Rise Of Atheism

[yank]

BECAUSE YOUR OWN LOGIC SAID THAT THE ENTITY YOU DESCRIBED CANNOT EXIST.

But this DOES NOT IMPLY IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM THAT YOU HAVE CORRECTLY DECRIBED GOD, OR THAT THE 'REASONING' YOU STATED APPLIES IN ANY OR EVEN PART TO 'GOD'.

Maybe, a good place you should justify the description you gave of 'God', and validate all His attributes?

Was waiting for this.
But Mr. Bird brain, my logic was supposed to deny the existence of God based on the definition of God.
And one attribute that I assigned to God was being Almighty ie. possessing all power!
Don't argue just for the heck of it!

 

[phlogistician]

Was waiting for this.
But Mr. Bird brain, my logic was supposed to deny the existence of God based on the definition of God.
And one attribute that I assigned to God was being Almighty ie. possessing all power!
Don't argue just for the heck of it!

All you did, was invalidate your starting premise, not actually prove that god doesn't exist.

Your logic was pretty absurd too. It was flawed, to say the least. You make too many extrapolations from your premise, and do not establish them as fact. That is really poor.

You aren't very clever, but you think you are, and that is really quite sad.

 

[Sarkus]

But Mr. Bird brain, my logic was supposed to deny the existence of God based on the definition of God.
And one attribute that I assigned to God was being Almighty ie. possessing all power!
Don't argue just for the heck of it!

You have denied the existence of one definition of God: one that possesses "infinite power" and is "the most powerfal" (your typo - not mine - but notice how I never deigned, at the time, to call you out on it! Should I? Afterall, “if a person makes such simple mistakes while typing just shows s/he's so hasty to post here - just to get his point straight by any means whatever!”)
And, through your subsequent arguments, you also added to the list of this God's attributes, that he must follow the currently understood logic of our Universe:

Unlimited power doesn't mean he can exist out of the logic system.

Well done.

As I think Phlogistician said - you have proven that this particular God can not logically exist. There are many other ways to prove that this particular God, with these attributes, can not logically exist but yours appears adequate, for all it is worth.


So then there remains the vast number of other Gods that people believe in.
Some, including Christians, would most probably say that their God doesn't have to abide by the logic within our Universe.
Afterall, if he created our Universe with our logic, but also created another Universe with another set of logic, which one should he exist by? Any? All? None?

 

[yank]

All you did, was invalidate your starting premise, not actually prove that god doesn't exist.

Your logic was pretty absurd too. It was flawed, to say the least. You make too many extrapolations from your premise, and do not establish them as fact. That is really poor.

You aren't very clever, but you think you are, and that is really quite sad.

I did prove my point and you are well aware of that.
I'm really tired of giving explanations again & again to you.
You don't seem to understand anything that's going on here do you?
You are here just for the sake of debating isn't it?
If you really had a point to prove that my argument is flawed then you wouldn't have been so impolite right from your starting post in the first place.
You seem like some teen just trying to have fun on these boards.
I've passed that stage. Everyone does. But I fail to see that you have matured. Period!

 

[yank]

You have denied the existence of one definition of God: one that possesses "infinite power" and is "the most powerfal" (your typo - not mine - but notice how I never deigned, at the time, to call you out on it! Should I? Afterall, “if a person makes such simple mistakes while typing just shows s/he's so hasty to post here - just to get his point straight by any means whatever!”)
And, through your subsequent arguments, you also added to the list of this God's attributes, that he must follow the currently understood logic of our Universe:

LOL... right from the time I posted this - “if a person makes such simple mistakes while typing just shows s/he's so hasty to post here - just to get his point straight by any means whatever!”
I know you have been searching on & on hoping that I would make a mistike. And yes, I did that purposely because I knew a person like you would be finding such lame excuses to belittle others. On my part if you look back correctly I had just mentioned the spelling error. And the above statement was only mentioned when I got a response which was taken personal.

Anyway if you have read this post carefully, I leave one more grammatical error for you to enjoy! LOL

Well done.

As I think Phlogistician said - you have proven that this particular God can not logically exist. There are many other ways to prove that this particular God, with these attributes, can not logically exist but yours appears adequate, for all it is worth.

So then there remains the vast number of other Gods that people believe in.
Some, including Christians, would most probably say that their God doesn't have to abide by the logic within our Universe.
Afterall, if he created our Universe with our logic, but also created another Universe with another set of logic, which one should he exist by? Any? All? None?

Now you have made yourself clear. At the moment I have no answer to this. I'll research a little and get back to you.

 

[phlogistician]

I did prove my point and you are well aware of that.

You finalised your logical statement. That is not 'proving' your point.

I'm really tired of giving explanations again & again to you.

You haven't explained anything since your assertions, actually. All you have done, is further assert that your original assertions are correct. That's pretty lazy.

You don't seem to understand anything that's going on here do you?

Er, yes! I understand that you have used a sloppy construct to try and prove something, and all you have done is invalidate your starting premise. you have since offered NO support to your opening assertion on which you base your 'logic' and I presume this is because you cannot.

You are here just for the sake of debating isn't it?

And you said I didn't understand what the purpose of a forum was, ... DUH!

If you really had a point to prove that my argument is flawed then you wouldn't have been so impolite right from your starting post in the first place.

Or maybe the flaws in your 'logic' were so HUGE that you deserved derision? Maybe, you sounded arrogant in that you claim to have disproved the existence of god in just a few lines, when many talented philosophers have failed over centuries? But no, YOU, with your ego, and sloppy logic think you have done it! You don't see that you sound like a complete arse?

You seem like some teen just trying to have fun on these boards.

Your logic sounds like something some 12 year old would come up with, let alone a teen, so that is a rather ironic statement.

I've passed that stage. Everyone does. But I fail to see that you have matured. Period!

Check out your arrogance and ego again! Tell you what, restate your argument, supporting yout premise, and we'll go from there. Show me you have a valid argument. take your time. Make it good. Can you do that?

 

[yank]

You finalised your logical statement. That is not 'proving' your point.

Just like you conclude things on your own.
I gave valid arguments. Although I do aknowledge a flaw Sarkus pointed out.

You haven't explained anything since your assertions, actually. All you have done, is further assert that your original assertions are correct. That's pretty lazy.

Well then it only means that you haven't been reading whatever I have posted. In fact you are the one asserting your point just to attack my argument. Now who shall we call lazy eh?

Er, yes! I understand that you have used a sloppy construct to try and prove something, and all you have done is invalidate your starting premise. you have since offered NO support to your opening assertion on which you base your 'logic' and I presume this is because you cannot.

The "sloppy construct" as you term it is indeed worth a thought if you have the simple understanding of logics which you do not seem to have. Terming arguments with words like "sloppy" and the likes only proves that you haven't been able to digest it - maybe because your thinking pattern doesn't permit you to aknowledge something beyond your line of understanding? And please, I've explained atleast three times. Don't blame me for something which isn't connected to me. Go read instead!

And you said I didn't understand what the purpose of a forum was, ... DUH!

Yes you completely still do not understand that forums are not meant for debating just for the sake of debating. There is much more intellectuality involved in the discussions which seems absent in your posts!

Or maybe the flaws in your 'logic' were so HUGE that you deserved derision? Maybe, you sounded arrogant in that you claim to have disproved the existence of god in just a few lines, when many talented philosophers have failed over centuries?

Atleast you admit that you were arrogant in your first reply. And still you take that as a compliment... LOL.

But no, YOU, with your ego, and sloppy logic think you have done it! You don't see that you sound like a complete arse?

Mind your language. This is the last time I'm ignoring your words. The next time I'll be forced to use your own and a lot on you. If you don't have the guts to debate don't resort to foul language like a wimp.

Your logic sounds like something some 12 year old would come up with, let alone a teen, so that is a rather ironic statement.

Did I forget to mention your arrogance portrays that of a small boy who has just discovered the world & it freakingly excited about it... until he gets a thump on his head... LOL!

Check out your arrogance and ego again! Tell you what, restate your argument, supporting yout premise, and we'll go from there. Show me you have a valid argument. take your time. Make it good. Can you do that?

There you go again. You can atleast try to act mature?
Besides I'll give you a tip. Try to be a bit polite to the new people you meet in life to avoid some serious trouble!
And yes I will come up with a restatement only if you provide me with a genuine flaw instead of those lame arrogant replies.

 

[phlogistician]

Yank, you want a flaw?

You did not start your construct with an IF.

It should be IF premise A is correct, than outcome B follows.

You waded straight in with assertions;

"We all know that God possesses infinite power."

Should be 'IF God possesses infinite power'

you then say;

"So with this infinite power it can create something more powerfal than itself."

But you don't support this assertion, and it is far from clear that this is the case. What is one bigger than Infinity? Er, Infinity! So logically, a being of Inifinite power CANNOT create something bigger than itself!

Care to explain first why 'God' has 'Infinite' power? And why we 'all' know this? Your agrument hangs on these assertions. If you can't prove God has infinite power, you can't prove he doesn't exist. Oh wait, is that another bullet hole in your foot?

 

[yank]

Alright, now you are being clear. Thanks!
Well I said "We all know that God possesses infinite power." because it is a widespread global assumption. Every dictionary, every encyclopedia, every source says that.
And so did I!

Well I'm still in doubt of that "a being of Infinite power CANNOT create something bigger than itself"... I'll get back to you with more research!

 

[phlogistician]

Well I'm still in doubt of that "a being of Infinite power CANNOT create something bigger than itself"... I'll get back to you with more research!

What is inifinity plus one? Infinity. What is that +1 again? Inifinity. That is proof by induction, I think.

 

[yank]

Yes I agree!

 

[yank]

For phlogistician & sarkus,

Assuming God is OMNIPOTENT means all powerful, with no restrictions. You could do whatever you wish to do if you were OMNIPOTENT. That means that if there was such a being it could create something that is undestroyable. But if it was undestroyable he could not destroy it. Therefore he would not be OMNIPOTENT. Now, on the other hand if he couldn't create something that he couldn't destroy he still wouldn't be OMNIPOTENT!

 

[Sarkus]

For phlogistician & sarkus,

Assuming God is OMNIPOTENT means all powerful, with no restrictions. You could do whatever you wish to do if you were OMNIPOTENT. That means that if there was such a being it could create something that is undestroyable. But if it was undestroyable he could not destroy it. Therefore he would not be OMNIPOTENT. Now, on the other hand if he couldn't create something that he couldn't destroy he still wouldn't be OMNIPOTENT!

And now you have correctly come up with a logical reason why an Omnipotent being can not exist - assuming also that the Omnipotent being has to abide by the logic of our Universe.

If you restrict God to the logic of this universe then there are many ways to disprove of God - which is why most Gods are not limited by the logic of this universe - and those that are are the more personal, "self" variety of deities.

You need to try and move your proof / arguments outside of the confines of our logic system....

... but I'm guessing that you won't be able to - as how can you then use that logic system to disprove something which is claimed to be outside of that system?


And thus the worth of your proofs is limited to those Gods that abide by the (apparent) logic of our universe, and all your arguments have been done before.

 

[phlogistician]

Well done, you've shown that omnipotence is self contradictory. This is old news, and hardly a revelation;

'Can god make a rock so big he can't pick it up?'

http://www.carm.org/questions/rock.htm

Check out the mental gymnastics the author flaccidly tries to use to get out of the paradox too. He makes the same mistake that you did, he forgot the IF. He should have said;

'IF god is omnipotent, can he make a rock so big he cannot lift it?'

.. and of course the answer is no, so God is not omnipotent. Simple. Doesn't prove that 'God' does not exist, just that the attributes we assign to him are invalid. We should not be so fond of our descriptions that we abandon logic. Assuming, like Sarkus has said, logic applies to God. I think people should just admit that their beleif in God is emotional, irrational, and unjustifiable. Just admit it makes them feel good, and stop trying to prove it's real. This is why I prefer Zen Koans. They aren't true, but there is wisdom in them. The events described do have to have taken place in reality, if there is something that can be learned from them. God as a concept, therefore, something to aspire to, is fine. Saying God is real, however, is insanity.

 

[geeser]

just a spammed post to put this back on the front page, because of the spammer dattaswammi. advertiseing his crap.
please ignore and carry on debating

 

[Confutatis]

Assuming God is OMNIPOTENT means all powerful, with no restrictions. You could do whatever you wish to do if you were OMNIPOTENT. That means that if there was such a being it could create something that is undestroyable. But if it was undestroyable he could not destroy it. Therefore he would not be OMNIPOTENT. Now, on the other hand if he couldn't create something that he couldn't destroy he still wouldn't be OMNIPOTENT!

I have seen this argument so many times, I can't believe people still fall for it.

The notion that an omnipotent being cannot do something illogical does not mean an omnipotent being cannot exist, it only means you don't understand what omnipotence is. It is silly to assume we fully understand the exact meaning of a word; we were not born with such knowledge. The whole of language was developed long before we ever dreamed of uttering our first sentence. And the notion that God is omnipotent was conceived long before the English language came about.

So you are arguing against an idea expressed in a language that no longer exists, based on a translation whose accuracy you can't be sure about, using your imperfect understanding of your mother tongue. Now which is more likely, that so naive a philosophical mistake has endured thousands of years, or that you don't quite get the original idea? Place your bets.

Now I can't be sure I fully understand the notion of omnipotence better than anyone else, but it does seem to me that it doesn't mean the ability to make illogical assertions become true. The whole problem is this: someone can always claim that God does not have the power to convince someone who's determined to be a skeptic. One can always come up with meaningless sophisms to attack or defend any idea whatsoever. But even here we can see how the argument is fallacious, that the claim is false.

To argue that you can stand before a power much greater than your own and not be completely swayed by it is silly, not to say arrogant. If you ever faced God, you would likely be astonished how He could create something undestroyable and then destroy it, all the while keeping his omnipotence intact as your sense of logic is put to shambles. Nay, you don't even have to face God to see that; a few milligrams of a special chemical substance may do exactly the same.

People who speak of God as if He were human, as if we could quarrel with Him as we quarrel with our neighbour, can say a lot of things. What they cannot say is that they understand the idea of God. Or the idea of omnipotence, for that matter.

 

[phlogistician]

All you are doing confutatis, is twisting words. Something undestroybale cannot be destroyed, and to assert that it can by an onmipotent being is plainly illogical. There _is_ a paradox, but the solution is simple;

Omnipotence is unattainable.

 

[Confutatis]

All you are doing confutatis, is twisting words.

That is what all of us are doing! Arguments for or against omnipotence are simply that: twisting words. In the meantime, the real issue lays aside, completely untouched.

 

[phlogistician]

That is what all of us are doing! Arguments for or against omnipotence are simply that: twisting words. In the meantime, the real issue lays aside, completely untouched.

Here are some other words for you.

Vague

Insightful

Being Vague does not mean that you are Insightful.

Words matter a lot. If words cannot describe the issue, the issue has no place on a forum, where all we do, is trade words. So stop being vague, and show some insight.

 

[Confutatis]

Being Vague does not mean that you are Insightful.

I am trying to offer the insight that language is vague, that the word "omnipotence" does not have a clear meaning.

With most words you do not infer meaning from definitions, you infer meaning from usage. Babies don't learn their native language by looking up words in a dictionary. And the meaning of the word "omnipotence" can only be known to a person who sees it in several different contexts. To criticize the concept as being logically impossible requires a clear definition, which does not exist; to criticize it for not having a clear definition only makes it as bad as the rest of our language.

Words matter a lot. If words cannot describe the issue, the issue has no place on a forum, where all we do, is trade words.

I didn't say words cannot describe the issue, I said the issue consists merely of describing words. Particulary, describing what the word "omnipotence" means. Some people claim it means something that leads to a paradox, but they cannot prove that that is exactly what the word means.

If "omnipotence" is meaningless for implying a paradox, then all we have to do is come up with a new word. Say, instead of saying "God is omnipotent", we can say "God is oroparamexical". Would you object to the notion that God is oroparamexical? I hope not, for you do not understand what oroparamexical is. And your mistake is to think you understand what omnipotence is anymore than you understand what oroparamexicality would be if it were a real word.

If that is too vague, I'm sorry, I'm doing my best.