Total Posts:85|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The existence of God (For).

GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 2:04:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Keeping it simple, what evidence is there against God's existence?

Those who don't believe in God tend to say that there is no evidence for God and therefore they do not believe in God. I hate that excuse used for one very obvious reason.

Let me use an analogy here; you need evidence to suggest whether something does exist, and you also need evidence to suggest something DOES NOT exist.

A is pen on a table, that is empirical evident, and it is clear that it exists.

There is really no credible argument to decipher whether the pen doesn't exist in some kind of a form.

But with God it is a whole new matter. God is not empirically known like a pen. Therefore the empirical code of knowing or suggesting whether something exists is made indirect. In other words, the source of knowing whether God exists or not is no longer empirical but rational.

However many, many atheists treat the existence of God as something physical, they think that God can be empirically sorted. Wrong!

So because of this, in that empirical evidence is not used in the same way for God, it is appropriate to ask, is there any evidence for the existence against God?

If a invincible unicorn was thought to be in my room, I would need evidence to suggest that there was no invincible unicorn in my room. However if I couldn't interact with it at all, I wouldn't care in the slightest if there was one in my room. But to identify whether was in my room, I would have to gather evidence that either it did or DID NOT exist in my room.

So to round up my question...Evidence against God PLEASE!!?
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 2:05:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
From a previous topic:

At 1/23/2011 1:41:49 PM, rarugged wrote:
God exists in the deep recesses of the human imagination.



But really, I've been more fascinated by some logical fallacies of the existence of God, by the most standard definition: an omniscient, omnipotent supreme being.

If there's such thing as God, isn't it possible He could create a rock of infinite weight, such that He could not lift it?

If the answer is yes, that proves that God is not omnipotent, and if God isn't omnipotent, He's not God at all.

If the answer is no, then that shows that God wasn't omnipotent to start with; therefore, there is no God, by definition.
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 2:06:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm afraid empirical proof will be difficult; it's hard enough producing any evidence, let alone without religious influences.

The most interesting way to disprove/prove God's existence is through fallacy.
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 2:21:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 2:04:02 PM, GodSands wrote:
Keeping it simple, what evidence is there against God's existence?

Those who don't believe in God tend to say that there is no evidence for God and therefore they do not believe in God. I hate that excuse used for one very obvious reason.

Let me use an analogy here; you need evidence to suggest whether something does exist, and you also need evidence to suggest something DOES NOT exist.

Um, no. You do not need evidence to say "Object does not exist". Burden of proof is always for a positive statement, like "It exists". There is no burden of proof for negative statements, "It does not exist".


A is pen on a table, that is empirical evident, and it is clear that it exists.

There is really no credible argument to decipher whether the pen doesn't exist in some kind of a form.

Yeah, that's because obviously if we see the pen, can feel the pen, can taste the pen, can use the pen, can hear the pen drop on the floor and smell the pen's pen-like scent, we can confirm it exists. Obviously there's no credible argument that it doesn't exist (unless you use the bundle theory).


But with God it is a whole new matter. God is not empirically known like a pen. Therefore the empirical code of knowing or suggesting whether something exists is made indirect. In other words, the source of knowing whether God exists or not is no longer empirical but rational.

However many, many atheists treat the existence of God as something physical, they think that God can be empirically sorted. Wrong!

So because of this, in that empirical evidence is not used in the same way for God, it is appropriate to ask, is there any evidence for the existence against God?

If a invincible unicorn was thought to be in my room, I would need evidence to suggest that there was no invincible unicorn in my room. However if I couldn't interact with it at all, I wouldn't care in the slightest if there was one in my room. But to identify whether was in my room, I would have to gather evidence that either it did or DID NOT exist in my room.

So to round up my question...Evidence against God PLEASE!!?

I'm a Deist (still Atheist as I don't believe in a Theist God). I don't get how logical statements though (like Ontological and Teleological) necessitate a "loving", "caring" God.

So sure, logical statements can support a First Cause, but not a Theist God. That's the biggest flaw. The "modern" God is a result of many non-sequiturs.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 2:26:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
From the most reliable source in the world, Wikipedia.

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is: there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to "prove" the proposition to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four; with (3) being unknown between true or false; and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). And finally, any action taken, based upon such a pseudo "proof" is fallaciously valid, that is, it is being asserted to be valid based upon a fallacy.[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 2:35:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 2:04:02 PM, GodSands wrote:
Keeping it simple, what evidence is there against God's existence?

Those who don't believe in God tend to say that there is no evidence for God and therefore they do not believe in God. I hate that excuse used for one very obvious reason.

Let me use an analogy here; you need evidence to suggest whether something does exist, and you also need evidence to suggest something DOES NOT exist.

A is pen on a table, that is empirical evident, and it is clear that it exists.

There is really no credible argument to decipher whether the pen doesn't exist in some kind of a form.

But with God it is a whole new matter. God is not empirically known like a pen. Therefore the empirical code of knowing or suggesting whether something exists is made indirect. In other words, the source of knowing whether God exists or not is no longer empirical but rational.

Not so. Absence of evidence for X counts against the existence of X just in case you would expect to find evidence for X assuming that it actually exists. So basically, unless you concede that a naturalistic world and a theistic world would be practically indistinguishable, making theism a useless hypothesis, the existence of God is at least partly an empirical matter.

However many, many atheists treat the existence of God as something physical, they think that God can be empirically sorted. Wrong!

So because of this, in that empirical evidence is not used in the same way for God, it is appropriate to ask, is there any evidence for the existence against God?

If a invincible unicorn was thought to be in my room, I would need evidence to suggest that there was no invincible unicorn in my room. However if I couldn't interact with it at all, I wouldn't care in the slightest if there was one in my room. But to identify whether was in my room, I would have to gather evidence that either it did or DID NOT exist in my room.

Not the greatest analogy. The more philosophical theists liken God to other minds, the existence of history, the reliability of your own memory, etc.

So to round up my question...Evidence against God PLEASE!!?

Problem of non-belief, problem of evil, problem of hell, problem of animal suffering.

/thread
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 3:27:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 2:26:53 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
From the most reliable source in the world, Wikipedia.

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is: there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to "prove" the proposition to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four; with (3) being unknown between true or false; and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). And finally, any action taken, based upon such a pseudo "proof" is fallaciously valid, that is, it is being asserted to be valid based upon a fallacy.[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

I get Appeal to Ignorance. But I have a problem with the above. This being, if there are four possible categories for anything in existence (or non-existence) what is the criteria for each category? How are we to classify something as "unknowable"? With only two categories, existing and not-existing, then it's simple to categorize. If it doesn't exist, it is non-existing. If it does not not-exist, it exists.

Concerning then, the third (being unknown between true or false) false would imply something unknown. If we cannot observe and never have observed it, it is not known and is thus false (which is not true). Thus, all true things are known, and if it is not known it is false as all false things are unknown. For example, I can say 2+2=3, and it is false, not because it cannot happen but because it's never happened and is not known to happen. According to the above, I can say 2+2=3 because it is either (3) unknown to be true or false because it is not known or (4) it just cannot be known.

So I see a big problem with the above post. Clarification?
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 3:33:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
He's shifting the burden of proof.

As soon as you demand someone to disprove something that hasn't been proven, you have created an argument from ignorance.

That isn't to say that a definition of god can't be discounted, but why play games when the burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim?

It's hard to disprove something as vague as god. It's stupid to even try until God has been defined. There are certain definitions of god that I can say are obviously true. Then there are other definitions that seem very unlikely.

A position of atheism, agnosticism, or even belief is meaningless until the term god is defined. There are far too many definitions of the word "god".

This is called the Ignostic position.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 3:35:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 3:33:55 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
He's shifting the burden of proof.

As soon as you demand someone to disprove something that hasn't been proven, you have created an argument from ignorance.

That isn't to say that a definition of god can't be discounted, but why play games when the burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim?

It's hard to disprove something as vague as god. It's stupid to even try until God has been defined. There are certain definitions of god that I can say are obviously true. Then there are other definitions that seem very unlikely.

A position of atheism, agnosticism, or even belief is meaningless until the term god is defined. There are far too many definitions of the word "god".

This is called the Ignostic position.

Thanks.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 3:38:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 2:05:56 PM, rarugged wrote:
From a previous topic:

At 1/23/2011 1:41:49 PM, rarugged wrote:
God exists in the deep recesses of the human imagination.



But really, I've been more fascinated by some logical fallacies of the existence of God, by the most standard definition: an omniscient, omnipotent supreme being.

If there's such thing as God, isn't it possible He could create a rock of infinite weight, such that He could not lift it?

If the answer is yes, that proves that God is not omnipotent, and if God isn't omnipotent, He's not God at all.

If the answer is no, then that shows that God wasn't omnipotent to start with; therefore, there is no God, by definition.

Fail. That is not a valid argument against God. You cannot just make up logically impossible things and then claim God can't do it and therefore doesn't exist. God isn't required to do logically impossible things. It's like saying God can't make square circles, therefore he doesn't exist.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 3:40:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Look, no one can prove that god does not exist, just as no one can prove he/she/it does. The thing is that it is very unlikely that god exists. From an outside viewpoint, the christian god is just as unlikely as any other religion. People made things up to explain what they couldn't and to make themselves feel better. Christianity is one of those. This is not to say that Jesus did not exist or that he did not have good things to say, but god' existence is very unlikely.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 3:43:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 3:38:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/23/2011 2:05:56 PM, rarugged wrote:
From a previous topic:

At 1/23/2011 1:41:49 PM, rarugged wrote:
God exists in the deep recesses of the human imagination.



But really, I've been more fascinated by some logical fallacies of the existence of God, by the most standard definition: an omniscient, omnipotent supreme being.

If there's such thing as God, isn't it possible He could create a rock of infinite weight, such that He could not lift it?

If the answer is yes, that proves that God is not omnipotent, and if God isn't omnipotent, He's not God at all.

If the answer is no, then that shows that God wasn't omnipotent to start with; therefore, there is no God, by definition.

Fail. That is not a valid argument against God. You cannot just make up logically impossible things and then claim God can't do it and therefore doesn't exist. God isn't required to do logically impossible things. It's like saying God can't make square circles, therefore he doesn't exist.

God can't make square circles?!?!

How can He do this to us?!?!?! God! I'm so ashamed!

As is He. :(

http://3.bp.blogspot.com...
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 3:55:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Not so. Absence of evidence for X counts against the existence of X just in case you would expect to find evidence for X assuming that it actually exists. So basically, unless you concede that a naturalistic world and a theistic world would be practically indistinguishable, making theism a useless hypothesis, the existence of God is at least partly an empirical matter.

No, I would say because a naturalistic and a theistic/monotheistic world is practically indistinguishable, empiricism has little place to verify the existence of God. Not the other way around.

Not the greatest analogy. The more philosophical theists liken God to other minds, the existence of history, the reliability of your own memory, etc.

Problem of non-belief, problem of evil, problem of hell, problem of animal suffering.

/thread


Those 'problems' aren't problems at all, they are perceptions. You are in fact applying the difficulty which we have with God's existence to those very things you mentioned. Evil is a problem necessarily, what's wrong with it? Animal suffering, what's so bad about that, and Hell what's so unpleasant about hell? Actually I don't see any problem with hell, why you even mentioned it as a problem, puzzles me.

God is also a perception, not His character but His existence. We all know that animals are hopelessly killed for fun or in vain, but is that evil or wrong? Or is it just a perception? Why don't you ask, why is there good or why are animals treated well? Those questions like with the prospect of God's existence, what evidence is there against Him, are perceived to be bad reasoning, when really, it isn't.

It's like people don't want there to be a God of goodness and perfection. The world of reasoning seems to stand more against the question of, "Where on earth can evidence be found of a god?"

How narrow minded I say.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 4:00:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
: At 1/23/2011 3:40:53 PM, rogue wrote:
Look, no one can prove that god does not exist, just as no one can prove he/she/it does. The thing is that it is very unlikely that god exists. From an outside viewpoint, the christian god is just as unlikely as any other religion. People made things up to explain what they couldn't and to make themselves feel better. Christianity is one of those. This is not to say that Jesus did not exist or that he did not have good things to say, but god' existence is very unlikely.

(Perfect example of what I just said previously).
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 4:01:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 3:55:50 PM, GodSands wrote:
Not so. Absence of evidence for X counts against the existence of X just in case you would expect to find evidence for X assuming that it actually exists. So basically, unless you concede that a naturalistic world and a theistic world would be practically indistinguishable, making theism a useless hypothesis, the existence of God is at least partly an empirical matter.

No, I would say because a naturalistic and a theistic/monotheistic world is practically indistinguishable, empiricism has little place to verify the existence of God. Not the other way around.

Not the greatest analogy. The more philosophical theists liken God to other minds, the existence of history, the reliability of your own memory, etc.

Problem of non-belief, problem of evil, problem of hell, problem of animal suffering.

/thread


Those 'problems' aren't problems at all, they are perceptions. You are in fact applying the difficulty which we have with God's existence to those very things you mentioned. Evil is a problem necessarily, what's wrong with it? Animal suffering, what's so bad about that, and Hell what's so unpleasant about hell? Actually I don't see any problem with hell, why you even mentioned it as a problem, puzzles me.

God is also a perception, not His character but His existence. We all know that animals are hopelessly killed for fun or in vain, but is that evil or wrong? Or is it just a perception? Why don't you ask, why is there good or why are animals treated well? Those questions like with the prospect of God's existence, what evidence is there against Him, are perceived to be bad reasoning, when really, it isn't.

It's like people don't want there to be a God of goodness and perfection. The world of reasoning seems to stand more against the question of, "Where on earth can evidence be found of a god?"

How narrow minded I say.

Case closed.

I didn't really read anything else in this post, by the way.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 4:02:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 3:38:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/23/2011 2:05:56 PM, rarugged wrote:
From a previous topic:

At 1/23/2011 1:41:49 PM, rarugged wrote:
God exists in the deep recesses of the human imagination.



But really, I've been more fascinated by some logical fallacies of the existence of God, by the most standard definition: an omniscient, omnipotent supreme being.

If there's such thing as God, isn't it possible He could create a rock of infinite weight, such that He could not lift it?

If the answer is yes, that proves that God is not omnipotent, and if God isn't omnipotent, He's not God at all.

If the answer is no, then that shows that God wasn't omnipotent to start with; therefore, there is no God, by definition.

Fail. That is not a valid argument against God. You cannot just make up logically impossible things and then claim God can't do it and therefore doesn't exist. God isn't required to do logically impossible things. It's like saying God can't make square circles, therefore he doesn't exist.

Of course I can make up impossible things. If He's truly God, by definition, he should be able to create anything. Apparently, He created this world. That's logically impossible for a single being to create a world, but God defies logic. In fact, religion, generally defies logic.

And of course God can make square circles. If He wills it of course.

You're blatantly underestimating the omnipotence of God, and therefore, violating the definition. What you're talking about isn't "God" but some lesser deity.
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 4:04:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 3:40:53 PM, rogue wrote:
Look, no one can prove that god does not exist,

False.

See here: http://www.debate.org...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 4:09:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 4:02:34 PM, rarugged wrote:
At 1/23/2011 3:38:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Fail. That is not a valid argument against God. You cannot just make up logically impossible things and then claim God can't do it and therefore doesn't exist. God isn't required to do logically impossible things. It's like saying God can't make square circles, therefore he doesn't exist.

Of course I can make up impossible things. If He's truly God, by definition, he should be able to create anything. Apparently, He created this world. That's logically impossible for a single being to create a world, but God defies logic. In fact, religion, generally defies logic.

And of course God can make square circles. If He wills it of course.

You're blatantly underestimating the omnipotence of God, and therefore, violating the definition. What you're talking about isn't "God" but some lesser deity.

Nope. The prominent view amongst theologians and theist philosophers is that the definition of Omnipotence is "God has the power to do all logically possible things." That is not limiting Omnipotence, it's a practical understanding of Omnipotence.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 4:10:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 4:02:34 PM, rarugged wrote:
At 1/23/2011 3:38:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/23/2011 2:05:56 PM, rarugged wrote:
From a previous topic:

At 1/23/2011 1:41:49 PM, rarugged wrote:
God exists in the deep recesses of the human imagination.



But really, I've been more fascinated by some logical fallacies of the existence of God, by the most standard definition: an omniscient, omnipotent supreme being.

If there's such thing as God, isn't it possible He could create a rock of infinite weight, such that He could not lift it?

If the answer is yes, that proves that God is not omnipotent, and if God isn't omnipotent, He's not God at all.

If the answer is no, then that shows that God wasn't omnipotent to start with; therefore, there is no God, by definition.

Fail. That is not a valid argument against God. You cannot just make up logically impossible things and then claim God can't do it and therefore doesn't exist. God isn't required to do logically impossible things. It's like saying God can't make square circles, therefore he doesn't exist.

Of course I can make up impossible things. If He's truly God, by definition, he should be able to create anything. Apparently, He created this world. That's logically impossible for a single being to create a world, but God defies logic. In fact, religion, generally defies logic.

And of course God can make square circles. If He wills it of course.

You're blatantly underestimating the omnipotence of God, and therefore, violating the definition. What you're talking about isn't "God" but some lesser deity.

New word of the day: ignosticism (thanks Cosmic!)

Basically, let's look at it this way. God is omnipotent in that he had the power to cause this universe (First Cause). But his power has dictated a world where square circles do not exist. Thus, if he creates one, he is breaking his own law (which would not render him incorrect, but the universe).

This is why square circles don't exist.

So, as stated above, your basis for disproving God's existence is based on a false definition of this "God". Thanks for proving a false statement false, man.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 4:11:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 4:04:29 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/23/2011 3:40:53 PM, rogue wrote:
Look, no one can prove that god does not exist,

False.

See here: http://www.debate.org...

Oh dear gawd, THAT thread.... Yeah, that didn't go over well. xD
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 4:13:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 4:09:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/23/2011 4:02:34 PM, rarugged wrote:
At 1/23/2011 3:38:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Fail. That is not a valid argument against God. You cannot just make up logically impossible things and then claim God can't do it and therefore doesn't exist. God isn't required to do logically impossible things. It's like saying God can't make square circles, therefore he doesn't exist.

Of course I can make up impossible things. If He's truly God, by definition, he should be able to create anything. Apparently, He created this world. That's logically impossible for a single being to create a world, but God defies logic. In fact, religion, generally defies logic.

And of course God can make square circles. If He wills it of course.

You're blatantly underestimating the omnipotence of God, and therefore, violating the definition. What you're talking about isn't "God" but some lesser deity.

Nope. The prominent view amongst theologians and theist philosophers is that the definition of Omnipotence is "God has the power to do all logically possible things." That is not limiting Omnipotence, it's a practical understanding of Omnipotence.

I do agree there are a variety of discrepancies among religious affiliations that may disagree on the extent of God's "omnipotence".

Some religions classify God as able to do anything, even the logically impossible. Catholicism bestows upon God the ability to bypass the laws of time.

What I'm trying to say is you're attempting to categorize the definition of Omnipotence too specific to be accurate holistically. However, if you were referring to a specific faith, you would be correct. It would be logically impossible.

Generally, however, most ancient religions regard God as "all-powerful". How else can they explain the Genesis?
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 4:16:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 4:10:04 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 1/23/2011 4:02:34 PM, rarugged wrote:
At 1/23/2011 3:38:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/23/2011 2:05:56 PM, rarugged wrote:
From a previous topic:

At 1/23/2011 1:41:49 PM, rarugged wrote:
God exists in the deep recesses of the human imagination.



But really, I've been more fascinated by some logical fallacies of the existence of God, by the most standard definition: an omniscient, omnipotent supreme being.

If there's such thing as God, isn't it possible He could create a rock of infinite weight, such that He could not lift it?

If the answer is yes, that proves that God is not omnipotent, and if God isn't omnipotent, He's not God at all.

If the answer is no, then that shows that God wasn't omnipotent to start with; therefore, there is no God, by definition.

Fail. That is not a valid argument against God. You cannot just make up logically impossible things and then claim God can't do it and therefore doesn't exist. God isn't required to do logically impossible things. It's like saying God can't make square circles, therefore he doesn't exist.

Of course I can make up impossible things. If He's truly God, by definition, he should be able to create anything. Apparently, He created this world. That's logically impossible for a single being to create a world, but God defies logic. In fact, religion, generally defies logic.

And of course God can make square circles. If He wills it of course.

You're blatantly underestimating the omnipotence of God, and therefore, violating the definition. What you're talking about isn't "God" but some lesser deity.

New word of the day: ignosticism (thanks Cosmic!)

Basically, let's look at it this way. God is omnipotent in that he had the power to cause this universe (First Cause). But his power has dictated a world where square circles do not exist. Thus, if he creates one, he is breaking his own law (which would not render him incorrect, but the universe).

This is why square circles don't exist.

So, as stated above, your basis for disproving God's existence is based on a false definition of this "God". Thanks for proving a false statement false, man.

Where in the world did God's power dictate a world would square circles do not exist? God is not subject to law or dictation, by basic definitional grounds.

If God wanted square circles to exist, they exist. He has the ability to violate his own creation. And laws of nature are different from God's will.
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 4:19:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 4:16:35 PM, rarugged wrote:
At 1/23/2011 4:10:04 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 1/23/2011 4:02:34 PM, rarugged wrote:
At 1/23/2011 3:38:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/23/2011 2:05:56 PM, rarugged wrote:
From a previous topic:

At 1/23/2011 1:41:49 PM, rarugged wrote:
God exists in the deep recesses of the human imagination.



But really, I've been more fascinated by some logical fallacies of the existence of God, by the most standard definition: an omniscient, omnipotent supreme being.

If there's such thing as God, isn't it possible He could create a rock of infinite weight, such that He could not lift it?

If the answer is yes, that proves that God is not omnipotent, and if God isn't omnipotent, He's not God at all.

If the answer is no, then that shows that God wasn't omnipotent to start with; therefore, there is no God, by definition.

Fail. That is not a valid argument against God. You cannot just make up logically impossible things and then claim God can't do it and therefore doesn't exist. God isn't required to do logically impossible things. It's like saying God can't make square circles, therefore he doesn't exist.

Of course I can make up impossible things. If He's truly God, by definition, he should be able to create anything. Apparently, He created this world. That's logically impossible for a single being to create a world, but God defies logic. In fact, religion, generally defies logic.

And of course God can make square circles. If He wills it of course.

You're blatantly underestimating the omnipotence of God, and therefore, violating the definition. What you're talking about isn't "God" but some lesser deity.

New word of the day: ignosticism (thanks Cosmic!)

Basically, let's look at it this way. God is omnipotent in that he had the power to cause this universe (First Cause). But his power has dictated a world where square circles do not exist. Thus, if he creates one, he is breaking his own law (which would not render him incorrect, but the universe).

This is why square circles don't exist.

So, as stated above, your basis for disproving God's existence is based on a false definition of this "God". Thanks for proving a false statement false, man.

Where in the world did God's power dictate a world would square circles do not exist? God is not subject to law or dictation, by basic definitional grounds.

If God wanted square circles to exist, they exist. He has the ability to violate his own creation. And laws of nature are different from God's will.

I'm a Deist, so I believe in "God" as whatever First Cause caused this universe. Thus all natural laws are result of that original creation. It (since Deism sees God as impersonal) could, of course, break the law that square circles do not exist. But that would violate this universe's laws which would render this universe void.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 4:21:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 3:55:50 PM, GodSands wrote:
Not so. Absence of evidence for X counts against the existence of X just in case you would expect to find evidence for X assuming that it actually exists. So basically, unless you concede that a naturalistic world and a theistic world would be practically indistinguishable, making theism a useless hypothesis, the existence of God is at least partly an empirical matter.

No, I would say because a naturalistic and a theistic/monotheistic world is practically indistinguishable, empiricism has little place to verify the existence of God. Not the other way around.

That's a pretty significant concession. You're admitting that:

a) Theism, as a hypothesis, has no predictive power.
b) The only way to argue for theism is to show that it's logically incoherent to deny the existence of God, which it obviously isn't.

Not the greatest analogy. The more philosophical theists liken God to other minds, the existence of history, the reliability of your own memory, etc.

Problem of non-belief, problem of evil, problem of hell, problem of animal suffering.

/thread


Those 'problems' aren't problems at all, they are perceptions. You are in fact applying the difficulty which we have with God's existence to those very things you mentioned. Evil is a problem necessarily, what's wrong with it?

Even if I grant that on naturalism, "evil" doesn't exist as a real object, that doesn't stop me from trying to show that there is a contradiction between the existence of an objective moral code on theism and the existence of gratuitous evil in the world.

Animal suffering, what's so bad about that,

Yeah, Michael Vick, ehs a pretty cool guy. He tortures dogs and doesn't afraid of anything.

and Hell what's so unpleasant about hell? Actually I don't see any problem with hell, why you even mentioned it as a problem, puzzles me.

You don't see anything wrong with the concept of an all loving God who sends people to a pit of fire for all eternity just because they failed to believe in him? What about people who have never heard the Gospel? What about babies who die in infancy?

God is also a perception, not His character but His existence. We all know that animals are hopelessly killed for fun or in vain, but is that evil or wrong? Or is it just a perception? Why don't you ask, why is there good or why are animals treated well? Those questions like with the prospect of God's existence, what evidence is there against Him, are perceived to be bad reasoning, when really, it isn't.

I see. And what exactly do you think a perception is?

It's like people don't want there to be a God of goodness and perfection. The world of reasoning seems to stand more against the question of, "Where on earth can evidence be found of a god?"

How narrow minded I say.

It's a little more complicated than that.
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 4:21:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 4:19:05 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 1/23/2011 4:16:35 PM, rarugged wrote:
At 1/23/2011 4:10:04 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 1/23/2011 4:02:34 PM, rarugged wrote:
At 1/23/2011 3:38:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/23/2011 2:05:56 PM, rarugged wrote:
From a previous topic:

At 1/23/2011 1:41:49 PM, rarugged wrote:
God exists in the deep recesses of the human imagination.



But really, I've been more fascinated by some logical fallacies of the existence of God, by the most standard definition: an omniscient, omnipotent supreme being.

If there's such thing as God, isn't it possible He could create a rock of infinite weight, such that He could not lift it?

If the answer is yes, that proves that God is not omnipotent, and if God isn't omnipotent, He's not God at all.

If the answer is no, then that shows that God wasn't omnipotent to start with; therefore, there is no God, by definition.

Fail. That is not a valid argument against God. You cannot just make up logically impossible things and then claim God can't do it and therefore doesn't exist. God isn't required to do logically impossible things. It's like saying God can't make square circles, therefore he doesn't exist.

Of course I can make up impossible things. If He's truly God, by definition, he should be able to create anything. Apparently, He created this world. That's logically impossible for a single being to create a world, but God defies logic. In fact, religion, generally defies logic.

And of course God can make square circles. If He wills it of course.

You're blatantly underestimating the omnipotence of God, and therefore, violating the definition. What you're talking about isn't "God" but some lesser deity.

New word of the day: ignosticism (thanks Cosmic!)

Basically, let's look at it this way. God is omnipotent in that he had the power to cause this universe (First Cause). But his power has dictated a world where square circles do not exist. Thus, if he creates one, he is breaking his own law (which would not render him incorrect, but the universe).

This is why square circles don't exist.

So, as stated above, your basis for disproving God's existence is based on a false definition of this "God". Thanks for proving a false statement false, man.

Where in the world did God's power dictate a world would square circles do not exist? God is not subject to law or dictation, by basic definitional grounds.

If God wanted square circles to exist, they exist. He has the ability to violate his own creation. And laws of nature are different from God's will.

I'm a Deist, so I believe in "God" as whatever First Cause caused this universe. Thus all natural laws are result of that original creation. It (since Deism sees God as impersonal) could, of course, break the law that square circles do not exist. But that would violate this universe's laws which would render this universe void.

So let's assume God does create a square circle. The laws of the universe, according to you, are violated and the universe is rendered void.

So? Does the non-existence of the universe bother God? The square circle is created. He can form a new universe from the new set of "natural" laws.

What I'm trying to get at is how unlimited the powers of this deity stretches.
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 4:22:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 4:16:35 PM, rarugged wrote:
At 1/23/2011 4:10:04 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 1/23/2011 4:02:34 PM, rarugged wrote:
At 1/23/2011 3:38:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/23/2011 2:05:56 PM, rarugged wrote:
From a previous topic:

At 1/23/2011 1:41:49 PM, rarugged wrote:
God exists in the deep recesses of the human imagination.



But really, I've been more fascinated by some logical fallacies of the existence of God, by the most standard definition: an omniscient, omnipotent supreme being.

If there's such thing as God, isn't it possible He could create a rock of infinite weight, such that He could not lift it?

If the answer is yes, that proves that God is not omnipotent, and if God isn't omnipotent, He's not God at all.

If the answer is no, then that shows that God wasn't omnipotent to start with; therefore, there is no God, by definition.

Fail. That is not a valid argument against God. You cannot just make up logically impossible things and then claim God can't do it and therefore doesn't exist. God isn't required to do logically impossible things. It's like saying God can't make square circles, therefore he doesn't exist.

Of course I can make up impossible things. If He's truly God, by definition, he should be able to create anything. Apparently, He created this world. That's logically impossible for a single being to create a world, but God defies logic. In fact, religion, generally defies logic.

And of course God can make square circles. If He wills it of course.

You're blatantly underestimating the omnipotence of God, and therefore, violating the definition. What you're talking about isn't "God" but some lesser deity.

New word of the day: ignosticism (thanks Cosmic!)

Basically, let's look at it this way. God is omnipotent in that he had the power to cause this universe (First Cause). But his power has dictated a world where square circles do not exist. Thus, if he creates one, he is breaking his own law (which would not render him incorrect, but the universe).

This is why square circles don't exist.

So, as stated above, your basis for disproving God's existence is based on a false definition of this "God". Thanks for proving a false statement false, man.

Where in the world did God's power dictate a world would square circles do not exist? God is not subject to law or dictation, by basic definitional grounds.

If God wanted square circles to exist, they exist. He has the ability to violate his own creation. And laws of nature are different from God's will.

Now all you have to do is think about whether this argument is going to convince any theists. As long as they think you have a bad understanding of their god, they aren't going to respect this as a valid argument.

IF you are going to argue against the existence of god, at least make sure you know what the other person thinks god is. God is a concept, and everyone has a different idea of what that concept means.

It is easy to forget the symbolic nature of our language, and not understanding this is the source of many misunderstandings.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 4:27:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 4:22:05 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 1/23/2011 4:16:35 PM, rarugged wrote:
At 1/23/2011 4:10:04 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 1/23/2011 4:02:34 PM, rarugged wrote:
At 1/23/2011 3:38:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/23/2011 2:05:56 PM, rarugged wrote:
From a previous topic:

At 1/23/2011 1:41:49 PM, rarugged wrote:
God exists in the deep recesses of the human imagination.



But really, I've been more fascinated by some logical fallacies of the existence of God, by the most standard definition: an omniscient, omnipotent supreme being.

If there's such thing as God, isn't it possible He could create a rock of infinite weight, such that He could not lift it?

If the answer is yes, that proves that God is not omnipotent, and if God isn't omnipotent, He's not God at all.

If the answer is no, then that shows that God wasn't omnipotent to start with; therefore, there is no God, by definition.

Fail. That is not a valid argument against God. You cannot just make up logically impossible things and then claim God can't do it and therefore doesn't exist. God isn't required to do logically impossible things. It's like saying God can't make square circles, therefore he doesn't exist.

Of course I can make up impossible things. If He's truly God, by definition, he should be able to create anything. Apparently, He created this world. That's logically impossible for a single being to create a world, but God defies logic. In fact, religion, generally defies logic.

And of course God can make square circles. If He wills it of course.

You're blatantly underestimating the omnipotence of God, and therefore, violating the definition. What you're talking about isn't "God" but some lesser deity.

New word of the day: ignosticism (thanks Cosmic!)

Basically, let's look at it this way. God is omnipotent in that he had the power to cause this universe (First Cause). But his power has dictated a world where square circles do not exist. Thus, if he creates one, he is breaking his own law (which would not render him incorrect, but the universe).

This is why square circles don't exist.

So, as stated above, your basis for disproving God's existence is based on a false definition of this "God". Thanks for proving a false statement false, man.

Where in the world did God's power dictate a world would square circles do not exist? God is not subject to law or dictation, by basic definitional grounds.

If God wanted square circles to exist, they exist. He has the ability to violate his own creation. And laws of nature are different from God's will.

Now all you have to do is think about whether this argument is going to convince any theists. As long as they think you have a bad understanding of their god, they aren't going to respect this as a valid argument.

IF you are going to argue against the existence of god, at least make sure you know what the other person thinks god is. God is a concept, and everyone has a different idea of what that concept means.

It is easy to forget the symbolic nature of our language, and not understanding this is the source of many misunderstandings.

Ah, you've arrived at a signpost. Your failure to identify such "theists" naturally assumes that they have a different definition or understanding of "God" than I do.

If everyone has a different ides of what a concept means, then it is virtually improbable to reach a unanimous conclusion.

In any case, I am not religious, nor do I have a predilection for frequent musings upon the existence of a supreme deity. Such debates are transiently intriguing, to the least, but the lack of a universally-accepted definition renders many arguments subjective to the reader's own opinion.

There is no logical way to prove or disprove the existence of God, because God defies logic.
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 4:29:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 4:13:34 PM, rarugged wrote:

I do agree there are a variety of discrepancies among religious affiliations that may disagree on the extent of God's "omnipotence".

Some religions classify God as able to do anything, even the logically impossible. Catholicism bestows upon God the ability to bypass the laws of time.


"Laws of time"? An atemporal being itself isn't logically impossible.

What I'm trying to say is you're attempting to categorize the definition of Omnipotence too specific to be accurate holistically. However, if you were referring to a specific faith, you would be correct. It would be logically impossible.


Which faiths posit a God who can do the logically impossible? I only know of a few believers who actually believe that (Zetsubou is one).

Generally, however, most ancient religions regard God as "all-powerful". How else can they explain the Genesis?

You're aware that the Bible says God is all-powerful but that there are things he can't do, right?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 4:30:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Of course I can make up impossible things. If He's truly God, by definition, he should be able to create anything. Apparently, He created this world. That's logically impossible for a single being to create a world, but God defies logic. In fact, religion, generally defies logic.

And of course God can make square circles. If He wills it of course.

You're blatantly underestimating the omnipotence of God, and therefore, violating the definition. What you're talking about isn't "God" but some lesser deity.


If God exists, who was here first, man or God? If God then we God does not contradict logic. In fact if God exists, logic is objective. If God exists even, God being eternal has always been logically able and correct. Therefore we abide by His ways, we don't get Him to abide by ours. But you are implying by saying God defies logic. Also God has nothing to do with religion, if God exists, religion doesn't have to as well. God cannot make a square circle because it is impossible, it simply makes no sense, it is a defect in human thinking, not is God's ability. If God exists we should follow through with Him, God should abide by what man wants Him to do or be.

If God does not exist, then God is being adapted as man gains intelligence. If God does not exist then a square circle is simply something that man has thought up and then applied the impossible idea to a probably yet non-existence being which, if it existed, could not achieve. Not because the being does not exist, but because it is impossible. It's two thing that contradict each other at once, they are impossible because the laws of physics cannot maintain the appearance, it would be an illusion. And that's what an illusion is, two things put together which physically cannot go together, so they are supported by perception instead of physical laws.

God is not illogical, one argument suggests that the reason logic is correct is because God cannot logically go against or deny His own self existence or character.