I'm wondering, then, why you would say he's not omnipotent in the post I quoted.
Proof that the Christian god cannot exist
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
You are under the mistaken belief that Omniscience means that God made the decision for you. It is simply not true.
Let's say we have Joe, your sperm donor father, somehow he knows everything about you from your favorite color to you deep darkest secret. Now, joe, through this knowledge knows exactly how you will respond to every question you are ever asked, down to your choice of wording. Now let's say you never meet Joe and Joe never contacts you. Can you honestly say that Joe's knowledge of how you will respond takes away your free will in responding? No.
How is that above different from god except the sperm donor father part?
Okay, so you are thinking perhaps that God should only create believers? Did it occur to you that as he is creating them he gives them free choice and then does not know they will do until just after giving them that wonderful gift. After all until choice is given to a person there can be no decision.
Your conclusion relies to heavily of Omniscience and Free Will being incompatiable and then throw in the fact that you too heavily link Omnipotence and Omniscience and your proof is little more that psuedo philosophical crap. There is no proof in what you suppose, only questions about your education
there is an obvious difference between the statements "I don't know" and "It cannot be known"
Is this what you really meant to say?
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
The only logically tenable position to maintain is that of agnostic-atheism: being without god(s), but recognizing that there is no way to "know" if there is or isn't a god(s) in the universe.
Obviously, those that say, "I don't know" are a subset of those that say, "there's no way to know."
Regardless, are you going to bother breaking it down for us why this is a statement of faith? When I say "no way to know," I'm referring to the inability to examine every bit of the universe. Are you saying you have a way to empirically test the universe for a god?
Regardless, are you going to bother breaking it down for us why this is a statement of faith? When I say "no way to know," I'm referring to the inability to examine every bit of the universe. Are you saying you have a way to empirically test the universe for a god?
actually saying "I don't know" is an admission of one's limitations and saying "there is no way to know" is an absolute statement about what is knowable/unknowable
if a person says "there is no way to know god" it begs the question what process of knowledge did they use to determine that (which if you follow it down rationally enough, it becomes a negative absolute and thus fallacious)
there are many names of god that determine how he is beyond the perception of empiricism (eg - adhoksaja) for reasons that you indicate (even the universe is greater than our senses, what to speak of god).
On top of this there are many references to how one can know god
BG 7.1: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Now hear, O son of Pṛthā, how by practicing yoga in full consciousness of Me, with mind attached to Me, you can know Me in full, free from doubt.
which brings in to call the second most sought after analogy on sciforums - namely that the only way a common person can come to directly perceive the president is if they cultivate needs interests and concerns that are on par with the president's (If one just attempts to barge in to see him they will not get past the first of his 500 secretaries)
Thus seeing the president is not a strict empirical process since one is required to meet certain criteria of behavior or socialization
You can cite all the magical/imaginative references you want from all the mythical sources you like. They are all equally worthless when it comes to having a real discussion in reality. Perhaps a science forum isn't the place for you if all you have to discuss is your imagination.
no doubt you prefer the imaginative discussions of atheism and are not really geared up for seriously looking at the philosophical underpinnings of such a world view - which begs the q what the hell you are doing as a mod here?
Your ad hominem remarks notwithstanding, I find myself wondering what "imaginative discussions of atheism" you are referring to. The theists are the ones making the positive claims; atheists, agnostics and freethinkers are making inquiry.
don't fret - its the natural consequence of trolling and flaming
that the claims of theism are imagination
the moment you declare "god is an imagination" you are making a positive statement about the nature of god
on the contrary, you are making assertions here
You can cite all the magical/imaginative references you want from all the mythical sources you like. They are all equally worthless when it comes to having a real discussion in reality.
I'm going to have to agree with Lightgigantic on this one:
Once you go past saying "there is no proof of God" to "God does not exist" you are claiming something positive. Accordingly, you have to present a reason why God is held not to exist, likely from principles of reason, as it seems rather erroneous to claim God is a matter of empirical analysis.
Once you go past saying "there is no proof of God" to "God does not exist" you are claiming something positive. Accordingly, you have to present a reason why God is held not to exist, likely from principles of reason, as it seems rather erroneous to claim God is a matter of empirical analysis.
You can go with him wherever you wish. I'm not making a positive claim about anything. I will say there probably is no god, based on the shear lack of evidence and the lack of a need for one. I will also say that I've no way of knowing for sure, since I cannot examine the entire universe. I'm an agnostic-atheist. LG seems to think that my position is that there *is* no way to know for sure if there is a god, and I may have been unclear, but my revised and clear stance is that *I* have no way to know for sure since *I* cannot examine the entire universe.
I'm making no positive claims; my opinion is open to change with the presentation of evidence. Perhaps it would be LG's evidence, except it appears to exist only in his mind and he claims (a positive claim) that he's only able to share it with fellow believers.
I'm making no positive claims; my opinion is open to change with the presentation of evidence. Perhaps it would be LG's evidence, except it appears to exist only in his mind and he claims (a positive claim) that he's only able to share it with fellow believers.
Agnostic.
And atheist.
All at the same time, I see, similar to an atheistic Christian.
What is your issue with being an agnostic atheist?
I'm guessing it's merely 'cos you have no real grasp of what the two words mean?
Agnosticism is NOT the middle ground between the two.
It is a separate position one takes, with regard to knowledge - in this case about God and God's existence.
(A)theism is merely about belief (or lack of) in the existence of God.
Separate matters.
I see?
Skinwalker:
Your clarification once again places you back into a belief where God is up in the air, thereby removing you from any duty to prove either position. Thanks for it.
Your clarification once again places you back into a belief where God is up in the air, thereby removing you from any duty to prove either position. Thanks for it.
Actually I claim it can only be shared with persons who have applied the necessary processes - just like the claims of physicists can only be shared with physicists - any one else unqualified in the field of physics will determine the truth of their claims according to how they perceive physicists as credible (the high school drop out falling in at the end of the scale)
Thus most of the arguments one hears against theism are to do with the perception of how credible the practitioners are rather than an analysis of philosophy or concepts - and given the recent trends of materialistic society that has nurtured a growing number or spiritually bankrupt practitioners, such statements can be true - however it is not sufficient to say that because some (or even many) persons are wrong that all persons are wrong - just like if the medical practice was suddenly inundated with frauds, it wouldn't make the practice of medicine false - it wold simply make the task of locating a bonafide medical practitioner more difficult, since one is likely to be cheated at every corner - and the best way to protect oneself is to be proficient to some degree in knowledge, so that one can distinguish the characteristics between a real and pretend practitioner ("gee I really like the way he sings and his clothes look pretty snazzy - he's got to be the real McCoy")
A critique of George Harrison, Lightgigantic?
I don't think he can be claimed as a spiritual leader but as a follower (it would be difficult to establish him as making any substantial philosophical or authoritative claims regarding the nature of the absolute ..... although he expressed his appreciation of a variety of concepts through his musical finesse)