Regarding the Existence or Absence of God

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think you are misrepresenting Dan.

I think Dan is perfectly tolerant of other peoples religous views.

He may VERBALLY knock them, in self defense.

But unlike the religious people, I would never expect Dan
to use FORCE, physical or legal, to deny them the
right to practice their religion.

I dont see atheists running around killing religious people
in the name of atheism.

I believe everyone has a right to their religion as long as
it does not impose on anyone elses RIGHTS.

I bet Dan feels the same way.

peace

axeman


Originally posted by I Missed Boat


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:
More...
 
Originally posted by goldenarm



Can God create a stone that he cannot lift? YES and NO. You see, God is not confined by conventional laws of physics, philosophy or grammar. He exists outside of the human realm of experience.
More...

True, this is possible (if a God exists).
 
Originally posted by axeman

HINT: YOU MUST FIRST PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF YOUR
GOD ***BEFORE*** ASSOCIATING ATTRIBUTES TO HIM
THAT MAKE HIM IMMUNE TO HUMAN LOGIC AND REASONING,
WHICH SUPPORT HIS EXISTENCE, ***OTHERWISE*** YOU
ARE USING CIRCULAR REASONING.

Why dont you people understand this simple concept? WHY?

peace


axeman
More...

Obviously, his points do not prove that God exists. But the point about the rock argument and the serious limitations of word games are arrived at logically, as a matter of fact, and do negate some of the argumensts that have been attempted to prove that God CAN'T exist!!
 
Originally posted by axeman
I love them apples, because now your god is screwed.
Here is the proof.

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...

Omnipotent: having virtually iunlimited authority or influence omnipotence: an agency or force of unlimited power (Webster's College Dictionary)

How does this rock argument prove that a being does not have unlimited power? It is nothing but a petty word game, created by the communication tool of an infitessmal finite being that relies completely on its 5 senses and limited logic structure.
 
Originally posted by axeman
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
More...

Actually, logic has been used to describe, through philosophy, how things can (not must, but can) exist outside of our logic systems. So I'm sorry it is all Greek to you. The easiest way is to point out that we know nothing for sure other than that each of us thinks and therefore must exist. Everything else that we "know" about the objective universe is the result of our perceptions through our use of the 5 senses (assuming they are accurate and that there is not more we need beyond our 5 senses). However, our perceptions often deceive us, from the color and texture of what we see to much else. Moreover, math itself, our most objective and our highest tool for studying the objective universe has proven that it is limited and has contradictory attributes itself (Russel's Paradox is but one example). There you go for starters.
 
Originally posted by axeman
I think you are misrepresenting Dan.

I think Dan is perfectly tolerant of other peoples religious views.

He may VERBALLY knock them, in self defense.

But unlike the religious people, I would never expect Dan
to use FORCE, physical or legal, to deny them the
right to practice their religion.

I don't see atheists running around killing religious people
in the name of atheism.

I believe everyone has a right to their religion as long as
it does not impose on anyone else RIGHTS.

I bet Dan feels the same way.

peace

axeman
More...

I agree that Dan believes in people's rights to believe in what they want, and I agree that Dan would not use violence. And of course, it is those who do not believe even in said basic liberty who are the most dangerous. However, when you go beyond simply questioning or challenging someone to the point that you insult every person who does not agree with you, even if the subject of the attack is perfectly rational and does not harm anyone else, then you are fostering an atmosphere of disrespect and possibly worse, potentially leading to all kinds of problems.

Obviously, Thunderbolt is disrespectful and therefore deserves insults (although the highest road is to ignore him, which I have done for the most part but still not as much as I should have). But clearly not EVERYONE who is religious should be lumped in with those who are religious and intolerant of other religions or the non-religious. Didn't we question how a benevolent God would hold us responsible for the "sins" of those who lived thousands of years ago?
 
Originally posted by I Missed Boat


Omnipotent: having virtually iunlimited authority or influence omnipotence: an agency or force of unlimited power (Webster's College Dictionary)

How does this rock argument prove that a being does not have unlimited power?



It's basic logic. You know how that goes...

All cows have four legs.
Maria is a cow.
Therefore, maria has four legs.

If the major and minor premise are true, and the logic
is correct, then the conclusion is valid.

Are you rejecting this?
I used logic to show that 100% omnipotence is not possible.



It is nothing but a petty word game, created by the communication tool of an infitessmal finite being that relies completely on its 5 senses and limited logic structure.

"Logic" is not word games. Not sure where you
get this silly notion from.

Humans are finite.
Humans rely on 5 senses.
Does this invalidate any logical conclusions
which humans come up with?
Of course not.

Are you trying to say that were such mere nothings
that we cant possibly know our universe?
What ARE you trying to say exactly?


peace axeman
More...
 
Originally posted by I Missed Boat


Actually, logic has been used to describe, through philosophy, how things can (not must, but can) exist outside of our logic systems. So I'm sorry it is all Greek to you.



I have not denied that logic can or has been used
to describe things "outside" our logic systems.

My request was for surf to describe what "outside" meant.
He has not given me enough information to
understand what "outside" means in this context.

Maybe you could post an example of one of these
"outside" systems, so we can see exactly
what the meaning of "outside" is, and see if surf would
agree that is in fact what he meant by "outside".


The easiest way is to point out that we know nothing for sure other than that each of us thinks and therefore must exist. Everything else that we "know" about the objective universe is the result of our perceptions through our use of the 5 senses (assuming they are accurate and that there is not more we need beyond our 5 senses). However, our perceptions often deceive us, from the color and texture of what we see to much else. Moreover, math itself, our most objective and our highest tool for studying the objective universe has proven that it is limited and has contradictory attributes itself (Russel's Paradox is but one example). There you go for starters.


For starters? For starters of what???
This has been one big debate consisting of atheists shooting
down weak theist arguments.

Atheists do NOT generally argue that god CANT exist.
Proving negatives is a silly excercise.

Sometimes... atheists WILL say that certain defined gods
CANT exist due to logical contradictions (NOT word games).

You seem to be branching off into an entirely new debate
concerning knowledge, what is real, what isnt, can we
trust human perception, etc ,etc

Start a new thread for that one.
I will not go into an epistemological debate here.

But I will agree the world is not black and white.
It is a grey scale. Nothing is 100% certain.

HOWEVER, we have a system of obtaining knowledge with
one HELL of a track record called science.
Sure, our perceptions are not perfect, BUT, they can be
enhanced by science and double checked and rechecked
by large groups of people. This gets us closer to "truth"
everyday.

In the end, it all comes down to probabilities.

I can say with certainty, that theists have not put forth
ANY arguments which shows that the probability of a
god to exist is anywhere near likely.

The atheist position remains the same.
There STILL is no rational reason to believe
god exists.

peace

axeman
More...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top