lrh9 From atheistforums.com

[Tiberius]

Well there's no such thing as "1" either, these are just labels we put on things to describe them

[Kyuuketsuki]

Well there's no such thing as "1" either, these are just labels we put on things to describe them

Well not entirely ... as I understand it 1 is an abstract concept and can't literally be proved one way or the other. Has that really got anything to do with what I said (I presume that point was made in response to me) except to say that nothing is absolute?

Kyu

[Tiberius]

Well the way I view "agnostic atheist" is purely a descriptive term. It's like saying one is a "black atheist" or an "atheist jew". These are all labels we give things to help enforce an accurate description of them. I call myself an agnostic atheist not because I am both atheist and agnostic, and those two words together form a more accurate description of my stance on god. If I were to go further, I would call myself (as I do in my profile on this site) a "militant strong agnostic atheist".

[Kyuuketsuki]

Well the way I view "agnostic atheist" is purely a descriptive term. It's like saying one is a "black atheist" or an "atheist jew". These are all labels we give things to help enforce an accurate description of them. I call myself an agnostic atheist not because I am both atheist and agnostic, and those two words together form a more accurate description of my stance on god. If I were to go further, I would call myself (as I do in my profile on this site) a "militant strong agnostic atheist".

That's fair enough except that it's kind of pointless ... you and I both agree (as I recall) that we CANNOT know there is no god therefore in a technical sense we're all agnostic so atheism and agnosticism are the same thing and one of the terms is redundant. It's a bit like saying you;'re an atheist atheist or an agnostic agnostic ... why bother?

Kyu

[Tiberius]

Atheism and Agnosticism aren't the same thing though. Atheism deals with belief only, and agnosticism deals with knowledge only. You can be an agnostic and believe in god (coxrox was an example), so I fail to see how your argument stands up.

You and I would certainly agree that we cannot "know", but that's just on a personal level. How do other people know, especially when you have people who claim gnostic or "strong" atheism? I want to distinguish myself from the people who I think hold very irrational beliefs in this way. You don't need the "agnostic" label there, but I find it useful.

[Giff]

I define God as 'the supernatural creator of the universe' - and you cannot prove his non-existence because that's a logical fallacy. He's 'just' extremely improbable and almost certainly doesn't exist .

God doesn't exist in any former other then in peoples fantasy. Since the definition of a god is created by man without anything to support it, it was just simply made up, is it fair so that a god or supernatural doesn't exists.

Matrix is a possible to exists as something "supernatural" or that everything you are experience is just some monsters dream.

God is improbable, not just extremly, and it's ceratain that something like that doesn't exists. It silly to come up with something and think that it could exist, becuase it can't be dissproven. Even though you say it almost certain does you still think that it could be possible.

But it depends what you define as supernatural? Things that works outside of antural things like science or something we not yet know? Or perhaps something else?

[Edwardo Piet]

God cannot be disproven because you can't prove a negative. So we can't KNOW that there is not a God ABSOLUTELY because God being completely intangible and undetectable in every way would look and feel (because he'd be completely intangible and undetectable in every way) exactly the same as if there's no God at all (in other words NO look and feel, etc, no sense - whatsoever). So you can't tell.

The point is not that there is evidence AGAINST God (there isn't) and whether he's disproven or not (he isn't, you can't prove a negative) but that there's no evidence FOR him whatsoever, no reason TO believe he exists AND - he's extremely complex and improbable by definition. He's ABOUT as likely as Zeus, the Tooth Fairy, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Santa Claus actually existing!!

There are many things without evidence - but God isn't simply without evidence. He's also extremely complex to an absurd level and EXTREMELY improbable to an absurd level (almost infinitely basically - in practical terms) - there's no rational reason to believe he exists whatsoever.

He just isn't DISproven that's all. Because it IS a logical fallacy TO prove a negative. That's the negative proof fallacy - you can't absolutely prove the NON-existence of something.

EvF

[lrh9]

In all fairness to other posters, a god with specific attributes can be disproven if there is a way to test or examine those attributes. For instance, one might argue that a deity that is both omniscient and omnipotent cannot exist because the two qualities are logically contradictory. The premise of that argument is that there is nothing a god could do to change his future mind. So that argument, if sound, disproves the existence of a god with omniscience and omnipotence. There are other examples.

[Tiberius]

The counter argument to the "omniscience/omnipotence contradiction" argument is that such a being would not be bound by the same laws we are, or that the omniscience is only a reflection down on our level. In other words, a being that knew everything but existed outside of time would have no problems with the contradiction, because the key element of the contradiction is time.

You are correct in as much as your assertion that gods with specific attributes can be disproven if we can test those attributes, however in order to test omniscience we need to be omniscient ourselves. The same applies to omnipotence and omnipresence. So gods are adhered with the exact qualities we would need in order to test they had the qualities.

There is no way to disprove the individual characteristics on their own. Hence my agnosticism.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes I've heard of that argument. Although I'm not ENTIRELY sure it disproves it...

For instance - if God's omnipotence, his infinite power allowed him to go against LOGIC ITSELF (if he so wished) - I.e.: 'he can do anything' - then that would include the ability to do things that were logically contradictory...because he's the creator of the universe and CREATED Logic in the first place - so he can go against it is he wishes (once again 'he can do anything' - he's entirely omnipotent) - so he can be omnipotent and omniscient even though it's logically contradictory.

Just an idea... (that I've thought of before) - I'm still not sure that an omnipotent and omniscient God is necessarily improved by contraction you see..

The question is perhaps - how COULD omniscience and omnipotence co-exist in a God EVEN IF he can do anything - if that's logically contradictory? I mean what would it consist of?

Well, I'd say that if you can't imagine it that doesn't disprove it. We don't know what it would entail nor have ANY idea what it would involve whatsoever (it just doesn't make ANY sense it's logically contradictory) - but that doesn't disprove it in and of itself...

I will simply say that if God is omnipotent so that 'he can do anything' then he could even DO logical contradictions if he created logic ITSELF. After all, if he CAN'T contradict logic then he's not omnipotent because there's something he can't do.

You could say that the omnipotence doesn't include the power to go beyond logic ITSELF - because that's impossible. But that means that God is no greater than logic itself. So God is either equal to or weaker than logic. So he can't be God if he can't defy logic because otherwise he's no more powerful than logic (itself).

I think if he's omnipotent and he can do ANYTHING he'd have to be able to defy logic itself perhaps...because if he can't then there's something he can't do.

Which means he's no bigger than logic. He can't work outside it - and NOTHING is supposed to be bigger than God. So either God is bigger than logic or God IS logic - or it isn't God by definition. Because if LOGIC is bigger than GOD - then Logic is God because God is the 'biggest' - i.e: 'the highest thing (or 'highest order'') - of all.

Or you could say that logic would be the highest thing in the universe; this universe is logical and for sake of argument I'm saying that then that would be God because 'that's the highest' but I still wouldn't CALL it God myself - because I define God as the supernatural creator of the universe. So if logic is God in the sense of the 'highest thing of all' then I still wouldn't actually CALL that God because it's not a supernatural creator...

If God is only as good as logic then God IS logic. If God is greater than logic then he CAN DO logical contractions (because he's above logic) so he CAN be omnipotent and omniscient. If God is WEAKER than Logic then it can't be God because nothing is 'greater' or 'higher' than God by (at least the common, I think) definition.

Hmm...gives me something to ponder about lol.

I find this interesting hehe.

EvF