Print

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

[Cheeetar]

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?

Well, you could say that instead of the user creating the world, the game designer created the world generator. And as he created the game, he would have infinite control over it if he wanted.

[Electronic Phantom]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Placeholder ftw...

I've got a couple of points (have I said this before?... I don't think so).

1: Logic is good and fine and all, but it is completely worthless unless it has roots in reality.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I'm bein' nuetral here.  The reasons why there's so much debate are, a: this is the Internet (go figure); and b: nobody has anything concrete save that there's nothing concrete

2: Unless you're planning to stick to it, using "reason" and "science" as a bludgeon is counterproductive.  Just because somebody is "religious" doesn't mean they can't/don't use "reason" and/or "science."  "Reason" is based (loosely) on logic [see #1] and "Science" is based on (repeatable) observation [Empirical evidence, fer those of you who like big words].

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

2a: For those of you who haven't read the religious document of Christianity, they make a big point about faith.  A BIG point.  I imagine other religions are somewhat similar.  There's a reason for that....

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

<wierd thought>: Oddly enough, I think there could be a case for religion being a science... in the same manner that psychology is a science.  Even I admit, however, that that would be a stretch.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

   This may have been a mistake....

Spoilers ftw...

-(e)EP

[chaoticag]

Also, I find it a bit disappointing that a lot of the arguments from atheists are on disproving the Christian God.

As far as things go, only the Jeudo-Christian god's followers seem to care so much about it. I think I'll go ahead and argue on their non-existence in general.

For the purpose of this arguement, God, or gods are supernatural entities that had a hand in creation. To disprove a god's existence, all you hve to do is take a look at creation myths, and compare them to solid scientific evidence. The resoning here, is that, if they are wrong, then even if those entities DO exist, they haven't created us, and are therefore, not gods since they violate the definition.

For example, Hindu creation myth involves the world as carried by various animals. Photographic evidence says otherwise.

Also, we cannot expect a substantial chance that an afterlife does exist when the entity telling us that cannot get the creation of the world right. In fact, only when the rest of the scripture provided is true to the letter, can we assume safetly that a hell truely does exist based on the pattern.

[Wimdit]

For the purpose of this arguement, God, or gods are supernatural entities that had a hand in creation. To disprove a god's existence, all you hve to do is take a look at creation myths, and compare them to solid scientific evidence. The resoning here, is that, if they are wrong, then even if those entities DO exist, they haven't created us, and are therefore, not gods since they violate the definition.

Gah, I know it's a bad idea to post here, but I'd just like to point out that the scientific evidence thing only proves that the book of Genesis cannot be taken literally, if it even contains any truth at all.

I find the idea of a now-impotent God who wrote the universal laws and maybe created an afterlife for some inscrutable reason of his own possible, if unlikely and without very much precedent.

[Andir]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Placeholder ftw...

I've got a couple of points (have I said this before?... I don't think so).

1: Logic is good and fine and all, but it is completely worthless unless it has roots in reality.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I'm bein' nuetral here.  The reasons why there's so much debate are, a: this is the Internet (go figure); and b: nobody has anything concrete save that there's nothing concrete

2: Unless you're planning to stick to it, using "reason" and "science" as a bludgeon is counterproductive.  Just because somebody is "religious" doesn't mean they can't/don't use "reason" and/or "science."  "Reason" is based (loosely) on logic [see #1] and "Science" is based on (repeatable) observation [Empirical evidence, fer those of you who like big words].

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

2a: For those of you who haven't read the religious document of Christianity, they make a big point about faith.  A BIG point.  I imagine other religions are somewhat similar.  There's a reason for that....

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

<wierd thought>: Oddly enough, I think there could be a case for religion being a science... in the same manner that psychology is a science.  Even I admit, however, that that would be a stretch.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

   This may have been a mistake....

Spoilers ftw...

-(e)EP

You had a confusing post that boils down to "logic and reason cannot be used in this debate... all you have is faith"  (Correct me if I'm wrong because the wording you chose was rather cryptic and conflated due to the excessive use of spoilers.)

If you wish to debate something, you cannot simply rely on faith.  There needs to be reasoning and resolution.  Without these the debate is moot.  Also, read my signature...

Arguing that faith is the answer is like arguing that feelings are the answer.  Basing your life off feelings is just living by your own rules and lying to everyone else claiming you are following God.  It's hypocrisy.

[Neruz]

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.

Logic dictates that unless something can be proved to exist, it does not. Believing in a God directly contradicts this, asking for disproof further contradicts this. And the nail in the coffin so to speak is 'Faith', by it's very definition, Faith is belief without proof.

A logical stance directly contradicts the existence of a deity, ergo in order to believe in a deity you must either abandon logic or misinterpret how logic works. I'm not insulting Theists by saying that they do not have a logical stance, they said it themselves when they said they have faith in god.

If you have faith in something, you are taking an illogical stance. It's not an insult, it's just how the term 'faith' works.

[Sordid]

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?

Well, you could say that instead of the user creating the world, the game designer created the world generator. And as he created the game, he would have infinite control over it if he wanted.

But that's not the creator. The argument was that the creator has to be all-powerful, and in this example the creator is the gamer who clicked the New Game button, not the programmer. Besides, even the programmer couldn't modify the world while the game was running. He'd have to go back to the source code, write a new version, compile it, and make a new game with that. And then of course it would be a different world. You can make small changes and keep the program save-compatible, but there's still a limit on how much you can do. And we're talking simple stuff like computer games. Compare that to the complexity of the universe, and I'd say it's a fair bet that even the creator, if there is one, doesn't have the slightest clue what the hell's going on.
I guess the point I'm making is that it's fallacious to assume that just because God created the universe, he understands it and has control over it. It's not a given. We make stuff that we have no control over or understanding of every day. Hell, we're even smashing atoms together at nearly the speed of light in the hopes of creating mini black holes (which may well be other universes on the 'inside'). The whole history of our species consists of us doing shit just to see if we can and then trying to figure out what the heck happened when we did it.

[chaoticag]

Gah, I know it's a bad idea to post here, but I'd just like to point out that the scientific evidence thing only proves that the book of Genesis cannot be taken literally, if it even contains any truth at all.

True, although those are my standards for belief. Every word must be true. I mean, if we cannot take the creation of the world literally, is it also possible to take the idea of heaven and hell metaphorically?

I don't want to disprove any god here, I'm just stating my standards. The last thing I want is a group of people repeating my arguements without thought. If need be, I may change my standards.

That being said, if something miraculous does happen, can we say with certainty that a certain god did it?

[Neruz]

It also seems reasonable to assume that a hyper-advanced creature could 'find' a universe 'egg', basically whatever exists before a big bang, that isn't quite going to develop into a full universe and poke it over the edge.

Technically, this creature has created that universe, since it wouldn't have developed without it's interference, but the creature does not need to be omnipotent to do so.

That being said, if something miraculous does happen, can we say with certainty that a certain god did it?

Can you say wit any certainty that it was actually miraculous?

[dreiche2]

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.

Atheists acknowledging a limited proof of a god? No Idea where you got that impression from.

3. (Mono)Theists believe in a God because there's no disproof of a God.

Those theists that do not claim that there is a proof for god believe because of faith; because they want to believe.


As for the omnipotence/omniscience/omnibenevolence issue:

1. My opinion is still that these terms are ill-defined and thus reasoning about them is not sensible. Furthermore, a being with anything resembling these characteristics would be beyond our understanding.

2. The latter also seems to be the position of the catholic church, as they posit not only an omnipotent/-scient/-benevolent god, but also one that is "immeasurable" and "incomprehensible" (as quoted earlier), thus rendering pointless any attempt at rationally understanding god, or at exploring the nature of god scientifically.

Of course, that might put the church in trouble, because if god is incomprehensible, how are we supposed to know what he wants from us? Well, the answer of the church would probably be that while god might be incomprehensible, that doesn't mean that god's word, i.e. the bible, is incomprehensible. But then the authority of Christian theology relies on the bible actually being or at least sufficiently conveying god's word. Unfortunately, as seen in this thread, even many Christians nowadays think that the bible is a human made and flawed document....

3. If I for the sake of argument am to take the omni-x characteristics seriously, then I tend to agree with Neruz: It seems difficult to reconcile the nature of the world we live in with a god that is all three of omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent.

For example, yes suffering in the world would be compatible with omnibenevolence per se, because in god's bigger plan, which we do not know, suffering might be a necessary means to a better end. But then, if god is also omnipotent, surely he could come up with a better means that does not necessitate suffering? For example:

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.

So yes, these would be one of the reasons that would make suffering compatible with omnibenevolence, but if god also was omnipotent and omniscient, surely he could come with a better way? Or simply make everyone infinitely happy right away, being omnipotent and all?

So again, as far as I can see right now the only way to save all three of omnibenevolence, omnipotence and omniscience is to also posit that god's ways are mysterious and incomprehensible, breing us back to point 2. ...


Neruz: Oh, I feel bad for always ending up disagreeing with you, but:

Logic dictates that unless something can be proved to exist, it does not.

You mean cannot be proven in principle, or cannot be proven in practice? But in either case, I'm inclined to disagree.

A logical stance directly contradicts the existence of a deity, ergo in order to believe in a deity you must either abandon logic or misinterpret how logic works. I'm not insulting Theists by saying that they do not have a logical stance, they said it themselves when they said they have faith in god.

Are you saying that the existence of god - in any form - is directly illogical? I can't see how you could say that.

[Andir]

I find the idea of a now-impotent God who wrote the universal laws and maybe created an afterlife for some inscrutable reason of his own possible, if unlikely and without very much precedent.

Are you saying you find the idea that there was a god at one point, but they are likely now "impotent" (lacking power?) but they created the afterlife before they "lost"/gave away said power?

That sounds like an appeasement argument if you ask me... that god would likely be dead by now (giving up such power, turning mortal) so you ascertain that said being did it on a whim and still wish to praise them even though they may no longer exist?  They quite possibly have no control over said afterlife now, so it could be a limbo of despair.  If God gave up such power, wouldn't that bring reason that the afterlife they existed could be no longer adequate or existent?

Also, it's like saying... "Here's a situation nobody will be able to debate because now nobody can prove or disprove it.  I've tried to take out everything that can be disputed."

[Neruz]

You mean cannot be proven in principle, or cannot be proven in practice? But in either case, I'm inclined to disagree.

You'd probably need proven in practice, although proving something in principle is a very good piece of evidence it's not sufficient all on it's own, as there are plenty of things that appear to work in principle but fail spectaculary in practice.

The main issue with proving something in principle of course is that humans don't know all the variables, so while it might seem to be proven in principle, if there's an uncounted variable in there somewhere that messes everything up, it won't work in practice.

Are you saying that the existence of god - in any form - is directly illogical? I can't see how you could say that.

No evidence. And, perhaps more importantly from a logical standpoint, unneccessary. To use the old allegory "God created The Universe" "From whence came God?" "God has always existed" "Why not The Universe has always existed?"

Are you saying you find the idea that there was a god at one point, but they are likely now "impotent" (lacking power?) but they created the afterlife before they "lost"/gave away said power?

That sounds like an appeasement argument if you ask me... that god would likely be dead by now (giving up such power, turning mortal) so you ascertain that said being did it on a whim and still wish to praise them even though they may no longer exist?  They quite possibly have no control over said afterlife now, so it could be a limbo of despair.  If God gave up such power, wouldn't that bring reason that the afterlife they existed could be no longer adequate or existent?

Also, it's like saying... "Here's a situation nobody will be able to debate because now nobody can prove or disprove it.  I've tried to take out everything that can be disputed."

It's sort of a half-way point, basically saying "There is no God now, that much is clear, but i still believe that there was one in the past, and for some reason he is no longer with us."

[dreiche2]

You mean cannot be proven in principle, or cannot be proven in practice? But in either case, I'm inclined to disagree.

You'd probably need proven in practice, although proving something in principle is a very good piece of evidence it's not sufficient all on it's own, as there are plenty of things that appear to work in principle but fail spectaculary in practice.

The main issue with proving something in principle of course is that humans don't know all the variables, so while it might seem to be proven in principle, if there's an uncounted variable in there somewhere that messes everything up, it won't work in practice.

No sorry what I meant with "cannot be proven in principle" was something that cannot be verified or falsified, logically speaking. For example, certain interpretations of quantum mechanics are different interpretations of what's going on, but they share exactly the same predictions, and thus deciding among them is impossible. String theory on the other hand cannot currently be 'proven' or disproven, but only because we do not have the experimental tools at our disposal.

Are you saying that the existence of god - in any form - is directly illogical? I can't see how you could say that.

No evidence. And, perhaps more importantly from a logical standpoint, unneccessary.

No evidence... ? Also, unnecessary is not illogical...

[Andir]

It's sort of a half-way point, basically saying "There is no God now, that much is clear, but i still believe that there was one in the past, and for some reason he is no longer with us."

But the whole idea of an afterlife was left in to "give reason" to feeling.

[Andir]

String theory on the other hand cannot currently be 'proven' or disproven, but only because we do not have the experimental tools at our disposal.

The correlation here is that people don't live their life and enforce their "law" on others because of such a theory whereas religious belief does.  This is my biggest contention point to the whole Glenn Beck conservative push to "keep God in Government" (of which my father has been drawn in...and I hear about it daily)