This is an assumption. "god" the entity whom supposedly created the universe only gives an atribute to some action this entity has done, it does not define what god is, it's not human, we are only told that this entity is uncomprehensible to the human mind, not exactly an explanation of who or what god is, only that our feeble minds can't comprehend what "it" is. Thus the word still has no identity.
It's not an assumption, it's the definition. The meaning of the word God is creator of the Universe, and any incomprehensibility or incoherence of the concept is irrelevant. What God is, is the creator of the Universe. Nothing more can be said about God.
Point them out to Vexen, he seems to have a very reasonable and logical argument however I'm no expert. I'm just an atheist. But I'm interested of which flaws for instance are you talking about?
"2.1. Instant Creation
If God is all-knowing, then the instant God was conscious it would have known all the pros and cons of creating a Universe and knew that it was going to do it. Therefore there is no reason for God to wait. If God chooses to wait then what is the reason?... there must be a reason. This reason, to cause God to wait, would be a limit on his omnipotence. If there is some reason why God hesitates in creating the Universe then at some point that reason no longer existed and he went on to create the Universe. What caused the "reason" for the wait to go away? Therefore the Universe must have existed for infinity, it must have been automatically created the same instant God was."
First, he presumes God is omniscient, which is fine if you're discussing the Christian God, but that is just one religion. Omniscience is inconsistent with reality, so that rules out the Christian God. Second, he presumes that God waited to create the Universe. Third, he presumes there's something wrong with him delaying. There could be any number of reasons, since we don't know what would be going through the mind of a supposedly omniscient being. Perhaps he simply chose for time to pass beforehand? He also claims that waiting is somehow a limit on omnipotence.
My point is, he makes a lot of claims and assumptions, but does not substantiate them, and I do not see how they follow.
question: what came first the chicken, or the egg.
The egg of course.
The article is quite old, I've only seen weak/strong atheist objectives here, this is relatively new phenomenon, thats been going on for several years on the net. I tend to consider myself a strong atheist, however I've come to the conclusion that one can't claim the existence of or non existence of a supreme entity which one can't define.
I'm a strong atheist as well, and I would agree if I didn't think God could be defined, but the word exists, so there must be a definition or it wouldn't be a word.
In order for me to claim that "wagasgadget" exist I would have to know what wagasgadget are, if I don't I can't claim their existence or lack off. Thus one has to have a clear consice defenition of what god is, in order to claim existence/non-existence of this entity.
How can you get more clear and concise than "creator of the Universe"? It's as simple and consice as it gets.
If I were to take this sentence out of context of our argument, this would look like a contradiction.
Perhaps if one assumed the statement presumed the existence of God was true, though given the second half of the statement, that wouldn't make much sense.
Have you ever heard of Impossibility of Transversing the Infinite, or shall I explain?
What's your point?
Enigma, dont worry about your spelling when one only attacks such trivial thing as spelling or gramar these are considered weak argument tactics, I understand your writing just fine.
I don't know how you construed it as an argument tactic. I simply corrected his spelling, which has no relevance to any arguments made.
God is a non-sequirtus, a word with no meaning and an entity with no identity.
The term is non-sequitur, and it means the conclusion does not follow (is not supported by the argument).
If the above is true, then god is weak,
That is an example of a non-sequitur.
You claim that god has no cause or need no cause, however it still created a universe, and created life on a planet to worship it. God sounds like a bored child that created some toys to play with, and we are the toys.
What he means is God doesn't need to have been caused to exist, and that he's eternal. Not that he doesn't need to cause anything.
