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

(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)

Quote:I don't need to prove God exists to engage the Young Atheist on his initial point of controversy.

Then in essence you have an invalid argument to start with. That street runs two ways. You say you do not have to prove god in order to engage the younger atheists? That said they do not have to disprove a god on the same count...the god argument the way I see it is a moot point of debate. Theists have absolutely no evidence, zilch that a god exists. Their claim rest solely on the pages of a book written solely by men, with questionable authorship to start with, who claim they are writing in the name of a god. Your resting your entire claim of a god on this? Weak, very weak.....

(July 17, 2011 at 2:28 pm)Boris Spacek Wrote: 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.

Okay, for the sake of argument I'll give you that god is the source of all goodness for now. How do you define goodness, or more appropriately, how do you define what a deity would define as goodness? What we think as good, might be trivial to god. Since god would be the ultimate authority, how can you know that anything that exists would be what he considers good? For all we know, this existence would be considered a complete cesspool by a deity.

Boris Spacek Wrote: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.

Remember though, when using this kind of 'proof,' you can shoehorn god into existence by ascribing him any attribute you know to already exist. Suddenly god's existence becomes a subjective matter of giving him properities.

Boris Spacek Wrote: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)

The problem here is that either attribute you ascribe to god, perfection or imperfection, exists. Ignoring the problems already discussed, the only way for this to work would be if god was ascribed the opposite attribute it would prove that he doesn't exist.

(July 17, 2011 at 3:55 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 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.

Don't be so insulted; you're being overdramatic. God of the Bible, eh? Well, there are two notable gods of the Bible: the Old Hebrew God and the God of the New Testament, as arguments from theology, history, and anyone just skimming through the bible should make very clear. The Christian god is not a "well defined bronze age myth;" in fact, since you seem so skeptical that I'm even talking about the Christian God, here's where I'm getting these craaaaaazy ideas, and not reinventing them:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm

The equation I gave you was a simple syllogism. I say God is perfection--obviously, to me, He is much more than that--but for now, as long as perfection exists, so should God. That's how algebra works. I've begun with an initial declaration and admittedly not gotten very far. About the only thing you could take issue with is whether perfection exists, which, strangely enough you seem to:

Quote:but none of this is meaningful if the thing you are describing with the word god does not exist.

So, you don't believe in perfection? .... I have nothing to say to that.

In your syllogism, you insist that Harry Potter is perfection...unfortunately you would be guilty of causing a duplicate local variable error, since everybody already knows Harry Potter is not perfection, but a moody, magical teen. However, were you to properly instantiate Harry Potter as your own character and not J K Rowling's, your argument would be perfectly sound. As an atheist (or Agnostic? or Liberal Arts graduate?), God shouldn't already be defined for you. So why do you keep rejecting my definition? You'll have no hope of arguing reasonably if you attack me on completely different fields.

Honestly, what do you think MY (since your fatigue could only be that subsequent to debates with fundamentalists and brick walls) God is?

---

Quote:

Quote:I don't need to prove God exists to engage the Young Atheist on his initial point of controversy.

Then in essence you have an invalid argument to start with. That street runs two ways. You say you do not have to prove god in order to engage the younger atheists? That said they do not have to disprove a god on the same count...the god argument the way I see it is a moot point of debate. Theists have absolutely no evidence, zilch that a god exists. Their claim rest solely on the pages of a book written solely by men, with questionable authorship to start with, who claim they are writing in the name of a god. Your resting your entire claim of a god on this? Weak, very weak.....

Gooooooood griiiieeeeef! I think I see why people keep harassing me about this. The Young Atheist is the guy who posted the original thread "Debunking Christianity? It's actually quite...." If you read his initial argument, which my initial post was a direct response to, you'll see that proving God was never the issue. Yes, there was a reason I wrote "Young Atheist," instead of the younger atheists. Anyway, for the very reason you provide, I haven't been pursuing arguments that God exists on the basis of scripture since, despite the doctrine of the infallibility of scripture, they were written by men, and various things can compel them to write, yes.

The Hebrew god is a well defined bronze age myth. He has names, alternate names, a cosmic resume, so to speak, and holy texts. Where is the wiggle room there?

Nope, I don't believe perfection exists, prove it. On the other hand, Harry Potter is perfect, and to say otherwise is blasphemy, may you burn in hell.

On the subject of being an atheist: why exactly would god not be very well defined for me? What would I have to call bs on if not for the definitions and descriptions of god?

You're right, I'm not interested in debating anything at all about a cultural artifact if one can simply define a thing any way they like. It's mental masturbation. I'd like to argue for the virtue of eating children, as long as I can redefine eating as "spending quality time with". Pointless. But that's all apologists have isn't it.

Bile = Death
Death exists
ergo Bile exists

Mac Lir = The Sea
The sea exists
ergo Mac Lir exists

(June 23, 2011 at 6:45 pm)Anymouse Wrote: Sorry. Atheists and folk like me already know where evil comes from. Don't need a God of Evil for that either. That's a Christian thing.
And by the way:
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (KJV) - (So if the LORD creates evil, what are Satan's and Hell's purpose?)
(I would have highlighted the relevant segment in colour too, but I don't know how to do that. - James.
[/font]

http://carm.org/does-god-create-evil

This link should do. But there are countless other sites which speak of this.

Did I miss the part of that website that shows definitively where evil has it's source? Seems like a bit of cosmic hand washing and then off to the next job. All the writers of that site intend to do is absolve god of any responsibility, they fail to make a claim as to the source of evil, and supporting evidence in confirmation. It is interesting in that the best they can do, is to say "Well, the word can mean alot of things (all bad things), but it definitely doesn't mean evil....we just don't know what it means."

Boo.

(June 21, 2011 at 8:13 am)Napoleon Wrote: Kudos for asking questions!

Now if only every religious person did the same rather than blindly following like sheep we might actually be getting somewhere.

I think it's amazing how even young people can understand how ludicrous some of the ideas are behind something such as the bible. Yet grown men in their 50's will continue to defend it.

I guess we're all stupid and must be missing something :S

---

My favourite question/s is Why does god choose only certain people to spread his message? Why does he not just speak to us all simultaneously to clear up all doubt?

I don't think it's a matter of age, more like a common sense. I remember when Santa clause was real

(July 25, 2011 at 8:04 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Did I miss the part of that website that shows definitively where evil has it's source? Seems like a bit of cosmic hand washing and then off to the next job. All the writers of that site intend to do is absolve god of any responsibility, they fail to make a claim as to the source of evil, and supporting evidence in confirmation. It is interesting in that the best they can do, is to say "Well, the word can mean alot of things (all bad things), but it definitely doesn't mean evil....we just don't know what it means."

Boo.

Actually it says that given the other common usages of the word and the context in which it is spoken, it refers to 'disaster'. It is up to you to prove that it doesn't but that it refers to evil.

Why on earth would that be up to me to prove? I don't assert that god created evil, or anything, or even that he exists. Its a hand-waving article. If god didn't create evil was it always here? Did man create evil? Did man only summon evil that already existed in creation? What parts of creation is god not responsible for? I don't have to explain any of this, you people are the ones with claims to knowledge. Your shift-fu is weak.

(are you also an adherent to the yec/oec/flood mythology btw?)

(July 26, 2011 at 1:17 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Why on earth would that be up to me to prove? I don't assert that god created evil, or anything, or even that he exists. Its a hand-waving article. If god didn't create evil was it always here? Did man create evil? Did man only summon evil that already existed in creation? What parts of creation is god not responsible for? I don't have to explain any of this, you people are the ones with claims to knowledge. Your shift-fu is weak.

What I mean is that that verse in Isaiah previously quoted by another poster doesn't mean what the modern translations make it to mean (actually, old translations since he used the good old King James). In the given context it is better translated as disaster. So all I'm saying is that that passage isn't useful in proving that God is a creator of evil, and that other arguments are needed to prove that point.

(July 26, 2011 at 1:17 pm)Rhythm Wrote: (are you also an adherent to the yec/oec/flood mythology btw?)

Let's see. I actually haven't defined my view of these things very well. I not an Young Earth Creationists, but I used to be one. I believe the Flood was a local one. I also believe the Earth is old, obviously. But what I'm not sure of is regarding Theistic Evolutionism. I'm not completely sure, but I have a preference towards it. Did I answer your question?