Sure, omniscience means that He did. But, knowing something still does not imply action. I think what you are really getting at is the question: Is God so constrained by foreknowledge that He can only act in one deterministic way. Which implies God has no freewill of His own so how could He pass it on to his creatures? But the Bible indicates that God has freewill and He can choose to act (or not) in, through, or on His creations. So I would say in this discussion, it is impossible to prove by logic that God is constrained or not constrained by foreknowledge. It's an endless logic loop, but it is an interesting discussion anyways.
Proof that the Christian god cannot exist
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
Sure, omniscience means that He did. But, knowing something still does not imply action. I think what you are really getting at is the question: Is God so constrained by foreknowledge that He can only act in one deterministic way. Which implies God has no freewill of His own so how could He pass it on to his creatures? But the Bible indicates that God has freewill and He can choose to act (or not) in, through, or on His creations. So I would say in this discussion, it is impossible to prove by logic that God is constrained or not constrained by foreknowledge. It's an endless logic loop, but it is an interesting discussion anyways.
The Biblical God isn't all that powerful, really. He gets in a wrestling match with Jacob and doesn't fare all that well.
And the Biblical God seems to be a blunderer, not a perfect creator. He makes man. Man seems lonely, so he brings his other creatures, none of them suit Man (God was unaware of what Man would like, even though he created him), so he makes Woman. God was fooled when Man and Woman ate the apple. He punishes them.
Later, all of God's creatures are acting funny, so he drowns all of them and tries to start over.
Later, all of God's creatures are acting funny, so God sends his Son down to be tortured and killed, which will somehow make Man act better.
And every now and then, God sends plagues, kills firstborns, and generally does rude things to Man because they are acting funny.
This is the weirdo I am talking about. I see nothing omniscient nor omnipotent in this dude. Hell, he isn't even omnipresent the way the Bible reads.
Besides, I've already disproved this God and all others like Him in another thread on SciForums. So we should move past wondering if He exists (he doesn't) and focus on why so many people buy into the delusion instead.
-swivel
Unfortunately you have only disproved God exists in your own mind. I for one am throughly convinced God exists and cares what happens to us.
Excellent thread Chris...you have explained the obvious in a succinct manner.
Wouldn't it be neat if argumentation worked in such a manner! I can lay out a detailed and logical disproof, and then you can say, "No you didn't", without having to debate any of my actual points!
Much simpler, I'll admit, than the actual hard-work of having rational discourse.
My disproof stands until a flaw is found.
WTF?
I haven't read this thread other than the OP, but the the falsehood of a paradox must be assumed. This is not proof that God does not exist.
I don't get these proves.
You know full well that Christians and other believers hold that God transcends human capacity of thought which is limited by logic and such. In other words, Christians beleive that God transcends logic, paradoxes, etc.
You are basically sitting there saying attempting to prove with logic that a being that transcends logic does not exist. Nice try.
And your sitting there saying logic and reason are not relevant
lets just make it up as you see fit
which is exactly why their are hundreds of religions/gods that transcend your logic
So ...what do you use to base your conclusions on
Oh thats right
absolutely nothing most likely the tooth fairy transcends your logic aswell
heres a hint .... ( your parents left the money under your pillow )
Last edited:
God is beyond paradox? He can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it? He can create a polygon with four sides of equal length, that all meet at right angles, with all points on the circumference an equal distance to a point in the center of the object? He can maker parallel lines intersect on a perfectly flat plane?
God is not immune to paradox, as a bit of thought on these questions will demonstrate. Which means that God is subject to the realm of logic to some degree. Which means that God can be disproved if some of his features create a paradox. Which, it just so happens, they do.
God cannot be a thinking being that has existed forever who created the universe. This is a paradox, and as I've just demonstrated, God is not immune to a paradox. He can't make the rock heavy enough that he can't lift it... or he can't lift it.
-swivel
Excellent post, Cris; a "classic" in message board terms. (2001?!) =)
Having appreciated a number of your posts these past few years and having considered this one for quite some time, I suggest rather humbly that this original argument reveals a couple of fundamental flaws; that of "supposing God" and "Omniscience"- but with the added weight of a valid, but narrow, meaning to "exist" (semantically) and the baggage of negative-definition (or negative-proof, if you will), logically.
To readers who haven't considered this before, modern "Atheistic Apologetics" which are direct and unambiguous, internally self-consistent and logical, and objective and positive (of structure and language) which are the most persuasive, regardless of audience, rely mainly upon Incoherency Apologetics (-Internal, -External, and Scientific), Semantic Apologetics, and Materialist Apologetics.
...
Semantic Apologetics are some of the weakest arguments in my opinion, because they are not necessarily objective, and can be reduced to "mere argument by assertion" (-that terms like "God" are meaningless (which they are, only to non-theists); and of course that, by none other than "mere counter-assertion"). Where they succeed, however, is in logically examining the details which believers regularly place on whatever "divinity" they have in mind. I suggest that Memetic Apologetics are directly (if distantly) related to Semantics because, culturally, Language is the most significant meme over and across- time, places, and generations of people.
Classic Materialist Apologetics are also rather weak in utility overall, and the very term is something of a misnomer. Generally, the arguments are pro-contingency (which are at least tied to something objective (which is good for transportability), but which are some mixture (or solution-) of semantics and incoherency. Where this branch of "Strong" Atheological Apologetics might proceed well is the area of Evidential Apologetics, since the arguments rely on something objective.
Of the Incoherency Apologetics, the Scientific subset is the most enlightening because it is almost entirely positive and objective. The Internal and External subsets suffer in some cases from "entertaining divinity" only to show that certain details are incompatible with others. As one with a strictly "scientific world view," I am most compelled by arguments which are tied to something objective, even if abstract.
Greetings
...
"All gods are imaginary, mythological beings."
Wrong.
This is not a necessity.
The Christian God that defies paradox cannot be proven or disproven using the methods Cris uses in her OP.
Defying paradox is not just the question of God.
Questions regarding the universe and quantum physics also lead to paradoxes that are incomprehensible.
The tenets on which the god are predicated are paradoxical and time has proven that pupported to be truth as myth.
It takes faith to "know" that there is no Creator God, so Atheism is just another faith.
You're an atheist too, then... you just believe in ONE more god than I do.
lol - we used to have comedy series in the UK in which two grumpy old professors engaged in debate: "I say, you are a fool..." and "I, Sir, say you are a buffoon" etc. - no time to discuss anything relevant and it is true to some extent.
This is why I find debate on SciForums such good fun - if ones theory cannot stand up to a friendly mauling by ones peers then it is probably (but not always) junk. I'm learning a lot.
Re: thread - Ditto on above.
I look forward to our next too-doo...All the best, zen
This is why I find debate on SciForums such good fun - if ones theory cannot stand up to a friendly mauling by ones peers then it is probably (but not always) junk. I'm learning a lot.
Re: thread - Ditto on above.
I look forward to our next too-doo...All the best, zen
I'm not sure what you are trying to do here. I guess you realize that faith is a horrible thing, and you are trying to lump atheists in with yourself? How can religion be special if the lack of religion is the exact same thing to you?
Faith is the belief in "Something" without evidence. It is *not* the lack in faith of something for which there is no evidence. If it is both, then the word is meaningless and has no application. So lets make up new words for the two situations:
Deedlebunk will the the belief in things for which there is not a shred of evidence.
Gloryfish will be the state of disbelief in all things for which there is no evidence.
Since Deedlebunk and Gloryfish are mutually exclusive, we can not say that Deedlebunk = Gloryfish. And yet, that is precisely what you are trying to do with the words Atheism and Faith.
This is a low-down, intellectually dishonest, despicable act of semantic butchery and you lose all credibility by attempting it. Trust me, all of us have seen this cowardly, ignorant tactic hundreds of times before, and all it does is demarcate you as someone unable to have a rational discussion.
I'm sure that this is not what you want, so please reconsider. Let's use words according to their generally accepted definitions and not bandy them about in an attempt to confuse just so that points may be won.
-swivel (Gloryfish)
Edit: Zenbabe, I was typing a reply when our lovely thread was unfairly locked. I complained to SkinWalker a bit and saved the post in Notepad. I was going to PM it to you, but it says I need 20 posts before I am able to. So... it will be included in my last will and testament that this post be delivered to you upon the event of my death. Treasure it.
Second Edit: I know your name is a conjunction of Zen Babel and Fish (assuming a love of Adams), but I leave the lfish off to keep my wife on her toes. Hope you find it no great insult.
It is what it is, the faith that there cannot be a Creator God, it's just intellectually dishonest.
Are you really going to persist in this insanity? I hope you are doing so just to be evil, because the alternative is worse for our purposes here...
Do you have "faith" that dragons don't exist on Earth? Do you have "faith" that the world is not flat? Seriously, Faith should be a cherished word to theists, and here you are dragging the foundation of all religion through the mud. If there is a god, she is very upset with you right now.
Yep - I agree Swivel...I reported it as I felt we had been unfairly accused of racism and I think we both know this is not true...its a valid science topic and our discussion reflected a well established wider-debate within the science community...but Skinwalker was right in that its not 'history' although sometimes the two are inseparable.
Good debate for a rainy day in the Human Sciences forum...
Re: thread - good explanation of mechanism by which we can recognise the difference between faith and atheism...sound logic.
Good debate for a rainy day in the Human Sciences forum...
Re: thread - good explanation of mechanism by which we can recognise the difference between faith and atheism...sound logic.
You seem to have a gift for demonstrating the latter.