(July 16, 2011 at 4:42 pm)Boris Spacek Wrote: Well, if you really think they would, I'm afraid that means they're at least a little dim. I was not saying that something prevents God from creating the nonexistence of whatever He creates, I was saying that realizing something's existence without further realizing the lack of it is not something God would be narrow minded enough to do. It's meaningless to ask God to create some obvious contradiction, like a square circle. So, why bring it up? Even if He could do such a thing, there would be no way of using it in our world. So if we're to use any logic here, we'll have to stop bothering God to perform mindless tasks.

I already brought this argument up in a dicussion with void but here goes. If we decide to talk about God's omnipotence then why can't he kill himself? Nothing logically contradicting like creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it, I can kill myself quite easily, so why can't an all-powerful deity manage it?

Any time threads like this pop up I feel the urge to link this book. No matter which side of the aisle you're on, the information in this book should be interesting.

http://www.amazon.com/History-God-000-Ye...0345384563

(July 10, 2011 at 10:12 am)Napoleon Wrote:

(July 9, 2011 at 9:01 pm)Boris Spacek Wrote: But I might simply ask you this:

Prove He doesn't exist

Oooh another one!

There's this thing called the burden of proof matey, and it is most certainly on YOU.

I suppose it is, but I'm in no hurry: apart from the origin of evil and the denouncing of my ontological arguments, I haven't really received any solid challenges against the possibility God does exist.

(July 16, 2011 at 5:24 pm)Boris Spacek Wrote: I suppose it is, but I'm in no hurry: apart from the origin of evil and the denouncing of my ontological arguments, I haven't really received any solid challenges against the possibility God does exist.

You're missing the point of the burden of proof. No challenges are needed for you to have to prove god exists.

Pretty hefty leap from god to God. I was looking back through the posts, and yep, I came in right under you regarding your missing a step, so you have had a pretty straightforward challenge. Is possibility the only thing you hope for from the christian god, you just want him to be possible? There are a great many things that I wish were possible......can these also be true?

(July 16, 2011 at 5:04 pm)Welsh cake Wrote:

(July 16, 2011 at 4:42 pm)Boris Spacek Wrote: Well, if you really think they would, I'm afraid that means they're at least a little dim. I was not saying that something prevents God from creating the nonexistence of whatever He creates, I was saying that realizing something's existence without further realizing the lack of it is not something God would be narrow minded enough to do. It's meaningless to ask God to create some obvious contradiction, like a square circle. So, why bring it up? Even if He could do such a thing, there would be no way of using it in our world. So if we're to use any logic here, we'll have to stop bothering God to perform mindless tasks.

I already brought this argument up in a dicussion with void but here goes. If we decide to talk about God's omnipotence then why can't he kill himself? Nothing logically contradicting like creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it, I can kill myself quite easily, so why can't an all-powerful deity manage it?

Well, you have to recall that death and killing are restricted to act on finitely extant organisms. How is that? Simply, a change in God's existence is not compatible with other of God's properties: God is defined as infinite and eternal, so if God presently exists, He will for all time. That may sound like we are capable of something God isn't, which could lead to my concluding God isn't omnipotent, but finite existence is merely a imperfect infinite existence. So, in fact, the restrictions placed on our existence are what necessitate death, to plunge us into infinite darkness or eternal life, depending on whether we chose God or against God.

The other way to see it is that God is (according to NeoPlatonic arguments) the idea or form of Good, which, since a form, is immutable and such.

---

(July 16, 2011 at 5:33 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote:

(July 16, 2011 at 5:24 pm)Boris Spacek Wrote: I suppose it is, but I'm in no hurry: apart from the origin of evil and the denouncing of my ontological arguments, I haven't really received any solid challenges against the possibility God does exist.

You're missing the point of the burden of proof. No challenges are needed for you to have to prove god exists.

It's on my To-Do board, but presently, I prefer plain old 'faith'. Our Creeds don't read "I have substantial evidence for the existence of God," but rather "I believe in One God..." In the meantime, I'd rather respond to actual arguments against God's existence than pleads to do so or gifts of burden. As a Christian, I don't feel compelled to prove God's existence; that's just not the emphasis of our faith.

---

(July 16, 2011 at 5:34 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Pretty hefty leap from god to God. I was looking back through the posts, and yep, I came in right under you regarding your missing a step, so you have had a pretty straightforward challenge. Is possibility the only thing you hope for from the christian god, you just want him to be possible? There are a great many things that I wish were possible......can these also be true?

Sorry, but I'm not certain which post you're referring to. Probably the guy who said:

1. Prove God exists.
2. Wax philosophical...

But it wasn't a leap (of mine, are you accusing?). As I've already said, I was responding to the original poster, who in his thought experiment, already presupposed the existence of God:

Quote:When "god" was making us, WHY would he even implant the ability to be violent?

I reluctantly offered to clarify the God I was being asked to prove existed, so as to show how it was a matter of explaining the nature of ideals, not of funding some interstellar mission to probe beyond the heliosphere. Debates touching on the existence of God should really be confined to discussions of what is good, how did there come to be evil, and other abstractions.

What do I hope for? Until I encounter some doctrinal or logical contradiction that should make God implausible (and have to iron it out or reject some attributes I've mistakenly given God), I don't really fret the im/possibility of God. I think most Christians, as the liturgy and Gospels and countless vampire movies encourage (Jerry Dandrich), just hope to have enough faith in that Heaven exists and that God doesn't hate them for them to be good people and live well. So, yes, we wish Him to be possible, but since most of us are either convinced by arguments or by emotion, we more importantly hope for the result of his existence: you know, a purpose to existence, life eternal, the blessings of salvation (Hell, where's my BCP).

---

(July 16, 2011 at 5:07 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Any time threads like this pop up I feel the urge to link this book. No matter which side of the aisle you're on, the information in this book should be interesting.

http://www.amazon.com/History-God-000-Ye...0345384563

Oh, and I've been meaning to read that.

---

(July 11, 2011 at 7:44 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote:

(July 9, 2011 at 9:01 pm)Boris Spacek Wrote:

---

Prove He doesn't exist, and I would be exerting myself as much as you. Well, maybe not quite. But I'll first make sure we're talking about the right God. Prove he doesn't exist given He is omnipotent and yet reserved enough to not wrench our free will about, omnipresent Spirit and yet once manifested in flesh, and everything righteous. There is no length of cosmic exploration sufficient to reveal that He is not there, since he can be everywhere; there is no turn of fate that can make it impossible for him to exist (but the problem of pain is a tricky one to handle, as a Christian). Basically, the easy way for Christians to demonstrate that God exists is to ask if good exists, and whether evil occurences can lead back to good, and since most people believe they do, then God must exist, because for Christians all good things come from God (wherever you think good things come from, there is God; when an atheist finds this source, what does he call it?). Next, since God is order and comfort, one may ask whether this world holds any comfort for us in knowing that our meager lives fulfill a higher purpose. Here is where we may part ways: I have faith that a higher purpose exists to make this transient world where we encounter chaos, arbitrary and unfair laws, and disappointment all part of a more orderly existence. You may not think so. You may have been moved deeply during the course of your life to be cynical of and dissatisfied with this supposed higher order, and this is why Christians really aren't troubled to prove everything: instead they have faith. I have faith in higher order of awe-inspiring purpose that our insignificant (by cosmological standards) lives fulfill; I have faith in there being a source of righteousness. Whether or not it's proved doesn't bother me, because we are talking about concepts now aren't we? Order and love? If I'm the sole person with these concepts, but elsewhere people insist they don't have them, they still exist. That I have faith in the Christian God proves His existence.

---

Do you realize that your proof of God involves characteristics you have given to God? I can do it too.

The FSM is the source of all light.
Light exists.
Therefore, the FSM exists.

For your proof to work, you would have to prove that God has the characteristics you claim he does. To do that, you'd have to prove God exists. See the problem?

I'm working on this one...But for now:

What if I hadn't given God these qualities? What if these were all scripturally based or teaching of church patricians? I know scripture doesn't prove anything; it's just a guide to God (from my point of view), and to anyone else it's the first source Christian philosophy and doctrine. I guess, my question is, if I call something the source of Goodness, wouldn't the next step to be to establish whether Goodness could have a source? You disagree with my method of naming, but I can't: if indeed the FSM is the source of all light, then, if a source of light exists, the FSM must as well.

All I've done is give a name to a collection of attributes: if each of these attributes exists, then shouldn't God as well? There would then be the question of coexistence: can all of these attributes be present in one body, God's? But if God is omnipresent, then sure. You can't confine any of these qualities to where God isn't, since He is everywhere. What about Hell being the absence of God? Where is that, then? I dunno. But it sounds like nonexistence, which God isn't a part of. Oh, so nonexistence is where exactly? Easy: nowhere. But does that mean Hell doesn't exist? No. Just that nonexistence and nothingness are Hell. You know, the ideas, not the material imitations.

---

(July 16, 2011 at 4:49 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote:

(July 16, 2011 at 4:42 pm)Boris Spacek Wrote: Well, if you really think they would, I'm afraid that means they're at least a little dim. I was not saying that something prevents God from creating the nonexistence of whatever He creates, I was saying that realizing something's existence without further realizing the lack of it is not something God would be narrow minded enough to do. It's meaningless to ask God to create some obvious contradiction, like a square circle. So, why bring it up? Even if He could do such a thing, there would be no way of using it in our world. So if we're to use any logic here, we'll have to stop bothering God to perform mindless tasks.

I agree the squared circle is a flawed argument, but these things are not brought up to have God perform meaningless tasks. They are brought up to see if God's qualities that are ascribed to him, such as omnipotence and omniscience, are contradictory in nature.

True. It was an intrusion to introduce an obvious contradiction instead of the more abstract one he brought up. And I was bringing an irrelevant complication into the midst by suggesting it was bothering God himself. Reverence for or fear of God, as well, must not cloud one's mind from asking such questions.

Quote:
This puts a limitation on God: he is not omnipotent as he cannot create one thing without it's anteform. Christian theology insists God is omnipotent, so in theory God could create "good" without creating "evil." However, Isaiah clearly states he creates evil, so the point is moot.

Perhaps you meant to say "a mote." Having replied to the contradiction in different posts, I'll take on Isaiah: Isaiah agrees with me. I wasn't trying to explain how God had nothing to do with creating evil, but how it came about as the one necessary condition to his creation of good. Now I imagine you want to blame him for creating evil. Would you rather inhabit a stagnant world where kind and cruel acts cannot be distinguished from one another? Or would you rather that God had no control over creating evil? Instead there were some equally powerful deity thwarting him at every step. Christianity offers you the comfort in knowing that since God is good, evil can be overcome and that, despite your propensity to sin and to be the victim of sinners, there is ultimately some benefit to a universe in which evil and righteousness coexist, since its goodly creator took all this into account and went ahead with creating them both (evil and rightwitness) anyway.

(July 17, 2011 at 1:14 pm)Boris Spacek Wrote: What if I hadn't given God these qualities? What if these were all scripturally based or teaching of church patricians? I know scripture doesn't prove anything; it's just a guide to God (from my point of view), and to anyone else it's the first source Christian philosophy and doctrine. I guess, my question is, if I call something the source of Goodness, wouldn't the next step to be to establish whether Goodness could have a source? You disagree with my method of naming, but I can't: if indeed the FSM is the source of all light, then, if a source of light exists, the FSM must as well.

My point was that you can't ascribe an attribute to god before you prove that he exists. Then when you end up using said attribute as proof of his existence, you are confirming god's existence with attributes of his existence. You're putting the cart before the horse, so to speak, with your argument.

Boris Spacek Wrote:All I've done is give a name to a collection of attributes: if each of these attributes exists, then shouldn't God as well?

If you could prove he was the source of these attributes yes, but again, proving he had these attributes would require to first prove he exists.

(July 16, 2011 at 5:34 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Pretty hefty leap from god to God. I was looking back through the posts, and yep, I came in right under you regarding your missing a step, so you have had a pretty straightforward challenge. Is possibility the only thing you hope for from the christian god, you just want him to be possible? There are a great many things that I wish were possible......can these also be true?

Sorry, your first sentence threw me off. (The capitalization is just a custom to me. It's not the way to write God once you have the theorem as opposed to the theory). But I understand you now. You're saying "I posted a challenge directly under my first post." Yes! Now I see that you did. I thought you meant that by, "I came in," you had just noticed some vital post directly under my post. No. I get it now.

But you do understand what I've been saying all this time, right? I don't need to prove God exists to engage the Young Atheist on his initial point of controversy. On the other hand, if you see it as a challenge, as opposed to the missing link to my argument (which it isn't!), then I will take you up on this, as it interests me too. However, it would be useful if you tried simultaneously to disprove God in whatever way you will; otherwise, we'll be singing the up and down song for the rest of our lives:

- Prove it!
-Disprove it!
-Prove it!
-Disprove it!
.......

---

(July 17, 2011 at 2:28 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote:

(July 17, 2011 at 1:14 pm)Boris Spacek Wrote: What if I hadn't given God these qualities? What if these were all scripturally based or teaching of church patricians? I know scripture doesn't prove anything; it's just a guide to God (from my point of view), and to anyone else it's the first source Christian philosophy and doctrine. I guess, my question is, if I call something the source of Goodness, wouldn't the next step to be to establish whether Goodness could have a source? You disagree with my method of naming, but I can't: if indeed the FSM is the source of all light, then, if a source of light exists, the FSM must as well.

My point was that you can't ascribe an attribute to god before you prove that he exists. Then when you end up using said attribute as proof of his existence, you are confirming god's existence with attributes of his existence. You're putting the cart before the horse, so to speak, with your argument.

Boris Spacek Wrote:All I've done is give a name to a collection of attributes: if each of these attributes exists, then shouldn't God as well?

If you could prove he was the source of these attributes yes, but again, proving he had these attributes would require to first prove he exists.

Ok. Fair enough. But what is God apart from these attributes? The way I see it, it's a simply equivalence: God is the source of goodness; he is eternity. I suppose I shouldn't call the source of goodness an attribute; whereas, it would be right to say, an attribute of God is that He IS the source of goodness. By my definition, God is these things, so I don't have to prove that, since it's an axiom. I think it sounds like I'm grafting onto someone else's God these attributes (which, from historical arguments, the Christians were doing), instead of starting fresh and algebraically making God the origin and entire populace of these qualities, these abstractions.

So, in effect, His existence should be ratified by the existence of what He is equal to. Recognizing God really should just be a matter of grouping and naming. About the only problem I can see from here is in deciding what God isn't: omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and all perfection. But thinking? Is He sentient? Anyway.

1. God = perfection (well, I can't get anywhere without this)
2. Perfection exists, among other things (duuuuuuhhhhhhh...maybe?)
3. Ergo God exists (I guess so)

It doesn't matter how many times you ask me to disprove it, in fact, it doesn't matter how many times I might annihilate a myth. The only thing that matters is that you claim that such a thing exists. You have obviously given thought to the attributes of god, or the hows and whys, but none of this is meaningful if the thing you are describing with the word god does not exist. I could describe the invisible red line that connects every human being to the cosmos by the navel, put forward theories as to how it could connect to the cosmos, and our navel, or form a logical argument that allowed for the possibility of such a thing......nonetheless, this is all meaningless until I can show evidence of the invisible red line itself.

The constant insistence that theists are just putting forward a possibility, that some new or novel idea is being presented is absurd and insulting to me. Your god is not some nebulous possibility, difficult to describe or define. Your god is well defined bronze age myth, with an established orthodoxy, and a laundry list of physical claims which have their own laundry list of counterclaims. If you want to argue for the god of the bible, do it. Don't feed me the deists god of possibility and then ask me to avert my eyes as you hurl yourself across the chasm between that god and your own.

Also

Harry Potter = perfect
perfection exists
ergo Harry Potter exists

I invite anyone else to insert whatever they hell they like into that argument just so we can get some really good ridicule going. I'm just tired of hearing it, maybe we could point everyone to a 40 page parody thread in the future, starting here.