Atheism

[Sam]

Welcome back Sam. Thankyou for taking over Kyu's argument. He was making a complete ass of himself as usual.

Thanks fr0d0, it wasn't my intention to take over from Kyu ... he seems more than capable of arguing for himself. I haven't seen any evidence of him making ' a complete ass of himself ' either, but I'm not hear to debate your opinion on other forum members.

So you believe that because your definition is widely accepted it is correct?

Not at all. I merely balance Kyu's attempt top weaken the argument by suggesting this point is unique to me, when patently it is a basic tenet of Christian belief.

A basic tenet of Christian belief? Would you not agree that for most of early Christian history the definition was some what different? And that your definition has had to retreat against the advance of science and naturalism? So it is now at the point where you (Christians that is ;-)) have had to simply place your thesis outside the scope of science?

I have also yet to see any compelling reasoning as to the neccesity of these traits as part of 'Gods' existence, that being so I fail to see how your current God Hypothesis is any more valid than the Hundreds that pre-date it.

After all their reasoning and 'evidence' have been refuted they retreat to a definition of God which is 'Outside nature/the universe & Non-Temporal'. Under this definition they give Theology de facto validity whilst removing the need for verifiable proof or at least realistic reasoning.

You presume that I didn't start with the assertion that God is non temporal; his reasoned nature makes this explicit. So to consider validatable evidence like it ever was anything to do with the subject would be absurd. If your definition of god is non temporal. Then great. Knock yourself out beating down your particular strawman. I'll be sure to stand in the sidelines and cheer you on.

I presume only that Christians didn't start with a Non-Temporal idea of God, and that this idea has had to be generated overtime to accomodate modern science.

I apologise if this is ignorant of me, but to what 'reasoned nature' do you refer? I haven't seen any such claims in the Catechism of the Church or any other works I have read so I assume this is the work of either yourself or someone else? I'd be interested to give this reasoning a once-over if you can point me to it? Untill then I will reserve my thoughts.

Would it not seem entirely logical to you that a 'God' which is 'Outside' the universe would be unable to interfere with it? I mean, we know that we cannot fix the position of an atom & know it's direction as the act of observing it changes it's state and this is caused by a (relatively) small variance in spatial scale! Surely the same must be held true for being interfering in realms that are not their own!

Again you assume something 'not God'. As before. knock yourself out. When you're done perhaps you could seriously consider my God and we can discuss it.

How have I assumed something 'Not God' I am running with your definition and presenting a problem with it that you have completely side-stepped! Perhaps then you would care to succintly lay out your God hypothesis for consideration and we can move on?

But in turn I will expect you to refute a resoned rebuttal of one point or another, so let me ask again.

If your God, the non-temporal, transcendant, omnipotent and omniscient 'Christian' God interferes in our temporal universe this would ammount to two seemingly irreconcilable entities co-existing i.e. The Temporal & Non-Temporal surely you see that anything within a Temporal Universe must by neccesity be Temporal therefore your 'God' would be unable to interfere in our universe without being temporal and hence negating an aspect of his nature? So this 'God' would therfore be unable to act within our spectate our universe and therfore he is essentially redundant?

Again this is my personal view, if you will share your full view on God I will be happy to consider it further but untill then some form of reasonable response would be appreciated.

1. limit God's omnipotence by ruling that he's not powerful enough to hide his tracks.
2. limit your understanding of what would constitute an act of God

This confused me ... Omnipotence = All Powerful? Why would such a being need to leave tracks to cover up? It seems you cannot even grasp your own God 'Concept'! My argument is that God's act of covering his tracks would again require interference in a realm not his own and therefore generate more tracks ad infinitum

Well spotted. Of course that summation is ridiculous. Thank you for clearing that one up for us.

Okay ... on reading that agin I would like re-phrase; I think that based on already observed facts (Namely the Heisenberg Uncertainity Principle) which show that the measuring or observation of things on different spacial scales directly affects them. It is reasonable to suppose that a being on a different temporal scale, whatever his supposed omipotence would have to have some effect on a Temporal Universe if he chose to interfer in it.

Again I await your definition of God to see how strongly you rely on the omnipotence factor of his nature to resolve such issues for you.

To be honest the only evidence I would take for the existence of 'God' would be; If the entire universe collapsed, then re-expanded without any of loosing or lives or suffering at all ... Or maybe if Armagedon actually happened? lol

So tell me how these would prove the existence of God to you. How you wouldn't find naturalistic/ how you wouldn't add it to our understanding of the physical universe.

The answer is you couldn't accept any evidence. You also couldn't as Kyu has been asserting, base your disbelief in God on the grounds of lack of evidence. It is illogical.

First of all ... please don't provide answers on my behalf, I don't appreciate it. You see this is key to me, I would expect the phonomena to undergo the rigours of the scientific method and emerge with the only possible explanation being a one time susspension of all the rules of nature. I would also say that we can't just add to our understanding of the universe ad hoc In order for this to happen something has to be repeatable or explainable I am almost certain that my examples would go beyond the explainable and hence prove 'Gods' existence.

I base my disbelief in God on the fact that I can't rationally accept you idea of being who is arbitraily non-temporal yet able to act within the temporal, omnibenevolent, yet unwilling to ease the suffering of his 'favoured creations' and alot of other philosophical differences. As well as the fact that there is no evidence.

Cheers

Sam

---

You're not reading what I put Kyu.

I want one example of a proof - one tangible, real example - not a type of example.

I suggest you cannot give me one because it is impossible to do so. Hence your requirement is completely irrational.

I would also point out that this assertion, on which your basing your entire argument that; because there is no evidence does not mean God does not exist. Is a complete fallacy, it essentially reads;

If YOU (Kyu/Sam/Any Other Person) are unable to provide one example of a proof that you would accept of God'd existence then, such a proof does not exist therefore I am right - haha

I trust I don't need to go into any further explanation of the problem with this?

Sam