Arguements against the Christian God

[SnakeLord]

You have to realize that we're not actually deducing these definitions from God, but inducing it on a philosophical deity, one that either conforms or contradicts our definition of the word.

That definition being all powerful - the ability to do anything. If it contradicts that definition of the word, find a new word.

The result is a theory, not a reality

When talking about gods, there's no such thing as "reality", and nor are there 'theories', just assumptions. The assumption to many is that god is omnipotent - which means it can do anything.

That's why I have a problem with it when someone assumes his definition of omnipotence can somehow be used to prove God isn't omnipotent by any definition

Who did that? I stated that if god is omnipotent by definition, then it can do anything. It's other people here putting limits on an omnipotent god's abilities. I already said my god can do everything and anything - logical or not.

I point you to Superluminal's remark in the hope it helps: "I think SnakeLord is simply saying that the claim of omnipotence by theists completely dissallows the statement by them (during logical debates) "god can't..." whatever."

But "omnipotence", as far as our ability to comprehend and measure it goes, is limited to its logical construction.

It's very simple. Omnipotence is the ability to do anything. Whether we understand the absolute depth of anything isn't relevant to any being that is omnipotent and can do anything whether we understand it or not.

But to change the rules halfway is a kind of philosophical bait and switch.

Who's changed the rules? I stated that omnipotence allows a being to do anything, little more.

I didn't say the logical limitation limits God - as I explained above as well - but it does limit us. It sets the meaning, and that meaning should remain logically consistent.

Then you're debating with me for little reason. The meaning has at all times remained 'logically consistent'. It is logical to state that a being that can do anything, can also do the illogical. It is illogical to state a being that can do anything, can't do something.

This highlights the importance of agreeing on a definition beforehand, which the OP hasn't done (eg. "all-powerful" isn't a definition of omnipotence - see fallacy of definition)

All powerful is a definition of omnipotence - see the dictionary

(Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.)

And that would invalidate any argument which goes: A) Omnipotence means [insert logical definition]; B) God can't [insert illogical action]; therefore C) God isn't omnipotent. The definition in A relies on logic, and if the logic has changed or is discarded in B, the definition becomes meaningless and C is invalid, whatever it is.

Certainly. As I have tried to tell you several times now, an omnipotent god can do anything - illogical or otherwise, and thus "B" is non existant. To quote Superluminal once more:

"I think SnakeLord is simply saying that the claim of omnipotence by theists completely dissallows the statement by them (during logical debates) "god can't...""

I have a problem with the assertion that God should be able to do genuinely illogical things

I noticed. Ye of little faith. An omnipotent being can do anything. Oh and btw, "genuinely illogical" doesn't mean much coming from a human.

which a logical definition of omnipotence wouldn't allow

The definition of omnipotence allows anything. To add "wouldn't allow" is an illogical thing to say as far as omnipotence is concerned.

It becomes relevant when it's used in an argument, which you might not be doing, but it does happen.

No, it isn't relevant. Superluminal once more, (clearly he phrased it better than I can):

"I think SnakeLord is simply saying that the claim of omnipotence by theists completely dissallows the statement by them (during logical debates) "god can't..." whatever. This is completely different from god choosing to do or not do a thing."

Your statement was:

"If the definition of "omnipotence" (A) must necessarily exclude "not being omnipotent" (A'), that is a logical limitation put on "omnipotence". "

This is wrong. Saying that an omnipotent being isn't not an omnipotent being doesn't put limits on it's omnipotence because it could still be a not omnipotent being if it wanted to.

It's because we're human that we try to understand. Whether we can is usually besides the point. If we are in the image of God, then to be human is nothing to be ashamed of (muddying the image would be).

I think there's nothing to be ashamed of even though we're not 'in the image' of some god - other than the belief that we're in the image of some god which is quite shameful as far as I see it.

The only reason the concepts have any significance is because of what they could mean for us - not for God.

Certainly, and when we define a being as omnipotent, we are saying it can do anything. You can't then turn around and say that being can't do such and such - because it contradicts the claim of omnipotence.

 

[Jenyar]

Oh and btw, "genuinely illogical" doesn't mean much coming from a human.

On the contrary, that's the only time it actually means something. By "genuinely illogical" I simply mean formal logical impossibilities (as opposed to popular or seemingly illogical ones). If we set the boundaries ourselves, we can tell with perfect certainty what falls inside or outside them.

For example, you stated that God can do anything because He is omnipotent, but can't because he is omniscient (He can only do what he knows he will do, nothing else). By doing that you are violating your definition of God's omnipotence. That means He can do the things he knows won't do, even if He never does.

Your statement was:

"If the definition of "omnipotence" (A) must necessarily exclude "not being omnipotent" (A'), that is a logical limitation put on "omnipotence". "

This is wrong. Saying that an omnipotent being isn't not an omnipotent being doesn't put limits on it's omnipotence because it could still be a not omnipotent being if it wanted to.

You're still not following me. The limitation is on the concept omnipotence, not the being. The rest of what you say is exactly what I said myself: "such a definition of omnipotence would ... allow God to be simultaneously omnipotent and non-omnipotent."

I'm not disagreeing with you for the sake of disagreement. As I said, your definition was perfectly consistent with your use of it. But not everyone here uses their definition consistently. There are two basic definitions here: one where omnipotence allows logical contradictions, and one where it doesn't. They're being used interchangeably without anybody seeming to care, as long as their point is made.

In the second case, many people do turn around and say God can't do such and such (or hasn't), and therefore He can't be omnipotent. If you're not one of those people, then clearly my argument isn't with you.

 

[SnakeLord]

I'm not disagreeing with you for the sake of disagreement. As I said, your definition was perfectly consistent with your use of it.

Certainly. Would just be nice if people wouldn't use the word and then add "can't" somewhere at the end of the sentence as the two completely contradict each other.

But not everyone here uses their definition consistently.

I know, I was trying to explain that to them.

There are two basic definitions here: one where omnipotence allows logical contradictions, and one where it doesn't.

Only one of those is valid.

They're being used interchangeably without anybody seeming to care, as long as their point is made.

I care, that's why I've been pointing it out to them.

In the second case, many people do turn around and say God can't do such and such (or hasn't), and therefore He can't be omnipotent. If you're not one of those people, then clearly my argument isn't with you.

Then clearly it isn't. My first response here was to say that believers in omnipotent gods might as well just say "yes he/she/it can" whenever faced with a question concerning what that god can do - because it can, (by definition), do everything. Yes, an omnipotent god can make a square circle.. the argument ends.

There are many 'standard' arguments that are used on both sides. I have found several that I personally consider worthwhile, but the "rocks too heavy to lift" arguments are futile the way I see it because the answer only ever requires a "yes he can".

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

From your edit:

For example, you stated that God can do anything because He is omnipotent, but can't because he is omniscient (He can only do what he knows he will do, nothing else). By doing that you are violating your definition of God's omnipotence. That means He can do the things he knows won't do, even if He never does.

Yeah, I'd go with that.

What I sort of tried to say earlier a couple of posts ago was simply that when combined, the worth of that omnipotence seems to be negated, (certainly from my current non-omnipotent perspective) - or from Clyde Bruckman's perspective: "why bother getting up in the morning?". But you're certainly right.

 

[Gordon]

It's like when you try to explain to a child that santa is just a made-up fantasy... They won't listen to reason because they want to believe for the emotional benefits.

Ggazoo: You and other people that are practically identical to you here, Woody, TheVisitor etc, are exposed with each post that you beleive purely for emotional benefits. Although Woody's song lyrics about the 'Lord' and his happy family singing those lyrics did have me in tears... of laughter

You not only believe in Santa... Oops, I mean 'God', but you belong to a particular organised religion because you are that intellectually bankrupt. You are not content with beleiving in the Flying Spag.... I mean 'God', but you associate a million other irrational, wishful guesses to that Tooth fairy... I mean 'God'.

If you have a need to believe in God, then why do you need to attatch that beleif to just one out of an unlimited number of organised faiths?

Many intelligent people with extremely good logical minds (such as C.S. Lewis) have become Christians by logical analysis. Site me an example of a person in their adult life who has rationally and logically become a believer in Santa Clause. I am sorry the analogy fails.

 

[the preacher]

Many intelligent people with extremely good logical minds (such as C.S. Lewis)

you seem to have a thing about him, he was never anything else but religious.

have become Christians by logical analysis.

sorry not possible, religion and logic, are mutually exclusive.

Site me an example of a person in their adult life who has rationally and logically become a believer in Santa Clause. I am sorry the analogy fails.

that is a ridiculous thing to say, there ar'nt building on every street corner, for worshipping santa, or people knocking on your door and through your tv set saying santa is love, santa peace be upon him. etc....
the world is indoctrinated with this imaginary god rubbish, we need a mass clean up.

it just goes to show how "logical" you are does'nt it.lol

 

[KennyJC]

Many intelligent people with extremely good logical minds (such as C.S. Lewis) have become Christians by logical analysis.

As the preacher stated, it is impossible to belong to an organised religion and actually think an intelligent creator exists via use of logic.

Site me an example of a person in their adult life who has rationally and logically become a believer in Santa Clause. I am sorry the analogy fails.

We actually discover evidence against Santa Clause before we become teenagers. Adults who believe in God share the childish fantasy of those who believe in Santa..

God is no different to that of Astrology, palm reading, Loch Ness monsters, Ghosts, prayer, heaven, hell, the magpies riddle.... It's called superstition. Anything that can't be proven false (unlike Santa) people love to believe in.

My analogy does not fail.

 

[SnakeLord]

Many intelligent people with extremely good logical minds (such as C.S. Lewis) have become Christians by logical analysis

You do not become a believer, or indeed a christian, by "logical analysis". It was more likely a bump on the head.

Site me an example of a person in their adult life who has rationally and logically become a believer in Santa Clause.

What's real or not real is not decided on popularity.

Further to which, Santa is real..

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0965355748/102-1362953-9257712?v=glance&n=283155

But anyway, please answer his question:

"why do you need to attach that belief to just one out of an unlimited number of organised faiths?"

 

[Gordon]

you seem to have a thing about him, he was never anything else but religious. sorry not possible, religion and logic, are mutually exclusive.

I would suggest before commenting you establish your facts correctly. Read something about the man and you will discover that what you have said is completely inaccurate. Reading one of his books would be good for you too, but I suspect you dare not. You might just find that your bigoted view of the incompatability of logic and God is not so. I do respect the man. He was a good researcher, a clever writer, brilliant philosopher and theologian and a logical thinker. in fact all the things you are not!

that is a ridiculous thing to say, there ar'nt building on every street corner, for worshipping santa, or people knocking on your door and through your tv set saying santa is love, santa peace be upon him. etc....
the world is indoctrinated with this imaginary god rubbish, we need a mass clean up.

None of this ranting disproves my statement at all but the style proves both your illiteracy and your lack of any logical coherent answer to the point. In simple words again - whether you choose to like it or not, many people have become convinced of christianity by logical rasoning. C.S. Lewis was but one example (albeit a famous one) and there are countless more. These are facts not opinions. If you were really logical, you could claim that their logic was flawed (an opinion) but you cannot claim the basic facts are untrue as they are far too well documented. This merely shows ignorance not logic.

To come back to the original point. The analogy compares belief in God to belief in Santa Clause. Unless there is a mass 'Santa Clause Movement' that neither I (nor it would appear you) have ever heard of, the analogy fails. This is not a theological or philosophical view. It is simply the application of logic to the facts against the accepted definition of an 'analogy'.


it just goes to show how "logical" you are does'nt it.lol

I agree with your statement. It does. My logic in this case is not flawed in any way. On the other hand, you have not even attempted to answer the point or discuss the matter. You have only shown an ignorance of the facts and written some bigoted infantile ranting. No version of mature logical argument there I fear.

regards, Gordon.

 

[Jenyar]

If there were no difference between Santa Claus and God, Santa Claus would be called God or worshipped in some religion. Clearly there are some phenomenological issues that should be considered. The differences may seem irrelevant if the two concepts already occupy the same space in your mind, but for many people, they don't.

Humans and chimpanzees have 99.4% similar DNA, but they evoke vastly different responses and require equally different approaches. Sometimes differences are significant.

 

[Zephyr]

Santa Clause was never believed to be a deity. A better comparison is the invisible pink unicorn.

 

[pavlosmarcos]

regards, Gordon.

do you mean the same c s lewis, who like dressing up animals, who supposedly gave up xianity at 15,( but he never gave up god,) to take up sadomasochism, became an occultist, when to war and was injured suffered depression lived with an older woman( 27 years his senior).
the man who made an extremely ludicrous statement on his aledged reconversion.( from his book surprised by joy) which shows that he was never atheist. " I was very angry with god for not existing" says it all does'nt it.
atheist have no belief in a god, so therefore would not be angry with something for not existing, thats just plain infantile.
yes I know theres a letter to a friend (who, where is it) thats states something along these lines "all religious doctrines, are myths to say it correctly, thus they have no proof at all" but he again does not mention god. so he never actually gave up his belief in god, just pushed it aside, till he needed it.
also I have never read anything that even suggests that he used logical thought to come to the conclusion that a god exists. well quite honestly he just could'nt have.

 

[SnakeLord]

If there were no difference between Santa Claus and God, Santa Claus would be called God or worshipped in some religion

There are differences. Nobody ever claimed Santa was a god, for starters.

Kenny's post highlighted the similarities, (namely that they both have an absolute lack of any evidence suggesting their existence), not the differences - which are entirely irrelevant to what he was saying.

 

[Jenyar]

There are differences. Nobody ever claimed Santa was a god, for starters.

Kenny's post highlighted the similarities, (namely that they both have an absolute lack of any evidence suggesting their existence), not the differences - which are entirely irrelevant to what he was saying.

I disagree: there is evidence for Jesus, God and Santa Claus (as you pointed out yourself). And the evidence for them isn't similar, so if there are any similarities, they don't lie in the evidence - even less in the lack of it, since silence makes no claims. "Lack of evidence" can be cited for something we're sure doesn't exist (like the fictional Santa Claus with his flying reindeer), but it won't be the same "lack of evidence" for something that may exist (such as Nicholas of Myra), or even for something we're sure exists (eg. by elimination, deduction or even observation).

The argument that what there isn't any evidence for can by association discount what there is some evidence for is fallacious. It presupposes that they refer to the same thing - the real historical Santa Claus and the modern fictional one (or in Israel's case, the one historical God and many false gods). The evidence isn't the problem, it's how we think about it.

Who or what people imagine such figures to be is seated firmly in the mind (and I don't mean that in any deroagtory sense). That "image" is what allows people to say whether there is evidence or "no" evidence for them, because of the relation in which these concepts stand to their current beliefs about reality and the likely nature of evidence. So it's important to distinguish between the images and the nature and context of the evidence attached to them. It's just as unfortunate when reality is categorized as fiction as vice versa.

Santa Claus may not be a red jolly fat man from the North Pole who gives out presents on Jesus' birthday party, but it's less because there is no evidence for such a being going by that name, than because the evidence points to Saint Nicholas, 3rd Century Bishop of Myra, who gave out Christmas presents to the children of his community. The evidence points out both the non-existence of the fiction and the historicity of the man behind it. It might be argued there are vast amounts of "lack of evidence" for the Bishop of Myra (compared to, say, other well-known historical figures), maybe almost as much "lack of evidence" as there is for flying reindeer and sleighs, but to argue their "lack of evidence" is of the same nature and significance is a little irrational, in my opinion. It's the evidence that must be considered first, not the apparent (or relative) lack of it.

 

[SnakeLord]

I disagree: there is evidence for Jesus, God and Santa Claus (as you pointed out yourself).

I'm sorry, where did I 'point out' that there's evidence for gods, jesus or santa claus?? I'm even more perplexed by your statement considering you even quoted me saying: "they both have an absolute lack of any evidence suggesting their existence". An absolute lack of evidence is not me pointing out that they do have evidence.. duh.

And the evidence for them isn't similar, so if there are any similarities, they don't lie in the evidence

Eh?

"Lack of evidence" can be cited for something we're sure doesn't exist (like the fictional Santa Claus with his flying reindeer)

Sorry, gonna have to get all religious on you now. Prove it.

That "image" is what allows people to say whether there is evidence or "no" evidence for them

An image in people's minds is not evidence.

significance is a little irrational, in my opinion.

While I enjoy your opinion, I fail to see what relevance any of your entire post has to anything I said on mine. You've claimed I've said things I haven't, garbled a load of old nonsense that I can only assume is what the religious refer to as "talking in tongues", and outright left me confused as to what you're trying to say other than Santa doesn't exist, god does - because Jenyar says so, amen hallelujah.

It's the evidence that must be considered first

Most certainly. Alas there is none for god or jesus, and even santa is a little suspect. That's why I stated that Kenny's post highlighted that similarity between them and thus it was not a bad analogy. K?

 

[water]

Phenomena do not dictate how they are to be interpreted. In that sense, there exists no evidence. But there are various (esp. scientific and religious) theories on how to interpret phenomena, and these theories then postulate what counts as evidence *to them*.

 

[ggazoo]

Santa Clause was never believed to be a deity. A better comparison is the invisible pink unicorn.

A better comparison, even if the atheist "invisble pink unicorn" argument is proposterus.

Can we determine the existence/non-existence of invisible pink unicorns? Actually, the answer is "yes." Unicorns would be pink if they reflected pink electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light). However, in order to be invisible, the unicorns would reflect no electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, the term "invisible pink unicorn" is self contradictory. We know absolutely that they could not exist. I don't know who invented the term "invisible pink unicorns," but they were obviously deficient in their physics education.

However, for the sake of argument, let's change the term and drop the "pink" part. Is it possible to determine whether or not invisible unicorns exist somewhere in the universe? Technically, it would be very unlikely that any organism would be invisible. The only reasonable chemical basis for living organisms in this universe is carbon-based life. This would ensure that unicorns would always be visible. Although possible that unicorns might be invisible due to being made of anti-matter, such existence would be problematic, since their interaction with ordinary matter would result in their immediate and spectacular destruction. Could unicorns be made of exotic matter? While possible, there is no evidence from physics that any creatures could be made of exotic matter. At present, it is possible to detect exotic matter only indirectly through particle physics and through its ability to bend light (only detectable through gravitational lensing of distant galaxies). At this point, we would be unable to detect a unicorn made of exotic matter. So, although we can be fairly certain that invisible unicorns do not exist in the universe, we could not take the strong aunicornist stance.

Is it possible that pink unicorns might exist somewhere in the universe? As of today, we don't know if life exists outside of our Solar System. No rocky planets have been discovered outside of our Solar System, although the ability to easily detect such planets will not be available until later this decade. Some scientists believe that life is common throughout the universe, while others think that all life or only advanced life is rare in the universe. The origin of life by naturalistic means seems extremely improbable. In addition, the earth seems to exhibit unusual design, since the existence of tectonic activity on such a small planet for such a long period of time is probably the result of an extremely unlikely collision early in its history. Without tectonic activity, the earth would be a waterworld, since continents would not form. Advanced life (beyond fish) cannot exist on such a planet.

Atheism requires that abiogenesis (a naturalistic origin of life) is at least possible, if not likely, and that habitable planets are common throughout the universe. Such a scenario, if true, would make it likely that pink unicorns do exist somewhere in the universe. Therefore, an atheist would be illogical to assume a strong aunicornist stance. The unicorn argument as an argument against the existence of God fails logically, since it is not possible to definitively show that unicorns do not exist somewhere in the universe.

A comparison between the existence of God (a non-contingent being) and the existence of Santa Claus or invisible pink unicorns (contingent beings) fails on many levels, not the least of which is that their fundamental natures (non-physical vs. physical) are vastly different.

 

[Athiest Hater #1]

You are a hateful, hateful person, topic starter... May you die in horrible everlasting pain.

 

[thedevilsreject]

You are a hateful, hateful person, topic starter... May you die in horrible everlasting pain.

that really shows your intelligence, you could at least refer to his name which is spiritualspy

 

[KennyJC]

A comparison between the existence of God (a non-contingent being) and the existence of Santa Claus or invisible pink unicorns (contingent beings) fails on many levels, not the least of which is that their fundamental natures (non-physical vs. physical) are vastly different.

But there is comparison as each one is a made-up concept.

Therefore, an atheist would be illogical to assume a strong aunicornist stance.

It is illogical to accept or give merit to a made-up superstitious concept. The universe being a big place is no grounds to believe in invisible pink unicorns.

Ggazoo. I put it to you that there is no living intelligent creator, there is certainly no heaven and you will not get to go surfing with dead relatives after death.

Your beliefs Ggazoo, are far-fetched in the extreme, and it is infinitely more likely that not one of your beliefs are correct.

 

[Jenyar]

I'm sorry, where did I 'point out' that there's evidence for gods, jesus or santa claus?? I'm even more perplexed by your statement considering you even quoted me saying: "they both have an absolute lack of any evidence suggesting their existence". An absolute lack of evidence is not me pointing out that they do have evidence.. duh.

You said, and I quote: "furthermore, Santa is real", and supplied a link. That's all I was referring to - I didn't include God or Jesus in what you pointed out, though I can see why you'd think so. But why so quick to assume the worst?

Obviously it's not the fictional Santa that's real, but the historical figure beneath the fiction is, and that's who the evidence points to. The lack of evidence for the fictional Santa does not negate the evidence for the historical Santa. Dismissing the historical one because you don't believe in the fictional one makes no sense.

Sorry, gonna have to get all religious on you now. Prove it.

You can't prove a negative - you can't prove something does not exist. I claim there's an absolute lack of evidence for the fictional Santa and his flying reindeer. Do you disagree?

*edit* actually, depending on the nature of the statement, it is quite possible to prove a negative - it's just usually much harder than proving a positive. In this case the problem isn't with proving a negative, it's that the positive evidence points in the opposite direction. There is also a "lack of evidence" (since the contrary hasn't been observed), but literally nothing can be deduced from that.

An image in people's minds is not evidence.

And I didn't say it was. But images form according to evidence. We'll need a definition of evidence that we can agree on before I would explain further. Otherwise we'll end up with the kind of Nihilistic relativism water describes below. She's right that phenomena do not dictate meaning - we supply that meaning - but phenoma do exist, or there would be nothing to observe, and nothing to see as evidence. Any raw data can be submitted as evidence, and that evidence is then weighed. You seem to be saying there's no evidence to weigh. Is that correct? If it is, how would you objectively explain the images that have formed in people's minds, if there is nothing at all to consider?

While I enjoy your opinion, I fail to see what relevance any of your entire post has to anything I said on mine. You've claimed I've said things I haven't, garbled a load of old nonsense that I can only assume is what the religious refer to as "talking in tongues", and outright left me confused as to what you're trying to say other than Santa doesn't exist, god does - because Jenyar says so, amen hallelujah.

There was nothing cryptic in what I said. It comes down to the nature of evidence. There is "evidence" that spiderman exists, but since that evidence points directly to him being a confined to the world of fiction, it carries very little weight in the real world. The evidence is enough to conjure up the mental image of spiderman, but nothing more. When the evidence is considered further, it also points to an artistic creator, and Stan Lee can explain the rest. But saying there is "absolutely no evidence" of spiderman works with a definition of evidence that you will have to explain. Would you still say there is no evidence of him, if there is evidence that he is fictional?

Most certainly. Alas there is none for god or jesus, and even santa is a little suspect. That's why I stated that Kenny's post highlighted that similarity between them and thus it was not a bad analogy. K?

Tell me if you disagree, but as far as I know there can be no "similarity" between things that don't exist - there's simply nothing to be similar or different. There's either plain nothing, or there's something, even if it's just a mental image - and by giving that "something" a name, you already distinguish it in some way. That's how language works. People do not think, discuss, research and believe in Santa Claus, God, Jesus or invisible pink unicorns in the same way, and there's a good reason for that. The data points in different directions.

All Kenny did was to group everything that can't be falsified into the same category: superstition. That would place everything that's not empirically verifiable into that category, and many theories - including very scientific ones - occupy this space for long periods of time before they are either proven or disproven (this includes memetics, which skeptics employ when calling religion a "meme"). Inbetween these points, people operate on faith - for or against. When these points are reached, when theory and belief meets reality, they can be falisified or confirmed.

Not everything that is unscientific is false or fictional. And not believing the evidence that is put forward is something entirely different than there not being any evidence.