9 votes
Posted 28 June 2010 - 01:16 PM
Posted 28 June 2010 - 01:54 PM
Would any atheist deny this claim? When atheists argue with believers, atheists tend to try to disprove the existence of God. My argument is that is impossible to deny the existence of something unless there is some clear definition of the thing that is being denied. I ask atheists and believers alike. What is God?
Posted 28 June 2010 - 02:52 PM
Posted 28 June 2010 - 04:27 PM
Would any atheist deny this claim? When atheists argue with believers, atheists tend to try to disprove the existence of God. My argument is that is impossible to deny the existence of something unless there is some clear definition of the thing that is being denied. I ask atheists and believers alike. What is God?
Edited by Rol82, 28 June 2010 - 04:27 PM.
Posted 28 June 2010 - 09:13 PM
Hey man. I'm an atheist and I deny that claim, the same as you would deny the belief in an invisible pink unicorn. When I argue with believers over my unbelief and why I hold it, I point to a clear lack of evidence for all the gods worshiped by man including the near infinite number of deities I could think up right now as I type this message. Replace all the instances of god in your original post with any conceivable object and you'll see where I'm coming from.
Well, accepting the pervasive existence of a belief is not the same as yielding to the underlying logic or evidence supporting the belief. As for the definition of God, you'll have to be more explicit, since the identity and ascribed powers of "God" varies with different religious affiliations.
Posted 28 June 2010 - 10:10 PM
atheists tend to try to disprove the existence of God
Edited by Elus Efelier, 28 June 2010 - 10:19 PM.
Posted 29 June 2010 - 12:42 AM
atheists tend to try to disprove the existence of God
Wrong. You cannot prove a negative. It is up to the person making the extraordinary claims to provide evidence for those claims. This is the basis for rational argument. If you would like to see more on this, please visit http://en.wikipedia...._from_ignorance.
God is generally seen as an omnipotent being that directs the course of existence. He is not under the influence of any sort of physical mechanic, and he is seen as omniscient.
God is an inherent contradiction that has no place in a reality which conforms to logic. Take the following:
Statement 1: God is omnipotent.
Statement 2: God creates a rock he cannot lift.
Statement 3: God cannot lift the rock.
Statement 4: God is not omnipotent.
Statement 5: God does not conform to logical reality.
Statement 6: God therefore does not exist.
"We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." – Richard Dawkins
Ultimately, the god argument shoots itself in the foot. You cannot propose a construct that is more complex than the thing it created. It simply compounds the problem because it fails to explain where god came from.
There is no evidence for god. Science is far more logical and beautiful. Science is stunningly elegant.
Posted 29 June 2010 - 02:25 AM
Well, the thread started out with a flawed premise, that atheists try to disprove the existence of God. I don't think that's typically the case. Then it proceeds with attempts to logically prove or disprove God's existence, which strike me as pointless. If God's existence can be proven logically, then there's no need for faith, which seems central to a lot of religions. I didn't mean to make you feel bad; I just don't want to wade into God-arguments. I could always just not click on it. See: Moth, Flame...It is hard to read this Niner. Did we do something wrong? public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gifThis thread is exactly why I filtered Spirituality and Religion, when we could do that.
Posted 29 June 2010 - 05:55 AM
atheists tend to try to disprove the existence of God
Wrong. You cannot prove a negative. It is up to the person making the extraordinary claims to provide evidence for those claims. This is the basis for rational argument. If you would like to see more on this, please visit http://en.wikipedia...._from_ignorance.
God is generally seen as an omnipotent being that directs the course of existence. He is not under the influence of any sort of physical mechanic, and he is seen as omniscient.
God is an inherent contradiction that has no place in a reality which conforms to logic. Take the following:
Statement 1: God is omnipotent.
Statement 2: God creates a rock he cannot lift.
Statement 3: God cannot lift the rock.
Statement 4: God is not omnipotent.
Statement 5: God does not conform to logical reality.
Statement 6: God therefore does not exist.
"We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." – Richard Dawkins
Ultimately, the god argument shoots itself in the foot. You cannot propose a construct that is more complex than the thing it created. It simply compounds the problem because it fails to explain where god came from.
There is no evidence for god. Science is far more logical and beautiful. Science is stunningly elegant.
Statement 1: God is omnipotent.
Statement 2: God creates a rock he cannot lift.
Statement 3: God cannot lift the rock.
Statement 4: God is not omnipotent.
Statement 5: God does not conform to logical reality.
Statement 6: God therefore does not exist.
1. If God is omnipotent he can and does whatever He wants.
2, God can make a rock he does not want to lift.
3. God cannot lift the rock because He is omnipotent and does what he wants.
4. The rock exists, God is omnipotent
5. God conforms to his own logical nature
6. God exists as a omnipotent, willful God.
God does not do what he does not want to do. Any God who does is not omnipotent.
No such God exists.
Edited by Elus Efelier, 29 June 2010 - 05:56 AM.
Posted 29 June 2010 - 06:41 AM
Posted 29 June 2010 - 07:41 AM
Would any atheist deny this claim? When atheists argue with believers, atheists tend to try to disprove the existence of God. My argument is that is impossible to deny the existence of something unless there is some clear definition of the thing that is being denied. I ask atheists and believers alike. What is God?
Posted 30 June 2010 - 01:39 AM
atheists tend to try to disprove the existence of God
Wrong. You cannot prove a negative. It is up to the person making the extraordinary claims to provide evidence for those claims. This is the basis for rational argument. If you would like to see more on this, please visit http://en.wikipedia...._from_ignorance.
God is generally seen as an omnipotent being that directs the course of existence. He is not under the influence of any sort of physical mechanic, and he is seen as omniscient.
God is an inherent contradiction that has no place in a reality which conforms to logic. Take the following:
Statement 1: God is omnipotent.
Statement 2: God creates a rock he cannot lift.
Statement 3: God cannot lift the rock.
Statement 4: God is not omnipotent.
Statement 5: God does not conform to logical reality.
Statement 6: God therefore does not exist.
"We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." – Richard Dawkins
Ultimately, the god argument shoots itself in the foot. You cannot propose a construct that is more complex than the thing it created. It simply compounds the problem because it fails to explain where god came from.
There is no evidence for god. Science is far more logical and beautiful. Science is stunningly elegant.
Statement 1: God is omnipotent.
Statement 2: God creates a rock he cannot lift.
Statement 3: God cannot lift the rock.
Statement 4: God is not omnipotent.
Statement 5: God does not conform to logical reality.
Statement 6: God therefore does not exist.
1. If God is omnipotent he can and does whatever He wants.
2, God can make a rock he does not want to lift.
3. God cannot lift the rock because He is omnipotent and does what he wants.
4. The rock exists, God is omnipotent
5. God conforms to his own logical nature
6. God exists as a omnipotent, willful God.
God does not do what he does not want to do. Any God who does is not omnipotent.
No such God exists.
If God cannot do something, he is not omnipotent. You said "God cannot life the rock." Thus, god is not omnipotent. Is this so hard to understand or am I not being clear enough?
Look up the definition of omnipotence: "having unlimited authority or influence." Such a concept is a logical fallacy.
Posted 30 June 2010 - 01:43 AM
Good PointI think this analogy doesn't matter to the subject, the analogy used to disprove the term "omnipotent", not God.
Disproving the term Omnipotent is a bit silly and childish on its own, say I was an all powerful being and someone came and said "Well, you are not, because you can't make a rock you can't lift!" well, I'd be happy with that, really.
God is based on the bible and this is where the inconsistencies should be taken from, not from a definition like the above. Even then people will just come up with excuses and different interpretations so disproving God doesn't matter because it is all about the belief. If someone believes then there is no need to prove it and their belief is set by will, not logic. The point is, God was never proven, you can't really prove God exists, you can easily give reasons (so many too) why it doesn't make sense that the stories are true. Problem is that the person doesn't need a proof, that is why it is called faith.
So the problem isn't with the evidence (or in case of proving, it is in the lack of them), the problem is with the people and their faith and their will to believe. So better not to bother.
Posted 30 June 2010 - 01:56 AM
Well, the thread started out with a flawed premise, that atheists try to disprove the existence of God. I don't think that's typically the case. Then it proceeds with attempts to logically prove or disprove God's existence, which strike me as pointless. If God's existence can be proven logically, then there's no need for faith, which seems central to a lot of religions. I didn't mean to make you feel bad; I just don't want to wade into God-arguments. I could always just not click on it. See: Moth, Flame...
Posted 30 June 2010 - 02:06 AM
Well, the thread started out with a flawed premise, that atheists try to disprove the existence of God. I don't think that's typically the case. Then it proceeds with attempts to logically prove or disprove God's existence, which strike me as pointless. If God's existence can be proven logically, then there's no need for faith, which seems central to a lot of religions. I didn't mean to make you feel bad; I just don't want to wade into God-arguments. I could always just not click on it. See: Moth, Flame...It is hard to read this Niner. Did we do something wrong? public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gifThis thread is exactly why I filtered Spirituality and Religion, when we could do that.
Posted 30 June 2010 - 02:11 AM
I think this analogy doesn't matter to the subject, the analogy used to disprove the term "omnipotent", not God.
Disproving the term Omnipotent is a bit silly and childish on its own, say I was an all powerful being and someone came and said "Well, you are not, because you can't make a rock you can't lift!" well, I'd be happy with that, really.
God is based on the bible and this is where the inconsistencies should be taken from, not from a definition like the above. Even then people will just come up with excuses and different interpretations so disproving God doesn't matter because it is all about the belief. If someone believes then there is no need to prove it and their belief is set by will, not logic. The point is, God was never proven, you can't really prove God exists, you can easily give reasons (so many too) why it doesn't make sense that the stories are true. Problem is that the person doesn't need a proof, that is why it is called faith.
So the problem isn't with the evidence (or in case of proving, it is in the lack of them), the problem is with the people and their faith and their will to believe. So better not to bother.
http://en.wikipedia....potence_paradoxWIKIPEDIA
"A common response is that since God is supposedly omnipotent, the phrase "could not lift" doesn't make sense and the paradox is meaningless.[12][13]
Thomas Aquinas asserts that the paradox arises from a misunderstanding of omnipotence. He maintains that inherent contradictions and logical impossibilities do not fall under the omnipotence of God.[14] J. L Cowan sees this paradox as a reason to reject the concept of absolute omnipotence,[15] while others, such as Descartes, argue that God is absolutely omnipotent, despite the problem.[9]
C. S. Lewis argues that when talking about omnipotence, referencing "a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it" is nonsense just as much as referencing "a square circle." So asking "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it?" is just as much nonsense as asking "Can God draw a square circle?" Therefore the question (and therefore the perceived paradox) is meaningless.[12]
Asking God to create a stone which he cannot lift requires creating two things—an ability, and also a weakness: The ability to create the stone and the inability or weakness of not being able to lift it. The paradox essentially implies that God would no longer be omnipotent because He has a weakness, when the definition of omnipotence is not having a weakness [citation needed].
If God can do absolutely anything, then God can remove His own omnipotence. If God can remove His own omnipotence, then God can create an enormous stone, remove His own omnipotence, then not be able to lift the stone. This preserves the belief that God is omnipotent because God can create a stone that He couldn't lift. Therefore, in this theory, God would not be omnipotent while not being able to lift the stone. While it is simply put that as long as God chooses not to create such stone, he is still omnipotent. Choosing is different from unable to do so.
One can attempt to resolve the paradox by asserting a kind of omnipotence that does not demand that a being must be able to do all things at all times. According to this line of reasoning, the being can create a stone which it cannot lift at the moment of creation. Being omnipotent, however, the being can always alter the stone (or itself) later so that it can lift it. Therefore the being is still, perhaps, in some sense omnipotent. But if you consider the fact that if the being alters the stone it is no longer the same stone, and if it makes itself stronger, that is proof enough it was not previously omnipotent, and will never be truly omnipotent, not within the realm of logic.
This is roughly the view espoused by Matthew Harrison Brady, a character in the 1955 play Inherit the Wind loosely based upon William Jennings Bryan. In the climactic scene of the 1960 movie version, Brady argues, "Natural law was born in the mind of the Creator. He can change it — cancel it — use it as he pleases!" But this solution merely pushes the problem back a step; one may ask whether an omnipotent being can create a stone so immutable that the being itself cannot later alter it. But a similar response can be offered to respond to this and any further steps.
In a 1955 article published in the philosophy journal Mind, J. L. Mackie attempted to resolve the paradox by distinguishing between first-order omnipotence (unlimited power to act) and second-order omnipotence (unlimited power to determine what powers to act things shall have).[16] An omnipotent being with both first and second-order omnipotence at a particular time might restrict its own power to act and, henceforth, cease to be omnipotent in either sense. There has been considerable philosophical dispute since Mackie, as to the best way to formulate the paradox of omnipotence in formal logic.[17]
Another common response to the omnipotence paradox is to try to define omnipotence to mean something weaker than absolute omnipotence, such as definition 3 or 4 above. The paradox can be resolved by simply stipulating that omnipotence does not require the being to have abilities which are logically impossible, but only to be able to do anything which conforms to the laws of logic. A good example of a modern defender of this line of reasoning is George Mavrodes.[5] Essentially Mavrodes argues that it is no limitation on a being's omnipotence to say that it cannot make a round square. Such a "task" is inherently nonsense.
If a being is accidentally omnipotent, then it can resolve the paradox by creating a stone which it cannot lift and thereby becoming non-omnipotent. Unlike essentially omnipotent entities, it is possible for an accidentally omnipotent being to be non-omnipotent. This raises the question, however, of whether or not the being was ever truly omnipotent, or just capable of great power.[8] On the other hand, the ability to voluntarily give up great power is often thought of as central to the notion of the Christian Incarnation.[18]
If a being is essentially omnipotent, then it can also resolve the paradox (as long as we take omnipotence not to require absolute omnipotence). The omnipotent being is essentially omnipotent, and therefore it is impossible for it to be non-omnipotent. Further, the omnipotent being cannot do what is logically impossible. The creation of a stone which the omnipotent being cannot lift would be an impossibility. The omnipotent being cannot create such a stone, but nevertheless retains its omnipotence. This solution works even with definition 2, as long as we also know the being is essentially omnipotent rather than accidentally so. However, a reduction of ones' own power is possible for non-omnipotent beings, so one would have the paradoxical situation that non-omnipotent beings can do something which an essentially omnipotent being can not accomplish.
This was essentially the position taken by Augustine of Hippo in his The City of God:
" For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent.[19] "
Thus Augustine argued that God could not do anything or create any situation that would in effect make God not God.
Some philosophers maintain that the paradox can be resolved if the definition of omnipotence includes Descartes' view that an omnipotent being can do the logically impossible. In this scenario, the omnipotent being could create a stone which it cannot lift, but could also then lift the stone anyway. Presumably, such a being could also make the sum 2 + 2 = 5 become mathematically possible or create a square triangle. This attempt to resolve the paradox is problematic in that the definition itself forgoes logical consistency. The paradox may be solved, but at the expense of making the logic a paraconsistent logic. This might not seem like a problem if one is already committed to dialetheism or some other form of logical transcendence.
St Augustine's definition of omnipotence, i.e. that God can do and does everything that God wishes, resolves all possible paradoxes, because God, being perfectly rational, never wishes to do something that is paradoxical."
Edited by Elus Efelier, 30 June 2010 - 02:28 AM.
Posted 30 June 2010 - 04:34 AM
Posted 30 June 2010 - 06:25 AM
I don't need those points, I don't think I have faith in anything @@..
I said before, the problem isn't with the evidence (or lack of, to be exact) of proving/disproving God.. the problem is that people want to believe and for that you don't need evidence.
You should have obviously realized by now that you can convince Shadowhawk to see it the same way as you do by showing him that there is simply no evidence to support his claims. Reality will simply change in his mind to get an explanation for why things are that way in support of his belief. That was my point.
Arguing about words and definitions doesn't matter. Ok, I am not an omnipotent being but my (other) point was that if I were, I'd so not care if I can't create a rock I cannot lift.. I'd realize that there is still some logic in this world and maybe I'd make you a rock instead for not realizing it. Still, all it means is that the way people view or define omnipotent is contradictive but that one word being silly won't make people stop believing.. We had that joke in elementary school, with boys running and saying "If he was omnipotent..." maybe this is why I relate it to childish.
No, I can't disprove your invisible dragon, lucky it is only you who believe (I know you don't) in it, if it was half of the planet I might have even cared.
I don't know if religion/belief can ever go away, it is wired in humans, it was found some are influenced by their genes to be prone to belief.. It is also so widespread and so old and "mysterious" that it's hard to break. Even if science were to be 200 years more advanced I doubt it will go away unless it was decided it needs to go away and religious people were to be treated genetically and with psychiatrists. Otherwise it will just go on.
It's like my biology teacher said about evolutions: "Species are 'selected' in two ways which allows survival: quantity and quality" well religion is quantity and until a few decades ago they were the ruling class too. Actually, they might still be considering how almost every politician is religious and how many religious people are in this world still and the pope still lives in his fancy place and people still listen to him.
Another fact is that some people are corrupt, might not believe in religion but even today still use it for personal gain, therefore for them it is good that as many people will believe and they influenced it to be so.
Also, people are still afraid, of death, of not having a meaning.. I just talked to a friend of mine two days ago, she believes in God casually, she says "It's nice to have the belief that there is a meaning to life or that someone moves this world and has plans for you and that the 90 years are not just.." I instead went for science to get a solution.. I am afraid that the way it looks right now she at least might be happier :/ hope we will make it though. So that shows that religion is useful, very useful even.. it powers and moves the people and gives them a way to go on for tomorrow, break from despair and break from feeling pointless.
You want to disprove religion? Stop people being stupid, corrupt and/or unable to deal/work with their fears. Also show them that not having a meaning to life isn't all that bad and you can give yourself your own meaning.. Immortality will probably help with that too.
Sorry Shadowhawk, nothing against you even though this post might not have been the most friendly one to you. I don't think you're stupid, like I said, people sometime need to believe and from your stories this is what it seems to be.
Posted 30 June 2010 - 05:46 PM
Posted 30 June 2010 - 09:20 PM
No need for you to try to convince those who are already convinced.. you still avoided my main point though.
Posted 30 June 2010 - 09:56 PM
You are trying to believe in invisible pink unicorns? I suggest you give it up. What kind of evidence will you accept? You only accept what is observable?
Posted 02 July 2010 - 01:25 AM
What kind of evidence will you accept? You only accept what is observable?
Edited by Elus Efelier, 02 July 2010 - 01:52 AM.
Posted 02 July 2010 - 10:29 PM
Edited by shadowhawk, 03 July 2010 - 12:40 AM.
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
Community Forum Software by IP.Board
Licensed to: ImmInst.org
