God Exists

[onlinebiker]

Here we have another egocentrical cunt who believes his god is named God...(and by default makes him a believer in "the one true god".)

Nope.

The word god is not a proper name but simply a descriptive noun. It defines a (mythical) being.

It's actual a bit dismissive of your imaginary friend. It would be a bit like introducing one's wife as "Woman".


Example: "Bob Smith this is Woman. Woman meet Bob Smith".


...

You are lucky there isn't a god.


I suspect he would be rather pissed off about your presumptive attitude..

[Mister Agenda]

You made claims. Those are what need to be defended. Atheism is merely not believing any God or gods are actually real.

If you're a rational person with a normally functioning brain, then you must have good reasons for not believing in God. Otherwise, it's just some emotional preference that doesn't warrant a discussion. For example, you may believe there's no God because there's no scientific evidence for His existence. If these kinds of reasons can be attacked and successfully destroyed, then that leaves a person with no good reason to not believe in God.

Since, to the best of my knowledge, you can't read my mind; you will have to ask what my reasons are or wait until I post them. This is your thread, your topic, and you have presented ideas that you need to defend. It's poor form to derail your own thread.

---

It is if that physical reality goes through changes and processes.

That is a mere assertion supported by nothing.

---

If existence (rather than just this iteration of a cosmos) has a beginning, and time began at that same beginning (as seems to be the case for our cosmos), then physical reality always existed, since time has no meaning 'before' the beginning of time unless there's a larger cosmos with its own time that this one sprang from.

This is very convoluted and loaded with hidden premises. Reality is a complete set of all that exists. This would include all physical things, as well as everything else (if there exists things that are not of matter and energy).

Also, how you've described things appears to be logically incoherent. First you say matter and energy didn't always exist. Then you say because matter and energy didn't always exist that therefore it has always existed.

Perhaps it would help you if you thought of reality as a set which includes all matter and energy. Now ask yourself if this set has ever been emptied of matter and energy. And if you're a materialist then I suppose you could yourself if the set has ever been empty. Try not to get too hung up on the language of this question.

I distinguished between existence (or reality) and this cosmos (our space time continuum). I don't see how that counts as hiding my premises rather than failure of comprehension on your end.

That's a mischaracterization of what I said: I didn't say matter and energy didn't always exist. I said if reality had a beginning, everything would have always existed. That is because to exist throughout time is to exist always, even if time had a beginning. Which seems to definitely be the case in our cosmos; although it may not be true of any 'larger' reality our cosmos might exist within.

I don't believe an empty set for reality is possible. When would it have existed? Without time, 'nowhen'.

---

This cosmos is past-finite, yet it has also existed since time began.

Yes, but did it exist timelessly? If it only existed in time (because time is interwoven in matter and energy), then it follows that there was a state of affairs where matter and energy and time did not exist.

Timeless existence is an oxymoron. How long do you think something existed timelessly? It's a mere assertion to say 'it follows' that there was a state of affairs where matter and energy and time did not exist. Why does it follow, besides your intuitions?

---

God doesn't have to change for an infinite past to be a problem. Merely existing brings in all the same objections. How long did God wait in the infinite past before creating the universe?

He didn't "wait" at all, being in a timeless state. This makes sense because causally prior to His creation of matter and energy there was no time. It was only after His creation that He entered into a time relationship.

A timeless state and an infinite past are contradictory. He cannot have existed before time, the phrase 'before time' is meaningless when applied to all of reality rather than a particular cosmos.

---

It's not that simple. Many atheists constantly whine about religion, theists, and so-called indoctrination without providing any good reasons for why they're atheist in the first place. It's all very desperate and angry. That's the impression I get anyways.

There's actually a study that shows people are likely to perceive atheists are angry even when they're not. At any rate, your impression of how angry we are has nothing to do with whether or not your supernatural beliefs are true.

https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewco...ext=psyfac

---

Wrong, one needs (good) reasons to believe in shit, not the opposite. Reasoning 101 . You are trying to shift the burden of proof.

Nice try tho. 2/10

So, you don't have any good reasons to not believe in God? I believe it. I bet you don't believe in God for emotional reasons. I explained this in a previous post.

Nice try tho.

1/10

You should have good reasons to believe in something, proportionate to the extraordinariness of the claim. Lack of good reasons to believe in something proportionate to what you're being asked to believe is a sufficient reason to provisionally withhold belief in it until sufficient reason to rationally justify belief is obtained.

[Mister Agenda]

Wow. You really are new to this, aren't you.

No, I've been owning atheists for a long time.

Do you think you're being wise as serpents and gentle as doves?

[zebo-the-fat]

I don't believe in gods due to a total lack of evidence for gods, this is the same reason I don't believe in pixies, fairies, goblins or the tooth fairy. Emotional reasons have nothing to do with it. (I'm sure it must be comforting to have an invisible friend to hold your hand when times are hard, but I outgrew the need for invisible friends a very long time ago)

If someone can provide some testable evidence for a god I would probably change my opinion (depending on how "testable" the evidence is)

[Mister Agenda]

Have you now.
And that tells me you are ignorant.

If, as you claim, you have been "owning" atheists for a long time, then you MUST have encountered the problem with the tri-omni crap before.

It is hard to know where to start since you are being very coy about which one of the many thousands of claimed deities you favour.

But we can make a start. Would you agree that omniscience means that god knows all. Knows the past, present and future precisely? Or have you some other heterodox definition you are using?

This is a very long-winded cop-out. You claimed that there are logical contradictions in the definition of God and I'm asking you what they are. I'm giving you the ball.

There are the paradoxes that come with omnipotence; like making a rock so heavy the omnipotent creator can't lift it; or creating a being even more powerful. At this point apologists usually retreat to omnipotence as the ability to do anything that's logically possible; can't square a circle or be a married bachelor or make a rock it can't lift or make something more powerful than itself.

Personally, I think it's more significant that omniscience and omnipotence contradict each other. An omnipotent being necessarily has free will; it must be able to do anything it wants to, else why call it omnipotent? But an omniscient being that can foresee the future can't do anything it hasn't foreseen, else it's not really omniscient. The Muslims usually limit God's omniscience rather than God's omnipotence, Allah can know anything it wants to; but Allah doesn't know everything all the time. In that respect, Allah's 'omniscience' is part of Allah's omnipotence. I'm always interested in seeing which leg of theodicy tripod apologists will cut short trying to justify their deity's omni-power. Drich for instance, shortens the leg of omnibenevolence.

---

Nah, sorry bro. If God exists, then He created you and is therefore your creator and God. You better start crying into your pillow now.

You seem to be evading Nudger's question of why would he want to worship your version of God, even it IS real. I recommend you try 'God will make him suffer forever and ever in eternal wretched writhing torment' if he doesn't convert to your religion. That's a popular one.

---

Nah, sorry bro. If God exists, then He created you and is therefore your creator and God. You better start crying into your pillow now.

I'm afraid that's just not how fealty works.  There really isn't much more to say about this.  If you don't have any way of convincing me (or others) to accept your lord and savior, then no amount of arguing that it exists is useful or relevant.

I think his plan is to get you to believe it's real first and worry about convincing you Christianity is a worthwhile religion after. I don't think he has many selling points for his religion unless the omnipotent creator of the universe is around to enforce it.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Yes, I tried to point out some of the problems with 'Omniscience' and Brokenreflector doesn't seem to grasp such things.

Cheers.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think his plan is to get you to believe it's real first and worry about convincing you Christianity is a worthwhile religion after. I don't think he has many selling points for his religion unless the omnipotent creator of the universe is around to enforce it.

Which really isn't going to be much of a selling point for me, obviously, lol.  I'm powerfully compelled by my nature to kick an asshole in the teeth and then hit them with bricks while they're down.

I suspect here again that the author of creation might know that about me.  I'd have some pretty strong reservations about it's competence if it didn't.  More-so if it was incapable of creating human beings that did not recognize extortion when they heard it...or who, upon hearing it...fell to their knees in awe of the goodness and righteousness of it.

[Abaddon_ire]

You think that god created me, but it remains a fact that I'm an atheist...I don't believe in or have any gods at all.

What you believe has no bearing on God's existence. Either God exists or He doesn't. If He exists, then you were created by Him and for a purpose. That would make Him your God and creator. Whether or not you decide to worship Him or follow Him doesn't change the fact that He'd be your God if He actually exists.

---

Part of the definition of Superman is that he is a fictional character.

You seem to be still missing the point.

If Superman wasn't fiction, then he'd have properties like invulnerability, heat vision, flight, etc.

If God exists, then He'd be maximally powerful, necessary, immaterial, omniscient, etc.

Straight off the WLC crib sheet.

Last time I saw this it was a fourteen year old kid who called in to the Atheist Experience. He got Matt Dilahunty. And got demolished.

This kid is the very same.

---

If God exists, then He'd be maximally powerful, necessary, immaterial, omniscient, etc.

Let's play.

If god exists, then he/she/it/housecat would be...

Maximally powerful? well there is a problem there because the bible claims god is all powerful so you are thereby claiming the bible is wrong. And if god is not all-powerful then he/she/it/housecat is not perfect so again you challenge your magic book.

Necessary? Why? That is a non-sequitur. What if god does exist but did not create the universe? Maybe he merely stumbled across it. After all, your magic book states that he/she/it/housecat struggled to navigate a fucking garden that he made. Oh and remember the Exodus? God was so navigationally challenged the he/she/it/housecat turned a one week march following the coastline into forty fucking years wandering the desert. Good argument for why god is male. Too stubborn to ask for directions.

Immaterial? If true then couldn't interact with the material world. Unless you want to special plead your way out of that problem which you likely will.

Omniscient? According to your magic book, not remotely. There are so many examples in the bible where god is dumber than a box of rocks that I struggle to believe that you actually read any of it.

---

This is a very long-winded cop-out. You claimed that there are logical contradictions in the definition of God and I'm asking you what they are. I'm giving you the ball.

There are the paradoxes that come with omnipotence; like making a rock so heavy the omnipotent creator can't lift it; or creating a being even more powerful. At this point apologists usually retreat to omnipotence as the ability to do anything that's logically possible; can't square a circle or be a married bachelor or make a rock it can't lift or make something more powerful than itself.

Personally, I think it's more significant that omniscience and omnipotence contradict each other. An omnipotent being necessarily has free will; it must be able to do anything it wants to, else why call it omnipotent? But an omniscient being that can foresee the future can't do anything it hasn't foreseen, else it's not really omniscient. The Muslims usually limit God's omniscience rather than God's omnipotence, Allah can know anything it wants to; but Allah doesn't know everything all the time. In that respect, Allah's 'omniscience' is part of Allah's omnipotence. I'm always interested in seeing which leg of theodicy tripod apologists will cut short trying to justify their deity's omni-power. Drich for instance, shortens the leg of omnibenevolence.

He is going for the shortening of the omnipotence leg of the tripod. The term "maximally powerful" was Craigs contrivance which he then wrapped into Kalam.

---

Now that I think of it, Kalam has interestingly evolved, ironically.

It started off rather a simple syllogism.

P1. Everything that exists has a cause.

P2. The universe exists.

C. The universe had a cause.

This caused a theological problem because that meant that god must have a cause as well and then it's turtles all the way down.

So a word or two was added to P1 and P2.

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

P2. The universe began to exist.

C. The universe had a cause.

Which special pleads god out of that problem, being eternal and all. But wait, isn't that a claim about the properties of god? you might ask? How do you know god is eternal?

Ah but god is defined as eternal. 

And so on and so forth in eye-watering illogic.

[Belacqua]

At work.

Yes, I tried to point out some of the problems with  'Omniscience' and Brokenreflector doesn't seem to grasp such things.

Cheers.

Brokenreflector gets pleasure from being nasty, so there's no point in engaging with him.

On the other hand, the problem you suggested with omniscience isn't relevant for any Christian or classical theist of any kind. 

You posit that it takes time for information to travel and therefore God can't know everything. For this objection to work, you would have to posit that God has a spatial location separate from other locations. Since by their definition God is not material and is immanent in all space, the travel time isn't an issue.

[Abaddon_ire]

At work.

Yes, I tried to point out some of the problems with  'Omniscience' and Brokenreflector doesn't seem to grasp such things.

Cheers.

Brokenreflector gets pleasure from being nasty, so there's no point in engaging with him.

So do you, you are merely more eloquent about it.