Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Muz]

I'm pretty sure this thread could go somewhere if there wasn't always two people screaming "no ur wrong" at each other. Also, I find it a bit disappointing that a lot of the arguments from atheists are on disproving the Christian God. I'd like to see something on disproving the existence of some ultra-powerful world-creating entity, but most of the time they just yell "Occam's razor!" which is basically saying "No, I'm right, and you're the one who has to prove me wrong!"

Everyone takes a defensive stance and provokes another person to attack their defense. And the offensive stances taken are only against the weaker arguments that don't support the existence or non-existence of a God.


From what I've gathered in this thread:
1. Atheists don't believe in a God because there's no proof of a God.
2. Some athiests acknowledge that there's some limited proof of a God, but think that any such entity doesn't deserve to be worshipped anyway.
3. (Mono)Theists believe in a God because there's no disproof of a God.
4. Haven't seen much comments from polytheists.

C'mon, let's have some progress somewhere, people. This is like watching a soccer match for 20 hours with no goals. And please, no quote walls. They're like watching a soccer match with no goals in slow motion. Quote walls also make your arguments appear overemotional and less credible.

[Neruz]

1. Atheists don't believe in a God because there's no proof of a God.
3. Theists believe in a God because there's no disproof of a God.

And that's the way it works. No side will ever win, because the Theists either fail to understand how logic and reason work, or ignore logic and reason entirely.

End discussion, back to discussing whether or not is it possible for an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibelevolent God to exist as that might actually get somewhere. (Probably not, but it's got more chance than Atheism and Theism).

[Muz]

Well, if you have a creature that created the whole fricking universe, I can assume that he's both omniscient and omnipotent, easily. And even if it's not infinite power, it pretty much can be assumed to be infinite (omni) by mortal standards.

Omnibenevolence is the discussion point. But that brings in some seriously complicated issues with what the highest point of morality really is, and you'd have to dig up lots of philosophy - and even they haven't solved the problem yet.

[Areyar]

2. Some athiests acknowledge that there's some limited proof of a God, but think that any such entity doesn't deserve to be worshipped anyway.

I think that is a mistake.
Most atheists acknowledge that some very vague definitions of an uncaring/unseeing/impotent god cannot be disproven. Yet, impossibility to disprove is not proof. Unless I am mistaken and you have actual proof, then supply it.

[Micro102]

Well everyone here speaks English and Christianity is one of the biggest religions out there so, if most people are like me, they only know much about Christianity.

1. Atheists don't believe in a God because there's no proof of a God.
3. Theists believe in a God because there's no disproof of a God.

And that's the way it works. No side will ever win, because the Theists either fail to understand how logic and reason work, or ignore logic and reason entirely.

End discussion, back to discussing whether or not is it possible for an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibelevolent God to exist as that might actually get somewhere. (Probably not, but it's got more chance than Atheism and Theism).

The thing is, if their god wanted to change that, he could, so basically their god, if he exists, encourages the existence of atheists.

[Andir]

I think I have been trying to argue omnipotence, but someone keeps brushing it off and trying to redefine the meaning of "all-powerful" to mean something it doesn't.  An omnipotent being has no reason to create because it sees what is to be created and already knows the outcome.

Omni-benevolence and punishment are contradicting and Omnipresence would make you wonder why such a being even tries if they already see the effect.  "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

A God that was omni-anything could be labelled as an insane being because being all knowing and all powerful insinuates knowing the outcome.  (and yes, this applies to free will as it's also a construct of such deity.)

Now granted, you could argue that this being simply forgets what happened 1 pico second ago (or some insanely small number) but wouldn't that contradict all knowing?  ... and wouldn't that defeat eternal reward for a life well done if said god cannot remember what happened just now?  Also, if we are the construct of such a being, how is it that we have memory and it does not?

[Grek]

In Christianity, there is suffering on Earth as a test to see if people are worthy of going to Heaven.

If the Divine is indeed all knowing and knowns already who is worthy of paradise, than this stance is morally wrong on the part of the Divine. Causing suffering in order to perform a catagorically useless test is not an acceptable behavior. I am near certain that, whatever definition of omnibenevolence a given church chooses to use, willfully performing acts which are not morally acceptable would preclude omnibenevolence. Either the theologians who make these claims are incorrect, or the Diety which they are describing is not omnibenevolent in any useful definition of the term.

An omnipotent being has no reason to create because it sees what is to be created and already knows the outcome.

I disagree: there is nothing inherent to omnipotence that precludes an omnipotent being from enjoying the process of creating regardless of its knowledge the outcome.

[Andir]

IMHO, Omnipotence includes omni-benevolence and omnipresence because you can't have an all powerful being that doesn't have these powers.

[Andir]

I should build upon that thought...

Omnipotence = having all powers, including omnipresence, omnibenevolence, omni-ignorance, omniscience...

Even with such a list of all powers, using any one of such powers precludes the existence of another.

If this omnipresent god creates a bug and a human and the human steps on the bug, an omnibenevolent god would be highly upset at said human for destroying one of it's creations.  The only point of contention I know of in omnibenevolence is that of the subatomic level since we know of no way to destroy or create matter or energy.  So an omnibenevloent god could only care about matter and energy.  If we somehow found a way to destroy one or both of these, the god would be wholly upset at us and likely end said existence.  Either way, it wouldn't care about us per say... only about what makes us material.  Killing someone doesn't destroy that material.  It only disperses it on the wall.

If an omnipresent god uses it's ignorance to ignore an event in time, it would paradoxically ignore any event affected by it.  If such god decided to ignore the outcome of a birth, it would also have to ignore the first gift, first kiss, graduation, child (it's children..etc.) and any interaction said person made through their life in order to experience the birthing joy or sorrow.  It's a landslide waiting to happen.  Once omnipotence chooses to ignore the outcome of a situation, it loses omnipotence.  (It also looses omniscience since it can't be known.)

Do you see when I'm going with this?  Omnipotence is a self defeating power.  Any use of such power would result in loss of that power.

[Micro102]

Not omnibenevolent, as that's not a power, but a personality trait.

[Areyar]

Also, as a human value derived from social values it is highly variable.

[Grakelin]

Spoiler'd for aside to Neruz:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Neruz: Re-read your post again. And again. And again. Every time I do, I see less and less countering, substituting "But I disagree" for an actual debate with laid out points. Your retort to my Dr. Manhattan analogy did not 'logically prove' anything. Instead, you decided to take it even further into Moore's graphic novel than was intended, and made a correlation between this and a puppeteer God, following up by saying this is not a God you would want to worship, which is completely irrelevant to the topic of whether or not there is a possibility that one could exist. Then, believing you had won the debate through logic, you responded to Muz complaining that everybody is being overly emotional and inciting others to rage, by saying that Theists (or anybody else who disagrees with you) are either stubborn or unintellectual and will refuse to listen to logic. Please compose yourself in a manner more conducive to a healthy, intellectual debate, and if you are unable to separate yourself from an emotional connection to the issue, take a break.

Now, on the actual topic: Omnibenevolence is, indeed, not a power. If any of us really wanted to, we could be omnibenevolent, too.

It is not impossible for an omnibenevolent deity to allow suffering. They would presumably have their own moral code, after all, assuming they thought in such patterns. Perhaps it is benevolent, for whatever reason, for there to be suffering, so that we appreciate our happy moments more? This is just one theory, there could be all sorts of reasons.

After all, a deity who takes joy in creating might also want people to have this same joy. Why build anything if our lives are perfect, though?

If a deity exists, however, it does not necessarily need to be amazingly benevolent. It could just be winding up the universe over and over and watching it zip through eternity again and again.

[Andir]

It could just be winding up the universe over and over and watching it zip through eternity again and again.

If said being is omnipresent and omniscient, it would fit the description given by Einstein for insanity because the events would unravel the exact same every time.

[Chutney]

never did he say God would expect different results.
It's like watching a movie you really like or reading a book you really like over and over.

[Sordid]

Holy argument, Batman! I'm gone for a day and this is what happens? Well, you guys have made a lot of progress, so I'll just pick a few bits that caught my eye.

A religion can exist completely based within science and isn't atheism (and no, it wouldn't have "faith" either).

Show me a single religion (that is widely accepted to be a religion) that is based completely on facts and contains no elements of faith in the supernatural or other such unfalsifiable notions, and I might agree with you. I know of none.

I'm not really here to convince. I'm trying to get my beliefs shot down.

How exactly do you imagine that's going to happen, if you refuse reason as a valid discussion technique? By not replying to people who point out the flaws in your - for the the lack of a better word - reasoning, such as me?

I find it a bit disappointing that a lot of the arguments from atheists are on disproving the Christian God. I'd like to see something on disproving the existence of some ultra-powerful world-creating entity, but most of the time they just yell "Occam's razor!" which is basically saying "No, I'm right, and you're the one who has to prove me wrong!"

That's because that's how it works. It certainly beats the crazies going "No, I'm right, and you're the one who has to prove that there isn't some unspecified entity out there that I didn't bother to even properly define!"
Not that it matters, really. The answer to that is still the same anyway, "same as with unicorns, no evidence".

The offensive stances taken are only against the weaker arguments that don't support the existence or non-existence of a God.

I have yet to see a strong one. If you know of any, please share.

Well, if you have a creature that created the whole fricking universe, I can assume that he's both omniscient and omnipotent, easily. And even if it's not infinite power, it pretty much can be assumed to be infinite (omni) by mortal standards.

I'm not so sure about that. Take, say, Sim City. You create the world when you click New Game, but do you have infinite control over it? Not even close. Is it really that inconceivable that our universe may be beyond the control and possibly even comprehension of its creator?