't even factor into the above.

[batboy2002]

The Bible has never changed since it was written. It never will change. God will never change. That seems pretty constant to me, but I'm guessing I don't understand what you are saying.

Language is not static. It changes and evolves as its people do. This is why we have such things as High and Vulgar Latin, or Old, Middle, and Modern English, or indeed, different languages. The Bible was written in (an ancient form of) Hebrew and Greek. This was translated into Latin in the Roman Empire, and from Latin into the languages of various successor and contemporary states. To say that the language of the Bible has never changed would be patently false. If you say instead that the meaning of the words in the Bible has never changed, that is more plausible, but still troublesome to consider when you factor in the nature of translation. It is impossible to perfectly translate cultural subtext, language specific idioms, and relevant background knowledge without expanding the book twice over for notation; words in one language may have different historical backgrounds, connotations, and implications than in another, or they may even not have an appropriate substitution. i agree to this

[Blacksmith]

Could you be a bit more clear please on what characteristics you are looking for? I'm not sure I understand your thoughts.

The Bible has never changed since it was written. It never will change. God will never change. That seems pretty constant to me, but I'm guessing I don't understand what you are saying.

In addition to what the previous 2 people said. If we take christianity as an example. From the start there where only 1 main belief. Now it has been was divided into 4 big groups, coptic church, cathoholic church, protestant church and ortodox church. Furthermore those got thousands of sub groups, so the religion really has changed. Even if the Bible stays more or less the same, how it is interpenetrated is up to the human beings and they change all the time. There are not 2 single people in the the existence of man kind who has had the exact same view on life and living. People also change their relation to a religion during their lifetime. If christianity was the one and true religion, how on earthwould anyone be able to know which way that is the right one when everyone has their own way and views?
So no I wouldn't say christianity as a community is consequent. The people believing in christianity is not consequent either, not even in the same lifetime.