Gods current shape is omniscient. Predictability is the point in question, and nothing else.

Are you now saying that cosmology presents an ultimately unknowable problem? How do you know this? (Human limitation)

Assuming that is true, does the potential of something being unknowable dent the possibility of God's omniscience? No. that would require God to be non-omniscient.

(August 22, 2010 at 8:34 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Gods current shape is omniscient. Predictability is the point in question, and nothing else.

Are you now saying that cosmology presents an ultimately unknowable problem? How do you know this? (Human limitation)

Assuming that is true, does the potential of something being unknowable dent the possibility of God's omniscience? No. that would require God to be non-omniscient.

No I am not saying this. Just that the big bang singularity is necssarily unpredictable which would indict god of intervention and therefore incompetence and/or of lacking foreknowledge and therefore omniscience. This doesn't logically disprove god but is more likely given atheism, and by weight of evidence atheism should therefore be preferred. We could all construct abstract concepts of deities that cannot be disproved but doing do adds nothing to our knowledge, but piles mystery upon mystery.

Ah I see. So you're saying that God let off a random explosion with consequences unbeknown to him. Again this denies Gods omniscient attribute. No matter how random the even to an omniscient being everything is still known.

(August 22, 2010 at 10:06 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Ah I see. So you're saying that God let off a random explosion with consequences unbeknown to him. Again this denies Gods omniscient attribute. No matter how random the even to an omniscient being everything is still known.

Strictly speaking it was an inflation ;-)

No. I'm saying god doesn't exist and presenting poistive arguments to back up my claim.

But I cannot seem to lay a finger on your god, every time I throw a (metaphorical) punch he disappers in vapour only to reappear as an abstract concept who stands, above, beyond all of this etc. I am naturally suspicious of transendance as it doesn't seem to mean anything to me. We do not know of anything transcending anything unless it is purely abstract.

I cannot reconcile this god with any of the foundational writings nor pronouncements of the initators of the main moonotheisms. God is right their with his incantations, initiating evetrything, pulling strings, directing traffic. Frodo is your conept of god really a theistic one? You cant hide him forever. Who is he?, what is he?, what is he made of? what arguments do you put forward for his existence?

lol Mine is the mainstream God of Christianity Captain. I follow that doctrine precisely. ie I don't waiver from it at all. I'm surprised that you don't recognise the subject of your questioning, after all, we seem to be addressing basic and standard attributes of the Christian God, although I know we could be more accurate in our definitions and usages of terms in that context.

Considering transcendence has to remain the subject of logic, which is sufficient for us to deduce and conclude as we have been doing. Your points were reasonably made on those grounds.

(August 22, 2010 at 3:06 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: lol Mine is the mainstream God of Christianity Captain. I follow that doctrine precisely. ie I don't waiver from it at all. I'm surprised that you don't recognise the subject of your questioning, after all, we seem to be addressing basic and standard attributes of the Christian God, although I know we could be more accurate in our definitions and usages of terms in that context.

Considering transcendence has to remain the subject of logic, which is sufficient for us to deduce and conclude as we have been doing. Your points were reasonably made on those grounds.

You're a diest in disguise . So what arguments most represnt your concept of god. You are not a cosmological or design man, by inference I would hazard that ontological arguments float your boat. Are you a Kantian, is the moral argument the one that convinces you?

On the subject of this thread, your refutation pre-supposes that god would choose to create a universe containing life in such a chaotic manner. It is in his power not to do that and make it look designed. Why make it look like he didnt, or is he secretly seeking divine hiddenness?:

1 God is an all omni being seeking to create an animate universe
2 Gods first step is to create a chaos whose natural tendancy is towards a lifeless universe

Of course looking for a simpler explanation he might not really exist

The entire universe is proof of God's creation, given the assumption. Not given the assumption, if we knew it was God, the entire endeavours of religion are laid waste.

Science need not factor in God as an explanation. I consider religious and scientific endeavour to be two entirely different things. I can be in awe and wonder at scientific knowledge. I find I can appreciate religious endeavour without compromising intellectually.

I'm convinced that the positive model for God supersedes all world views.

(August 22, 2010 at 5:03 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The entire universe is proof of God's creation, given the assumption. Not given the assumption, if we knew it was God, the entire endeavours of religion are laid waste. Science need not factor in God as an explanation. I consider religious and scientific endeavour to be two entirely different things. I can be in awe and wonder at scientific knowledge. I find I can appreciate religious endeavour without compromising intellectually. I'm convinced that the positive model for God supersedes all world views.

NOMA is not something I buy into. Religion overtly intrudes on science, and still to this day offers its adherents explanations that are totally discredited. You have to be prepared either to abandon rationality or the foundational texts or a bit of both to reconcile the positions. Normally its the foundational texts that are jettisoned as allegories, myths and metaphors. But are then used by people in the same religion to justify their beliefs.

It would really help if the religions would care to take a pen to the texts and highlight the historicity and fact from the myth and legend, then perhaps we will all know what we are having a discussion over. It leaves positive atheism with a moving target where god is in sight and then disappears as one person declares fact and another myth.

You mean NOMA is something you agree with then.

Modern literal interpretations muddy the water somewhat I agree. I totally disregard them, and find them intellectually indefensible. I'm more than dismissive of those holding such beliefs. The good news for those opposing those view is that they are easy to dismantle.