The Theism/Atheism Discussion

[Arcesious]

I'm trying to say that God couldn't stay all powerful unless if he essentially was the entire universe, because the universe would keep making more and more infinite things, even things more powerful than God...

 

...

 

Wait a second...

That makes sense!

 

I've been forgetting his atrribute of omnipresence...

 

So, if he is all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere, he doesn't defy that logic... He could be omnipowerful and omniscient in comparison to the entire present universe, but metaphysically, he couldn't be as powerful as he could possibly be... So he would make himself even more infinite, to constantly becoem more and more infinite, more and more powerful... He may nto be able to ever truly be all-powerful, but he is all powerful and all knowing in the sense that he would infinitly and forever become more and more powerful and all knowing...

 

However I can't prove that... It could just as easily be the multiple other ways around... Therfore, it is ultimately impossible to prove or disprove God unless if he proved himself.

[Achilles]

However I can't prove that... It could just as easily be the multiple other ways around... Therfore, it is ultimately impossible to prove or disprove God unless if he proved himself.

Welcome to atheism. Here's your cookie.

[jonathan7]

I present this possible paradox:

 

Since infinite things are possible, omniscience and omnipotence are impossible.

 

I fail to see how the former has anything to do with the later. Also how do you know if infinite things are possible?

[Corinthian]

You know, that makes literally zero sense. The Universe doesn't make anything. Shockingly, the universe is not, in fact, a factory for stamping out some kind of God-Killing Army.

 

Achilles, you're acting like an idiot, which is surprising, because you usually display a fairly high degree of intelligence, even if I disagree with most of what you say. God cannot exist because he can't create something that could defeat him? That reminds me of people in my kindergarten class talking about Infinity + 1.

[Totenkopf]

So, since we have a problem that we cannot solve, we're going to change the meaning of the words so that there is no problem to begin with. And who is doing the creative interpretation with words? Christian apologists. Lovely.

 

Makes about as much sense as saying there is no god, but then trying to argue that that's just a working position b/c we can't really disprove its existence in the first place. athiest apologists. equally lovely

[JCarter426]

It's impossible to prove a negative. You can't prove there is a god any more than you can prove there isn't. However, one view requires more assumptions than the other. Belief in god requires one to believe that god is omniscient and omnipotent. Not believing in a god doesn't require one to assume anything.

[jonathan7]

Achilles does have a point about word changing and SOME Christians (I expierance this in my debates over if the Bible is infallible - I don't think it is, however I digress); I don't think here though Jae was really trying to do that, and if she did, it was purely accidental.

 

With regards God; if I may venture, while we should always encourage and think we should discuss Gods attributes etc, in the Christian conception perhaps I would like our situation to that to myself and my cat Tiggy. We have a relationship, and Tiggy will understand certain aspects of me; however Tiggy can never know what it is like to be me, or think on the same level as me, as I'm a 'higher' animal than he.

 

Argument for theism are intellectually dishonest, or at the very best, are based on intellectual dishonesty. I can't change that fact, Jae. Nor can I ignore it. I hope this is something you'll be willing to understand.

 

What is intellectual dishonesty? If I believe something to be true, should I not argue for it? I would also presume that you would hold there is in your opinion a small percentage chance of you being incorrect? I obviously think you are incorrect, however I do not think you are being intellectually dishonest.

 

But god created satan. Therefore unless satan is more powerful than god (or heck, equally powerful) then ultimately god is still responsible. This same argument applies to god putting the tree of knowledge in the garden of eden, etc, etc.

 

Below I shall quote Saint Augustine (intresting fellow, not a fan of his overall philosophy but...), I have used one earlier and am introducing a new one which maybe beneficial

 

For, were it not good that evil things should also exist, the omnipotent God would almost certainly not allow evil to be, since beyond doubt it is just as easy for Him not to allow what He does not will, as for Him to do what He will.

 

God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist.

[Jae Onasi]

Basically you're saying, "Point 6 cannot be true because if it were true, it would contradict the conclusion I've already decided upon. Since that is uncomfortable for me, Point 6 must be false".

No, I'm not saying that.

Devon made the assertion that God was all-powerful as part of his initial argument. Then he concludes in point 6 that God is limited. Those are mutually exclusive. Since point 6 is false, anything requiring point 6 to be true is void. It has nothing to do with comfort.

Why are you not acknowledging the contradiction in his argument?

 

jonathan7 addresses the intellectual dishonesty accusation better than I can.

[Nedak]

It's not God's fault you go to hell, it's Satans...

 

Yes, Satan is a fallen Angel, he supposable defied god... but you see... god is god. You can't defy god, when he is well.. god.

 

Why would Satan punish you for defying god anyways? Wouldn't that be a positive thing?

 

EDIT: Please answer these questions on the forums.

 

[Samuel Dravis]

So God knows what will happen. If He does act, and forces someone to do something against their will, what's going to happen to that person? Are they going to like it? Do you like being forced to do something against your will? If God forces everyone to love Him, is that real love? It is not. It's simply obedience at best. The only way to allow people to show love is to give them the opportunity to make the choice to do so. Anything else is forced.

I think it's important to note that I agree with this.

 

Discussing why God has done/not done something presupposes that God exists. If you don't believe God exists, or even if you have no proof that God exists, then the question is irrelevant.

It's an assumption for the purposes of a discussion. For this particular argument (about free will and omniscience), it's done to raise a contradiction between some commonly held beliefs.

 

How does that violate omniscience? You can know something will happen without intervening.

The point was that God cannot avoid interfering with his own creation, by the very act OF creation.

 

 

 

There is another solution to this question that I was thinking about. In this argument, there is an assumption that God is this being that has some particular attributes. That's not necessarily so. We're using a "philosopher's god" here, as Pascal pointed out. This God is not the God of the Bible. Since this is the case, the argument does not apply to the God of the Bible (which is not defined in terms of what he can do, but what he does and the praise people give him).

 

You're assuming that people go to hell against their will. They don't. They have made the choice, in rejecting God, to willingly go to a place without the presence of God. Do you think a loving God wants people to go to hell? Do you not think He tries to offer His love repeatedly? The people who end up in hell, whatever that may be, will end up there because they _wanted_ to be in a place without God. And God will allow them to have what they want.

Well, that's where the problem comes in. In what sense can God allow them to choose?

 

I am assuming that God is a... rationally understandable god here. If he wasn't, then him promising that we'd go to heaven and that he loves us would be meaningless, in the sense that we couldn't trust him. Maybe devout prayer means "please send me to hell" in god's logic. Who knows? In any case, it would be completely futile to try to figure it out.

 

So I suppose the question is: do you consider god to be bound by logic, or not?

[Achilles]

Achilles does have a point about word changing and SOME Christians (I expierance this in my debates over if the Bible is infallible - I don't think it is, however I digress); I don't think here though Jae was really trying to do that, and if she did, it was purely accidental.

The sources that Jae selected to defend her argument certainly did. It seems to me that since Jae quoted them, she intended for us to take their arguments as her own. Isn't that how that works?

 

With regards God; if I may venture, while we should always encourage and think we should discuss Gods attributes etc,...

Except that you can't. Not with any kind of intellectual honesty. How is it that you *know* the things about him (apparently we can distinguish gender with no physical evidence) that you claim to know without any evidence whatsoever? You can't.

 

Your language and the language of all theists is laden with "I believe" or "I think" or "God must", etc. You *know* absolutely nothing about him/her/they/it. You *pretend* to know quite a bit, but to *know* something objectively, you must have some sort of evidence.

 

So really, none of us *know* the first thing about his attributes. Makes "discussing" them kind of a moot point.

 

...in the Christian conception perhaps I would like our situation to that to myself and my cat Tiggy. We have a relationship, and Tiggy will understand certain aspects of me; however Tiggy can never know what it is like to be me, or think on the same level as me, as I'm a 'higher' animal than he.

I'll point out that there is some evidence for your existence (Tiggy has tangible proof that you are real). Your analogy does not apply.

 

But ignoring that for just a moment, if god does exist on a level completely alien to us, then how is it that we can discuss his attributes in the first place. If they are recognizable enough to be familiar, then surely he cannot be all that advanced right? You can't have it both ways.

 

What is intellectual dishonesty? If I believe something to be true, should I not argue for it?

You may also believe that you have a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in your back yard. At some point it would become apparent that you are lying to yourself in order to maintain this belief. You may choose to argue for its existence with your friends, but without any evidence for an actual refrigerator-sized diamond in your back yard you're lying to them just as surely as you are lying to yourself. That's intellectual dishonesty.

 

I would also presume that you would hold there is in your opinion a small percentage chance of you being incorrect? I obviously think you are incorrect, however I do not think you are being intellectually dishonest.

Incorrect about what? The only position that I hold is that there is no evidence for god, therefore it is completely unreasonable to believe that "he" exists. If any evidence ever comes to light, then my position will change from neutral to positive, but in the mean time, there is nothing for me to be incorrect about.

 

Now, if you could present a rational argument for how I have purposely ignored or failed to consider actual evidence, then you would indeed have a very strong case that I was behaving in an intellectually dishonest manner.

 

Below I shall quote Saint Augustine (intresting fellow, not a fan of his overall philosophy but...), I have used one earlier and am introducing a new one which maybe beneficial

My friend, Augustine is making this up. He is using his considerable skill to reconcile reality with fantasy and the product is apologetics. He's guessing. He doesn't know. And some long-dead author's best guess at the nature of his imaginary friend is not persuasive to me and it shouldn't be persuasive to you.

 

PS: I didn't say it before, but I'll take a moment to say it now: welcome back. I hope your studies are going well.

 

No, I'm not saying that.

Devon made the assertion that God was all-powerful as part of his initial argument. Then he concludes in point 6 that God is limited. Those are mutually exclusive. Since point 6 is false, anything requiring point 6 to be true is void. It has nothing to do with comfort.

But you are.

Point 6 is one of the extrapolations that produced by the premises. I get that you don't like what it says because it does not jive with your preconceived notion of omnipotence, but that's not because Devon's argument is flawed. The problem is that the notion of god's omnipotence does not hold up to scrutiny. You're being asked to choose between logic and faith, and not only are you voting for faith, but you're accusing the logic of being wrong.

 

If god is omnipotent then nothing is capable of existing without his will. If something can exist without his will, then he's not omnipotent. That's not Devon's fault, Jae, that's just how that works

 

Why are you not acknowledging the contradiction in his argument?

His argument is fine, therefore one of the premises must be false. I'm guessing it's the "all-powerful" one

 

jonathan7 addresses the intellectual dishonesty accusation better than I can.

As always, I thoroughly enjoy an opportunity to have a dialog with J7. Unfortunately, his arguments did not address my points about intellectual dishonesty, so either you or he will need to follow up if you would like to help me understand your side of the argument.

 

Thanks!

[Totenkopf]

It's impossible to prove a negative. You can't prove there is a god any more than you can prove there isn't. However, one view requires more assumptions than the other. Belief in god requires one to believe that god is omniscient and omnipotent. Not believing in a god doesn't require one to assume anything.....other than its nonexistence.

fixed

 

Right, so since they can't prove their statement, they dogmatically claim (some do anyway) that he doesn't exist. I agree with their right to BELIEVE that such an entity doesn't exist based on a lack of info, but find their absolute claims of nonexistence to be specious at best.

[SilentScope001]

I managed to force myself into this discussion (as much as I hate it) because I saw Samuel Dravis. And as soon as I get answer from Samuel Dravis, I'm getting out of here.

 

So, it's the debate between "free will and omniscience of God", so, um, can I try the same argument I used against you, except semi-refined (and hopefully alone)?

 

Samuel Dravis, I have re-read the original topic that spawned Kavar's Corner, Ethics and Religion (a rather, RATHER ugly topic in retrospect, oh I hate it), where I coined the term "RICE", or Random Intelligence Creation Engine, as way to resolve the delimma between an all-powerful God with the potential to know anything and, well, free will. As a repost of the idea of RICE:

 

You are God and you create something that randomly chooses everything. Why? Because you're God, and you like randomness for some reason. You decide to make sure that it is TRULY random. You press the button and then it creates templates for billions and billions of Humans.

 

"The Random Intelligent Creation Engine", this true randomness, is in fact how free will is deterimined. We freely choose what we do because of the RICE, and how it randomly chooses for us what we do. God may not like what the RICE comes out with (just like one may not like rolling 1s all the times), but God places it in anyway, because he made RICE to randomly create certain people.

 

So God has no contorl over us, and allows for our free will, represented by total randomness inside of the RICE, to take over.

 

One minor objection you had to the idea was this:

 

Knowing everything is one of the attributes of God, remember? It's hard to figure how he could know everything yet clearly not know it - a logical contradiction.

 

I objected by arguing God can do something irrational, but now I realize my error. I has misread the 'could' in your statement as 'must'.

 

God has the potential to know everything, but that doesn't mean he has to know everything. As you said before, he 'could' know everything, but being God, he has the potential to abandon such knowledge of everything if he so wills, likely by self-inducing a sort of forgetfulness.

 

In which case, the trait "all-powerful" will trumpt "all-knowing" in which that God is "all-knowing", but he can suspend that trait himself, and become "less-than-all-knowing". The fact that God is "all-knowing" would not be a key element of God, but rather, just one attribute that God has selected himself, somewhat like a piece of clothing that God wishes to wear on a day-to-day basis. If I wear a blue shirt all the time, that does not mean that blue shirt is 'essential' to who I am.

 

(Hence, God can still follow the laws of rationality. He would be all-powerful, so the trait of knowledge can be suspended. The only limit to his omipresence would be his inability to suspend logic, that is, God cannot make 2+2=5.)

 

The only good reason God would wish to forget what he has done is primarly to ensure that his creation in the RICE, man, would have free will. I also made the pretty fatal assumption that God himself has free will, and that God would desire for man to have free will too.

 

I hope this isn't misinterperation of key doctrine, as I don't want that to happen.

 

...All other arguments against the existence of RICE in granting free will are currently valid, but I'm willing to accept their faults for now. I just want to see if RICE can sustain itself currently.

 

Right, so since they can't prove their statement, they dogmatically claim (some do anyway) that he doesn't exist. I agree with their right to BELIEVE that such an entity doesn't exist based on a lack of info, but find their absolute claims of nonexistence to be specious at best.

 

Totenkopf, I say that aliens are on Mars plotting an invasion of Earth. I have no proof. Would you be willing to state that you will believe that my claims are pure bunk, or would you make the absolute claims of nonexistence of these aliens? Which method is more reasonable?

 

[i don't want to aid Achilles, mind you, I just want to ensure you got a counter, because I'm sure the athiests are going to try and spring this on you.]

[ET Warrior]

but find their absolute claims of nonexistence to be specious at best.

That is fine, as long as you are willing to make no claims as to the nonexistence of the invisible pink unicorns that guard my bed while I sleep. (Don't bother trying to touch them...they are ethereal)

 

I posit that they must exist, because no foul play has ever befallen me whilst asleep in my bed, but on occasion if I were to pass out on a friends floor I have woken up with my face drawn upon!

 

 

To be fair, I actually do not claim to know if there is (or is not) a god or gods or invisible pink unicorns. I merely choose not to believe in things for which there is no evidence (and particularly for extraordinary things that could EASILY provide ample evidence for their existence)

[Jae Onasi]

But you are.

Point 6 is one of the extrapolations that produced by the premises. I get that you don't like what it says because it does not jive with your preconceived notion of omnipotence, but that's not because Devon's argument is flawed. The problem is that the notion of god's omnipotence does not hold up to scrutiny. You're being asked to choose between logic and faith, and not only are you voting for faith, but you're accusing the logic of being wrong.

 

If god is omnipotent then nothing is capable of existing without his will. If something can exist without his will, then he's not omnipotent. That's not Devon's fault, Jae, that's just how that works

What other notion of omnipotence is there? The definition of 'all-powerful' is pretty specific. With that specific set of givens, you can't come to that conclusion--now if you're changing the game on the givens, then it's not the same argument anymore.

 

Why bother including 'God is all-powerful' in the argument if you're going to re-define it to something you like? If you take out the all-powerful as a given as it appears you now want to do, however, the rest of the argument still falls apart, because the conclusions after that don't follow either.

[JCarter426]

fixed

 

Not fixed! Not believing in a god is not the same thing as believing there is no god. I should point out that believing there is no god is also irrational, as it too is a belief based on an unprovable assumption.

[Achilles]

What other notion of omnipotence is there?

Well, according to your sources, we know there are at least two

 

The definition of 'all-powerful' is pretty specific. With that specific set of givens, you can't come to that conclusion--now if you're changing the game on the givens, then it's not the same argument anymore.

Can't come to which conclusion? Point 6? I, and I'd venture to say, Devon will argue that you can. I think this is why Devon asked you to address your arguments toward his specific points.

 

Using "all powerful", the extrapolation is that nothing can deviate from god's path. You however appear to want to argue that all-powerful means something else (specifically, sufficiently powerful that he can create things that are more powerful than himself [there we go with that rock again ]).

 

Why bother including 'God is all-powerful' in the argument if you're going to re-define it to something you like?

We aren't. You are

 

If god is all-powerful then nothing can operate outside of the parameters that he decides. You are arguing that things can. Therefore he is not all-powerful (e.g. the premise that god is all-powerful is false). You want to have god be all-powerful and not all-powerful at the same time. Our use of the term is clear. Yours is not.

 

If you take out the all-powerful as a given as it appears you now want to do, however, the rest of the argument still falls apart, because the conclusions after that don't follow either.

I think you're catching on

 

When you apply a little logic to the god hypothesis, it quickly falls apart under its own weight. Which I think Devon was hoping to illustrate.

[Nedak]

And still, nobody can argue the video I posted.

[Achilles]

And still, nobody can argue the video I posted.

Some have tried.

[Nedak]

^

Ah, didn't see that one.

 

 

Will post on there then

[Totenkopf]

Not fixed! Not believing in a god is not the same thing as believing there is no god. I should point out that believing there is no god is also irrational, as it too is a belief based on an unprovable assumption.

 

 

No, you're just not one of the irrational people to whom I refer. I was talking about people who unequivocably assert that god doesn't exist, despite the fact that they can't prove that one way or another. That's all.

 

@ET--you sure they're actually pink (afterall, they're invisible, no?) I mean, seeing as how you can't prove they exist any better than I could assert they're merely a figment of your imagination. Seriously, though, I've pretty much stated that I don't find fault with not believing in anything w/o evidence.

[Rev7]

Did you even read the definition you just quoted?

Why yes, yes I did. It was more of a figure of speech, I guess. I don't think that He is literally in my heart having a party. Besides, that is the only thing that I really need to know proving that He is real/exists.

[Emperor Devon]

Would you like to prove that it's not?

 

That your knowledge in a given area is not infallible, or that knowledge of something is not the same as creating it?

 

That is quite a leap in a conclusion. Just because the Creator makes something and knows what that creation is going to do doesn't mean that He cannot allow deviations by the creation.

 

Of course, but they will be deviations only in the context of that creation. Any form of defiance of the expected in regards to an infallible being negates its infallibility.

 

Your conclusion is not correct. If God cannot allow deviation, then He is not omnipotent.

 

Saying god 'allows' a deviation contradicts the very definition of the word; something which is not supposed to happen. There is no way a being can permit that which can't be permitted.

 

A deviation by its very meaning is beyond the realm of expected possibility or control. If god is infallible nothing should be beyond his capacity to expect or to control.

 

Though as Rand said, 'Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.'

 

God is all-knowing

God is all-powerful

God created everything

Souls are the determining factor for internal decisions

Souls [in their given contexts] do not have to act consistently

 

Which one could it be?

 

Further extrapolation is impossible because point 6 is not true.

 

I'll rephrase.

6. God made all souls with full knowledge of how they would act, so true deviations [from god's intent of how they would act] are impossible.

 

Try not to be sarcastic, unless you enjoy having posts moderated--and not necessarily by me.

 

No sarcasm was intended. I genuinely felt the argument could proceed more smoothly if specific sections of it were specifically addressed.

 

Break the rules here and you'll experience the same consequences as everyone else, and it will not be me enforcing that rule, it will be one of the other staff to avoid conflicts of interest.

 

In interest of preserving the newfound peace we've arrived at I'll drop this line of discussion.

 

In addition, aren't you ascribing the finite to the infinite by saying God is unable to give His creation freedom of choice?

 

If god can give his creation true freedom of choice, he is allowing a deviation from how he created it (because he knew exactly how it would act and chose for it to act that way) and is no longer infinite. Which of these would you prefer to negate his infinity with?

 

When you apply a little logic to the god hypothesis, it quickly falls apart under its own weight. Which I think Devon was hoping to illustrate.

 

Indirectly, yes. It was mainly at the impossibility of free will, but if you can perforate other holes in the logic all the better. (The point being to argue against god after all.)

 

Why yes, yes I did. It was more of a figure of speech, I guess. I don't think that He is literally in my heart having a party. Besides, that is the only thing that I really need to know proving that He is real/exists.

 

lol

 

 

No.

 

[Ray Jones]

So I suppose the question is: do you consider god to be bound by logic, or not?

There is no thing not bound by logic.

[Jae Onasi]

So, let me recap the recent free will argument here.

 

Devon presents an argument and says one of the given premises is God is all-powerful.

 

Devon proceeds to make conclusions, point 6 of which limits God's power, in contradiction.

 

Jae points this out this logical inconsistency.

 

Achilles says Jae is wrong and accuses all theists of intellectual dishonesty, despite the fact that he can't prove God _doesn't_ exist, all he can prove is that he himself doesn't believe.

 

Jae asks why this logical inconsistency is not a logical inconsistency.

 

Achilles brings out the old 'God and the rock' thing.

 

Jae brings out points that discredit this new (old) logical paradox, and points out that this does not negate the problem of the inconsistent conclusion in point 6.

 

Achilles then states that point 6 can be true because all-powerful doesn't mean 'all-powerful'.

 

Jae wonders what definition Achilles is using for 'all-powerful' that could be anything but all-powerful. Jae points out there is no argument in the first place without the given premise.

 

Achilles says God isn't all-powerful, so point 6 can be true, which can only mean that God is not infinite.

 

Jae decides that changing a given premise in the middle of an argument to suit one's intended conclusion is intellectual dishonesty.