121 replies to this topic

[solarfingers]

Im Agnostic i believe Nothing is Impossible, Just Mathematically Improbable. that statement can be applied to nearly everything, especially God. Gods existance isnt impossible, just mathematically improbable. see? if u get in an argument about religion just use that and if it dont work revert to the mind games trick TheFountain suggested

I guess what you're saying is math is absolute and God isn't? Is that not a contradiction? Isn't the definition of God that he is absolute? TheFountains trick only works if someone has a preconceived notion of God and his motives. It also can lay foul to having preconceived notions about the nature of pain and suffering. If God exists he is bigger than our arguments.

[NeuroGuy]

I suppose god is a logical impossibility, so one may be able to prove his non-existence by asserting he is an inherent contradiction, and inherent contradictions do not exist in the real world.

1. God is omnipotent.
2. God cannot create a stone that he cannot lift.
3. From (2), God is not omnipotent.
4. (1) and (3) contradict.
5. From (4), God is a contradiction and therefore cannot exist.

Solarfingers made a good point concerning this argument, and there are even more things to consider about it. There’s a misunderstanding here of what "omnipotence” means, and it needs to be qualified. Omnipotence entails the unlimited potential for logical action; it neither implies nor entails the ability to do the logically impossible. Given that fact, premises 3 & 4 of that argument are void, and the conclusion would no longer follow. In this regard, an omnipotent God remains a logical possibility.

Consider this Elus: even if omnipotence did imply the ability to do the logically impossible, the argument still wouldn’t hold. If an omnipotent God could do the logically impossible, then premise 2 would also be void. Though it is logically impossible for an omnipotent being to create a stone too heavy to lift, an “omnipotent” God under this revised understanding could still create such a stone.

I may have been sloppy in my wording.......what I mean is that you can't prove that there is no god anywhere, because you can't look everywhere and you probably don't/can't know all the possible definitions of gods that people might invent

That’s alright, I have my days too. The rest of this part is perfectly legitimate.

but when somebody comes up with a specific god in a specific place it has historically always been possible to demolish them. Some people (believers) will obviously disagree.

This, however, is false. I’m assuming by demolish you mean “prove to be certainly false.” It is true that many specific conceptions have been invalidated by their inherent contradictions, yet it not true that all have been, e.g., the monotheistic conception of an omnipotent and morally perfect God. To date, there is no inherent contradiction that has been shown to refute this conception, though the Problem of Evil looked like a good contender for a few centuries. However, as I noted previously, the logical version of this alleged contradiction has long been refuted within academia. It is due to this fact that belief in God still remains a tenable option for the rational mind, and why many highly intelligent and elite academics continue to do so, regardless of how secular media stereotypes religious believers.

Though the logic behind the alleged Problem of Evil has been refuted, the emotional problem remains for many, and that is the crux of the issue; though no tenable argument can be held against the existence of God, the majority of intellectual atheists (from my experience) use intellectualism as a guise for their emotional problem with such a being, whether or not they would consciously admit it. Most of these individuals simply don’t want there to be a God, regardless of whether or not such a being exists. They want to be the sovereigns over their own lives, and be neither contingent nor accountable to some higher being. This is essentially the faith of atheism, and Thomas Nagel, atheist philosopher of mind at New York University, illustrates this point well:

“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that” (bold highlighting added for emphasis).

Edited by NeuroGuy, 24 June 2013 - 10:57 PM.

[Elus]

Omnipotence entails the unlimited potential for logical action; it neither implies nor entails the ability to do the logically impossible.

Great. We've established and you've admitted that god cannot do the logically impossible.

Now all you need to do is explain how God created the universe when there was no universe for him to exist in.

If you answer that he exists outside the universe, that would give him a logically impossible attribute as there is no outside of the universe, as any physicist would explain (The term universe encompassing the broader potential multiverse as well).

You'd also need to explain where he got the energy to make universe when clearly energy cannot be created or destroyed according to the laws of physics.

You'd also need to explain how he can do the logically impossible feat of existing without tangible evidence.

If you say that god exists in some unknown substrate, you'd have the burden of proof to explain what the reason for believing in that substrate is and where your evidence is for it.

You've dug your own metaphorical grave in this argument.

Edited by Elus, 25 June 2013 - 02:05 AM.

[Elus]

I suppose god is a logical impossibility, so one may be able to prove his non-existence by asserting he is an inherent contradiction, and inherent contradictions do not exist in the real world.

1. God is omnipotent.
2. God cannot create a stone that he cannot lift.
3. From (2), God is not omnipotent.
4. (1) and (3) contradict.
5. From (4), God is a contradiction and therefore cannot exist.

You are supposing a circular argument which I believe most who study philosophy of religion would consider to be an invalid type of argument.

If God is omnipotent he would not create a stone he could not lift. You created the contradiction.

I'm sorry were you saying something about circular logic?

[solarfingers]

You go first Elus and we'll just watch...

Edited by solarfingers, 25 June 2013 - 02:46 AM.

[NeuroGuy]

Omnipotence entails the unlimited potential for logical action; it neither implies nor entails the ability to do the logically impossible.

Great. We've established and you've admitted that god cannot do the logically impossible.
...
You've dug your own metaphorical grave in this argument.

Elus, you're using the defeater to your argument to simply move on to a different alleged contradiction, changing the focus. You could at least have the humility to admit the original argument you tabled was refuted before delving into further discussion.

Now all you need to do is explain how God created the universe when there was no universe for him to exist in.

If you answer that he exists outside the universe, that would give him a logically impossible attribute as there is no outside of the universe, as any physicist would explain (The term universe encompassing the broader potential multiverse as well).

You'd also need to explain where he got the energy to make universe when clearly energy cannot be created or destroyed according to the laws of physics.

You'd also need to explain how he can do the logically impossible feat of existing without tangible evidence.

If you say that god exists in some unknown substrate, you'd have the burden of proof to explain what the reason for believing in that substrate is and where your evidence is for it.

I don't have time today to give a comprehensive refutation today, but I'll address each single point you made tomorrow morning. I will say now though that you went from a seemingly legitimate (though false) argument, to a desperate stretching for anything that might show the concept of God to be contradictory, particularly your assertion that "You'd also need to explain how he can do the logically impossible feat of existing without tangible evidence." Even granting your assumption that there is no tangible evidence, to say that it's logically impossible for God to exist without such is so obviously false that it begs the question of why you would prematurely declare it. This is reminiscent of the bottom half of my last post, where I stated that most atheists from my experience simply don't want God to exist, and generally use intellectualism as a guise for their emotional problem with such a being.

Friend, this is just ignorant propaganda; that's not even what Christian doctrine espouses.

[shadowhawk]

Elus: Now all you need to do is explain how God created the universe when there was no universe for him to exist in.

Aseity error in understanding of God..

[N.T.M.]

I don't think I've posted here yet, but if I have, this may be redundant.

Anyway, the OP betrayed a misunderstanding of basic logical principles in his question. You can't prove a negative, I'm sorry. The argument against god is simple: He's superfluous. Moreover, he creates far more problems than he resolves. If you postulate a god to account for certain complexities, doesn't it only work if god is even more complex than what he's accounting for? Obviously a step backwards.

[N.T.M.]

I don't think I've posted here yet, but if I have, this may be redundant.

Anyway, the OP betrayed a misunderstanding of basic logical principles in his question. You can't prove a negative, I'm sorry. The argument against god is simple: He's superfluous. Moreover, he creates far more problems than he resolves. If you postulate a god to account for certain complexities, doesn't it only work if god is even more complex than what he's accounting for? Obviously a step backwards.

Elus: Now all you need to do is explain how God created the universe when there was no universe for him to exist in.

Aseity error in understanding of God..

I remember reading one of Nietzsche's books in which he described the very error that you're making. He explained that people will identify a conclusion that they'd like to reach, and then go backwards and try to establish some form of logical countenance. Personally, I frown on that.

*edit* I'll be publishing my thesis on the Christian god hopefully sometime very soon. It should be of interest here. The argument I'll make is deductively valid and therefore will offer no room for debate.

Edited by N.T.M., 15 September 2013 - 07:19 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Frown??? Who is making the error (Shadow or Ellus) and what is it??????

Edited by shadowhawk, 17 September 2013 - 06:46 PM.

[N.T.M.]

Frown??? Who is making the error (Shadow or Ellus) and what is it??????

We've discussed this before. We're both familiar with each other's positions and clearly we disagree. Surely, though, you wouldn't disagree that the OP committed a logical fallacy in the structure of his question?

Now as for that double post of mine that I just encountered, I'm not sure how that happened. I'll have to see if there's an option to delete on of them. Sorry about that, guys. I know that's bad etiquette. :(

[shadowhawk]

Frown??? Who is making the error (Shadow or Ellus) and what is it??????

We've discussed this before. We're both familiar with each other's positions and clearly we disagree. Surely, though, you wouldn't disagree that the OP committed a logical fallacy in the structure of his question?

Now as for that double post of mine that I just encountered, I'm not sure how that happened. I'll have to see if there's an option to delete on of them. Sorry about that, guys. I know that's bad etiquette. :(

We never discussed this before despite what you now say. I asked you a question and you say clearly we disagree without answering the question. What!!! Again, what are you talking about? Obviously you are having some sort of a conversation I am not a part of. By the way, you can prove a negative.

As for your double post, I do not care.

[solarfingers]

Its futile to try to disprove something that is out of our empirical view, laws and understanding. If God does exist he is bigger than our arguments can encompass and we are overwhelmed by ignorance.

[shadowhawk]

Its futile to try to disprove something that is out of our empirical view, laws and understanding. If God does exist he is bigger than our arguments can encompass and we are overwhelmed by ignorance.

You can prove something does not exist. We do it all the time when we do things like cross a street. No cars. Walk. There is good evidence of a negative or you are dead. We couldn’t live without proving negatives all the time. I could say more but Ill wait. Read the topic for the evidence for Atheism I just refreshed.

We have proved all kinds of things that have been outside our empirical view. What proof do you have that it is futile? What do you think science does? Being overwhelmed by ignorance is not evidence for Atheism or Agnosticism. It is not evidence there is no God. In fact there is quite a lot of evidence for God.

[solarfingers]

Its futile to try to disprove something that is out of our empirical view, laws and understanding. If God does exist he is bigger than our arguments can encompass and we are overwhelmed by ignorance.

You can prove something does not exist. We do it all the time when we do things like cross a street. No cars. Walk. There is good evidence of a negative or you are dead. We couldn’t live without proving negatives all the time. I could say more but Ill wait. Read the topic for the evidence for Atheism I just refreshed.

We have proved all kinds of things that have been outside our empirical view. What proof do you have that it is futile? What do you think science does? Being overwhelmed by ignorance is not evidence for Atheism or Agnosticism. It is not evidence there is no God. In fact there is quite a lot of evidence for God.

Your still seeing the problem from a limited POV. How do you create proof (which is predicated by some rule) for something or someone that by nature does not opperate by any rule you can define? You can not prove such a subject. You can create a hypothosis but that would be shaky. Your example is also flawed by the same problem. You think there is no car when cross the street because YOU DO NOT SEE IT. Your limitation is flawed by the rule you create. If there were a car that did not opperate by your rules (let's say it moves at the speed of light) then you would be dead when you tried to cross the street. By nature of being God, God supercedes constraints and such would not be defined or limited by any rules. Understand that I am not arguing for the existence of God but merely that you can not prove or disprove him.

[shadowhawk]

solarfingers: Your still seeing the problem from a limited POV. How do you create proof (which is predicated by some rule) for something or someone that by nature does not opperate by any rule you can define?

Don’t we all have limited vision? You also? Does that mean we can know nothing? Do we create proof or discover it? Since we all have a point of view (my POV) surely that does not negate evidence.

You can not prove such a subject. You can create a hypothosis but that would be shaky. Your example is also flawed by the same problem. You think there is no car when cross the street because YOU DO NOT SEE IT. Your limitation is flawed by the rule you create. If there were a car that did not opperate by your rules (let's say it moves at the speed of light) then you would be dead when you tried to cross the street.

Sounds to me, you are so skeptical, that if you really believed and practiced what you are arguing for, that you would either be dead or never cross the street. A car may come along at the speed of light and kill you.

To know God, you take account, look both ways, and in faith, cross the street. I can tell you, from evidence and experience, there is another side. Like CS Lewis, you will be surprised by Joy. Don’t let the rules and fears you create keep you from SEEING.

By nature of being God, God supercedes constraints and such would not be defined or limited by any rules. Understand that I am not arguing for the existence of God but merely that you can not prove or disprove him.

How do you know? Ever tried to let Him prove Himself to you.
Take all the proof you have, then cross the road.

[solarfingers]

Don’t we all have limited vision? You also? Does that mean we can know nothing? Do we create proof or discover it? Since we all have a point of view (my POV) surely that does not negate evidence.

I do believe Ontological arguments are valid... Something an Athiest would deny.

Sounds to me, you are so skeptical, that if you really believed and practiced what you are arguing for, that you would either be dead or never cross the street. A car may come along at the speed of light and kill you.

To know God, you take account, look both ways, and in faith, cross the street. I can tell you, from evidence and experience, there is another side. Like CS Lewis, you will be surprised by Joy. Don’t let the rules and fears you create keep you from SEEING.

People die all the time because they miscalculate risk (The rules)... I'm still on the right side of the grass so I must be doing something right.

How do you know? Ever tried to let Him prove Himself to you.
Take all the proof you have, then cross the road.

Now you are talking about subjective evidence which is something else you will never convince an Athiest of. You have to transfer subjective proof to another to convince them of it. They may believe you believe your proof is real.

[shadowhawk]

solarfingers I do believe Ontological arguments are valid... Something an Athiest would deny.

Good, you accept ontological arguments as valid. I do too. However you answered none of my questions

People die all the time because they miscalculate risk (The rules)... I'm still on the right side of the grass so I must be doing something right.

No one said you were not doing anything right. And... We receive the evidence by reasoned faith based on evidence. It has a subjective impact. People die all the time, objective. People also live. They may keep the rules but so far it seems to have limited impact. By the way, I like your stack.

Now you are talking about subjective evidence which is something else you will never convince an Athiest of. You have to transfer subjective proof to another to convince them of it. They may believe you believe your proof is real.

Are you telling me there is nothing subjective about evidence? When you accept it, it becomes subjective. When you see it, it is subjective. I wasn’t talking about subjective evidence alone.
I love my objectively true wife. Belief alone is not enough, the scripture says the devil believes. You must walk by faith across the road to experience God who is there. It involves all your being.

[N.T.M.]

Its futile to try to disprove something that is out of our empirical view, laws and understanding. If God does exist he is bigger than our arguments can encompass and we are overwhelmed by ignorance.

You can prove something does not exist. We do it all the time when we do things like cross a street. No cars. Walk. There is good evidence of a negative or you are dead. We couldn’t live without proving negatives all the time. I could say more but Ill wait. Read the topic for the evidence for Atheism I just refreshed.

We have proved all kinds of things that have been outside our empirical view. What proof do you have that it is futile? What do you think science does? Being overwhelmed by ignorance is not evidence for Atheism or Agnosticism. It is not evidence there is no God. In fact there is quite a lot of evidence for God.

I'm talking about proving a negative in a purely academic context, in which case, I say again, it cannot be done. What you're referring to is something that's pragmatically based. Yes, you can see there are no cars, but you can't prove that one didn't briefly materialize and vanish while you blinked your eyes. Now, of course, the odds are infinitesimally small, but technically it could have happened, and those are the criteria you must employ when you claim to "prove" something.

And yes, we have had this conversation before. I mentioned that god posits a problems of infinite regression, to which you responded that it was an irrelevant point because god has no beginning. This went back and forth for a while, and eventually I just left.

[solarfingers]

I'm talking about proving a negative in a purely academic context, in which case, I say again, it cannot be done. What you're referring to is something that's pragmatically based. Yes, you can see there are no cars, but you can't prove that one didn't briefly materialize and vanish while you blinked your eyes. Now, of course, the odds are infinitesimally small, but technically it could have happened, and those are the criteria you must employ when you claim to "prove" something.

And yes, we have had this conversation before. I mentioned that god posits a problems of infinite regression, to which you responded that it was an irrelevant point because god has no beginning. This went back and forth for a while, and eventually I just left.

By disproving a negative doesn't there have to be an absolute reference? If there is an absolute reference there has to be an absolute anchor... If you have an absolute anchor then you have proven the necessity for God who is by nature absolute.

[N.T.M.]

I'm talking about proving a negative in a purely academic context, in which case, I say again, it cannot be done. What you're referring to is something that's pragmatically based. Yes, you can see there are no cars, but you can't prove that one didn't briefly materialize and vanish while you blinked your eyes. Now, of course, the odds are infinitesimally small, but technically it could have happened, and those are the criteria you must employ when you claim to "prove" something.

And yes, we have had this conversation before. I mentioned that god posits a problems of infinite regression, to which you responded that it was an irrelevant point because god has no beginning. This went back and forth for a while, and eventually I just left.

By disproving a negative doesn't there have to be an absolute reference? If there is an absolute reference there has to be an absolute anchor... If you have an absolute anchor then you have proven the necessity for God who is by nature absolute.

"Disproving a negative" is a double negative, and therefore quite doable. That aside, I disagree with both of your conclusions. Your statements aren't logically connected. The reference point you're talking about rests on axiomatic premises, which means there's no need for another one (an "anchor," as you called it). Additionally, this has no bearing on the existence of a god (it doesn't necessitate anything).

[solarfingers]

I'm talking about proving a negative in a purely academic context, in which case, I say again, it cannot be done. What you're referring to is something that's pragmatically based. Yes, you can see there are no cars, but you can't prove that one didn't briefly materialize and vanish while you blinked your eyes. Now, of course, the odds are infinitesimally small, but technically it could have happened, and those are the criteria you must employ when you claim to "prove" something.

And yes, we have had this conversation before. I mentioned that god posits a problems of infinite regression, to which you responded that it was an irrelevant point because god has no beginning. This went back and forth for a while, and eventually I just left.

By disproving a negative doesn't there have to be an absolute reference? If there is an absolute reference there has to be an absolute anchor... If you have an absolute anchor then you have proven the necessity for God who is by nature absolute.

"Disproving a negative" is a double negative, and therefore quite doable. That aside, I disagree with both of your conclusions. Your statements aren't logically connected. The reference point you're talking about rests on axiomatic premises, which means there's no need for another one (an "anchor," as you called it). Additionally, this has no bearing on the existence of a god (it doesn't necessitate anything).

Truly there is no opinion here on your part. God, by nature, would have to be the anchor for all absolutes. He would be the absolute. If we are talking real numbers you are merely playing with semantics and I have no respect for that ploy. On a line of positives and negatives each number is an absolute reference to another.

[N.T.M.]

I'm talking about proving a negative in a purely academic context, in which case, I say again, it cannot be done. What you're referring to is something that's pragmatically based. Yes, you can see there are no cars, but you can't prove that one didn't briefly materialize and vanish while you blinked your eyes. Now, of course, the odds are infinitesimally small, but technically it could have happened, and those are the criteria you must employ when you claim to "prove" something.

And yes, we have had this conversation before. I mentioned that god posits a problems of infinite regression, to which you responded that it was an irrelevant point because god has no beginning. This went back and forth for a while, and eventually I just left.

By disproving a negative doesn't there have to be an absolute reference? If there is an absolute reference there has to be an absolute anchor... If you have an absolute anchor then you have proven the necessity for God who is by nature absolute.

"Disproving a negative" is a double negative, and therefore quite doable. That aside, I disagree with both of your conclusions. Your statements aren't logically connected. The reference point you're talking about rests on axiomatic premises, which means there's no need for another one (an "anchor," as you called it). Additionally, this has no bearing on the existence of a god (it doesn't necessitate anything).

Truly there is no opinion here on your part. God, by nature, would have to be the anchor for all absolutes. He would be the absolute. If we are talking real numbers you are merely playing with semantics and I have no respect for that ploy. On a line of positives and negatives each number is an absolute reference to another.

You're saying that if god exists, he must be the basis for all reference points, assuming, of course, that you define him in that way. What you said before was the same thing, but in reverse; you cited the existence of reference points as support for god. Neither point shows any logical connection from the statements made and their conclusions. Now as for your reference to a number line: while that's true, it doesn't relate at all to what I said. My point was that if you use an axiom as a premise, you can't simplify it any further. Yes, you may use other reference points, but they're all predicated on the axiom. In your example you assume a set of axioms, and then you refer to premises that stem from them, which shows that you didn't understand my point at all.

[solarfingers]

How much more simple can an absolute God be? If God being the creator of all things, who always existed before any set of rules you know of, how can he be anything less than the absolute authority on everything? I think you're really just skating my question by attempt to elevate yourself as an authority on the issue of the existence of God. When you become God you can explain yourself.

[N.T.M.]

How much more simple can an absolute God be? If God being the creator of all things, who always existed before any set of rules you know of, how can he be anything less than the absolute authority on everything? I think you're really just skating my question by attempt to elevate yourself as an authority on the issue of the existence of God. When you become God you can explain yourself.

You've completely ignored all my points. And no, I'm not an authority; I'm just using logic. What's great about logic is that it leaves no room for an opinion, which is why I have none. Oh, and your last point was a non sequitur, too. Just because (if you're assuming for the sake of argument) god created everything, it doesn't mean that he has to be an absolute authority. Moreover, even it it did--it doesn't--it doesn't relate to the point I made.

[shadowhawk]

N.T.M., I'm talking about proving a negative in a purely academic context, in which case, I say again, it cannot be done. What you're referring to is something that's pragmatically based. Yes, you can see there are no cars, but you can't prove that one didn't briefly materialize and vanish while you blinked your eyes. Now, of course, the odds are infinitesimally small, but technically it could have happened, and those are the criteria you must employ when you claim to "prove" something.

And yes, we have had this conversation before. I mentioned that god posits a problems of infinite regression, to which you responded that it was an irrelevant point because god has no beginning. This went back and forth for a while, and eventually I just left.

The only absolute proof is in mathematics and the rest of knowledge is probability, more or less. Since we are not talking of mathematics, but you are sure, what is your definition of proof? What has academics to do with? It is common to use the word proof in the way we did in the car example. Disagree? There is a debate whether abstract objects, such as numbers even exist but that is beside the point. Numbers as used in math, with its systems of logic are the only things capable of absolute proof.


Change the definition of God to one in need of a cause and you could argue this means an infinite regression. However, in the real world, things that are caused do not have an infinite regression. Name me one. God is uncaused.

[N.T.M.]

N.T.M., I'm talking about proving a negative in a purely academic context, in which case, I say again, it cannot be done. What you're referring to is something that's pragmatically based. Yes, you can see there are no cars, but you can't prove that one didn't briefly materialize and vanish while you blinked your eyes. Now, of course, the odds are infinitesimally small, but technically it could have happened, and those are the criteria you must employ when you claim to "prove" something.

And yes, we have had this conversation before. I mentioned that god posits a problems of infinite regression, to which you responded that it was an irrelevant point because god has no beginning. This went back and forth for a while, and eventually I just left.

The only absolute proof is in mathematics and the rest of knowledge is probability, more or less. Since we are not talking of mathematics, but you are sure, what is your definition of proof? What has academics to do with? It is common to use the word proof in the way we did in the car example. Disagree? There is a debate whether abstract objects, such as numbers even exist but that is beside the point. Numbers as used in math, with its systems of logic are the only things capable of absolute proof.


Change the definition of God to one in need of a cause and you could argue this means an infinite regression. However, in the real world, things that are caused do not have an infinite regression. Name me one. God is uncaused.

Lawrence Krauss has given many excellent lectures on how the universe could have plausibly come from nothing. In his model he shows that time had no meaning before the universe's beginning and therefore it posits no contradiction. Unlike the god hypothesis, which works backwards by postulating a more complex entity to account for a simpler one (the universe), Krauss' model shows how complexity can occur as a product of something very simple--vacuum fluctuations. He even debated WLC on this point and had to correct him multiple times for citing erroneous information. Ascribing a god used to be excusable, but not anymore.

To be honest, I sincerely wish I were wrong, but I can't choose what to believe (technically speaking, I hold no beliefs).

[solarfingers]

Lawrence Krauss has given many excellent lectures on how the universe could have plausibly come from nothing. In his model he shows that time had no meaning before the universe's beginning and therefore it posits no contradiction. Unlike the god hypothesis, which works backwards by postulating a more complex entity to account for a simpler one (the universe), Krauss' model shows how complexity can occur as a product of something very simple--vacuum fluctuations. He even debated WLC on this point and had to correct him multiple times for citing erroneous information. Ascribing a god used to be excusable, but not anymore.

To be honest, I sincerely wish I were wrong, but I can't choose what to believe (technically speaking, I hold no beliefs).

What a crock... How can you be so intellectually disinginuous.

I can't choose what to believe (technically speaking, I hold no beliefs).

Then you are compelled by something/someone outside of yourself to believe something? It sounds to me like you doubt your own free will.

Of course time had no meaning prior to the existence of the universe. Time exists only from a reference. Time is not eternal. What caused vacum to fluctuate? If there is a reaction, there must have been an action. You would be hard pressed to explain how what came from nothing (your vacum) became something. No explaination can escape the chicken before the egg problem. The premis you propose is not novel and has been hashed around for some time. Then of course you would deny the Ontological problem of design. There is too much complex design for EVERYTHING to be just accidental.

Just because (if you're assuming for the sake of argument) god created everything, it doesn't mean that he has to be an absolute authority.

Obviously, because you have narrowed the definition of a god to something super human and not an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent entity. The bias you have chosen to accept (there is not god) is the starting point of your argument. Your hypothesis might begin from a different point but it only exists in argument of your bias. My bias is my belief in God. I can admit that.

My whole point is the fact that there are absolutes is strong evidence of a standard for those absolutes. If anything is relevant it is only relevant because of our perceptions. Standards don't exist by accident. They are created. They exist outside of our perceptions. The creation of absolute standards demands for the creator to also be absolute. You might be able to identify absolute standards but you nor I can create them. They are already in existence. How they got here can by no means be explained by a vacume of standards. There is a logical break in that premis.

Good luck trying to disprove God. I'm sure He's not ammused. Perhaps we can argue how many angels can stand on the end of pin while your at it.

[solarfingers]

[By the way, I like your stack.

Thank you...

Now you are talking about subjective evidence which is something else you will never convince an Athiest of. You have to transfer subjective proof to another to convince them of it. They may believe you believe your proof is real.

Are you telling me there is nothing subjective about evidence? When you accept it, it becomes subjective. When you see it, it is subjective. I wasn’t talking about subjective evidence alone.
I love my objectively true wife. Belief alone is not enough, the scripture says the devil believes. You must walk by faith across the road to experience God who is there. It involves all your being.

No, in fact the evidence is purely objective. How you perceive it is subjective. We see evidence of things all the time. Our perception can draw wrong conclusions on this evidence based upon our subjective reasoning. What happens when there is no link between what is objective and the subjective conclusions we make? You have faith.

I think the issue you are realy dancing around is that not all faith is blind faith. We see what others choose not to see. They on the other hand choose to believe we are drawing wrong conclusions subjectively from the objective evidence. What they cannot deny is the change in us. They can deny our experiences are valid expressions of God but they cannot deny we are different people because of it.

As far as proving God is concerned, I can not prove to somebody the evidence that exists when they fail or deny our subjective conclusion. This is the problem with athiests. We claim that nature declares and they respond with, "no it doesn't." We say, "He has proved himself to me." They respond, "No he hasn't, your dillusional."

I can bring the athiest to God but I can not make him accept Him. It is not my responsibility to prove God to him. It's my responsibility to present Him to them. Only God can prove Himself to them. Then they will have a subjective experience and their minds will be changed. Why does God not prove Himself to everyone? Not everyone believes what they experience is real or they are closed to the experience from the onset. Their bias is so strong they would not believe even if a miracle were to take place before their eyes.

Not all people of faith have had an "experience." They simply believe in God.

I also want to appologize to both of you for not being fully committed to this discussion. I'm kind of bored arguing with athiests and for the reasons I just posted. I can not make them believe and they will never make me disbelieve. Why? I had an experience... We have argued for centuries and while it is amusing at times it is getting old. I will keep presenting God and they will either accept or reject.

Edited by solarfingers, 20 September 2013 - 12:16 PM.

[solarfingers]

Nevermind ...

Edited by solarfingers, 20 September 2013 - 12:22 PM.