Regarding the Existence or Absence of God

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by axeman

1) I challenge god to create a rock he can NEVER EVER lift
2) God creates the rock
3) I ask god to lift the rock
4) god fails to lift the rock

THEREFORE: Since there exists something god
is NOT capable of doing, he is NOT omnipotent.


HERE is an even BETTER example


1) I challenge god to create a rock he can NEVER EVER lift,
but which AXEMAN *can* lift
2) God creates the rock
3) I ask god to lift the rock
4) god fails to lift the rock
5) *I* lift the rock

Therefore: I am MORE powerful than god (in at least ONE respect).

There ya go.... proof your god is a logical contradiction. :D

Still think your god can be omnipotent?
If so, WHY? I challenge you to show the
error in my logic.

peace

axeman
More...

The error in your logic is the premise that you can have an omnipotent being create something that he is unable to do. This is pretzel logic. An omnipotent being can't be used to negate himself. There is no correct answer to your puzzle that can prove or disprove the existence of an all-powerful creature.

In other words, God is able to do ANYTHING that does not negate his own ability. This is still defined as omnipotent.
 
Claiming its preztel logic does not make it so.
I'll make it more clear in logical terms.

The premise is: omnipotent beings can do anything
The minor premise is: god cant create a rock he cant lift
The conclusion therefore is: god is not omnipotent


Even I am capable of building an object which I cant lift.
If you are saying that an omnipotent being
is not capable of doing this, then how can you
possibly claim that being is omnipotent?


You cant.

You are attempting to define omnipotence as the ability
to do anything EXCEPT things that cause your definition
issues. :D Bzzzzzzzzt.... sorry....no special cases for you.



peace

axeman





Originally posted by goldenarm


The error in your logic is the premise that you can have an omnipotent being create something that he is unable to do. This is pretzel logic. An omnipotent being can't be used to negate himself. There is no correct answer to your puzzle that can prove or disprove the existence of an all-powerful creature.

In other words, God is able to do ANYTHING that does not negate his own ability. This is still defined as omnipotent.
More...
 
Originally posted by goldenarm
If God went around proving his existence to everyone, then there wouldn't be such a thing as FAITH. Religion is based on FAITH. No one said that believing in something that seems to defy rational scientific explanation was an easy thing and that is the challenge of FAITH.

What's the challenge if God and Jesus reveal themselves to everyone with a host of angels, trumpets and chariots and threatens them with eternal damnation if they don't change their wicked ways? Obviously, everyone would become a devout Christian. Proof of something's existence and faith are mutually exclusive terms.

Don't knock people for believing in God. I may not agree with Thunderdolt's heavy-handed manner of expressing himself but I DO respect other religions and their peaceful adherents. And yes, I believe in God... so PISS OFF!
More...

There's nothing wrong with you believing in God, but why does there have to bea "challenge?"
 
That is a very strange question because you would
have to first define what "outside of logic and rational thought"
means.

I'm assuming you don't mean IRRATIONAL thought and logic. :D

But I suspect you will have a very difficult time using
rational thought and logic to define that. :D

Give me a concise definition and then I will be able to
answer that question. Until then, its all greek to me ;-)


peace


axeman

Originally posted by marketsurfer
i pose to you a question:

does anything exist outside of logic and rational thought processes ??


a seeker of truth,

surf:) :cool: :)
More...
 
Originally posted by axeman

That last part uses circular reasoning surf, and is therefore fallacious.
You claim an unproven creator has attributes which
make logic and reason not apply to him, thereby supporting
his position for existence.
peace

axeman
More...

Actually, there was no circular reasoning. He said that he believes that God has attributes that make it difficult to recognize its presence based on logic. He didn't say that this was proof that God actually existed, only that these attributes are the reason why logical arguments (applied well or not) have not dissuaded his faith.
 
ok axe, i'll try to explain what i mean--- allow me to rephrase the question---- can something exist that does not fit into a rational or logical construct ?? and if not, why not. if logic or rationality can't explain something does this negate its existence ?


best,

surf:cool:
 
Originally posted by I Missed Boat


Actually, there was no circular reasoning. He said that he believes that God has attributes that make it difficult to recognize its presence based on logic.

Thus supporting his position that god exists.
"if god exists" is NOT his position, then fine.


He didn't say that this was proof that God actually existed, only that these attributes are the reason why logical arguments (applied well or not) have not dissuaded his faith.

If that is the case then fine.
If, however, his position is that god exists, AND uses
those attributes to prove the existence of his god,
then its circular reasoning.

( I do believe surf was the one claiming to INNATELY know
there was a creator, so I assume GOD EXISTENCE was his position)

Simply saying that its possible for a being to exist which
is difficult to detect using logic and reasoning is perfectly fine.

And perfectly useless :D

Same as saying, that unicorns could possibly exist, but
the reason we have never seen one is because they
have attributes, such as invisibility, which make them
difficult to detect.

peace

axeman
More...
 
Originally posted by rs7


Thunderbolt...You keep doing the same thing over and over.

You express your BELIEFS as FACTS. There is a huge difference. If you want to give your arguments any credibility at all, I suggest you try using LOGIC and REASON to express your point.

I have no quarrel with your beliefs. I think our freedoms are what makes our nation great. The freedom of Religion is one of the biggies. Right up there with Speech and Press. If not for these freedoms, we couldn't even be doing this.

BUT: Really; try a different tack. If you want to make a point, why don't you attempt to use a persuasive argument rather than a very closed belief? We are all patiently waiting for something that makes sense to everyone.

Let me ask you one other question.....Do you believe the world would be a better place if each of us could say to ourselves: "Could it be possible?"

As in the Islamic extremists who hijacked airplanes and their own religion saying "Could it be possible that we are creating evil in our pursuit of changing the minds of the infidels?"


Or if Daniel and I and Axeman and others said "Could it be possible that Thunderbolt is right and we are wrong?"

Or if you said "Could it be possible that I am wrong and they are right?" Or "Could it be possible that there is a God, but Jesus and the Bible are not meant to be taken literally. It is just parables and myths passed down WITH GOOD INTENT to keep certain worthwhile ideals alive from generation to generation?"

"COULD IT BE POSSIBLE that organized religion is a business that pays no taxes and benefits those in charge?"

To me, the big one that seems answerable only in the negative is: "Could it be possible that only if I believe in Jesus that I will be welcomed to heaven, and all those who were born into families that worshiped the wrong religion, the wrong God, even the wrong brand of Christianity (you said you had a beef with Catholicism) are doomed? That the souls born into a Muslim or Sikh or Jewish family and followed their tradition never stood a chance?"

Why does God let the miserable wretches that don't believe in Jesus even have children?

You my friend, need to learn about tolerance!

Peace,
Rs7
More...

I agree 100%. This is the biggest problem. And such intolerance of the views of others that don't infringe upon one's own life also applies to such views as the following by Dan:

Originally posted by daniel_m


Why shouldn't I knock people that believe in God? They have a long and distinguished history of knocking people like me.
More...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top