Islam owns atheism with a single verse

[Loaded dice]

God as traditionally defined ™ is a necessary being, a being that cannot fail to exist.  

God as traditionally defined may or may not be a necessary being. The concepts of necessity and contingency are completely absent in all the major scriptures of the world religions. For all we know, the account of God in Islam may actually be that of a maximally great being, but not a necessary one, just enough power and "greatness" to make creating the world possible.

And it's worth noting that the only theistic arguments where necessity matters are ontological arguments, which are of dubious validity.

So it seems scope of conceivability is inversely proportional to the scope of knowledgeability, no?

I don't think it's bad or subpar if we try to conceive of things that aren't real. We have a vivid imagination, well, let's use it.

[The Grand Nudger]

It looks like you've decided that god is wrong, rather than submit to the possibility that you are wrong. As I suggested, you believe in something other than god. Something smaller. Something that is not necessary. A guy with superpowers.

I fully endorse this belief, mind you. I think it's about a thousand times more honest than any of that necessary being bullshit...though it's equally false. I'll be counting on you as a partner in crime the next time some nutter shows up babbling about arguments from necessity or conceivability.

[The Valkyrie]

Because, according to the mythology, it created humans knowing they were flawed and knowing it would have to destroy them over and over again.  But still did it.

What do you mean by destroy them ? that God made humans mortal ? in what way does that contradict omniscience...??

Don't use the " free will" cop-out in response.

Because it destroys your argument ? why are you scared of the free will response ?

And, according to your version of the mythology, it created multiple "prophets" each with a different version of the message.

Why not create the correct version in the first place?

All the "versions" of messages as originally inspired by God are correct, it's just that the more recent messages supercede the older ones, that's it.

Now why didn't God inspire the last definitive message from the head start? Maybe people back then weren't ready, maybe their culture was still inadequate, etc. There are many answers that one can think of. If even I can think of plausible answers and reasons, God surely has much better reasons for doing that.

Wipes humans out. This was quite clear.

No. "Free will" is a meaningless, cowardly term used by theists when they can't justify their beliefs.

[h4ym4n]

Um.. why ?

Because, according to the mythology, it created humans knowing they were flawed and knowing it would have to destroy them over and over again.  But still did it.

Don't use the " free will" cop-out in response.

And, according to your version of the mythology, it created multiple "prophets" each with a different version of the message.

Why not create the correct version in the first place?

Kaboom! 

[The Grand Nudger]

Now that we've dispensed with gods of necessity, we turn to gods of circumstance. Those superpowered beings that could fail to exist, but don't, and we purportedly know they didn't, by reference to the work they've done.

These gods are trivially easy in principle, and often in practice, to disprove formally. The god that did x is predicate on x having been done, and if x was not done, then this god does not exist. Shall we consider the many claims in scriptures?

[Angrboda]

God as traditionally defined ™ is a necessary being, a being that cannot fail to exist.  

God as traditionally defined may or may not be a necessary being. The concepts of necessity and contingency are completely absent in all the major scriptures of the world religions. For all we know, the account of God in Islam may actually be that of a maximally great being, but not a necessary one, just enough power and "greatness" to make creating the world possible.

And it's worth noting that the only theistic arguments where necessity matters are ontological arguments, which are of dubious validity.

No. Necessity matters in terms of arguments about morals as well. As well as any presuppositionalist notions about logic, math, and rationality. (Though these may be ontological in the broad as opposed to the narrow sense.)

[Loaded dice]

It looks like you've decided that god is wrong, rather than submit to the possibility that you are wrong.  As I suggested, you believe in something other than god.  Something smaller.  Something that is not necessary.  A guy with superpowers.

Show me even half of a verse in the Qur'an, or the Bible, or any religious book, with the word "logically necessary" in it. It's a purely philosophical concept that may or may not apply to traditional belief systems.

And a necessary being isn't needed to fulfill theism's even most radical claims: An all powerful but contingent being is enough to create this world and make an afterlife and everything else that the religious believe in.

So, even if I conceive of God as an all-powerful or omniscient being, it still doesn't follow that He's logically necessary.

I fully endorse this belief, mind you.  I think it's about a thousand times more honest than any of that necessary being bullshit...though it's equally false.  I'll be counting on you as a partner in crime the next time some nutter shows up babbling about arguments from necessity or conceivability.

Some of these arguments are pretty strong, like Avicenna's contingency argument. but probably it resembles some ontological argument or may be equivalent to it. Regardless, a theist won't need any of these, we can have an inductive argument for an all-powerful all knowing deity and that's fine.

[Astreja]

"Free will" is a meaningless, cowardly term used by theists when they can't justify their beliefs.

Loaded Dice shat all over the free will myth themselves when they told me that their god would force me to "enjoy" paradise:

I don't think a relationship, or anything else in heaven, will be inconvenient. The very purpose of heaven is enjoyment. God will make it so that you necessarily enjoy whatever happens in heaven.

Busted!

[The Grand Nudger]

It looks like you've decided that god is wrong, rather than submit to the possibility that you are wrong.  As I suggested, you believe in something other than god.  Something smaller.  Something that is not necessary.  A guy with superpowers.

Show me even half of a verse in the Qur'an, or the Bible, or any religious book, with the word "logically necessary" in it. It's a purely philosophical concept that may or may not apply to traditional belief systems.

And a necessary being isn't needed to fulfill theism's even most radical claims: An all powerful but contingent being is enough to create this world and make an afterlife and everything else that the religious believe in.

So, even if I conceive of God as an all-powerful or omniscient being, it still doesn't follow that He's logically necessary.

Why?   As I already suggested, you are not actually arguing with me.  Neither of us believes  in gods as necessary beings.

I fully endorse this belief, mind you.  I think it's about a thousand times more honest than any of that necessary being bullshit...though it's equally false.  I'll be counting on you as a partner in crime the next time some nutter shows up babbling about arguments from necessity or conceivability.

Some of these argument are pretty strong, like Avicenna's contingency argument. but probably it resembles some ontological argument or may be equivalent to it. Regardless, a theist won't need any of these, we can have an inductive argument for an all-powerful all knowing deity and that's fine.

[/quote]
An all powerful all knowing deity that is not necessary, that is not the god of the philosophers™...anyway - avicennas god included.  You already shut the door on that.  I'm sure you have tons of bad arguments for your smaller gods, too. That much has never been in doubt, at least not by me..so even here we aren't arguing.

I honestly don't think you guys need any arguments for your belief. Which is convenient, judging by the quality of the arguments you offer. If you really needed them..if they even mattered to you, in actuality, rather than performatively, you and your gods would all be fucked. Or maybe that's just you burdening god again.

The truly interesting thing, for me, above, is that you've described the experience of being compelled by an argument you don't believe in, premised on a god that cannot exist...and all according to you.

[Loaded dice]

An all powerful all knowing deity that is not necessary, that is not the god of the philosophers™...anyway - avicennas god included.  You already shut the door on that. 

Now I didn't say that God as traditionally conceived isn't necessary, It's just that necessity doesn't follow from scripture.

Believing that there is a creator of all things doesn't entail that the creator couldn't have not existed.. the ontological arguments that attempt to prove necessity look like a trick or a word game, they can't provide a reliable account of God.

their god would force me to "enjoy" paradise

Um.. and what's the problem with that, exactly ? If your other-worldly self is made in such a way that it enjoys heaven, what else is needed ? would you rather prefer being bored or annoyed of heaven for eternity ?