Regarding the Existence or Absence of God

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by daniel_m


you keep wanting to keep the idea of god alive, but you don't even know anything about the properties of the god who's existance you like to maintain is possible. when this is pointed out to you, you bash our "limited knowledge" (as if anyone is saying man has unlimited knolwedge).
More...

I don't know what properties God, if a God exists, has. All that I have argued, which I think is meaningful in a 250 page debate where many people on each side have pushed faulty absolutes is that the concept of an omniscient being IS POSSIBLE!



Originally posted by daniel_m

if there ARE things that require more senses than our "limited' five, obviously we won't know about them. so if a god that is beyond these five senses, beyond all reasonable logic (that you claim is limited, but i claim is all-encompassing) then what point is there discussing him? you realy have nothing at all to say in this debate. nothing at all. such a being can never ever ever be known to us. but where i say bullshit, you say maybe.
More...

You say logic is all encompassing. Math is the most fundamental part of our logic, and it is proven in math itself that our math/logic (useful as it is for our purposes) is flawed (Goedell's Theorem, Russell's paradox, etc) in its foundations (and this is proven about debate logic/math as well-Russel's Paradox).

Originally posted by daniel_m

and why do you stop at ONE such entity? using your logic, there could me MILLIONS of such very-powerful beings. you have absolutely no idea what could lie beyond our rational faculty and five senses. of all the posters here, your position is by FAR the most meaningless. by far.

so i have to return to what is man justified in believing? only that which our five senses and rational faculty can validate as knowledge.
More...

True, there could be millions of such entities, although the idea that one entity is responsible for everything is easier for me to imagine (rightly or wrongly). And I don't think my points are meaningless at all for the reasons I stated above.
 
Originally posted by I Missed Boat


I don't know what properties God, if a God exists, has. All that I have argued, which I think is meaningful in a 250 page debate where many people on each side have pushed faulty absolutes is that the concept of an omniscient being IS POSSIBLE!

More...

Not only this, but for that matter I have made many posts arguing with theists who have gone too far as well pushing as fact what is not or arguing the validity of evolution, etc.
 
Originally posted by daniel_m


get real 'Boat!

just ask yourself if you have free will do whatever you want? if you do, you MUST reject the concept of omniscience.

if your god KNOWS what you are gonna be doing, say, 5years from now - THEN YOU HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO DO IT. you may THINK you do, but if god is to be infallibly correct, you DO NOT.
you would be merely acting out a predetermined script. there's no way around this.
More...

Fine, let's say if a God exists, and if this God is otherwise omniscient (but is still omnipotent-I think I've inadventently switched the two a couple times), then it knows everything except what creatures it created are going to do with their free will. So this God is free will away from being omniscient. Does this really change a whole helluva lot?? Or maybe we don't have free will!
 
Originally posted by I Missed Boat


Fine, let's say if a God exists, and if this God is otherwise omniscient (but is still omnipotent-I think I've inadventently switched the two a couple times), then it knows everything except what creatures it created are going to do with their free will. So this God is free will away from being omniscient. Does this really change a whole helluva lot?? Or maybe we don't have free will!
More...

it doesn't change a "helluva lot" to people like you and i, but i imagine to christians and theists it certainly does.

it means that god has no idea (or as good idea as we do) of what the future holds. since what the future will be like depends very much on what actions man takes (collectively) today, the future will always be uncertain, even to "god".

therefore, the god of christianity cannot be said to be infallible. (because he didn't know beforehand the results of his actions, and maybe he got it wrong. uh-oh. :()

and if we don't have free will....well, imagine the implications of that! man can do whatever he wants, because, afterall, he is not the source of his actions! such a scenario obviously shouts loudly against god being "all-good" (or we'd have to change the meaning of "all-good), because then he'd be punishing people like me for eternity for doing only what i've been created to do!
 
Originally posted by daniel_m


it doesn't change a "helluva lot" to people like you and i, but i imagine to christians and theists it certainly does.

it means that god has no idea (or as good idea as we do) of what the future holds. since what the future will be like depends very much on what actions man takes (collectively) today, the future will always be uncertain, even to "god".

therefore, the god of christianity cannot be said to be infallible. (because he didn't know beforehand the results of his actions, and maybe he got it wrong. uh-oh. :()

and if we don't have free will....well, imagine the implications of that! man can do whatever he wants, because, afterall, he is not the source of his actions! such a scenario obviously shouts loudly against god being "all-good" (or we'd have to change the meaning of "all-good), because then he'd be punishing people like me for eternity for doing only what i've been created to do!
More...

ummmmm ok. I have to admit that I don't concern myself too much with what bothers Christians/very religious people relating to notions that might contradict their books.
 
and when you think about it, it's not really possible, again using that same poor "limited logic", for an omnipotent being to exist without having the property of being omniscient.

if god is all-powerful, it would mean he should have the "power" to know what is going to happen. but if you agree that omnisience is bunk, then, ipso facto, you would have to say that the concept of omnipotence is self-contradictory.
 
Fine, then assuming that we do actually have free will, then if a God exists, it COULD be virtually omnipotent to the extent that its virtual omniscience would be limited by not knowing what the beings it created will do with their free wills. better??
 
Originally posted by axeman
Not at all.
I can show you a bunch of people who believe that
Benny Hin has magical healing powers, and no matter
how much evidence I showed them that this could
NOT be true, they would still believe.

People reject reality ALL THE TIME.
Look at religious people for example :D

Who is this Benny Hin anyway? He must put on quite a show!

Non sequitor.

Again... I can show you many examples of people
blatantly rejecting reality.

God could show someone undeniable proof of his
existence and I guarantee you I could find someone
that still would NOT believe it.

They still have a choice.

God is not FORCING them to believe, he is simply
showing them undeniable evidence.

If god came down, and snapped his fingers, and you
suddendly believed him BECAUSE HE MADE YOU,
then and only then has he denied you free will.

So, any more arguments Tripack?
You conceded on the first one regarding proof
of omniscience requiring omniscience.
I commend you on that one.

On part two, I just explained why free will is not
being eliminated.

Awaiting your counter argument.


I believe that an experience like the one we are talking about where a person was shown by god his omnipotence and omniscience would be one so unlike any other human experience that it defies comparison with anything we know. I would say at worst, it would alter the way a person thought and lived. At best it would completely alter every aspect of their life especially their paradigms of thought.

I would venture to state that even a person who denies that it ever happened would have their life irrevocably changed in some way or other from such an event, and even if they deliberately lied about it they would know it was a lie, and thus it would affect them at least on a psychological level.
More...
 
yeah, that's "better" in the sense that we are getting closer to an idea of the properties of this entity for whom you claim there is a possibility of existance.

so far i have a being with limited powers and limited knowledge, who used unknowable means (to us) to create the universe. have i got it right so far?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top