Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Assertions of God

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 9:39:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
We often see god being defined as timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, etc., but without observations confirming these characteristics how are these nothing more than bald assertions? It seems to me we could also assert god is bound to time and material, he has limited power, he is ignorant of us, and/or he is malevolent and fit the evidence (or lack thereof). Without any observations of god, how can there be anything but uncertainty on the matter?
The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible. - Salman Rushdie

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell
SNP1
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 10:13:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2016 9:39:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
We often see god being defined as timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, etc., but without observations confirming these characteristics how are these nothing more than bald assertions? It seems to me we could also assert god is bound to time and material, he has limited power, he is ignorant of us, and/or he is malevolent and fit the evidence (or lack thereof). Without any observations of god, how can there be anything but uncertainty on the matter?

I think that the issue you bring up combined with the following just makes it worse:

Let's say that god is defined as Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent, and Omnipresent.
Let's say that someone proves the existence of a being that is Omniscient, Omnibenevolent, and Omnipresent.
They haven't yet proven god exists.
And if someone else proves that there exists an Omnipotent and Omnipresent being, then do these two proofs prove god?
No, as they could prove two entirely separate beings, neither of which actually are "god"!
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 24,959
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 10:35:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2016 9:39:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
We often see god being defined as timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, etc., but without observations confirming these characteristics how are these nothing more than bald assertions? It seems to me we could also assert god is bound to time and material, he has limited power, he is ignorant of us, and/or he is malevolent and fit the evidence (or lack thereof). Without any observations of god, how can there be anything but uncertainty on the matter?

This is the sort of problem you get when you refuse to acknowledge the vast amount of evidence there is, not only of the existence of God but of his qualities also.

But of course you are too deep in denial to see it.
Trollord
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 10:42:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2016 10:13:41 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:39:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
We often see god being defined as timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, etc., but without observations confirming these characteristics how are these nothing more than bald assertions? It seems to me we could also assert god is bound to time and material, he has limited power, he is ignorant of us, and/or he is malevolent and fit the evidence (or lack thereof). Without any observations of god, how can there be anything but uncertainty on the matter?

I think that the issue you bring up combined with the following just makes it worse:

Let's say that god is defined as Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent, and Omnipresent.
Let's say that someone proves the existence of a being that is Omniscient, Omnibenevolent, and Omnipresent.
They haven't yet proven god exists.
And if someone else proves that there exists an Omnipotent and Omnipresent being, then do these two proofs prove god?
No, as they could prove two entirely separate beings, neither of which actually are "god"!

Your signature's argument.

The universe does not need tensed facts for a cause.

Time doesn't exist so tensed facts are a bs invention of man.

So the universe doesn't exist because bs doesn't?

I don't think so.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 11:48:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2016 10:35:27 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:39:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
We often see god being defined as timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, etc., but without observations confirming these characteristics how are these nothing more than bald assertions? It seems to me we could also assert god is bound to time and material, he has limited power, he is ignorant of us, and/or he is malevolent and fit the evidence (or lack thereof). Without any observations of god, how can there be anything but uncertainty on the matter?

This is the sort of problem you get when you refuse to acknowledge the vast amount of evidence there is, not only of the existence of God but of his qualities also.

But of course you are too deep in denial to see it.

If you can show how the characteristics you claim on behalf of god are not arbitrary, I will be very surprised and impressed.
The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible. - Salman Rushdie

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 11:56:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2016 10:13:41 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:39:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
We often see god being defined as timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, etc., but without observations confirming these characteristics how are these nothing more than bald assertions? It seems to me we could also assert god is bound to time and material, he has limited power, he is ignorant of us, and/or he is malevolent and fit the evidence (or lack thereof). Without any observations of god, how can there be anything but uncertainty on the matter?

I think that the issue you bring up combined with the following just makes it worse:

Let's say that god is defined as Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent, and Omnipresent.
Let's say that someone proves the existence of a being that is Omniscient, Omnibenevolent, and Omnipresent.
They haven't yet proven god exists.
And if someone else proves that there exists an Omnipotent and Omnipresent being, then do these two proofs prove god?
No, as they could prove two entirely separate beings, neither of which actually are "god"!

Considering these type of problems, the smug certainty oozing from some believers is disgusting.
The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible. - Salman Rushdie

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell
SNP1
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 12:04:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2016 11:56:35 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/21/2016 10:13:41 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:39:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
We often see god being defined as timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, etc., but without observations confirming these characteristics how are these nothing more than bald assertions? It seems to me we could also assert god is bound to time and material, he has limited power, he is ignorant of us, and/or he is malevolent and fit the evidence (or lack thereof). Without any observations of god, how can there be anything but uncertainty on the matter?

I think that the issue you bring up combined with the following just makes it worse:

Let's say that god is defined as Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent, and Omnipresent.
Let's say that someone proves the existence of a being that is Omniscient, Omnibenevolent, and Omnipresent.
They haven't yet proven god exists.
And if someone else proves that there exists an Omnipotent and Omnipresent being, then do these two proofs prove god?
No, as they could prove two entirely separate beings, neither of which actually are "god"!

Considering these type of problems, the smug certainty oozing from some believers is disgusting.

I agree.

I mean, the most common type of argument I see for god from believers is "prophecy".
This prophecy in the Bible, Qur'an, etc. PROVES their religion correct.
Even if I grant them that the prophecy is specific enough to count (which it never is) and that it came true, how does it logically follow that the religion is correct?

Let's say that we have a guy named John who is crazy. He talks to things that are not actually there, and the king of these fake things tells him about all sorts of future events, but, in reality, he is simply "remembering" the future (let's assume eternalism for the sake of argument).
He then writes this story down, these prophecies that this "king" told him, etc.
Let's say they are all very specific and all come true.
Well, that doesn't make the "king" any more real.
It might be able to be evidence that it is possible to "see" the future, but nothing more than that.

A similar thing can be said about prayers.

So many "proofs" for god end up being complete crap that can't support god without fallacious reasoning.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
bulproof
Posts: 28,878
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 12:34:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2016 10:35:27 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:39:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
We often see god being defined as timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, etc., but without observations confirming these characteristics how are these nothing more than bald assertions? It seems to me we could also assert god is bound to time and material, he has limited power, he is ignorant of us, and/or he is malevolent and fit the evidence (or lack thereof). Without any observations of god, how can there be anything but uncertainty on the matter?

This is the sort of problem you get when you refuse to acknowledge the vast amount of evidence there is, not only of the existence of God but of his qualities also.

But of course you are too deep in denial to see it.
In order that the OP is consigned to the trash bin, madman provides yet more assertions.
Oh dear.
No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.
George Bernard Shaw
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 7:34:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2016 12:04:45 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 11:56:35 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/21/2016 10:13:41 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:39:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
We often see god being defined as timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, etc., but without observations confirming these characteristics how are these nothing more than bald assertions? It seems to me we could also assert god is bound to time and material, he has limited power, he is ignorant of us, and/or he is malevolent and fit the evidence (or lack thereof). Without any observations of god, how can there be anything but uncertainty on the matter?

I think that the issue you bring up combined with the following just makes it worse:

Let's say that god is defined as Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent, and Omnipresent.
Let's say that someone proves the existence of a being that is Omniscient, Omnibenevolent, and Omnipresent.
They haven't yet proven god exists.
And if someone else proves that there exists an Omnipotent and Omnipresent being, then do these two proofs prove god?
No, as they could prove two entirely separate beings, neither of which actually are "god"!

Considering these type of problems, the smug certainty oozing from some believers is disgusting.

I agree.

I mean, the most common type of argument I see for god from believers is "prophecy".
This prophecy in the Bible, Qur'an, etc. PROVES their religion correct.
Even if I grant them that the prophecy is specific enough to count (which it never is) and that it came true, how does it logically follow that the religion is correct?

Agreed.

Let's say that we have a guy named John who is crazy. He talks to things that are not actually there, and the king of these fake things tells him about all sorts of future events, but, in reality, he is simply "remembering" the future (let's assume eternalism for the sake of argument).
He then writes this story down, these prophecies that this "king" told him, etc.
Let's say they are all very specific and all come true.
Well, that doesn't make the "king" any more real.
It might be able to be evidence that it is possible to "see" the future, but nothing more than that.

A similar thing can be said about prayers.

Prayer and prophecy (and psychics) generally work on the same concept - count the hits, and ignore the misses. Additionally, prophecy is built on vagueness so its difficult to tell what a hit or miss would look like. It can only be "proof" to the credulous mind.

So many "proofs" for god end up being complete crap that can't support god without fallacious reasoning.
The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible. - Salman Rushdie

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell
Jerry947
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 7:59:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2016 10:13:41 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:39:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
We often see god being defined as timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, etc., but without observations confirming these characteristics how are these nothing more than bald assertions? It seems to me we could also assert god is bound to time and material, he has limited power, he is ignorant of us, and/or he is malevolent and fit the evidence (or lack thereof). Without any observations of god, how can there be anything but uncertainty on the matter?

I think that the issue you bring up combined with the following just makes it worse:

Let's say that god is defined as Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent, and Omnipresent.
Let's say that someone proves the existence of a being that is Omniscient, Omnibenevolent, and Omnipresent.
They haven't yet proven god exists.
And if someone else proves that there exists an Omnipotent and Omnipresent being, then do these two proofs prove god?
No, as they could prove two entirely separate beings, neither of which actually are "god"!

Weren't you going to challenge me to a debate?
SNP1
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 8:17:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2016 7:59:55 PM, Jerry947 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 10:13:41 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:39:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
We often see god being defined as timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, etc., but without observations confirming these characteristics how are these nothing more than bald assertions? It seems to me we could also assert god is bound to time and material, he has limited power, he is ignorant of us, and/or he is malevolent and fit the evidence (or lack thereof). Without any observations of god, how can there be anything but uncertainty on the matter?

I think that the issue you bring up combined with the following just makes it worse:

Let's say that god is defined as Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent, and Omnipresent.
Let's say that someone proves the existence of a being that is Omniscient, Omnibenevolent, and Omnipresent.
They haven't yet proven god exists.
And if someone else proves that there exists an Omnipotent and Omnipresent being, then do these two proofs prove god?
No, as they could prove two entirely separate beings, neither of which actually are "god"!

Weren't you going to challenge me to a debate?

I initially did challenge you. When you didn't respond for a while I made it more open, but no one that met the qualifications I wanted accepted (with the exception of one guy and we decided to do a live debate instead, which he never showed up to). So the debate never happened.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Jerry947
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 8:30:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2016 8:17:43 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/22/2016 7:59:55 PM, Jerry947 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 10:13:41 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:39:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
We often see god being defined as timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, etc., but without observations confirming these characteristics how are these nothing more than bald assertions? It seems to me we could also assert god is bound to time and material, he has limited power, he is ignorant of us, and/or he is malevolent and fit the evidence (or lack thereof). Without any observations of god, how can there be anything but uncertainty on the matter?

I think that the issue you bring up combined with the following just makes it worse:

Let's say that god is defined as Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent, and Omnipresent.
Let's say that someone proves the existence of a being that is Omniscient, Omnibenevolent, and Omnipresent.
They haven't yet proven god exists.
And if someone else proves that there exists an Omnipotent and Omnipresent being, then do these two proofs prove god?
No, as they could prove two entirely separate beings, neither of which actually are "god"!

Weren't you going to challenge me to a debate?

I initially did challenge you. When you didn't respond for a while I made it more open, but no one that met the qualifications I wanted accepted (with the exception of one guy and we decided to do a live debate instead, which he never showed up to). So the debate never happened.

I never got any notifications of a challenge...

But if you ever want to debate, I am still here.
SNP1
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 8:54:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2016 8:30:57 PM, Jerry947 wrote:
At 4/22/2016 8:17:43 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/22/2016 7:59:55 PM, Jerry947 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 10:13:41 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:39:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
We often see god being defined as timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, etc., but without observations confirming these characteristics how are these nothing more than bald assertions? It seems to me we could also assert god is bound to time and material, he has limited power, he is ignorant of us, and/or he is malevolent and fit the evidence (or lack thereof). Without any observations of god, how can there be anything but uncertainty on the matter?

I think that the issue you bring up combined with the following just makes it worse:

Let's say that god is defined as Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent, and Omnipresent.
Let's say that someone proves the existence of a being that is Omniscient, Omnibenevolent, and Omnipresent.
They haven't yet proven god exists.
And if someone else proves that there exists an Omnipotent and Omnipresent being, then do these two proofs prove god?
No, as they could prove two entirely separate beings, neither of which actually are "god"!

Weren't you going to challenge me to a debate?

I initially did challenge you. When you didn't respond for a while I made it more open, but no one that met the qualifications I wanted accepted (with the exception of one guy and we decided to do a live debate instead, which he never showed up to). So the debate never happened.

I never got any notifications of a challenge...

That's weird.

But if you ever want to debate, I am still here.

Maybe when I get a little more time.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Jerry947
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 9:00:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2016 8:54:18 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/22/2016 8:30:57 PM, Jerry947 wrote:
At 4/22/2016 8:17:43 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/22/2016 7:59:55 PM, Jerry947 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 10:13:41 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:39:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
We often see god being defined as timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, etc., but without observations confirming these characteristics how are these nothing more than bald assertions? It seems to me we could also assert god is bound to time and material, he has limited power, he is ignorant of us, and/or he is malevolent and fit the evidence (or lack thereof). Without any observations of god, how can there be anything but uncertainty on the matter?

I think that the issue you bring up combined with the following just makes it worse:

Let's say that god is defined as Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent, and Omnipresent.
Let's say that someone proves the existence of a being that is Omniscient, Omnibenevolent, and Omnipresent.
They haven't yet proven god exists.
And if someone else proves that there exists an Omnipotent and Omnipresent being, then do these two proofs prove god?
No, as they could prove two entirely separate beings, neither of which actually are "god"!

Weren't you going to challenge me to a debate?

I initially did challenge you. When you didn't respond for a while I made it more open, but no one that met the qualifications I wanted accepted (with the exception of one guy and we decided to do a live debate instead, which he never showed up to). So the debate never happened.

I never got any notifications of a challenge...

That's weird.

Yes it is...but I would have accepted it.

But if you ever want to debate, I am still here.

Maybe when I get a little more time.

Sounds good. I am short on time as well. Just let me know.