Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why Is God Impossible?

pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 11:30:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why is the concept of God impossible to you?

I don't want to argue, I just want to hear different opinions.
boss1592
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 12:52:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 11:30:11 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why is the concept of God impossible to you?

I don't want to argue, I just want to hear different opinions.

It depends on how you want to define God, I can't really give any sort of meaningful answer without a more precise definition
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 12:55:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 12:52:48 AM, boss1592 wrote:
At 4/18/2013 11:30:11 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why is the concept of God impossible to you?

I don't want to argue, I just want to hear different opinions.

It depends on how you want to define God, I can't really give any sort of meaningful answer without a more precise definition

If the concept of God in any definition is possible to you, why would you try to answer the question?
boss1592
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 1:12:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 12:55:42 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 4/19/2013 12:52:48 AM, boss1592 wrote:
At 4/18/2013 11:30:11 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why is the concept of God impossible to you?

I don't want to argue, I just want to hear different opinions.

It depends on how you want to define God, I can't really give any sort of meaningful answer without a more precise definition

If the concept of God in any definition is possible to you, why would you try to answer the question?

Because under some definitions, the existence of God may be possible, and under other definitions the existence of God may not be possible
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 1:25:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 1:12:42 AM, boss1592 wrote:
At 4/19/2013 12:55:42 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 4/19/2013 12:52:48 AM, boss1592 wrote:
At 4/18/2013 11:30:11 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why is the concept of God impossible to you?

I don't want to argue, I just want to hear different opinions.

It depends on how you want to define God, I can't really give any sort of meaningful answer without a more precise definition

If the concept of God in any definition is possible to you, why would you try to answer the question?

Because under some definitions, the existence of God may be possible, and under other definitions the existence of God may not be possible

It's your concept, you materialize the definition that makes God impossible, not me. I can't think of any cosmological start where a God or Gods aren't possible. That's why I asked the question.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 2:07:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 1:25:13 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 4/19/2013 1:12:42 AM, boss1592 wrote:
At 4/19/2013 12:55:42 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 4/19/2013 12:52:48 AM, boss1592 wrote:
At 4/18/2013 11:30:11 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why is the concept of God impossible to you?

I don't want to argue, I just want to hear different opinions.

It depends on how you want to define God, I can't really give any sort of meaningful answer without a more precise definition

If the concept of God in any definition is possible to you, why would you try to answer the question?

Because under some definitions, the existence of God may be possible, and under other definitions the existence of God may not be possible

It's your concept, you materialize the definition that makes God impossible, not me. I can't think of any cosmological start where a God or Gods aren't possible. That's why I asked the question.

Really? You can't possibly think of a way to define god that wouldn't be possible? That seems far-fetched. I know you're a believer, but what you're saying here is broader than you realize.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 2:13:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 2:07:39 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/19/2013 1:25:13 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 4/19/2013 1:12:42 AM, boss1592 wrote:
At 4/19/2013 12:55:42 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 4/19/2013 12:52:48 AM, boss1592 wrote:
At 4/18/2013 11:30:11 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why is the concept of God impossible to you?

I don't want to argue, I just want to hear different opinions.

It depends on how you want to define God, I can't really give any sort of meaningful answer without a more precise definition

If the concept of God in any definition is possible to you, why would you try to answer the question?

Because under some definitions, the existence of God may be possible, and under other definitions the existence of God may not be possible

It's your concept, you materialize the definition that makes God impossible, not me. I can't think of any cosmological start where a God or Gods aren't possible. That's why I asked the question.

Really? You can't possibly think of a way to define god that wouldn't be possible? That seems far-fetched. I know you're a believer, but what you're saying here is broader than you realize.

No I can not, and I don't like being narrow minded.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 2:22:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 2:13:19 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 4/19/2013 2:07:39 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/19/2013 1:25:13 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 4/19/2013 1:12:42 AM, boss1592 wrote:
At 4/19/2013 12:55:42 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 4/19/2013 12:52:48 AM, boss1592 wrote:
At 4/18/2013 11:30:11 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why is the concept of God impossible to you?

I don't want to argue, I just want to hear different opinions.

It depends on how you want to define God, I can't really give any sort of meaningful answer without a more precise definition

If the concept of God in any definition is possible to you, why would you try to answer the question?

Because under some definitions, the existence of God may be possible, and under other definitions the existence of God may not be possible

It's your concept, you materialize the definition that makes God impossible, not me. I can't think of any cosmological start where a God or Gods aren't possible. That's why I asked the question.

Really? You can't possibly think of a way to define god that wouldn't be possible? That seems far-fetched. I know you're a believer, but what you're saying here is broader than you realize.

No I can not, and I don't like being narrow minded.

So if I said "God is a being which can create a thing so heavy he can't lift it, and is also both everywhere and nowhere at the same time", you'd say that God was possible?

The point was just that, until you define the "God" you're asking about, it's a meaningless question. I may as well ask you "Why is Qwyzulbryg impossible?"
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 2:46:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 2:22:00 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/19/2013 2:13:19 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 4/19/2013 2:07:39 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/19/2013 1:25:13 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 4/19/2013 1:12:42 AM, boss1592 wrote:
At 4/19/2013 12:55:42 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 4/19/2013 12:52:48 AM, boss1592 wrote:
At 4/18/2013 11:30:11 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why is the concept of God impossible to you?

I don't want to argue, I just want to hear different opinions.

It depends on how you want to define God, I can't really give any sort of meaningful answer without a more precise definition

If the concept of God in any definition is possible to you, why would you try to answer the question?

Because under some definitions, the existence of God may be possible, and under other definitions the existence of God may not be possible

It's your concept, you materialize the definition that makes God impossible, not me. I can't think of any cosmological start where a God or Gods aren't possible. That's why I asked the question.

Really? You can't possibly think of a way to define god that wouldn't be possible? That seems far-fetched. I know you're a believer, but what you're saying here is broader than you realize.

No I can not, and I don't like being narrow minded.

So if I said "God is a being which can create a thing so heavy he can't lift it, and is also both everywhere and nowhere at the same time", you'd say that God was possible?

The point was just that, until you define the "God" you're asking about, it's a meaningless question. I may as well ask you "Why is Qwyzulbryg impossible?"

If what you says true the task I ask should be completely simple then. Explain why God is impossible.

So far my only conclusion is that "God is not possible in a universe that doesn't acknowledge him."
Which means God is possible to everyone in our universe because everyone acknowledges his possibility in their own way.
Whats not possible in our universe though, is a concept that God is not possible. Which would make the concept of atheism impossible.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 2:47:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 2:46:16 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 4/19/2013 2:22:00 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/19/2013 2:13:19 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 4/19/2013 2:07:39 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/19/2013 1:25:13 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 4/19/2013 1:12:42 AM, boss1592 wrote:
At 4/19/2013 12:55:42 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 4/19/2013 12:52:48 AM, boss1592 wrote:
At 4/18/2013 11:30:11 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why is the concept of God impossible to you?

I don't want to argue, I just want to hear different opinions.

It depends on how you want to define God, I can't really give any sort of meaningful answer without a more precise definition

If the concept of God in any definition is possible to you, why would you try to answer the question?

Because under some definitions, the existence of God may be possible, and under other definitions the existence of God may not be possible

It's your concept, you materialize the definition that makes God impossible, not me. I can't think of any cosmological start where a God or Gods aren't possible. That's why I asked the question.

Really? You can't possibly think of a way to define god that wouldn't be possible? That seems far-fetched. I know you're a believer, but what you're saying here is broader than you realize.

No I can not, and I don't like being narrow minded.

So if I said "God is a being which can create a thing so heavy he can't lift it, and is also both everywhere and nowhere at the same time", you'd say that God was possible?

The point was just that, until you define the "God" you're asking about, it's a meaningless question. I may as well ask you "Why is Qwyzulbryg impossible?"

If what you say is true, the task I ask should be completely simple then. Explain why God is impossible.

So far my only conclusion is that "God is not possible in a universe that doesn't acknowledge him."
Which means God is possible to everyone in our universe because everyone acknowledges his possibility in their own way.
Whats not possible in our universe though, is a concept that God is not possible. Which would make the concept of atheism impossible.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 3:17:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't know. The ideas of gods are necessarily hard to grapple with because they are made to fill the areas of reality we don't understand.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 12:13:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 2:46:16 AM, pozessed wrote:

If what you says true the task I ask should be completely simple then. Explain why God is impossible.

What? Until you say what you mean by "God", God is neither impossible nor possible: He's incoherent.

Give me at least a working definition.

Because, let's say you said "God is this rock. He has no abilities and no consciousness, but I call this rock God." Well, that god is possible, I would simply take issue with your definition.

If you said "God embodies the logically impossible", I would say that he is therefore logically impossible.

If you said "God is that thing than which no greater can be conceived", then we can try to understand that concept better before we can assert whether god is possible or not.

But until you have defined your god, asking about "possibility" is meaningless.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
boss1592
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 12:45:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 1:25:13 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 4/19/2013 1:12:42 AM, boss1592 wrote:
At 4/19/2013 12:55:42 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 4/19/2013 12:52:48 AM, boss1592 wrote:
At 4/18/2013 11:30:11 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why is the concept of God impossible to you?

I don't want to argue, I just want to hear different opinions.

It depends on how you want to define God, I can't really give any sort of meaningful answer without a more precise definition

If the concept of God in any definition is possible to you, why would you try to answer the question?

Because under some definitions, the existence of God may be possible, and under other definitions the existence of God may not be possible

It's your concept, you materialize the definition that makes God impossible, not me. I can't think of any cosmological start where a God or Gods aren't possible. That's why I asked the question.

Ah, so I get to define what God is? Alrighty, I'm going to define God as "A being for whom it is impossible to exist" I win

Are we starting to see the problem here?
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 12:51:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 11:30:11 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why is the concept of God impossible to you?

I don't want to argue, I just want to hear different opinions.

Classic, I have no definition of qwertyiscax but I know it's impossible..........lol......defeated before you have even begun.
PureX
Posts: 1,519
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 12:52:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 3:17:23 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I don't know. The ideas of gods are necessarily hard to grapple with because they are made to fill the areas of reality we don't understand.

Bingo!

"God" is the mystery source, sustenance, meaning, and purpose of our existence. "God" is the 'personification' of our unknowing. And as such, God is as real as it gets. This is not a subject that can be understood using science, or even empiricism, alone.
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 12:59:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 12:52:21 PM, PureX wrote:
At 4/19/2013 3:17:23 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I don't know. The ideas of gods are necessarily hard to grapple with because they are made to fill the areas of reality we don't understand.

Bingo!

"God" is the mystery source, sustenance, meaning, and purpose of our existence. "God" is the 'personification' of our unknowing. And as such, God is as real as it gets. This is not a subject that can be understood using science, or even empiricism, alone.

That's just another way of saying, "By love He may be gotten and holden, but by thought never."
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 1:01:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 12:52:48 AM, boss1592 wrote:
At 4/18/2013 11:30:11 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why is the concept of God impossible to you?

I don't want to argue, I just want to hear different opinions.

It depends on how you want to define God, I can't really give any sort of meaningful answer without a more precise definition

God is the very least must be defined as supreme, otherwise he wouldn't be God.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 4:12:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 12:59:18 PM, Radar wrote:
At 4/19/2013 12:52:21 PM, PureX wrote:
At 4/19/2013 3:17:23 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I don't know. The ideas of gods are necessarily hard to grapple with because they are made to fill the areas of reality we don't understand.

Bingo!

"God" is the mystery source, sustenance, meaning, and purpose of our existence. "God" is the 'personification' of our unknowing. And as such, God is as real as it gets. This is not a subject that can be understood using science, or even empiricism, alone.

That's just another way of saying, "By love He may be gotten and holden, but by thought never."

Funny how the more and more we know, the more this "God" has to retreat into the shadows.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 4:19:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 4:12:37 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/19/2013 12:59:18 PM, Radar wrote:
At 4/19/2013 12:52:21 PM, PureX wrote:
At 4/19/2013 3:17:23 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I don't know. The ideas of gods are necessarily hard to grapple with because they are made to fill the areas of reality we don't understand.

Bingo!

"God" is the mystery source, sustenance, meaning, and purpose of our existence. "God" is the 'personification' of our unknowing. And as such, God is as real as it gets. This is not a subject that can be understood using science, or even empiricism, alone.

That's just another way of saying, "By love He may be gotten and holden, but by thought never."

Funny how the more and more we know, the more this "God" has to retreat into the shadows.

That quote is from the 14th century and the sentiment has been around a lot longer than that, so it's hardly a "retreat into the shadows" as the result of increased knowledge.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 4:32:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 4:19:45 PM, Radar wrote:
At 4/19/2013 4:12:37 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/19/2013 12:59:18 PM, Radar wrote:
At 4/19/2013 12:52:21 PM, PureX wrote:
At 4/19/2013 3:17:23 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I don't know. The ideas of gods are necessarily hard to grapple with because they are made to fill the areas of reality we don't understand.

Bingo!

"God" is the mystery source, sustenance, meaning, and purpose of our existence. "God" is the 'personification' of our unknowing. And as such, God is as real as it gets. This is not a subject that can be understood using science, or even empiricism, alone.

That's just another way of saying, "By love He may be gotten and holden, but by thought never."

Funny how the more and more we know, the more this "God" has to retreat into the shadows.

That quote is from the 14th century and the sentiment has been around a lot longer than that, so it's hardly a "retreat into the shadows" as the result of increased knowledge.

There are also plenty of empirical claims that have been made in the name of God, and many of them are incorrect. Any empirical claim made to provide direct evidence for gods has been shown to be false or non-existent.

It's no surprise that then gods are claimed to be unfindable, so when we say we can't find them, so we don't believe them, we're told "you wouldn't ever be able to find them, so that tells you nothing".

Well I guess it is true, it tells us "nothing". Gods may be real, but even if we are (which the chances seem slim for), we have no way of knowing their nature, especially if they're unknowable. So why base and religion or ideology around them? It's all as good as taking ideas for morals and practices from toddlers.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 4:35:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There's no meaningful definition of God. All definitions only work within the human context. A "God" is impossible just like a usfueh is impossible. They're both meaningless
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 4:39:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 4:35:09 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
There's no meaningful definition of God. All definitions only work within the human context. A "God" is impossible just like a usfueh is impossible. They're both meaningless

Then why do so many people have a similar conception of what God is? How can one even formulate an argument for God if there was no cognitive understanding of God? Even if you argue that the word "God" is meaningless, the traditional theistic arguments at least seek to prove something, even if you don't believe they're sound.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 4:45:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 4:39:49 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/19/2013 4:35:09 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
There's no meaningful definition of God. All definitions only work within the human context. A "God" is impossible just like a usfueh is impossible. They're both meaningless

Then why do so many people have a similar conception of what God is? How can one even formulate an argument for God if there was no cognitive understanding of God? Even if you argue that the word "God" is meaningless, the traditional theistic arguments at least seek to prove something, even if you don't believe they're sound.

Exactly, the meaning they represent isn't meaningless. Why do you think there's no "meaningful definition"?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 5:16:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 4:45:12 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/19/2013 4:39:49 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/19/2013 4:35:09 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
There's no meaningful definition of God. All definitions only work within the human context. A "God" is impossible just like a usfueh is impossible. They're both meaningless

Then why do so many people have a similar conception of what God is? How can one even formulate an argument for God if there was no cognitive understanding of God? Even if you argue that the word "God" is meaningless, the traditional theistic arguments at least seek to prove something, even if you don't believe they're sound.

Exactly, the meaning they represent isn't meaningless. Why do you think there's no "meaningful definition"?

I don't, are you talking to the poster above me?
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 5:24:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 4:39:49 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/19/2013 4:35:09 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
There's no meaningful definition of God. All definitions only work within the human context. A "God" is impossible just like a usfueh is impossible. They're both meaningless

Then why do so many people have a similar conception of what God is? How can one even formulate an argument for God if there was no cognitive understanding of God? Even if you argue that the word "God" is meaningless, the traditional theistic arguments at least seek to prove something, even if you don't believe they're sound.

Many people have the same concept of God because they're trying to get it from the same source (holy book). Many people around the world have completely different views of what God is. God can appear to have meaning, but the descriptions come from human context. One can't form an argument for God if it's meaningless. Many assume a meaning to argue it. For arguments sake, I see nothing wrong with doing so, but in actuality it's a problem. The theistic arguments attempt to prove this something assuming the human context of his definitions. Until this something is defined we don't know if the argument is actually proving it. For instance, it rained for 3 days therefore a euher exists. The argument proves nothing until this something is defined.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 5:26:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 4:45:12 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/19/2013 4:39:49 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/19/2013 4:35:09 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
There's no meaningful definition of God. All definitions only work within the human context. A "God" is impossible just like a usfueh is impossible. They're both meaningless

Then why do so many people have a similar conception of what God is? How can one even formulate an argument for God if there was no cognitive understanding of God? Even if you argue that the word "God" is meaningless, the traditional theistic arguments at least seek to prove something, even if you don't believe they're sound.

Exactly, the meaning they represent isn't meaningless. Why do you think there's no "meaningful definition"?

I'm assuming this is to me.

If I say a "ruvh" can dance, but this ruvh has no body or legs, am I really talking about dancing we know about? It would cease to give dance meaning.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 6:07:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 5:16:24 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/19/2013 4:45:12 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/19/2013 4:39:49 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/19/2013 4:35:09 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
There's no meaningful definition of God. All definitions only work within the human context. A "God" is impossible just like a usfueh is impossible. They're both meaningless

Then why do so many people have a similar conception of what God is? How can one even formulate an argument for God if there was no cognitive understanding of God? Even if you argue that the word "God" is meaningless, the traditional theistic arguments at least seek to prove something, even if you don't believe they're sound.

Exactly, the meaning they represent isn't meaningless. Why do you think there's no "meaningful definition"?

I don't, are you talking to the poster above me?

Yes. :P
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 6:22:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A rational mind, should at some point question the possibility of a creator to our universe.
If they don't question the possibility then they aren't thinking rational.
A rational mind can not reach the conclusion that God is impossible without thinking of God(s) possibilities at some point.
A scientific mind can think of atheism as impossible because God(s) possibility is always there in a rational mind.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 6:26:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 5:24:13 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 4/19/2013 4:39:49 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/19/2013 4:35:09 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
There's no meaningful definition of God. All definitions only work within the human context. A "God" is impossible just like a usfueh is impossible. They're both meaningless

Then why do so many people have a similar conception of what God is? How can one even formulate an argument for God if there was no cognitive understanding of God? Even if you argue that the word "God" is meaningless, the traditional theistic arguments at least seek to prove something, even if you don't believe they're sound.

Many people have the same concept of God because they're trying to get it from the same source (holy book).

Yeah, so why can't we just argue over whatever sort of God the holy book depicts? This "non-cognitivism" argument is one of the worst I've heard.

Many people around the world have completely different views of what God is.

Sure, but it's the same way with "religion" in general -- Westerners and Easterners oftentimes have very different perspectives on what it means to be "religious." Of course, this is the same with a lot of ideas -- for instance, a "planet." Before the "official" designation of a planet by the International Astronomical Union, the concept of a planet wasn't specifically defined with a textbook understanding -- it was just a general concept used to refer to a particular type of spherical celestial body. Pluto was considered a member of this set, but then was demoted when we found new bodies that seemed to join this set as well. Hence, the IAU had to officially define what a planet was for future reference -- and there were still people who held that Pluto is a "planet," because they perceived the idea of a "planet" in a different way. Does this mean the term "planet" is meaningless? Surely not. Each of the groups was referring to a similar celestial body, so there was obviously common ground.

So what do theists mean by God? Well, for classical theism, the theism of Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Avicenna, Anselm, and others, God was something akin to Pure Act, Simplicity, etc. For neotheism, or theistic personalism, the theism of Swinburne, Craig, and Plantinga, among others, God is more of a person, rejecting timelessness and such. Does this mean that St. Anselm is referring to a different being, than, say, Swinburne? It wouldn't seem so. They each are referring to the same entity -- they just perceive that entity a different way, and often on very rational grounds. Are the pro-Plutonians and anti-Plutonians referring to a different 'planet'? Most likely not -- they just perceive what a planet is in two different ways.

God can appear to have meaning, but the descriptions come from human context.

Literally every meaning you'll find in a dictionary argues from a "human context," whatever that means.

One can't form an argument for God if it's meaningless. Many assume a meaning to argue it.

The hell's wrong with assuming a meaning? What's a dictionary for then, Magic? Aren't we just attaching more random configurations of letters to other random configurations of letters? Where does meaning even come from, if we're not making it up and assuming it? That's just pathetic. This non-cognitivism campaign is just plain pathetic.

For arguments sake, I see nothing wrong with doing so, but in actuality it's a problem. The theistic arguments attempt to prove this something assuming the human context of his definitions.

Yeah, so how are we supposed to argue at all if we can't assume a definition? How am I supposed to prove that the mind is immaterial if I'm just assuming a meaning of "mind"? How am I supposed to prove that my laptop has a screen if I'm just assuming a meaning of "laptop" and "screen"?

Once again, the fact that so many people have similar conceptions of God -- as a being which is essentially omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, etc. -- is compelling evidence that God has a meaning. Every definition is accepted on popular approval -- that's just the nature of language. If we say that God is x, then when we utter the word "God," or when we write those three letters down, we're referring to that thing. All you're doing here is assuming that God doesn't have a meaning to prove that God doesn't have a meaning.

Until this something is defined we don't know if the argument is actually proving it. For instance, it rained for 3 days therefore a euher exists. The argument proves nothing until this something is defined.

A "euher" and "God" are separated by a very important distinction, and it's the distinction that's at the foundation of linguistics. Language, as I said earlier, is based in popular support. If enough people attach some meaning to a conglomeration of sounds or words, then that word has meaning. Otherwise, language would be an impossible achievement. While not everyone understands God exactly the same way, we're all referring to the same thing.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2013 3:10:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 12:55:42 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 4/19/2013 12:52:48 AM, boss1592 wrote:
At 4/18/2013 11:30:11 PM, pozessed wrote:
Why is the concept of God impossible to you?

I don't want to argue, I just want to hear different opinions.

It depends on how you want to define God, I can't really give any sort of meaningful answer without a more precise definition

If the concept of God in any definition is possible to you, why would you try to answer the question?

If someone defined God as a teacup, and then presented the teacup and said "Look, here is God", then there is nothing impossible about that, no.