kx000
Valued Senior Member
Haha. Questions? Go ahead, I will fill in what the "author" left out.
Proof that the Christian god cannot exist
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
Haha. Questions? Go ahead, I will fill in what the "author" left out.
Hence your entire argument is based on a fallacious premise.
Please don't bother posting again.
Argument from personal incredulity
Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat): an argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position
Reification (hypostatization): a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
Argument from fallacy: assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion itself is false
Appeal to ridicule
An argument in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence.
AND there should be an addendum to the 'Argument from authority' one, that says an argument based on the posters assumption that they are the authority.
(sorry, i think i am getting carried away with this fallacy thing..)
Actually no.
No one has claimed that omniscience = control (in fact I myself have pointed out numerous times that control is not required).
Huh?
you quoted "Omniscience and Control are not synonyms."
and then inferred they were not. (by calling fallacy)
now you are saying "no one has claimed omniscience = control"
you did by calling fallacy on his comment.
I'll just stick with this one;
Argument from fallacy, you claimed "Hence your entire argument is based on a fallacious premise" ,
Argument from fallacy assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion itself is false.
Er no.
The argument as presented relies on omniscience being control. Since omniscience is NOT control then the "argument" fails.
No..he is arguing omniscience does not include control..
did you mean to address Cris, who creationist was referring to, who WAS arguing that omniscience = control..?
Read it again: his "argument" is that since omniscience is not control then the omniscience vs free will is null and void: i.e. he's claiming that others claim omniscience = control (which is not the case).
No, that's not what Cris is saying.
uh oh..now we are at the point that we are both guilty of..
reading more into what is said,then is actually said..(i couldn't find the fallacy term for this)(and haven't you argued against doing this very thing to you?)
nowhere in his post does it say anything about what others claim,so you are in error to assume he is claiming that others claim, as he did not claim anything to that end. ( again..Déjà vu..except with you arguing my point here..)
ergo, omniscience = control ..
Really? Where have I done that?..
i give up..
you keep transposing quotes and quote out of context..
Omniscience is not control.
It's quite simple.
If omniscience exists then everything is (must, of necessity, be) predetermined.
Omniscience knows what the future is. It doesn't control that future, it simply "accesses" it: hence it's knowledge not coercion or control.
I've always wondered why christians seem so eager to give their god omniscience(and yes NM, it would negate free will as all choices would already be known so no choice could possibly be made) when the bible quite clearly indicates that god doesn't have omniscience.
where?
@NM --
Ever read Genesis? God had to ask Adam and Eve why they were wearing clothes, an omniscient god wouldn't have had to do so. Also an omniscient god wouldn't get angry when humans failed him because he'd have already known that they were going to do so. There's any number of places in the bible like that. Nowhere does the bible even come close to saying that god is omniscient.
So why are christians so eager to give god that trait, especially when it means that they can't use their favorite excuse for the existence of evil(free will)?
Ever read Genesis? God had to ask Adam and Eve why they were wearing clothes, an omniscient god wouldn't have had to do so. Also an omniscient god wouldn't get angry when humans failed him because he'd have already known that they were going to do so. There's any number of places in the bible like that. Nowhere does the bible even come close to saying that god is omniscient.
So why are christians so eager to give god that trait, especially when it means that they can't use their favorite excuse for the existence of evil(free will)?
have you read the bible all the way through? (how do you know 'Nowhere does the bible even come close to saying'?) i notice you did not bring any verses to back up your opinion.
and i already know you would not accept any alternate perspective regarding this, so why should i answer?
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Blahbity blah blah. Just because he "knows" the outcome doesn't mean it will happen. He knows it ends in tribulation, but there is still a shot. You are getting progressivly worse.
Then he doesn't know it.
Either he doesn't know or there isn't a "shot".
And you're still contradicting yourself.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
It's quite simple: as with much else in the Bible, there are contradictory statements -
God has to ask.
Oops, he asked again...
And again...
(just some examples).