Total Posts:150|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

To Strong Atheists..

dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 4:54:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 3:54:31 PM, Envisage wrote:
Why do you believe no god exists?

Because every god I have ever heard of has been fashioned in the image of man.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 6:13:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 4:54:49 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:54:31 PM, Envisage wrote:
Why do you believe no god exists?

Because every god I have ever heard of has been fashioned in the image of man.

Or is that because being men, we can only understand and describe God in so far as our human mental powers can logically comprehend?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 11:59:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The current stories and qualities ascribe to Him simply do not make sense as a cohesive master of the universe. It doesn't logically follow that -this- is the best possible outcome from an omnipotent, omniscient entity.

I have no problem that some variety of God might exist, but have seen no specific reason as to think why any of the current written about dudes is THE God, or that that might not be more than one.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 12:16:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Sig change
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 1:22:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 4:54:49 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:54:31 PM, Envisage wrote:
Why do you believe no god exists?

Because every god I have ever heard of has been fashioned in the image of man.

- How about the ones you haven't heard of?! Why generalise?

- a why not a Deity?
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 1:26:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 11:59:53 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
The current stories and qualities ascribe to Him simply do not make sense as a cohesive master of the universe. It doesn't logically follow that -this- is the best possible outcome from an omnipotent, omniscient entity.

- Please elaborate. What is it that contradict the Omnipotence & Omniscience of God?

I have no problem that some variety of God might exist, but have seen no specific reason as to think why any of the current written about dudes is THE God, or that that might not be more than one.

- Yes? What is it you think is incompatible between a transcendent Deity & a religious one?
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 1:43:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 1:26:36 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/6/2015 11:59:53 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
The current stories and qualities ascribe to Him simply do not make sense as a cohesive master of the universe. It doesn't logically follow that -this- is the best possible outcome from an omnipotent, omniscient entity.

- Please elaborate. What is it that contradict the Omnipotence & Omniscience of God?

Its not a contradiction between those two, its that we get what is currently around us now as the best possible solution. Unless this odd system of the world as we see it was His plan (and obviously, it wasn't if you read certain 'God' stories), it makes no sense that an all knowing and all powerful entity would create such a chaotic world, or choose to be so aloof from it should it be beyond His plan.

I have no problem that some variety of God might exist, but have seen no specific reason as to think why any of the current written about dudes is THE God, or that that might not be more than one.

- Yes? What is it you think is incompatible between a transcendent Deity & a religious one?

There is no reason for such an entity to care, and should He care, again, this world seems horribly lacking should it be His best effort. Of course, if its not His best effort, again, I am cool with that, but some folks would need to fess up to it.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 1:57:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 1:43:14 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Its not a contradiction between those two, its that we get what is currently around us now as the best possible solution. Unless this odd system of the world as we see it was His plan (and obviously, it wasn't if you read certain 'God' stories), it makes no sense that an all knowing and all powerful entity would create such a chaotic world, or choose to be so aloof from it should it be beyond His plan.

- What's the correlation between an All-Powerful All-Knowing God & Him not creating a supposedly Chaotic World?!

- Also, where is the objective reference according to which a World is Chaotic or non-Chaotic?! In that case, what is inherent in a Chaotic or non-Chaotic World that would make it incompatible with an All-Powerful All-Knowing God?!

There is no reason for such an entity to care, and should He care, again, this world seems horribly lacking should it be His best effort. Of course, if its not His best effort, again, I am cool with that, but some folks would need to fess up to it.

- Best & Lacking on one side & All-Powerful All-Knowing God on the other side are contradictory. This whole sentence doesn't make sense!

- Plus, supposing the World is Lacking or in a certain way, will always lead us to: who's to judge?! Unless there is an objective Truth to it, which again will lead us to: who's to decide?! This line of reasoning necessitate some kind of pre-restriction on God to be valid, & thus absurd!
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 2:14:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 1:57:30 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/7/2015 1:43:14 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Its not a contradiction between those two, its that we get what is currently around us now as the best possible solution. Unless this odd system of the world as we see it was His plan (and obviously, it wasn't if you read certain 'God' stories), it makes no sense that an all knowing and all powerful entity would create such a chaotic world, or choose to be so aloof from it should it be beyond His plan.

- What's the correlation between an All-Powerful All-Knowing God & Him not creating a supposedly Chaotic World?!

It need not be done. There is no reason for the chaos. There are better means by which an omniscient omnipotent entity could accomplish His purpose, unless of course it was for such a Chaotic world to exist. Given the various scripture, that was not 'the plan'.

- Also, where is the objective reference according to which a World is Chaotic or non-Chaotic?! In that case, what is inherent in a Chaotic or non-Chaotic World that would make it incompatible with an All-Powerful All-Knowing God?!

Chaos vs ordered. In a non-chaotic world, there wouldn't be multiple verisions of His representation, would there? Its chaos that diseminates various accounts through decay or greed and uncertainty, and that decay or greed an uncertainty at various rates is what gives us what we have now.

There is no reason for such an entity to care, and should He care, again, this world seems horribly lacking should it be His best effort. Of course, if its not His best effort, again, I am cool with that, but some folks would need to fess up to it.

- Best & Lacking on one side & All-Powerful All-Knowing God on the other side are contradictory. This whole sentence doesn't make sense!

I agree, and the sentence is a description of the world as it is now, so, as I stated previously, the concept of what God is supposed to be, vs what the world is now -doesn't make sense-.

- Plus, supposing the World is Lacking or in a certain way, will always lead us to: who's to judge?! Unless there is an objective Truth to it, which again will lead us to: who's to decide?! This line of reasoning necessitate some kind of pre-restriction on God to be valid, & thus absurd!

Yes, and that pre-restriction are those that claim Him to be Omnipotent, Omniscent, and benevelent. To claim all of those as the godhead, and the world be what it is now, its quite absurd indeed.

The easily solutions to the situation would be that God doesn't care should He exist. The world around us, in all its imperfections, should not have transpired should an omniscient, benevolent, omnipotent creator be at the helm.

That, or what we call 'omnipotent' and 'omniscient' need to have a tweaking.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 2:26:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 2:14:37 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
It need not be done. There is no reason for the chaos. There are better means by which an omniscient omnipotent entity could accomplish His purpose, unless of course it was for such a Chaotic world to exist. Given the various scripture, that was not 'the plan'.

- You have to establish that Chaos is objectively Bad, & that Bad is incompatible with an All-Knowing All-Powerful God. Otherwise you're just stating your personal opinion on what God is or isn't, & thus your argument will be a self-refuting circular reasoning.

Chaos vs ordered. In a non-chaotic world, there wouldn't be multiple verisions of His representation, would there? Its chaos that diseminates various accounts through decay or greed and uncertainty, and that decay or greed an uncertainty at various rates is what gives us what we have now.

- I have no idea what you're taking about in this paragraph, please be more clear.

I agree, and the sentence is a description of the world as it is now, so, as I stated previously, the concept of what God is supposed to be, vs what the world is now -doesn't make sense-.

- No, you decided both on your own, & you seem to have arrived at a contradiction thereafter. You have to establish it, demonstrate it, not just define it as a brute fact!

Yes, and that pre-restriction are those that claim Him to be Omnipotent, Omniscent, and benevelent. To claim all of those as the godhead, and the world be what it is now, its quite absurd indeed.

- How so? (& Let's stick with Omniscient & Omnipotent for now.)

The easily solutions to the situation would be that God doesn't care should He exist. The world around us, in all its imperfections, should not have transpired should an omniscient, benevolent, omnipotent creator be at the helm.

- Again here you're defining what & how God is & contradicting it afterwards, that's circular reasoning. If you wanna find a contradiction between an Omniscient Omnipotent God & the current World, so it objectively.

That, or what we call 'omnipotent' and 'omniscient' need to have a tweaking.

- Yes, 'we' as in you need to tweak the definitions to their right settings in your conception.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 2:46:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 2:26:22 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/7/2015 2:14:37 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
It need not be done. There is no reason for the chaos. There are better means by which an omniscient omnipotent entity could accomplish His purpose, unless of course it was for such a Chaotic world to exist. Given the various scripture, that was not 'the plan'.

- You have to establish that Chaos is objectively Bad, & that Bad is incompatible with an All-Knowing All-Powerful God. Otherwise you're just stating your personal opinion on what God is or isn't, & thus your argument will be a self-refuting circular reasoning.

No, I don't actually. Chaos isn't morality. There is no bad and good. There is order and disorder, order is favored by God as it would yield the most followers. Disorder prevents it.

Chaos vs ordered. In a non-chaotic world, there wouldn't be multiple verisions of His representation, would there? Its chaos that diseminates various accounts through decay or greed and uncertainty, and that decay or greed an uncertainty at various rates is what gives us what we have now.

- I have no idea what you're taking about in this paragraph, please be more clear.

The nature of chaos prevents order. Order is favorable to a system. Belief, worship, religion, these are all systems. Chaos would be disfavorable to an entity looking for worship, or institute a religion, or culture a belief. An omnipotent entity with omniscience could create a system with NO chaos, should it choose.

I agree, and the sentence is a description of the world as it is now, so, as I stated previously, the concept of what God is supposed to be, vs what the world is now -doesn't make sense-.

Yes, and that pre-restriction are those that claim Him to be Omnipotent, Omniscent, and benevelent. To claim all of those as the godhead, and the world be what it is now, its quite absurd indeed.

- How so? (& Let's stick with Omniscient & Omnipotent for now.)

Sure. Omnipotent, having the power to create anything that is not self refuting through force of will. Being able to do anything that is not self contradictory through literally no effort. Omniscient- knowing all that could possibly be known, or will be known.

This means that when God 'imagines' a rock, He knows at all times what the rock will do, where it will go, when it will be there. Its His rock in His. Similarly, the same rules apply to any of His creations. This would mean that despite His abhorence for murder, He still sets into motion a chain of events in which some one will be murdered. He hates suffering, but still creates a world in which millions of people will do to natural events through simple accident, something we usually call 'an Act of God', even though it something He is described as specifically wanting to (and has the power to) prevent.


The easily solutions to the situation would be that God doesn't care should He exist. The world around us, in all its imperfections, should not have transpired should an omniscient, benevolent, omnipotent creator be at the helm.

- Again here you're defining what & how God is & contradicting it afterwards, that's circular reasoning.

No, thats pointing out a flaw in a premise. I am pointing out that all three of those variables (should they be true) should not lead to THIS world unless He saw fit to make it as such. 2 of those variables could make it such, but for whatever reason, people thing it detracts from God for Him to not know something.

That, or what we call 'omnipotent' and 'omniscient' need to have a tweaking.

- Yes, 'we' as in you need to tweak the definitions to their right settings in your conception.

Uh huh. Well, thats constructive.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 2:49:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 2:46:01 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/7/2015 2:26:22 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/7/2015 2:14:37 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
It need not be done. There is no reason for the chaos. There are better means by which an omniscient omnipotent entity could accomplish His purpose, unless of course it was for such a Chaotic world to exist. Given the various scripture, that was not 'the plan'.

- You have to establish that Chaos is objectively Bad, & that Bad is incompatible with an All-Knowing All-Powerful God. Otherwise you're just stating your personal opinion on what God is or isn't, & thus your argument will be a self-refuting circular reasoning.

No, I don't actually. Chaos isn't morality. There is no bad and good. There is order and disorder, order is favored by God as it would yield the most followers. Disorder prevents it.

Chaos vs ordered. In a non-chaotic world, there wouldn't be multiple verisions of His representation, would there? Its chaos that diseminates various accounts through decay or greed and uncertainty, and that decay or greed an uncertainty at various rates is what gives us what we have now.

- I have no idea what you're taking about in this paragraph, please be more clear.

The nature of chaos prevents order. Order is favorable to a system. Belief, worship, religion, these are all systems. Chaos would be disfavorable to an entity looking for worship, or institute a religion, or culture a belief. An omnipotent entity with omniscience could create a system with NO chaos, should it choose.

I agree, and the sentence is a description of the world as it is now, so, as I stated previously, the concept of what God is supposed to be, vs what the world is now -doesn't make sense-.

Yes, and that pre-restriction are those that claim Him to be Omnipotent, Omniscent, and benevelent. To claim all of those as the godhead, and the world be what it is now, its quite absurd indeed.

- How so? (& Let's stick with Omniscient & Omnipotent for now.)

Sure. Omnipotent, having the power to create anything that is not self refuting through force of will. Being able to do anything that is not self contradictory through literally no effort. Omniscient- knowing all that could possibly be known, or will be known.

This means that when God 'imagines' a rock, He knows at all times what the rock will do, where it will go, when it will be there. Its His rock in His. Similarly, the same rules apply to any of His creations. This would mean that despite His abhorence for murder, He still sets into motion a chain of events in which some one will be murdered. He hates suffering, but still creates a world in which millions of people will do to natural events through simple accident, something we usually call 'an Act of God', even though it something He is described as specifically wanting to (and has the power to) prevent.


The easily solutions to the situation would be that God doesn't care should He exist. The world around us, in all its imperfections, should not have transpired should an omniscient, benevolent, omnipotent creator be at the helm.

- Again here you're defining what & how God is & contradicting it afterwards, that's circular reasoning.

No, thats pointing out a flaw in a premise. I am pointing out that all three of those variables (should they be true) should not lead to THIS world unless He saw fit to make it as such. 2 of those variables could make it such, but for whatever reason, people thing it detracts from God for Him to not know something.

That, or what we call 'omnipotent' and 'omniscient' need to have a tweaking.

- Yes, 'we' as in you need to tweak the definitions to their right settings in your conception.

Uh huh. Well, thats constructive.

- You don't seem very willing to take your arguments to their full conclusions, so how about we make this into an official debate, you take Pro & I'll take Con.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 2:51:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 2:49:41 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/7/2015 2:46:01 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/7/2015 2:26:22 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/7/2015 2:14:37 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
It need not be done. There is no reason for the chaos. There are better means by which an omniscient omnipotent entity could accomplish His purpose, unless of course it was for such a Chaotic world to exist. Given the various scripture, that was not 'the plan'.

- You have to establish that Chaos is objectively Bad, & that Bad is incompatible with an All-Knowing All-Powerful God. Otherwise you're just stating your personal opinion on what God is or isn't, & thus your argument will be a self-refuting circular reasoning.

No, I don't actually. Chaos isn't morality. There is no bad and good. There is order and disorder, order is favored by God as it would yield the most followers. Disorder prevents it.

Chaos vs ordered. In a non-chaotic world, there wouldn't be multiple verisions of His representation, would there? Its chaos that diseminates various accounts through decay or greed and uncertainty, and that decay or greed an uncertainty at various rates is what gives us what we have now.

- I have no idea what you're taking about in this paragraph, please be more clear.

The nature of chaos prevents order. Order is favorable to a system. Belief, worship, religion, these are all systems. Chaos would be disfavorable to an entity looking for worship, or institute a religion, or culture a belief. An omnipotent entity with omniscience could create a system with NO chaos, should it choose.

I agree, and the sentence is a description of the world as it is now, so, as I stated previously, the concept of what God is supposed to be, vs what the world is now -doesn't make sense-.

Yes, and that pre-restriction are those that claim Him to be Omnipotent, Omniscent, and benevelent. To claim all of those as the godhead, and the world be what it is now, its quite absurd indeed.

- How so? (& Let's stick with Omniscient & Omnipotent for now.)

Sure. Omnipotent, having the power to create anything that is not self refuting through force of will. Being able to do anything that is not self contradictory through literally no effort. Omniscient- knowing all that could possibly be known, or will be known.

This means that when God 'imagines' a rock, He knows at all times what the rock will do, where it will go, when it will be there. Its His rock in His. Similarly, the same rules apply to any of His creations. This would mean that despite His abhorence for murder, He still sets into motion a chain of events in which some one will be murdered. He hates suffering, but still creates a world in which millions of people will do to natural events through simple accident, something we usually call 'an Act of God', even though it something He is described as specifically wanting to (and has the power to) prevent.


The easily solutions to the situation would be that God doesn't care should He exist. The world around us, in all its imperfections, should not have transpired should an omniscient, benevolent, omnipotent creator be at the helm.

- Again here you're defining what & how God is & contradicting it afterwards, that's circular reasoning.

No, thats pointing out a flaw in a premise. I am pointing out that all three of those variables (should they be true) should not lead to THIS world unless He saw fit to make it as such. 2 of those variables could make it such, but for whatever reason, people thing it detracts from God for Him to not know something.

That, or what we call 'omnipotent' and 'omniscient' need to have a tweaking.

- Yes, 'we' as in you need to tweak the definitions to their right settings in your conception.

Uh huh. Well, thats constructive.

- You don't seem very willing to take your arguments to their full conclusions, so how about we make this into an official debate, you take Pro & I'll take Con.

No, YOU don't seem very willing to take my arguments to their full conclusions. ;)

What resolution shall we give to such a debate?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 2:55:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 2:51:20 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
No, YOU don't seem very willing to take my arguments to their full conclusions. ;)

What resolution shall we give to such a debate?

- I don't know, something along the lines of: 'The State of Affairs of the Current World Is Contradictory/Incompatible With An Omniscient Omnipotent God.'
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 3:10:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 2:55:33 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/7/2015 2:51:20 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
No, YOU don't seem very willing to take my arguments to their full conclusions. ;)

What resolution shall we give to such a debate?

- I don't know, something along the lines of: 'The State of Affairs of the Current World Is Contradictory/Incompatible With An Omniscient Omnipotent God.'

Thats not the entirety, though. An Omnipotent, Omniscient God has no need for followers, religion, nor has the expressed desire for people to worship Him. This world would fit perfectly with some one whom created what they wanted, then walked away from it not caring. He would have no motive for us.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 3:23:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 3:10:33 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/7/2015 2:55:33 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/7/2015 2:51:20 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
No, YOU don't seem very willing to take my arguments to their full conclusions. ;)

What resolution shall we give to such a debate?

- I don't know, something along the lines of: 'The State of Affairs of the Current World Is Contradictory/Incompatible With An Omniscient Omnipotent God.'

Thats not the entirety, though. An Omnipotent, Omniscient God has no need for followers, religion, nor has the expressed desire for people to worship Him. This world would fit perfectly with some one whom created what they wanted, then walked away from it not caring. He would have no motive for us.

- So, what's your contention then?!

- Also, what you said self contradictory, if God does not need to care, the God does not need to not care either. The problem in is 'Needing' not 'caring'.
- Plus, God does not need to be worshipped, but does He deserve it or not? That's the real question.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 3:35:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 3:23:12 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/7/2015 3:10:33 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/7/2015 2:55:33 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/7/2015 2:51:20 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
No, YOU don't seem very willing to take my arguments to their full conclusions. ;)

What resolution shall we give to such a debate?

- I don't know, something along the lines of: 'The State of Affairs of the Current World Is Contradictory/Incompatible With An Omniscient Omnipotent God.'

Thats not the entirety, though. An Omnipotent, Omniscient God has no need for followers, religion, nor has the expressed desire for people to worship Him. This world would fit perfectly with some one whom created what they wanted, then walked away from it not caring. He would have no motive for us.

- So, what's your contention then?!

Were He to have the motives described by organized religions, along with omnipotence, omniscience, etc, this world does not make sense.

I don't want my pets to suffer needlessly. As such, I take steps to ensure their safety and well being. Were I omniscient on that matter, its a safe bet to assume that all possible threats to their safety would be resolved in a fashion well before harm could befall my pets. This is just Omniscience, btw. Were I omnipotent to boot, there is literally no reason that my pets would have to worry of harm, not only could I see it coming, but I could avoid the situation, and even correct it post hoc. They are my responsibility, after all.

Why is God's modus operandi so strikingly different?

- Also, what you said self contradictory, if God does not need to care, the God does not need to not care either. The problem in is 'Needing' not 'caring'.

... I am not sure I follow what you are expressing here. I was more pointing to what a God with no motive for His creation would create. If there is no ulterior motive, anything that happens to or in His creation is none of His concern. Omnipotent and Omniscient has no implied impetus to act beyond personal whim.

- Plus, God does not need to be worshipped, but does He deserve it or not? That's the real question.

On that, I agree.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 3:44:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 3:35:26 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Were He to have the motives described by organized religions, along with omnipotence, omniscience, etc, this world does not make sense.

I don't want my pets to suffer needlessly. As such, I take steps to ensure their safety and well being. Were I omniscient on that matter, its a safe bet to assume that all possible threats to their safety would be resolved in a fashion well before harm could befall my pets. This is just Omniscience, btw. Were I omnipotent to boot, there is literally no reason that my pets would have to worry of harm, not only could I see it coming, but I could avoid the situation, and even correct it post hoc. They are my responsibility, after all.

- Now you're trying to switch the goalposts! Plus, you're generalising, you said: 'organised Religion', which isn't really the case.

- As a counter-example: the God of Islam. This whole argument would turn obsolete if applied to the notion of God in Islam.

... I am not sure I follow what you are expressing here. I was more pointing to what a God with no motive for His creation would create. If there is no ulterior motive, anything that happens to or in His creation is none of His concern. Omnipotent and Omniscient has no implied impetus to act beyond personal whim.

- When you say 'God doesn't care', you're redefining what God is. God doesn't need neither to care or not care.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
frbnsn
Posts: 353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 3:49:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I believe in god; because everything we know or see around must have been designed and created by a superficial power; I can't comprehend that all things has come to being without a being very very clever.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 3:59:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 3:44:09 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/7/2015 3:35:26 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Were He to have the motives described by organized religions, along with omnipotence, omniscience, etc, this world does not make sense.

I don't want my pets to suffer needlessly. As such, I take steps to ensure their safety and well being. Were I omniscient on that matter, its a safe bet to assume that all possible threats to their safety would be resolved in a fashion well before harm could befall my pets. This is just Omniscience, btw. Were I omnipotent to boot, there is literally no reason that my pets would have to worry of harm, not only could I see it coming, but I could avoid the situation, and even correct it post hoc. They are my responsibility, after all.

- Now you're trying to switch the goalposts! Plus, you're generalising, you said: 'organised Religion', which isn't really the case.

Here is my original post: "The current stories and qualities ascribe to Him simply do not make sense as a cohesive master of the universe. It doesn't logically follow that -this- is the best possible outcome from an omnipotent, omniscient entity."

Here is what I just said:
"Were He to have the motives described by organized religions, along with omnipotence, omniscience, etc, this world does not make sense. "

I would hardly think that qualifies as a goal post move. Organized religion is what I meant by 'the stories'. I don't hear many hippies and peaceniks telling me what God has done, and of the philosophical religions, there isn't a specific enough God head to ascribe such powers to.


- As a counter-example: the God of Islam. This whole argument would turn obsolete if applied to the notion of God in Islam.

Mostly because you would just disregard my arguments as irrelevant. ;)

... I am not sure I follow what you are expressing here. I was more pointing to what a God with no motive for His creation would create. If there is no ulterior motive, anything that happens to or in His creation is none of His concern. Omnipotent and Omniscient has no implied impetus to act beyond personal whim.

- When you say 'God doesn't care', you're redefining what God is. God doesn't need neither to care or not care.

I am trying to posit God's possible motives. If He is objective (which is a quality I am sure agree gets bandied about frequently) its got to be one or the other, it can't be both, He either cares, or doesn't. The need to do such is not relevant to the argument if God is objective.

If God is a subjective entity, on the other hand, whose will and desires are subject to whim and flights of fancy....

this world would make perfect sense.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 4:47:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 3:59:37 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Mostly because you would just disregard my arguments as irrelevant. ;)

- Your main argument is based on a generalisation on organised religion, which is false btw.

- & yes, I would discard your argument because it IS irrelevant to the notion of God in Islam, for the simple reason that the premise from which you start your argument does not exist in Islam.
- In Islam, God is not Benevolent, nor is He Good or Evil, although he created & has absolute charge over both, which are, in the Islamic Worldview, relative concepts.

I am trying to posit God's possible motives.

- That's exactly the problem with your argument, why are you trying to tell God what He should or shouldn't do, or define God as to His motives!!! That's absurd.

If He is objective (which is a quality I am sure agree gets bandied about frequently) its got to be one or the other, it can't be both, He either cares, or doesn't. The need to do such is not relevant to the argument if God is objective.

- God is All-Powerful, if He needs something, then that would contradict his nature. We can't say the same thing about caring or not caring, or whatever else.

If God is a subjective entity, on the other hand, whose will and desires are subject to whim and flights of fancy....

- You're grossly abusing the definition of God here!!!

this world would make perfect sense.

- This statement is again self-contradictory.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 5:05:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 4:47:39 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/7/2015 3:59:37 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Mostly because you would just disregard my arguments as irrelevant. ;)

- Your main argument is based on a generalisation on organised religion, which is false btw.

Because me sitting here and giving a specific line by line critique of each major denomination and how it stacks up to their image of God would have me at the keyboard for a LOOOOONG time. I understand its not a perfect fit to each specific branch, but for purposes of expressing a point, it suffices.


- & yes, I would discard your argument because it IS irrelevant to the notion of God in Islam, for the simple reason that the premise from which you start your argument does not exist in Islam.

- In Islam, God is not Benevolent, nor is He Good or Evil, although he created & has absolute charge over both, which are, in the Islamic Worldview, relative concepts.

So He would be Objectively indifferent?

I am trying to posit God's possible motives.

- That's exactly the problem with your argument, why are you trying to tell God what He should or shouldn't do, or define God as to His motives!!! That's absurd.

You have it backwards. I am trying to figure out what God is based on whats around us. Does this world fit the basic charaictures of God presented through various religions. That is the 'plan' of consideration.

If He is objective (which is a quality I am sure agree gets bandied about frequently) its got to be one or the other, it can't be both, He either cares, or doesn't. The need to do such is not relevant to the argument if God is objective.

- God is All-Powerful, if He needs something, then that would contradict his nature. We can't say the same thing about caring or not caring, or whatever else.

So then logically, God, being omnipotent, can't be objective. He may change His mind on anything at any time, His will is not eternal.

If God is a subjective entity, on the other hand, whose will and desires are subject to whim and flights of fancy....

- You're grossly abusing the definition of God here!!!

Only if 'objective' is a quality that God must retain.

this world would make perfect sense.

- This statement is again self-contradictory.

No, its not! If God's will is subject to change, and He need not hold to any one plan or desire, the chaos of the world makes sense: He abandon or suspended His plan, or whatever you want to call it, or never had one in the first place, or is making it up as He goes.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 7:34:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 6:13:48 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:54:49 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:54:31 PM, Envisage wrote:
Why do you believe no god exists?

Because every god I have ever heard of has been fashioned in the image of man.

Or is that because being men, we can only understand and describe God in so far as our human mental powers can logically comprehend?

What is there to logically comprehend? Nothing.

Gods have always been figments of the imagination. As such, of course we would envisage them as somewhat humanlike and endow them with human qualities or extensions of them. That's how they start anyway, as fatherly authority/protection figures. Later, as the concept is refined, and in order to maximise the supremacy of one god over others and to make that god unfalsifiable, it would make sense to add superhuman qualities to them such as omnipotence and omniscience. And that's exactly what has happened in the evolution of gods in the human mind. It is not based on anything external. Gods are essentially a human construct.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 7:39:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 1:22:59 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:54:49 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:54:31 PM, Envisage wrote:
Why do you believe no god exists?

Because every god I have ever heard of has been fashioned in the image of man.

- How about the ones you haven't heard of?! Why generalise?

Generalise? How could I say anything intelligent on gods I had never heard of? Lol.

- a why not a Deity?

A deity is a god. Do you have some point?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 9:19:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 3:49:09 AM, frbnsn wrote:
I believe in god; because everything we know or see around must have been designed and created by a superficial power; I can't comprehend that all things has come to being without a being very very clever.

That's called the Divine Fallacy (Argument from Incredulity).
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 10:42:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
There is no viable, testable evidence to support the assertion that any supernatural entity exists, to include any of a 'divine' nature. This lack is so absolute that the null hypothesis, nothing supernatural exists, is the only reasonable conclusion.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 3:36:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 7:39:48 AM, dee-em wrote:
Generalise? How could I say anything intelligent on gods I had never heard of? Lol.

- Your position: 'I don't believe in God, because I don't believe in the gods I heard of'.

=> You generalised when you concluded on the veracity of all gods based on the veracity of some gods.

A deity is a god. Do you have some point?

- I meant in the sense of Deism.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 4:27:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 5:05:10 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Because me sitting here and giving a specific line by line critique of each major denomination and how it stacks up to their image of God would have me at the keyboard for a LOOOOONG time. I understand its not a perfect fit to each specific branch, but for purposes of expressing a point, it suffices.

- It doesn't when there exists a counter-example to your argument, which I gave: the notion of God according to Islam.

So He would be Objectively indifferent?

- Again, you're always trying to redefine God, as though He either is or isn't this or that. Why must God be either indifferent or not indifferent?! Why must a rock be indifferent or not indifferent? It feels like you forcefully wanna make God into a human character.

I am trying to posit God's possible motives.

- That's exactly the problem with your argument, why are you trying to tell God what He should or shouldn't do, or define God as to His motives!!! That's absurd.

You have it backwards. I am trying to figure out what God is based on whats around us. Does this world fit the basic charaictures of God presented through various religions. That is the 'plan' of consideration.

- Okay, fair enough, he is the Definition of God according to Islam, He is:
> Necessary Existent, i.e: Eternal, Everlasting, Timeless (whatever you wanna call it).
> One, i.e: Unique (as in being one single Essence) & Simple (as in not being divided into parts).
> Omnipotent & Omniscient, i.e: Has absolute unrestricted Will.
> Disjoint from whatever else, i.e: as in God is strictly not-not-God.

=> That's it. You start from here if you wanna make an religious god based argument.

So then logically, God, being omnipotent, can't be objective. He may change His mind on anything at any time, His will is not eternal.

- In Islamic Theology there are two Models associated with the Will of God:

- The Will of the Essential Existence (God) is either the Essence -of God- itself or dependent on the Essence, otherwise the Essence would be dependent on the Will, & that"s absurd, for that would contradict God being necessary existence.
=> Therefore:

> Model-1: In case the Will is the Essence itself:
>>> Then the Will can not change, otherwise it would violate Singularity (God being Singular: Unique & Simple). & thus all existent entities -subsequent to the attribute of Will- are existent from necessity, because, in this case, Will & thus Essence is necessary & so is its effect.
>> The Will in this case must be absolutely Free, for it & the Essence are one, & thus unconditioned & unrestricted.
>> & so, whatever exists is not just possible but also necessary, not from within itself, but because of the necessary absolute Will of God (the Essential Existence). In contrast, whatever does not exist is not just contingent but also impossible.
>> & Thus, The Essential Existence has a Will that encompasses all that is ever possible.
>>> Will entails: Knowledge & Power. Since all attributes are essentially one, they are all, thus, identical.
=> Therefore, in this case, the Essential Existence has absolute Free Will: Knowledge of all that ever exists, & Power over all that ever exists.

> Model-2: In case the Will of God dependent on the Essence (of God):
>> Thus it (the Will) is separate from the Essence, though existent from necessity (eternal).
>> & so, everything contingent (not-God) may exist or may not exist. Thus, prior to its existence, everything is equally inexistent. & therefore, the Will to attribute existence to the inexistent is absolutely Free, for all contingent entities (not yet willed into existence) are equally inexistent, there are no preferences.
>>> Subsequently, absolute Free Will entails absolute Power, for having the absolute choice of willing some contingent entities over others (prior to their existence) entails having the choice of willing all contingent entities, & thus having absolute Power.
>>> Moreover, absolute Free Will entails absolute Knowledge, for having the absolute power of choice from within equals having absolute Knowledge.
=> Therefore, in this case also, God (the Essential Existence) has absolute Free Will, Knowledge of all that is ever possible, & Power over all is ever possible.

=> In both Models the Will is Eternal, though in the latter it may change & in former it may not. The first Model is adopted by the Mu'tazili Theological School of Thought, & the second is adopted by the Ash'ari Theological School of Thought (the one I follow), & for them God has eternal absolute free & random choice: Free Will.

No, its not! If God's will is subject to change, and He need not hold to any one plan or desire, the chaos of the world makes sense: He abandon or suspended His plan, or whatever you want to call it, or never had one in the first place, or is making it up as He goes.

- I don't know much about Christian Theology, but it feels to me like you're trying to argue against it, my issue is: why generalise?!
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 5:07:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 4:27:16 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/7/2015 5:05:10 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Because me sitting here and giving a specific line by line critique of each major denomination and how it stacks up to their image of God would have me at the keyboard for a LOOOOONG time. I understand its not a perfect fit to each specific branch, but for purposes of expressing a point, it suffices.

- It doesn't when there exists a counter-example to your argument, which I gave: the notion of God according to Islam.

So He would be Objectively indifferent?

- Again, you're always trying to redefine God, as though He either is or isn't this or that. Why must God be either indifferent or not indifferent?! Why must a rock be indifferent or not indifferent? It feels like you forcefully wanna make God into a human character.

No, there is a '?' at the end of that. That means you get to fill in the blank, not me. I am merely suggestion that the 'end user' agreement of the reality in which you suggest can't specifically fault humanity for evil. It is not humanity's ultimate responsibility as they did not create it.

I am trying to posit God's possible motives.

- That's exactly the problem with your argument, why are you trying to tell God what He should or shouldn't do, or define God as to His motives!!! That's absurd.

You have it backwards. I am trying to figure out what God is based on whats around us. Does this world fit the basic charaictures of God presented through various religions. That is the 'plan' of consideration.

- Okay, fair enough, he is the Definition of God according to Islam, He is:
> Necessary Existent, i.e: Eternal, Everlasting, Timeless (whatever you wanna call it).

Should I assume His motives reflect His definition?

> One, i.e: Unique (as in being one single Essence) & Simple (as in not being divided into parts).
> Omnipotent & Omniscient, i.e: Has absolute unrestricted Will.
> Disjoint from whatever else, i.e: as in God is strictly not-not-God.

=> That's it. You start from here if you wanna make an religious god based argument.

So then logically, God, being omnipotent, can't be objective. He may change His mind on anything at any time, His will is not eternal.

- In Islamic Theology there are two Models associated with the Will of God:

=> Therefore:

> Model-1: In case the Will is the Essence itself:
>>> Then the Will can not change, otherwise it would violate Singularity (God being Singular: Unique & Simple). & thus all existent entities -subsequent to the attribute of Will- are existent from necessity, because, in this case, Will & thus Essence is necessary & so is its effect.
>> The Will in this case must be absolutely Free, for it & the Essence are one, & thus unconditioned & unrestricted.
>> & so, whatever exists is not just possible but also necessary, not from within itself, but because of the necessary absolute Will of God (the Essential Existence). In contrast, whatever does not exist is not just contingent but also impossible.
>> & Thus, The Essential Existence has a Will that encompasses all that is ever possible.
>>> Will entails: Knowledge & Power. Since all attributes are essentially one, they are all, thus, identical.
=> Therefore, in this case, the Essential Existence has absolute Free Will: Knowledge of all that ever exists, & Power over all that ever exists.

All that was a great way of stating that indeed God's motives are subjective. Free will demands it.


> Model-2: In case the Will of God dependent on the Essence (of God):
>> Thus it (the Will) is separate from the Essence, though existent from necessity (eternal).
>> & so, everything contingent (not-God) may exist or may not exist. Thus, prior to its existence, everything is equally inexistent. & therefore, the Will to attribute existence to the inexistent is absolutely Free, for all contingent entities (not yet willed into existence) are equally inexistent, there are no preferences.
>>> Subsequently, absolute Free Will entails absolute Power, for having the absolute choice of willing some contingent entities over others (prior to their existence) entails having the choice of willing all contingent entities, & thus having absolute Power.
>>> Moreover, absolute Free Will entails absolute Knowledge, for having the absolute power of choice from within equals having absolute Knowledge.
=> Therefore, in this case also, God (the Essential Existence) has absolute Free Will, Knowledge of all that is ever possible, & Power over all is ever possible.

=> In both Models the Will is Eternal, though in the latter it may change & in former it may not. The first Model is adopted by the Mu'tazili Theological School of Thought, & the second is adopted by the Ash'ari Theological School of Thought (the one I follow), & for them God has eternal absolute free & random choice: Free Will.

I mean no disrespect when I say this: thats a coin flip. I don't mind ascribing a coin flip to God. I don't mind that God may or may not conduct Himself in a certain manner. I have no problem stating that God can still be God while being subjective, by the way. From what I can tell of your (thankfully) concise dissertation of Islam with relation to a Godhead, His role CAN be malleable, and thats not a 'bad' thing.

No, its not! If God's will is subject to change, and He need not hold to any one plan or desire, the chaos of the world makes sense: He abandon or suspended His plan, or whatever you want to call it, or never had one in the first place, or is making it up as He goes.

- I don't know much about Christian Theology, but it feels to me like you're trying to argue against it, my issue is: why generalise?!

That is the nature (as described) for the Christian God, from what I can understand. My view is both imperfect and subject to bias. Your relation of the Islamic God, on the other hand, is much more applicable to the world around me, however, you seem to feel His method is beyond reproach as well, just for different reasons than that of the Christian God.

Now, again, we are working with text on a screen to express thoughts. Thus far we have given each other a lot of latitude as far as sentiment, and I appreciate that. You have related to me some insight from the Islamic faith, and without full understanding as to what that Godhead entails, its difficult for me to craft replies that might fit your understanding, or your explanation to fit mine. The more you can relate the Islamic God to me, the better I would be able to reply.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...