god is impossible

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Lifted from infidelguy.com




PERFECTION/CREATION INCOHERENCE ARGUMENT
1.) God, by definition, is a perfect being.
2.) God, by definition, deliberately created the universe.
3.) So, if God were to exist, then he would be a perfect being who deliberately created something.
4.) To be perfect, one cannot have any needs or wants.
5.) To deliberately create something, one must have at least one need or want.
6.) Thus, it is impossible for a perfect being to deliberately create anything.
7.) Therefore, God cannot exist. - Ted Drange
(Comments: P4 could be denied, however once we look at what the definition of what perfection is the argument holds: Perfection: 'The quality or state of being perfect or complete, so that nothing requisite is wanting.. entire development, consummate culture, skill, or moral excellence...' - Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)






ON GOD'S IMMUTABILITY - Unchangingness
1.) If God exists, then he is immutable.
2.) If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3.) An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention.
4.) For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at a later time, after the creation, no longer have the intention to create it.
5.) Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4).
6.) Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5) - Theodore M. Drange






Does God know his own future decisions? If God is all-knowing he actually shouldn't have any decisions to make at all. Nor can he choose anything over something else. For that would mean that he is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. In fact, he can't even think if this is the case. Since he can't DO anything, he might as well not exist. - IG






ON GOD`S LIMITATIONS
1.) God knows infallibly what will occur in the Universe before it occurs.
2.) God cannot change the future because he knows everything absolutely.
3.) God has no Free-will.
(Who's driving?)

[geni]

The mistake that you are making is that you think you can understand god.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by geni
The mistake that you are making is that you think you can understand god.

But don't theists claim the same? When they say, "God moves in mysterious ways," isn't that a claim about understanding god?

Is it ok to think that you can understand god only if you are a believer?

[geni]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


But don't theists claim the same? When they say, "God moves in mysterious ways," isn't that a claim about understanding god?

Is it ok to think that you can understand god only if you are a believer?

Ok so If I've got this right saying that we don't understand god is a claim about understanding god.
Hmmm....

So how about we may or may not understand god but because we don't know if we understand him we don't understand him?

[Andonyx]

Actually I would say that the problem with all of these arguments is that they are ultimately semantic. They all define a working definition of God which they then demonstrate to be false...any half assed biblical nut could in fact alter his definition of God.

After all....maybe God is only slightly superior.

[annadee]

Perhaps your assumptions of "God by definition" are wrong. You have only shown that one view of God is illogical.

[Faithkills]

"The mistake that you are making is that you think you can understand god." - geni

Why should we presume that we cannot? History has shown that many things that were once thought to be results of divine or infernal purpose are simple matters of material causation.

Knowlege and science have proceded apace since they were concocted. Things that were said to be incomprehensible have been comprehended at a geometric rate.

While there may be incomprehensibles, why assume this is one. Why assume ANYTHING is one? And what benefit would that assumption have?

As one must assume one way or the other.. why not asume optimistically? This has shown to be of benefit in the past. The worst that can come of it is that we come to more clearly understand our limits.. which is a good thing surely?

Moreover and I do hope this is the case.. if we shine enough light on the workings of the universe we may find evidence of a God. But we will never find it if we don't look. Deductive logic is the surest tool. As we learn, we know what isn't god. Continue this process and with luck we may eventually find what is.

FK

[geni]

By the difinitions of god used to make that list I think it is imposible to understand god. Where we could understand god in the futer is irelivent that list has been produced now. If the future we "find a god" then perhaps we will be able to judge items on the list but intill then I sticking with we may or may not understand god but because we don't know if we understand him we don't understand him.

[geni]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas

ON GOD`S LIMITATIONS
1.) God knows infallibly what will occur in the Universe before it occurs.
2.) God can’t change the future because he knows everything absolutely.
3.) God has no Free-will.
(Who's driving?)

I don't get this one. when I'm playing chess I can sometimes severel move ahead bu this does not destory my free will or my ability to decide which move I make.

[Corey]

I want no part in this argument, because it's unanswerable semantic mental masturbation.

However...Geni, the point you are missing (the analogy you made about chess) is that if god is omniscient and knows EVERYTHING that will ever happen (including everything said god will do) then it has no free will because it already knows what it will do. If it does what it knows it will do, it's not a choice, if it doesn't know what it will do, it is not omnisicient. It's a simple logical contradiction. However, if you believe in god or don't, a logic game isn't going to change your mind. It's not proof, it's just a mental exercise based upon definitions of words and predefined terms of what's being discussed. If god isn't omniscient or some other state or quality of being that isn't currently in the problem is introduced, it changes the observation and may remove the contradiction.


To answer your question in simple terms, if you knew what the other player was going to do ahead of time, and you knew what you were going to do, it's not a free choice and if you don't do what you knew you were going to do or the other player doesn't do what you knew they were going to do, you didn't really know. It's just a simple paradox.

[Thanz]

Perhaps the biggest assumption in all of these semantic arguments is that God would experience time in a linear fashion as we do. There is no reason to believe that an omniscient, omnipresent God would experience anything in a linear fashion.

[T'ai Chi]

re: 'god is impossible'.

The atheist faith...?


4.) To be perfect, one cannot have any needs or wants.


I don't agree with that.


1.) If God exists, then he is immutable.


Many religions don't agree with that.


3.) An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention.


I don't agree with that.


If God is all-knowing he actually shouldn't have any decisions to make at all. Nor can he choose anything over something else.


I don't agree with that.


2.) God can’t change the future because he knows everything absolutely.
3.) God has no Free-will.


I don't agree with those.

The problem with all of these atheist & skeptic arguments, is that they are about as silly as the arguments for God by believers. They all argue from a human perspective and human understanding of things. If a God exists, I doubt we could know about the specifics of him; how he works and what he thinks, etc.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by pgwenthold

But don't theists claim the same? When they say, "God moves in mysterious ways," isn't that a claim about understanding god?


They are probably guideposts as to what they think God is like.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

4.) To be perfect, one cannot have any needs or wants.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't agree with that.





you don't have to; just be wrong.






"The problem with all of these atheist & skeptic arguments, is that they are about as silly as the arguments for God by believers. They all argue from a human perspective and human understanding of things. If a God exists, I doubt we could know about the specifics of him; how he works and what he thinks, etc."

how can we argue from non-human understanding?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
[B]Lifted from infidelguy.com




PERFECTION/CREATION INCOHERENCE ARGUMENT
1.) God, by definition, is a perfect being.
2.) God, by definition, deliberately created the universe.
3.) So, if God were to exist, then he would be a perfect being who deliberately created something.
4.) To be perfect, one cannot have any needs or wants.
5.) To deliberately create something, one must have at least one need or want.
6.) Thus, it is impossible for a perfect being to deliberately create anything.
7.) Therefore, God cannot exist. - Ted Drange
(Comments: P4 could be denied, however once we look at what the definition of what perfection is the argument holds: Perfection: 'The quality or state of being perfect or complete, so that nothing requisite is wanting.. entire development, consummate culture, skill, or moral excellence...' - Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)



2, 4 and 5 are false.

[Yahweh]

Personally, I didnt like the immutable one... here's a few that I like better.

Argument from Evil:

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

That this argument is valid is perhaps most easily seen by a reductio argument, in which one assumes that the conclusion -- (7) -- is false, and then shows that the denial of (7), along with premises (1) through (6), leads to a contradiction. Thus if, contrary to (7), God exists, it follows from (1) that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. This, together with (2), (3), and (4) then entails that God has the power to eliminate all evil, that God knows when evil exists, and that God has the desire to eliminate all evil. But when (5) is conjoined with the reductio assumption that God exists, it then follows via modus ponens from (6) that either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil. Thus we have a contradiction, and so premises (1) through (6) do validly imply (7).

(Source: Stanford (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/))


The Arguement From Evil is usually rebuttled with "God isnt omnibenolent" (obviously, havent you read the bible), it sounds very semantics-y to me.

The Freethought Library (http://freethought.freeservers.com/library/atheism.html) (specifically this document (http://freethought.freeservers.com/reason/rationalview.html)) gives you plenty of "proofs" (they are written in paragraph form, a little editting and you can put them in proof syntax) to work with.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


2, 4 and 5 are false.
Ian, I'd be interested to know why - given that you're an idealist - you think 'creation'
(reason 2), was not deliberate.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas

"The problem with all of these atheist & skeptic arguments, is that they are about as silly as the arguments for God by believers. They all argue from a human perspective and human understanding of things. If a God exists, I doubt we could know about the specifics of him; how he works and what he thinks, etc."

how can we argue from non-human understanding?

I don't know, but that isn't my problem. It is a problem for the atheists who make these 'disproving' arguments that seem to me as silly as the believers' proofs.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Interesting Ian quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
[B]Lifted from infidelguy.com




PERFECTION/CREATION INCOHERENCE ARGUMENT
1.) God, by definition, is a perfect being.
2.) God, by definition, deliberately created the universe.
3.) So, if God were to exist, then he would be a perfect being who deliberately created something.
4.) To be perfect, one cannot have any needs or wants.
5.) To deliberately create something, one must have at least one need or want.
6.) Thus, it is impossible for a perfect being to deliberately create anything.
7.) Therefore, God cannot exist. - Ted Drange
(Comments: P4 could be denied, however once we look at what the definition of what perfection is the argument holds: Perfection: 'The quality or state of being perfect or complete, so that nothing requisite is wanting.. entire development, consummate culture, skill, or moral excellence...' - Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



2, 4 and 5 are false.









Wrong Ian.:hit:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Personally, I didnt like the immutable one... here's a few that I like better.

Argument from Evil:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.



Yahwah, how little evil in the world would there need to be before being compatible with such a definition of God? None whatsoever? If so could you explain what evil is? Is being melancholy evil for example?

[Interesting Ian]

And what about an attractive lady turning you down for a date? Is that evil?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Ian, I'd be interested to know why - given that you're an idealist - you think 'creation'
(reason 2), was not deliberate.

Maybe the Universe always existed. Anyway, talking about creation implies creation is a more special event than the second by second existence of the Universe.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Interesting
Maybe the Universe always existed.

The effects of the universe always existed? Nope. Effects cannot be their own cause.

Anyway, talking about creation implies creation is a more special event than the second by second existence of the Universe.
True. Every change is a new creation. But the beginning was special in that it earmarked the origin of [perceived] change itself.

What sort of idealist are you? A buddhist?

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Interesting Ian quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Yahweh
Personally, I didnt like the immutable one... here's a few that I like better.

Argument from Evil:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yahwah, how little evil in the world would there need to be before being compatible with such a definition of God? None whatsoever? If so could you explain what evil is? Is being melancholy evil for example?









Ian; how about rape, killing of innocents.... need I go on?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
Interesting Ian quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Yahweh
Personally, I didnt like the immutable one... here's a few that I like better.

Argument from Evil:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yahwah, how little evil in the world would there need to be before being compatible with such a definition of God? None whatsoever? If so could you explain what evil is? Is being melancholy evil for example?









Ian; how about rape, killing of innocents.... need I go on?

Would you care to answer the questions I asked Yahweh? Your comment here doesn't.

[c4ts]

Why does God have to be perfect? You read the Old Testament and you find God correcting his mistakes all over the place.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

1:god is invincible.
2:god is omnipotent.
3:if god wanted to destroy himself he could not.
4:god is not omnipotent.
5:god does not exist. -bewareofdogmas

[SFB]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Yahwah, how little evil in the world would there need to be before being compatible with such a definition of God? None whatsoever? If so could you explain what evil is? Is being melancholy evil for example?

You are a stupid idiotic twit. I'm sick of reading your ignorant posts. (But still do...........)

To answer your question: any evil.

Now do you want to define evil? Give it a try.

You continually throw the ball in the other court without offering your own suggestions, then back down. I am sick of it.

I'd call the Xtian God evil from HIS actions in the Bible. You are not that ignorant, are you?

You define evil, and we'll see if there is a consensus.

This is stupid, and you make it that way, II.

It is clear to me Yahweh's post is logical. You, however, delve into nonsense. Utter Nonsense.

Concede II: you are not obeying logic, common sense, or observable reality, but wish to explain things you cannot understand, let alone explain lucidly.

You have failed to explain yourself.

You may or may not choose to respond to this, but if you do, I bet it'll be out of context. You'll pick a piece of this instead of responding to the underlying ideas. Or you'll miss those ideas in favor of your's.

From many of your previous posts, I see that you will attack, or respond, instead of acknowledging the gist, the main focus.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas



Ian; how about rape, killing of innocents.... need I go on? [/B]

Just to address these 2 acts. You say God ought to have created a world where these acts never occur. How should he have ensured this? Should he have done it so that people don't want to rape and kill? Or should he alter physical laws accordingly so we're unable to commit these acts?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by SFB


You are a stupid idiotic twit. I'm sick of reading your ignorant posts. (But still do...........)

To answer your question: any evil.

Now do you want to define evil? Give it a try.

You continually throw the ball in the other court without offering your own suggestions, then back down. I am sick of it.

I'd call the Xtian God evil from HIS actions in the Bible. You are not that ignorant, are you?

You define evil, and we'll see if there is a consensus.

This is stupid, and you make it that way, II.

It is clear to me Yahweh's post is logical. You, however, delve into nonsense. Utter Nonsense.

Concede II: you are not obeying logic, common sense, or observable reality, but wish to explain things you cannot understand, let alone explain lucidly.

You have failed to explain yourself.

You may or may not choose to respond to this, but if you do, I bet it'll be out of context. You'll pick a piece of this instead of responding to the underlying ideas. Or you'll miss those ideas in favor of your's.

From many of your previous posts, I see that you will attack, or respond, instead of acknowledging the gist, the main focus.

I think that the world could have been of such a nature that we are all much more "happy".

Should God have created a world where all sentient beings experience the maximum logically possible "happiness"?

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Ian's stupidity is wearing me down. go away troll!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
Ian's stupidity is wearing me down. go away troll!

Could you enlighten this poor stupid person and answer my question then?

Should God have created a world where all sentient beings experience the maximum logically possible "happiness"?

Yes or no?

[Johnny Pneumatic]

yes, if god was real.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
yes, if god was real.

Would this answer still be yes no matter what the purpose of life is?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
1:god is invincible.
2:god is omnipotent.
3:if god wanted to destroy himself he could not.
4:god is not omnipotent.
5:god does not exist. -bewareofdogmas

You've managed to show that some peoples' conception of a certain God might be contradictory. -But I don't see how that shows that God doesn't exist.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yahwah, how little evil in the world would there need to be before being compatible with such a definition of God? None whatsoever? If so could you explain what evil is? Is being melancholy evil for example?

Simple answer: Evil is what pisses god(s) off (he is - supposedly - infallible ya know).

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Would you care to answer the questions I asked Yahweh? Your comment here doesn't.

Bewareofdogma's comments are perfectly fine, this is an open forum.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
1:god is invincible.
2:god is omnipotent.
3:if god wanted to destroy himself he could not.
4:god is not omnipotent.
5:god does not exist. -bewareofdogmas

(I'm just posting this because my postsperday count is getting low...)

From ChristianAnswers.net (http://christiananswers.net/q-aiia/trickyquestions.html):
If God is all-powerful, can He create a rock so big that He can't lift it?
No. God cannot do the logically impossible, any more than He can act out of character with Himself. God cannot, for instance, create a square circle, stop being good, or cease being God. God can do everything that is possible to do, which includes those acts for which there may be no simple, immediate, apparent, human explanation, i.e. miracles. For further study, see Jeremiah 32:17, Matthew 19:26, Hebrews 6:18, and 2 Timothy 2:13.

Dont worry, Christian logic is often very fuzzy, very evasive, and "bad". See Who created God? (http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html):
A number of sceptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’

How nice, the question of God's origins is obscured by deliberate (and shoddy) semantics...

So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: ‘If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?’ In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning:

1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

Anyone want to guess the logical fallacy? :D

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
Ian's stupidity is wearing me down. go away troll!
http://216.218.248.155/datastore/6a/be/b/6abed57c2832b07bd634bb52f41bb043.jpg

[Ratman_tf]

IF god exists, and IF god is omnipotent, then nothing is impossible.

But I personally don't believe there's any evidence of that.

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
IF god exists, and IF god is omnipotent, then nothing is impossible.

But I personally don't believe there's any evidence of that.

It's not a matter of belief, there simply isn't any evidence for God. Case closed.

Attempting to actually prove God does not exist seems to result in an automatic strawman. The above arguments make several assumptions about said God and then proceed to attack them which is the very definition of a strawman.

The only thing we need to point out is the fact that evidence for existence of God is not there therefore a belief in God is not warranted. Any discussion beyond this point is just an exercise in mental masturbation.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Try this one on for size: (No promises there will not be phalasies.)

1. God created humanity
2. God gave humanity free will.
3. Because of humanity;s free will, God cannot control humanity.
4. No rational or intelligent being would create something it has no control over.
5. God is either insane or a moron.

[rdaneel]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
Try this one on for size: (No promises there will not be phalasies.)

1. God created humanity
2. God gave humanity free will.
3. Because of humanity;s free will, God cannot control humanity.
4. No rational or intelligent being would create something it has no control over.
5. God is either insane or a moron.
Afraid it does have a huge fallacy. By your argument, humans would never have children. Of course this may just mean that item 5 should be applied to humanity as well. :D

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by rdaneel

Afraid it does have a huge fallacy. By your argument, humans would never have children. Of course this may just mean that item 5 should be applied to humanity as well. :D

Take a look around you at the world and you will probably see how I feel about humanity's rationality and intellect. :D

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
PERFECTION/CREATION INCOHERENCE ARGUMENT
1.) God, by definition, is a perfect being.
2.) God, by definition, deliberately created the universe.
3.) So, if God were to exist, then he would be a perfect being who deliberately created something.
4.) To be perfect, one cannot have any needs or wants.
5.) To deliberately create something, one must have at least one need or want.
6.) Thus, it is impossible for a perfect being to deliberately create anything.
7.) Therefore, God cannot exist. - Ted Drange
(Comments: P4 could be denied, however once we look at what the definition of what perfection is the argument holds: Perfection: 'The quality or state of being perfect or complete, so that nothing requisite is wanting.. entire development, consummate culture, skill, or moral excellence...' - Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)The difficulty with (4) goes a little deeper, I think, than Drange admits: "To be perfect, one cannot have any needs or wants." I agree that this is obvious to the extent that one understands "want" in a sense synonymous with "need": that is, a deficiency of some necessary or desirable quality, or a condition requiring some extraneous aid or addition. It is not altogether clear why the statement is true if one construes "want" in the sense of "desire", which comes close to one of the definitions of a capacity we would normally expect a perfect being topossess: "to will" ("to wish, desire; sometimes with implication of intention"). At the very least, it must be said that it seems less intuitively incorrect to speculate that a perfect being might be capable of willing something than to speculate that such a being is capable of needing it.

This difficulty carries over into (5) and (6): "It is impossible for a perfect being to deliberately create anything." Is it impossible for a perfect being to effect any act of will? Presumably it is impossible for a perfect being accidentally to create anything (which is why I refrained from objecting to (2)), so if (6) is correct, then arguably it is impossible for a perfect being to create under any circumstances at all. This proposition sounds dubious.

Interestingly, Professor Drange, in an article, defends one attack on the validity of (4) above by arguing that "There is a certain unclarity, and perhaps subjectivity, in the idea of 'perfection' which poses an obstacle to any sort of rigorous reasoning about the concept." However, Drange's idea of "perfection", upon examination, appears susceptible to the same criticism; the same could be said of his construction of "want". I find the "perfection vs. creation" argument to be every bit as unconvincing as I do a priori proofs of God’s existence, and in fact between them it’s a bit easier to pinpoint the problems with Drange's proof.

(Bibliographical credit to OED.)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh


Simple answer: Evil is what pisses god(s) off (he is - supposedly - infallible ya know).

Answer the question. Is the existence of melancholy evil?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy


It's not a matter of belief, there simply isn't any evidence for God. Case closed.


You mean no evidence for a "god of the gaps" god?

[LW]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
Lifted from infidelguy.com

I hope you don't really think that these arguments disprove the notion of God.

But anyway, I'll add few comments:


1.) God, by definition, is a perfect being.

Why? Consider, for example, the thunder-god Zeus. In Greek mythologies he is portrayed as being far from "perfect being" unless you define "perfect being" as one who spends most of his time inventing new ways to get laid.

So, the first premise already defines "God" to be something that not all mythological gods are.

2.) God, by definition, deliberately created the universe.

Same as above.


1.) If God exists, then he is immutable.
2.) If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.[/b]

And again. Why God has to be immutable? Why can't he just rule over the universe that some other being created?


4.) For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at a later time, after the creation, no longer have the intention to create it.


Now, suppose for moment that the first three propositions hold. Why can't that immutable creator work in cycles? Why can't he always hasve the desire to create the world, then destroy it, and then create it again, and so on?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by LW
Why? Consider, for example, the thunder-god Zeus. In Greek mythologies he is portrayed as being far from "perfect being" unless you define "perfect being" as one who spends most of his time inventing new ways to get laid.

So, the first premise already defines "God" to be something that not all mythological gods are.

...

And again. Why God has to be immutable? Why can't he just rule over the universe that some other being created?It's true that the writer is using "God" as shorthand for a being possessing specific attributes, and that without those presuppositions in place his arguments make even less sense than they otherwise would.

However, I don't find that an especially compelling criticism because he seems, broadly speaking, to be using a definition of "God" that is in fact highly conventional and prevalent in the field (philosophy of religion) in which he is writing: i.e. "God" (capital G) refers to a hypothetical supreme, unique, perfect and eternal creator of the universe.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

The only thing we need to point out is the fact that evidence for existence of God is not there therefore a belief in God is not warranted. Any discussion beyond this point is just an exercise in mental masturbation.
Are you sure that this is the case?

I would like to draw your attention to an event that happened in the recent past. Fabio (one name only), a romance novel cover model and all around doofus, got hit smack in the face while riding a rollercoaster by a bird. That's right - a bird right in the face, while travelling many miles an hour on an amusement park ride. It was the very first ride on this rollercoaster as well - he was there to open it.

Now, calculate the odds of someone getting hit the face with a bird, while riding a rollercoaster, on its inaugural journey round the tracks. Now calculate this happening to Fabio. I tell you, it is so astronomically improbable that the only way to describe it is as an act of God. It not only proves God's existence, but it shows that He has an awesome sense of humour.

So, when asked if God exists, one need only point out that Fabio was struck in thface, while on a rollercoaster, with a bird. That, and the platypus.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Answer the question. Is the existence of melancholy evil?

Personally, I dont see how anyone could ever consider one feeling "kinda bummed out" to be evil.

Of course what I think doesnt matter, its all about what big guy in the sky thinks...

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by Thanz

Are you sure that this is the case?

I would like to draw your attention to an event that happened in the recent past. Fabio (one name only), a romance novel cover model and all around doofus, got hit smack in the face while riding a rollercoaster by a bird. That's right - a bird right in the face, while travelling many miles an hour on an amusement park ride. It was the very first ride on this rollercoaster as well - he was there to open it.

Now, calculate the odds of someone getting hit the face with a bird, while riding a rollercoaster, on its inaugural journey round the tracks. Now calculate this happening to Fabio. I tell you, it is so astronomically improbable that the only way to describe it is as an act of God. It not only proves God's existence, but it shows that He has an awesome sense of humour.

So, when asked if God exists, one need only point out that Fabio was struck in thface, while on a rollercoaster, with a bird. That, and the platypus.

Your example can indeed be considered evidence of something's sense of humour, it can not be considered evidence of existence of God. For all we know it could've been an alien that caused the bird to appear. It could've been some kind of a ghost.

For all we know it could've been a giant coincidence. :p

[SFB]

Originally posted by Thanz

Are you sure that this is the case?

I would like to draw your attention to an event that happened in the recent past. Fabio (one name only), a romance novel cover model and all around doofus, got hit smack in the face while riding a rollercoaster by a bird. That's right - a bird right in the face, while travelling many miles an hour on an amusement park ride. It was the very first ride on this rollercoaster as well - he was there to open it.

Now, calculate the odds of someone getting hit the face with a bird, while riding a rollercoaster, on its inaugural journey round the tracks. Now calculate this happening to Fabio. I tell you, it is so astronomically improbable that the only way to describe it is as an act of God. It not only proves God's existence, but it shows that He has an awesome sense of humour.

So, when asked if God exists, one need only point out that Fabio was struck in thface, while on a rollercoaster, with a bird. That, and the platypus.

Thanz:

Please tell me about the plattypuss ....... any more coincidences there?

[SFB]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I think that the world could have been of such a nature that we are all much more "happy".

Uh?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Should God have created a world where all sentient beings experience the maximum logically possible "happiness"?

You assume the existence of a god in the question, and should know better, because I do not assume the same.

You throw out these amorphous ideas (or hints of ideas, let alone a well-developed set of ideas, which may or may not be consistent) in response to logical constructs concerning the existence of God (in the xtian sense). In this way your response is fully consistent with the way I predicted your response in my first post (which addressed one of your posts).

I challenge you to connect your two questions above with logic, consistency, and supporting thought, and at the same time keep the subject of your response consistent with the original post.

Try, it's a challenge I present to you.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by SFB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I think that the world could have been of such a nature that we are all much more "happy".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Uh?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Should God have created a world where all sentient beings experience the maximum logically possible "happiness"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You assume the existence of a god in the question, and should know better, because I do not assume the same.

[/B]

Obviously one has to hypothetically suppose God exists, otherwise there would be no problem of evil now would they?

I am agreeing that God could have made all sentient beings happier then they actually are. Given that we are not in a state of maximum logically possible happiness, does this disprove the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by SFB


Thanz:

Please tell me about the plattypuss ....... any more coincidences there?
The platypus seems to be made up of spare animal parts. For a quick introduction to the platypus, here is a nice link for you:

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/platypus.htm

[Darat]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Obviously one has to hypothetically suppose God exists, otherwise there would be no problem of evil now would they?

I am agreeing that God could have made all sentient beings happier then they actually are. Given that we are not in a state of maximum logically possible happiness, does this disprove the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God?

How would you determine if we are or are not "in a state of maximum logically possible happiness"?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Darat


How would you determine if we are or are not "in a state of maximum logically possible happiness"?

I don't know. How do those who say that we should exist in a state of maximum logically possible happiness, should God exist, determine it ?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I don't know. How do those who say that we should exist in a state of maximum logically possible happiness, should God exist, determine it ?

Sorry I misunderstood your post.

[SFB]

Originally posted by Thanz

The platypus seems to be made up of spare animal parts. For a quick introduction to the platypus, here is a nice link for you:

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/platypus.htm

Yes, it's very nice to learn the closing sentence:

"God takes care of the platypus."

:D

[SFB]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Obviously one has to hypothetically suppose God exists, otherwise there would be no problem of evil now would they?

I am agreeing that God could have made all sentient beings happier then they actually are. Given that we are not in a state of maximum logically possible happiness, does this disprove the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God?

I can give you another possibility so that one does not "obviously" have "hypothetically suppose God exists." This is the way I see it. "Evil" is caused by humans, i.e., human nature.

[c4ts]

If God exists and if God is omnipotent, then God could turn logic upside down and abandon all rationality. Because of this potential, any discussion of God is irrational and therefore not worth talking about.

[SFB]

Originally posted by c4ts
If God exists and if God is omnipotent, then God could turn logic upside down and abandon all rationality. Because of this potential, any discussion of God is irrational and therefore not worth talking about.

Yes, and can there be a more fundamental explanation (among the others)? This one is powerful.

Ian, et al, I'd like to consider your response(s).

Thanks c4ts.......

I kinda like this sort of argument, as I don't have to deal with reliance on the bible and presupposition of a god.

I'm not all that familiar with the detailed history of christianity. But I am familiar with general history. Yet, I don't consider this much of a detriment. The history of Xtianity presupposes belief - upon which it's downfall depends.

This belief has human origins which the field of psychology has explained fairly well.

One should presume human nature as "evil" (yes, not all of us), above all else, before attempting to create a god first. Can anyone argue otherwise?

This is, as I see it, fundamental, a starting point on the discussion.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by c4ts
If God exists and if God is omnipotent, then God could turn logic upside down and abandon all rationality. Because of this potential, any discussion of God is irrational and therefore not worth talking about.

No no no, trying to prove Philosophy... there is really nothing rational you can say to support or deny any Philosophical claim (except Nihilism) without and shred of doubt.

"If a tree falls in a for"--WHO CARES?!

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Yahweh


No no no, trying to prove Philosophy... there is really nothing rational you can say to support or deny any Philosophical claim (except Nihilism) without and shred of doubt.

"If a tree falls in a for"--WHO CARES?!

Without doubt, there would be no philosophy.