Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

J C · 21-12-2014 6:33pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

The two attributes are diametrically opposed and cannot co-exist in the same entity. I love how you just say essentially "He's both" all without any sort of explanation, reasoning or logic to back up your assertion.
Omnipotence is the ability to do anything.
Omniscience is having all knowledge. If an entity is omniscient, he knows what he will do for every moment throughout all of time. He thus becomes trapped by it (for a great example, read Frank Herbert's "Dune Messiah", where the protagonist, Paul Muad'Dib, loses his physical eye-sight, having to rely on his ability to predict the future in order to 'see'...only for him to become trapped by it, as he loses any ability to change the future). A being who is trapped by his own omniscience is thus by definition NOT omnipotent, as he does not then have the ability to do anything.

God is omnipotent and can do anything He wishes to do ... and He is omniscent and knows exactly what He will do at all times, whilst exercising His omnipotence. Knowing what He will do, doesn't trap Him, as He will still be exercising His omnipotence, irrespective of Him knowing what he is going to do.
On a Human level, it is something like me knowing that I will exercise my free-will to drive to work tomorrow. Me knowing what I will do, in a particular situation, doesn't affect my ability to decide what I will do, in the first place.
Indeed, unlike me, where many things may conspire to prevent me driving tomorrow, God's omnipotence means that He can choose to do exactly what He wants to do ... whereas my lack of both omnipotence and omniscience, means that my intentions are always subject to change.:)

RikuoAmero wrote: »

You really don't know how stupid this is? We rely on predicting the future in order to survive, which essentially means mathematics/physics. If you throw the reliable nature of physics out of the window, then for all you know, you could be eating poison when you thought you were eating bangers and mash.

How stupid is it?
... it could happen ... it's called food poisoning.:)

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Insert standard retort of "A good god wouldn't drown an entire planet full of innocent people" and let's move on.

Please take this remark over to the other mega-thread ... if you really want an answer.;)

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Don't bother with saying "They were all evil" or anything of that nature, because that only reveals you to be the sickest, most depraved individual imaginable, a person who is okay with the thought of outright genocide of an entire planet.

I'm not OK with evil ... but I leave it to the state and to God to deal with it ...
... and God isn't OK with evil either ... and we would all do well to remember this.

RikuoAmero · 21-12-2014 7:31pm

On a Human level, it is something like me knowing that I will exercise my free-will to drive to work tomorrow. Me knowing what I will do, in a particular situation, doesn't affect my ability to decide what I will do, in the first place.

This is what you have decided to, chose to do, intend to do (choose your favourite phrase there). However, you don't know 100% for a fact, that this is what you will do. You've chosen to drive tomorrow, great...except that once you go to do it, you find out, to your surprise, that you forgot to buy petrol the previous day, or it's broken down or something. In other words, you didn't have omniscience. Something outside of your knowledge acted contrary to your will.
This is not the case with your god, who is described as having omniscience. He supposedly knows, 100%, what he will do tomorrow. Nothing can change that (otherwise it wouldn't be omniscience), thus he cannot be omnipotent.

J C · 21-12-2014 10:36pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

This is what you have decided to, chose to do, intend to do (choose your favourite phrase there). However, you don't know 100% for a fact, that this is what you will do. You've chosen to drive tomorrow, great...except that once you go to do it, you find out, to your surprise, that you forgot to buy petrol the previous day, or it's broken down or something. In other words, you didn't have omniscience. Something outside of your knowledge acted contrary to your will.
This is not the case with your god, who is described as having omniscience. He supposedly knows, 100%, what he will do tomorrow. Nothing can change that (otherwise it wouldn't be omniscience), thus he cannot be omnipotent.

Like I have said, unlike me, where many things may conspire to prevent me driving tomorrow, God's omnipotence means that He can choose to do exactly what He wants to do ... whereas my lack of both omnipotence and omniscience, means that my intentions are always subject to change.
God knows 100% what He and everybody else will do ... and He can choose to do whatever He decides to do, as His sovereign will decides - so He is both omniscient and omnipotent.:)

RikuoAmero · 21-12-2014 10:42pm

He can choose what to do tomorrow, but once he makes that choice, it's locked. Part of omniscience is awareness of what happens in the future. I as a human can choose right now to drive to work, but because I don't have knowledge of the future, I am free to change my mind. Your god cannot.
In fact, I'm skeptical that your god (if he exists) even has the ability to choose. Choosing implies time, moving from a state of non-choice to having made a choice. It implies options, of deciding between several exclusionary choices. Do I go to work tomorrow by car, or by bus? I can't take both at the same time. Can your god? Can your god take several choices that are mutually exclusive? Omnipotence suggests yes, but this goes in violation of the law of non-contradiction.

mister gullible · 21-12-2014 10:44pm

J C wrote: »

Like I have said, unlike me, where many things may conspire to prevent me driving tomorrow, God's omnipotence means that He can choose to do exactly what He wants to do ... whereas my lack of both omnipotence and omniscience, means that my intentions are always subject to change.
God knows 100% what He and everybody else will do ... and He can choose to do whatever He decides to do, as His sovereign will decides - so He is both omniscient and omnipotent.:)

Does it get any more ridiculous?

J C · 21-12-2014 10:49pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

He can choose what to do tomorrow, but once he makes that choice, it's locked. Part of omniscience is awareness of what happens in the future. I as a human can choose right now to drive to work, but because I don't have knowledge of the future, I am free to change my mind. Your god cannot.
In fact, I'm skeptical that your god (if he exists) even has the ability to choose. Choosing implies time, moving from a state of non-choice to having made a choice. It implies options, of deciding between several exclusionary choices. Do I go to work tomorrow by car, or by bus? I can't take both at the same time. Can your god? Can your god take several choices that are mutually exclusive? Omnipotence suggests yes, but this goes in violation of the law of non-contradiction.

You're going around in illogical circles using invalid tautologies.
God does (omnipotent) as He sees fit and knows (omniscient) what He will do for the rest of eternity ... as well as what we all will do, as well.:)

J C · 21-12-2014 10:52pm

mister gullible wrote: »

Does it get any more ridiculous?

By the looks of things ... it certainly could.:)

RikuoAmero · 22-12-2014 5:30pm

God does (omnipotent) as He sees fit and knows (omniscient) what He will do for the rest of eternity ... as well as what we all will do, as well.

A being that is omniscient who makes all of its choices throughout all of eternity, those choices become locked in. He knows 100% that two days from now, he will do X. That becomes a fact to him, something that is without question.
If you bring in omnipotence, (in other words, give him the ability to change his mind) this then renders his knowledge that two days from now, he will do X, false. He does Y instead. This negates omniscience.
It's one or the other, J C.
Remember, this isn't from the human point of view, where the future is forever unknown to us (I can intend to do something two days from now, but I don't know perfectly whether I actually will do it). The christian god claim I've heard plenty of times says that God knows the future perfectly. He is supposed to know it as perfectly as I know my own name.
If he knows the future, he knows what actions he will take. He cannot then have the ability to change his mind, otherwise that negates his knowledge of the future.

Nick Park · 22-12-2014 6:01pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

A being that is omniscient who makes all of its choices throughout all of eternity, those choices become locked in. He knows 100% that two days from now, he will do X. That becomes a fact to him, something that is without question.
If you bring in omnipotence, (in other words, give him the ability to change his mind) this then renders his knowledge that two days from now, he will do X, false. He does Y instead. This negates omniscience.
It's one or the other, J C.
Remember, this isn't from the human point of view, where the future is forever unknown to us (I can intend to do something two days from now, but I don't know perfectly whether I actually will do it). The christian god claim I've heard plenty of times says that God knows the future perfectly. He is supposed to know it as perfectly as I know my own name.
If he knows the future, he knows what actions he will take. He cannot then have the ability to change his mind, otherwise that negates his knowledge of the future.

You are probably posting this in the wrong forum as the concept of omnipotence you are talking about is not the Christian one.

Omnipotence, as understood in Christian theology, does not mean the ability to do anything at all. For example, omnipotence does not include the power to create a square circle, the power to make something that simultaneously exists and yet does not exist, or to do anything that would be contrary to one's nature (such as sinning).

I think you are also erring by talking as if God were within time, rather than being an Eternal Being. It would be better as thinking of God as being outside of time - so that to Him there is no past, present or future. To Him all is present as He sees it all at once.

It's a difficult concept for some people to grasp, particularly if they persist in viewing time in an outdated Newtonian fashion as being a straight line running from A to B. If we take on board Einstein's ideas then it is much easier to think of a space/time loaf where our perception of events in time are like slices through the loaf at various angles. Brian Greene explains it in layman's terms (easy enough for a non-scientist like myself to grasp the concept) in 'The Fabric of the Cosmos.'

RikuoAmero · 22-12-2014 6:07pm

Nick Park wrote: »

You are probably posting this in the wrong forum as the concept of omnipotence you are talking about is not the Christian one.

Omnipotence, as understood in Christian theology, does not mean the ability to do anything at all. For example, omnipotence does not include the power to create a square circle, the power to make something that simultaneously exists and yet does not exist, or to do anything that would be contrary to one's nature (such as sinning).

In other words, what one is logically able to do, and in their nature. That definition defeats your god claim, since I can do only those things that I am logically able to do (for example, I cannot flap my arms and expect to defy gravity). My nature restricts my actions yet again - it is not in my nature to go around commanding others to dash infants heads against rocks (yes, that is from the OT, what God is claimed to have commanded his followers to do).
Under that mode of thinking, the label of omnipotent applies to me and applies to you.

As for the outside time nonsense, that is an assumption that theists make, without any evidence whatsoever. It is a game of moving the goalposts. First, God was depicted as a powerful being who walked bodily around the earth. Then our knowledge advanced, and he was said to live in the clouds. Our knowledge advanced, we invented air-travel and found there were no gods in the clouds. So God was moved yet again, this time to...outside time? We currently define something that exists as something that is within space and time. If you put your god outside of time, you might as well say he doesn't exist at all. This is also a situation of you wanting to eat your cake and have it too - God is outside time, but also interacts with the universe (in other words, is inside space and time)...which is it?

Also, you don't want to bring in Einsteinian notions of time. For one, the notion that time is relative (and not absolute), would defeat the notion of an absolute observer whom you would call God. Also, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle defeats the notion of God (at least in terms of his supposed omniscience: you can't know both the position and the momentum of a given particle simultaneously)

Nick Park · 22-12-2014 6:32pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

In other words, what one is logically able to do, and in their nature. That definition defeats your god claim, since I can do only those things that I am logically able to do (for example, I cannot flap my arms and expect to defy gravity). My nature restricts my actions yet again - it is not in my nature to go around commanding others to dash infants heads against rocks (yes, that is from the OT, what God is claimed to have commanded his followers to do).
Under that mode of thinking, the label of omnipotent applies to me and applies to you.

It would if you're interested in playing smart-aleck games rather than discussing what Christians believe.

I was, of course, referring to God's moral nature rather than to physical attributes or capabilities.

As for the outside time nonsense, that is an assumption that theists make, without any evidence whatsoever. It is a game of moving the goalposts. First, God was depicted as a powerful being who walked bodily around the earth. Then our knowledge advanced, and he was said to live in the clouds. Our knowledge advanced, we invented air-travel and found there were no gods in the clouds. So God was moved yet again, this time to...outside time? We currently define something that exists as something that is within space and time. If you put your god outside of time, you might as well say he doesn't exist at all. This is also a situation of you wanting to eat your cake and have it too - God is outside time, but also interacts with the universe (in other words, is inside space and time)...which is it?

Unhistorical waffle.

Christians have believed in God as an eternal Being long before we invented air travel. Why not try to engage with what Christians actually believe (which is the purpose of this thread) rather than making stuff up?

There is no contradiction with a God who exists outside of time and is able to interact with time and space. In everyday life we often speak of someone being outside of something yet having the ability to interact with that same thing.

And as for your claim that "We currently define something that exists as something that is within space and time" - that is purely your arbitrary claim based on a prior assumption that an Eternal God outside of time and space does not exist. You are, therefore, committing the logical fallacy of begging the question.

Nick Park · 22-12-2014 6:39pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Also, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle defeats the notion of God (at least in terms of his supposed omniscience: you can't know both the position and the momentum of a given particle simultaneously)

Given that Heisenberg was a lifelong Lutheran, who often gave lectures about how he reconciled his faith with his science, he probably wouldn't agree with you on that.

In fact, in his last letter to Einstein he wrote that while in the new quantum mechanics Einstein’s beloved causality principle is baseless, “We can console ourselves that the good Lord God would know the position of the particles, and thus He could let the causality principle continue to have validity.”

RikuoAmero · 22-12-2014 7:04pm

Nick Park wrote: »

It would if you're interested in playing smart-aleck games rather than discussing what Christians believe.

I am discussing what christians (generally) believe. There is one problem here: that of the many different denominations. Who are you to say what is and is not a christian belief?

I was, of course, referring to God's moral nature rather than to physical attributes or capabilities.

So was I, with my comment about what I find morally acceptable to do and not to do.

Unhistorical waffle.

How so? This is historically accurate: the view of what and where a god is has changed over time. The Greeks believed they lived in bodily form atop Mt. Olympus for example; Jews believed God walked around in Eden (so to do literal christians) Check medieval art: how often are God, the angels, etc, depicted as coming from the sky? Now that we have airplanes and space-craft, does any modern christian theologian depict God as coming from the sky?

Christians have believed in God as an eternal Being long before we invented air travel. Why not try to engage with what Christians actually believe (which is the purpose of this thread) rather than making stuff up?

Re-read what I said. What I said about God having once been thought to live in the clouds has nothing at all to do with him supposedly being eternal. Those are two separate things. In the past, God was presumed to be in the clouds, because the sky was a mysterious realm, thought unreachable for eternity. Now fast forward to modern times, where we have reached that realm, and suddenly he is said to be outside time instead (according to you). Well now you have just reached the problem of never being able to substantiate your argument: how can we reach outside time to verify this claim?

There is no contradiction with a God who exists outside of time and is able to interact with time and space. In everyday life we often speak of someone being outside of something yet having the ability to interact with that same thing.

Only when I and the thing both exist within space-time. For example, I can be outside a house, reach inside of an open window with my arm and interact with something inside the house. Both I and the house exist, with space-time.

And as for your claim that "We currently define something that exists as something that is within space and time" - that is purely your arbitrary claim based on a prior assumption that an Eternal God outside of time and space does not exist. You are, therefore, committing the logical fallacy of begging the question.

A necessary assumption, unless you want to falsify it and give me evidence of something that exists outside of space and time...instead of just saying there is this one thing?

What you're doing there is the cosmological argument, which is very easily refuted (and in fact leads to yourself being the one guilty of begging the question).
Your goal here is to prove God through logic. Your method is to try and give us two sets
1) Objects within space-time
2) Objects outside space-time
(The kalam version of this argument tries to insert the property of "begins to exist" but the end result is still the same)
God is defined as being within that second set. However, God is said to be the only thing within that second set. So it's essentially a mask for God, we might as well rename the second set so now we have
1) Objects within space-time
2) God
So now God is being used as proof...for God. It puts God in the definition of the premise of the argument that is supposed to prove God’s existence, and we are now at the point of begging the question.

Nick Park · 22-12-2014 7:35pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I am discussing what christians (generally) believe. There is one problem here: that of the many different denominations. Who are you to say what is and is not a christian belief?

No, you are not discussing what Christians generally believe. You are discussing a misconception of omnipotence that is not part of general Christian belief.

As for the issue of what many different denominations believe - that in itself should show you the inadequacy of your arguments. This is a thread about debates to do with the existence of God. If your argument depends on addressing what one denomination believes, rather than general Christian belief in God, then you are hardly presenting an effective argument against God's existence, are you? All you are doing, at best, is arguing with one denomination's views.

How so? This is historically accurate: the view of what and where a god is has changed over time. The Greeks believed they lived in bodily form atop Mt. Olympus for example; Jews believed God walked around in Eden (so to do literal christians) Check medieval art: how often are God, the angels, etc, depicted as coming from the sky? Now that we have airplanes and space-craft, does any modern christian theologian depict God as coming from the sky?

It might have escaped your notice, but art (medieval or otherwise) is intended to convey ideas - not people's literal ideas of how things are in space/time.

Otherwise that Edvard Munch guy knew some pretty odd looking people:

Now fast forward to modern times, where we have reached that realm, and suddenly he is said to be outside time instead (according to you). Well now you have just reached the problem of never being able to substantiate your argument: how can we reach outside time to verify this claim?

As I said, unhistorical waffle. Augustine of Hippo, in the Fifth Century AD in his famous book 'The City of God', wrote about God being outside of time and living in 'The Eternal Present'. This is not something that I or anyone else came up with suddenly or 'in modern times'. It's part of historic Christian theology.

A necessary assumption, unless you want to falsify it and give me evidence of something that exists outside of space and time...instead of just saying there is this one thing?

It's not a necessary assumption at all - at least not according to some of the greatest philosophers and scientists in history.

What you're doing there is the cosmological argument

No, I haven't presented anything that even remotely looks like the cosmological argument. Maybe you should look it up on wikipedia and then point out where I've made any argument that seeks to establish the necessity of a first cause?

Your goal here is to prove God through logic.

Again you are spectacularly wrong. I haven't made any attempt to prove God through logic. I've simply pointed out your own poor arguments and your own trip into a logical fallacy. I'm not the slightest bit interested in proving God through logic.

RikuoAmero · 22-12-2014 7:47pm

Nick, if you're just going to make claims about God, but are not interested at all in proving them...what are you doing here?

Nick Park · 22-12-2014 8:09pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Nick, if you're just going to make claims about God, but are not interested at all in proving them...what are you doing here?

I'm pointing out the inadequacy of your arguments against God. I'm also correcting your misrepresentations and misunderstandings concerning Christian belief. I don't see that there is any onus on me to prove those beliefs at all - certainly not in the Christianity Forum.

Now, if I was posting in the Atheism and Agnosticism Forum and telling the people there. "You've got it all wrong - there is a God!" then there would be an onus upon me to prove such claims.

marienbad · 22-12-2014 8:17pm

Nick Park wrote: »

I'm pointing out the inadequacy of your arguments against God. I'm also correcting your misrepresentations and misunderstandings concerning Christian belief. I don't see that there is any onus on me to prove those beliefs at all - certainly not in the Christianity Forum.

Now, if I was posting in the Atheism and Agnosticism Forum and telling the people there. "You've got it all wrong - there is a God!" then there would be an onus upon me to prove such claims.

So what is the point of the thread title then ?

RikuoAmero · 22-12-2014 8:21pm

So...your reason for not defending your beliefs...is simply because this thread is in the christian section? I understand that that is in the christian section's charter, but still...that is not how a debate works (where one side is allowed to present unsubstantiated claims, but the other side has to).

I'll admit that I did heavily butcher the cosmological argument up above, but my point still stands (just re-read it and mentally delete the title I gave it).

Nick Park · 22-12-2014 8:26pm

marienbad wrote: »

So what is the point of the thread title then ?

The thread title says the thread is for debates about God's existence. I'm open to correction by the mods, but my understanding is that on boards.ie you are free to expose errors and poor arguments in the posts of others without being required to prove all of one's beliefs. So, as I see it, I am participating in a discussion and remaining on topic.

Brian Shanahan · 22-12-2014 8:27pm

Nick Park wrote: »

Now, if I was posting in the Atheism and Agnosticism Forum and telling the people there. "You've got it all wrong - there is a God!" then there would be an onus upon me to prove such claims.

Nick, you're wrong. The setting where you make a claim imparts no difference on whether you have to substantiate it. The nature of the claim is what demands whether you prove it.

If you make a claim that if true would materially change our understanding of the universe, then you have to prove the claim. Claiming god exists is one such claim, another example would be to claim the universe contains a luminiferous aether through which all celestial bodies move. You have to prove your claim whether you make it here, in A&A or when you're stuck in a deep cave on mars.

Now, conversely a claim such as me saying the "Earth orbits the sun" or "Evolution occurs" do not need proof, because both are so well evidenced that conclusive proof of their truth is already well established. However, if I made a well proven claim that was not well known (or well known hereabouts), like for example "peppered moths have been shown to evolve" it would be polite of me (if not necessarily necessary) to show the evidence.

This is all part of the common procedure of debating. It is frankly shocking that on a website which is set up to debate topics that you wish to recuse yourself from the same procedures that others have to use.

Nick Park · 22-12-2014 8:31pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

So...your reason for not defending your beliefs...is simply because this thread is in the christian section? I understand that that is in the christian section's charter, but still...that is not how a debate works (where one side is allowed to present unsubstantiated claims, but the other side has to).

I'm not offering any unsubstantiated claims. I'm highlighting where you misunderstand and misrepresent Christian beliefs, and pointing out where your arguments are deficient. That is a perfectly legitimate role in a debate.

I'll admit that I did heavily butcher the cosmological argument up above, but my point still stands (just re-read it and mentally delete the title I gave it).

Your point doesn't stand, because you accused me of trying to use God as proof for God. I did no such thing. I've not presented any proof for God.

RikuoAmero · 22-12-2014 8:38pm

Nick Park wrote: »

Your point doesn't stand, because you accused me of trying to use God as proof for God. I did no such thing. I've not presented any proof for God.

Very well, I was leaping ahead and trying to pre-rebut what I thought you were about to say. I'll stop doing that in the future.
Again though, this is a debate thread. You've presented claims about God, mainly about him somehow being outside of time, in addition to a critique of my argumentative skills. If all you want to do is critique my arguments, fine, go right ahead. Don't insert claims about God though, otherwise you have to back them up (with reasoning, logic, data or evidence). If you're not willing to provide anything like that, then don't mention him.
As for using God as proof for God...what else can I call your "outside time" argument? Can you give me evidence of a realm outside space-time? Given that you define God as being outside space-time, and given that you define outside space-time as where/what God is, the two become functionally identical to each other. One positive step you could take to proving God would be providing to me proof/evidence of a realm outside space-time, but since it is functionally identical to God, and you've said you won't provide proof for God...well, we're stuck.

Nick Park · 22-12-2014 8:43pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Nick, you're wrong. The setting where you make a claim imparts no difference on whether you have to substantiate it. The nature of the claim is what demands whether you prove it.

I think you are wrong. But I won't labour the point as this could easily turn into backseat modding (on either side).

If the forum mods think that I should not be allowed to critique someone's post unless I also offer full proof for my beliefs then I'm sure they'll tell me.

If you make a claim that if true would materially change our understanding of the universe, then you have to prove the claim. Claiming god exists is one such claim, another example would be to claim the universe contains a luminiferous aether through which all celestial bodies move. You have to prove your claim whether you make it here, in A&A or when you're stuck in a deep cave on mars.

Now, conversely a claim such as me saying the "Earth orbits the sun" or "Evolution occurs" do not need proof, because both are so well evidenced that conclusive proof of their truth is already well established. However, if I made a well proven claim that was not well known (or well known hereabouts), like for example "peppered moths have been shown to evolve" it would be polite of me (if not necessarily necessary) to show the evidence.

This is all part of the common procedure of debating. It is frankly shocking that on a website which is set up to debate topics that you wish to recuse yourself from the same procedures that others have to use.

I've not made any claims, demanded that anyone share my beliefs, or tried to convince anyone of the truth of Christianity.

I have simply pointed out the inadequacies of arguments and, where they have mis-stated Christian beliefs, I have explained what those beliefs are.

And, since such participation happens in threads on boards.ie all the time in multiple fora, I hardly think I am recusing myself from following the same procedures as other posters.

Nick Park · 22-12-2014 8:50pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Very well, I was leaping ahead and trying to pre-rebut what I thought you were about to say. I'll stop doing that in the future.
Again though, this is a debate thread. You've presented claims about God, mainly about him somehow being outside of time, in addition to a critique of my argumentative skills. If all you want to do is critique my arguments, fine, go right ahead. Don't insert claims about God though, otherwise you have to back them up (with reasoning, logic, data or evidence). If you're not willing to provide anything like that, then don't mention him.

So, let's get this clear. You, as an atheist, are telling a Christian that he shouldn't mention God in the Christianity Forum unless he's prepared to meet your demands for proof?

If you present what you feel is an argument that exposes an inherent contradiction in Christian belief, then I am perfectly free to show that no such contradiction exists by correcting your misconceptions about what Christians believe. There is no obligation for me to prove such beliefs.

For example, imagine that I posted in the Islam forum that there is an inherent contradiction in Islam in that Mohammed's revelation contradicts the Hindu Vedas. All that is necessary to refute my argument is for someone to point out that no such contradiction exists since Muslims don't believe the Vedas anyway. It is not necessary for them to prove that the Vedas are false.

RikuoAmero · 22-12-2014 8:57pm

Nick Park wrote: »

So, let's get this clear. You, as an atheist, are telling a Christian that he shouldn't mention God in the Christianity Forum unless he's prepared to meet your demands for proof?

Not in the christianity forum as a whole, but rather in this thread. This is a debate thread - again, I have to explain that in a debate thread, if you bring forth propositions, you have to back them up. You have brought forth certain claims, such as an earlier comment where you said God sees all as an eternal present. If all you're going to do is make these claims, but then reject the burden of proof, then don't bother making those claims at all. I'm not interested in reading "God is X, God does Y", if that's all there is. I'm interested in the justifications for these claims.

If you present what you feel is an argument that exposes an inherent contradiction in Christian belief, then I am perfectly free to show that no such contradiction exists by correcting your misconceptions about what Christians believe. There is no obligation for me to prove such beliefs.

You do when you posit these beliefs as being true (such as you did earlier). Perhaps you should be more careful in your wording.

For example, imagine that I posted in the Islam forum that there is an inherent contradiction in Islam in that Mohammed's revelation contradicts the Hindu Vedas. All that is necessary to refute my argument is for someone to point out that no such contradiction exists since Muslims don't believe the Vedas anyway. It is not necessary for them to prove that the Vedas are false.

Or rather, there is an inherent contradiction in christianity because what is written in the bible and later christian works does not jell with reality, especially with later discoveries.

Now, I won't be responding again tonight. I will be tomorrow. See ya.

marienbad · 22-12-2014 10:31pm

Nick Park wrote: »

The thread title says the thread is for debates about God's existence. I'm open to correction by the mods, but my understanding is that on boards.ie you are free to expose errors and poor arguments in the posts of others without being required to prove all of one's beliefs. So, as I see it, I am participating in a discussion and remaining on topic.

Makes the thread somewhat pointless then I would have thought, you can reply to any and all arguments ' no we don't believe that' or 'we believe this' and that statement is enough to preclude any further discussion.

I understand that in the main forum , but I thought this thread was a sort of hallway house .

Nick Park · 23-12-2014 9:40am

marienbad wrote: »

Makes the thread somewhat pointless then I would have thought, you can reply to any and all arguments ' no we don't believe that' or 'we believe this' and that statement is enough to preclude any further discussion.

I understand that in the main forum , but I thought this thread was a sort of hallway house .

If someone presents an argument which depends for its validity on a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of Christian beliefs, then surely a 'no we don't believe that' is a perfectly reasonable and sufficient response? Equally, it would seem reasonable to explain a bit more and rather than just saying 'no we don't believe that' to correct the error by saying 'actually we believe this.'

The only people I can envisage objecting to that would be those who actually want to present arguments containing misrepresentations, and who object to untruths being corrected.

marienbad · 23-12-2014 12:16pm

Nick Park wrote: »

If someone presents an argument which depends for its validity on a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of Christian beliefs, then surely a 'no we don't believe that' is a perfectly reasonable and sufficient response? Equally, it would seem reasonable to explain a bit more and rather than just saying 'no we don't believe that' to correct the error by saying 'actually we believe this.'

The only people I can envisage objecting to that would be those who actually want to present arguments containing misrepresentations, and who object to untruths being corrected.

No it is not reasonable at all, the thread title is atheism/existence of God debates, which implies a two-sided discussion without caveat .

Otherwise it is not really a debate .

Nick Park · 23-12-2014 12:42pm

marienbad wrote: »

No it is not reasonable at all, the thread title is atheism/existence of God debates, which implies a two-sided discussion without caveat .

Otherwise it is not really a debate .

The only person presenting a caveat here is you guys. You are saying, "Unless you provide proof for your beliefs then we should be allowed to make any argument, no matter how many untruths or misrepresentations it may contain, and you should not be allowed to point out such untruths nor even to mention God unless you meet our demands."

That is a quite ridiculous caveat.

As with any debate on boards.ie, posters can address whatever relevant issues they choose and respond to whatever posts they like. It's boards.ie not boards.nk

tommy2bad · 23-12-2014 12:42pm

marienbad wrote: »

No it is not reasonable at all, the thread title is atheism/existence of God debates, which implies a two-sided discussion without caveat .

Otherwise it is not really a debate .

Well it is reasonable in as much as theirs no point debating stuff which nither side believes. If someone said 'god said not to have sex' (I not exaggerating, believe it or not someone has said this on a thread here), their wouldn't be much point using the obvious contradiction in this claim as evidence of the non existence of God as it's not actual evidence of anything other than someones misunderstanding of what God said.
OTOH as I'v said before their is no evidence outside of the personal experience of believers, so what are we to debate? I don't buy the 'the bible tell us' or 'how else can we explain it' arguments, I'm as frustrated as you by a lot of the claims made by believers, I'm also frustrated by the straw-men and parodies of faith offered by non believers. If I hear the term "sky fairy" one more time...
You either believe or you don't, your reasons for believing may not be mine, your reasons for not believing may not be mine but until God turns up and confirms His existence we are going to be stuck with this lack of evidence. It doesn't bother me, I'm not looking for a physical God who can influence the outcome of Stoke v Wolverhampton or secure a job for my daughter. Others might have need of a God who takes care of thees things. I cant understand why someone would reject the concept of God until they have firm empirical proof, I cant understand why someone would accept the concept of God without at the same time holding the possibility of their being no God.
But that's me, this debate has run for a long time and every time come back to the same tired straw-men and week assertions, I don't see any sign of change anytime soon.

Peregrinus · 23-12-2014 12:46pm

Nick has a point. It was Rikuo who made the claim that he was discussing what Christians generally believed. To refute that claim it;s enough to point out that Christians generally believe something else, something inconsistent. It's not necessary to show that Christians are justified in holding that other belief. If they hold it all all, whether justified or unjustified, then Rik's argument is basically a straw man. This weakness isn't resolved by arguing that the other belief is unjustified, or is not shown to be justified. That is actually irrelevan to the soundness or validity of Rik's original argument, and to the soundness or validit of Nick's challenge to it.

RikuoAmero · 23-12-2014 1:03pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nick has a point. It was Rikuo who made the claim that he was discussing what Christians generally believed. To refute that claim it;s enough to point out that Christians generally believe something else, something inconsistent. It's not necessary to show that Christians are justified in holding that other belief. If they hold it all all, whether justified or unjustified, then Rik's argument is basically a straw man. This weakness isn't resolved by arguing that the other belief is unjustified, or is not shown to be justified. That is actually irrelevan to the soundness or validity of Rik's original argument, and to the soundness or validit of Nick's challenge to it.

If that was all Nick had done, yes, he would be correct. Thing is, he didn't. He also made claims about a god that he didn't back up at all

to Him there is no past, present or future. To Him all is present as He sees it all at once.

I was, of course, referring to God's moral nature

He said this not just in context of what is taught by general christianity, but also as what he believes and accepts to be true (notice the usage of a capital H in He. A non-believer in that god wouldn't capitalise that word) He made claims about an entity he calls god, and this entity exists outside of space-time and has a moral nature that forbids certain actions, but doesn't elaborate or justify.
Also, can you please identify to me where I made a straw-man...also how would it be a straw-man if they actually do hold that belief? I'm interested in critiquing my argumentative skills, so I promise I won't get offended.

marienbad · 23-12-2014 4:17pm

Nick Park wrote: »

The only person presenting a caveat here is you guys. You are saying, "Unless you provide proof for your beliefs then we should be allowed to make any argument, no matter how many untruths or misrepresentations it may contain, and you should not be allowed to point out such untruths nor even to mention God unless you meet our demands."

That is a quite ridiculous caveat.

As with any debate on boards.ie, posters can address whatever relevant issues they choose and respond to whatever posts they like. It's boards.ie not boards.nk

that is not quite correct though - for example you can say 'God is outside space time' or 'God is not constrained by science as we know it' - and offer nothing is support other than 'I believe'

marienbad · 23-12-2014 4:21pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well it is reasonable in as much as theirs no point debating stuff which nither side believes. If someone said 'god said not to have sex' (I not exaggerating, believe it or not someone has said this on a thread here), their wouldn't be much point using the obvious contradiction in this claim as evidence of the non existence of God as it's not actual evidence of anything other than someones misunderstanding of what God said.
OTOH as I'v said before their is no evidence outside of the personal experience of believers, so what are we to debate? I don't buy the 'the bible tell us' or 'how else can we explain it' arguments, I'm as frustrated as you by a lot of the claims made by believers, I'm also frustrated by the straw-men and parodies of faith offered by non believers. If I hear the term "sky fairy" one more time...
You either believe or you don't, your reasons for believing may not be mine, your reasons for not believing may not be mine but until God turns up and confirms His existence we are going to be stuck with this lack of evidence. It doesn't bother me, I'm not looking for a physical God who can influence the outcome of Stoke v Wolverhampton or secure a job for my daughter. Others might have need of a God who takes care of thees things. I cant understand why someone would reject the concept of God until they have firm empirical proof, I cant understand why someone would accept the concept of God without at the same time holding the possibility of their being no God.
But that's me, this debate has run for a long time and every time come back to the same tired straw-men and week assertions, I don't see any sign of change anytime soon.

This is my whole point, just better expressed . If you have faith why do you need proof ?

RikuoAmero · 23-12-2014 4:26pm

marienbad wrote: »

that is not quite correct though - for example you can say 'God is outside space time' or 'God is not constrained by science as we know it' - and offer nothing is support other than 'I believe'

How interesting of a conversation is that? If all that's being said is "X is Y, and my justification for that is I believe it"...why bother mentioning it at all? Why do you believe X is Y...that's the conversation I want to have.

As for faith...Terry Goodkind said it best in my opinion

“Faith and feelings are the warm marrow of evil. Unlike reason, faith and feelings provide no boundary to limit any delusion, any whim. They are virulent poison, giving the numbing illusion of moral sanction to every depravity ever hatched.

Faith and feelings are the darkness to reason’s light.

Reason is the very substance of truth itself. The glory that is life is wholly embraced through reason. In rejecting it, in rejecting reason, one embraces death.”

I disagree with him when he mentions feelings (we're not Vulcans), but statement I agree with. If you have a thing you believe in and all you have for it is faith, then there is no limit to what you will do in support of that thing.

tommy2bad wrote:

I cant understand why someone would reject the concept of God until they have firm empirical proof,

Simple. It's because I can only believe in a limited number of things at any one time, things that are not mutually exclusive (for example, you can't believe both that Allah is the one true god, Muhammed is his messenger and Jesus was merely a prophet, while at the same time believing that Jesus was the Son of God, God in the flesh). What does the word God even mean? I can only accept those things that are defined and substantiated. How else am I supposed to believe in something? If I didn't wait until I had proof or evidence, then what's to stop me from believing any random concept or claim? What would I use as a filter?

Nick Park · 23-12-2014 8:49pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

He said this not just in context of what is taught by general christianity, but also as what he believes and accepts to be true (notice the usage of a capital H in He.

So, let's get this straight. You're complaining that a Christian, posting in the Christianity forum, dared to capitalise the initial letter of a pronoun when referring to God?

Are you for real?

RikuoAmero · 23-12-2014 9:21pm

Nick Park wrote: »

So, let's get this straight. You're complaining that a Christian, posting in the Christianity forum, dared to capitalise the initial letter of a pronoun when referring to God?

Are you for real?

I'm not complaining. You can do it as much as you want, I don't mind or care. I'm merely noting when you started positing claims, separate to what you were saying were the general beliefs of christians, and saying that these are what you as an individual belief in and posit, given your usage of the capital H (since a non-believer in the christian god would have no reason to capitalise it).

tommy2bad · 24-12-2014 3:36pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Simple. It's because I can only believe in a limited number of things at any one time, things that are not mutually exclusive (for example, you can't believe both that Allah is the one true god, Muhammed is his messenger and Jesus was merely a prophet, while at the same time believing that Jesus was the Son of God, God in the flesh). What does the word God even mean? I can only accept those things that are defined and substantiated. How else am I supposed to believe in something? If I didn't wait until I had proof or evidence, then what's to stop me from believing any random concept or claim? What would I use as a filter?

I have no problem believing several contradictory things, I just don't need to believe them all at the same time, I know, it sounds counter-intuitive.
The problem with waiting for things to be substantiated and defined is it cuts you off from anything new or different, what proof had anyone for the concept of democracy before it was put into practice? They had ample proof of monarchy working but no example of a democratic republic, in fact after the first few attempts, I'm surprised anyone keep trying, it mostly resulted in bloody revolution and death and destruction. It failed for the first couple of thousand years before it took hold. Not everything is testable with out taking a leap of faith.

ABC101 · 24-12-2014 3:37pm

marienbad wrote: »

that is not quite correct though - for example you can say 'God is outside space time' or 'God is not constrained by science as we know it' - and offer nothing is support other than 'I believe'

Is that not a total contradiction in terms?

God created the universe and all laws of nature therein (known and those presently unknown). Because of this he has now surrendered his will to this creation?

If that was the case God would not really be God! How could the creative work be greater than its creator?

Obviously not so.

marienbad · 24-12-2014 3:59pm

ABC101 wrote: »

Is that not a total contradiction in terms?

God created the universe and all laws of nature therein (known and those presently unknown). Because of this he has now surrendered his will to this creation?

If that was the case God would not really be God! How could the creative work be greater than its creator?

Obviously not so.

I don't follow you vis-à-vis my point ?

RikuoAmero · 24-12-2014 4:15pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

I have no problem believing several contradictory things, I just don't need to believe them all at the same time, I know, it sounds counter-intuitive.
The problem with waiting for things to be substantiated and defined is it cuts you off from anything new or different, what proof had anyone for the concept of democracy before it was put into practice? They had ample proof of monarchy working but no example of a democratic republic, in fact after the first few attempts, I'm surprised anyone keep trying, it mostly resulted in bloody revolution and death and destruction. It failed for the first couple of thousand years before it took hold. Not everything is testable with out taking a leap of faith.

People can try and experiment with things like democracy in the real world, even if it's something that has never been done before. Here's the difference between trying democracy and trying God: one shows results that can be examined and verified, the other doesn't. The god claim I can only verify after I'm dead (and that's if I still have a consciousness once I kick the bucket).
Another difference between democracy and your God claim is that democracy is an action, something one can do. The god claim is a belief, nothing more nothing less. How do you 'do' a belief? Try a belief? A belief is something you either accept or don't accept. I can't try a God belief for 30 days, or get my money back. I can't experiment believing in something I haven't been convinced is true. (How many times do I have to point that out?)

J C · 24-12-2014 4:18pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

A being that is omniscient who makes all of its choices throughout all of eternity, those choices become locked in. He knows 100% that two days from now, he will do X. That becomes a fact to him, something that is without question.
If you bring in omnipotence, (in other words, give him the ability to change his mind) this then renders his knowledge that two days from now, he will do X, false. He does Y instead. This negates omniscience.
It's one or the other, J C.

Ah ... I see your error ... you are confusing omniscience with changing ones mind ... You are correct that God is capable of changing His mind (in response to fervent prayer or repentance, for example) ... but He already knows that He will do so ... so this doesn't affect either His omnipotence i.e. His infinite capacity to do as He wishes ... nor His omniscience i.e. His knowledge of all things past present and future.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Remember, this isn't from the human point of view, where the future is forever unknown to us (I can intend to do something two days from now, but I don't know perfectly whether I actually will do it). The christian god claim I've heard plenty of times says that God knows the future perfectly. He is supposed to know it as perfectly as I know my own name.
If he knows the future, he knows what actions he will take. He cannot then have the ability to change his mind, otherwise that negates his knowledge of the future.

The only lacuna in your argument is that God knows both His initial/general position on a particular issue as well as the fact that that He will change His mind, if that is what He will do.

J C · 24-12-2014 4:26pm

marienbad wrote: »

This is my whole point, just better expressed . If you have faith why do you need proof ?

It greatly helps, if you have both faith ... and (at least some) proof for your faith.:)

RikuoAmero · 24-12-2014 4:27pm

J C wrote: »

Ah ... I see your error ... you are confusing omniscience with changing ones mind ... You are correct that God is capable of changing His mind (in response to fervent prayer or repentance) ... but He already knows that He will do so ... so this doesn't affect either His omnipotence i.e. His infinite capacity to do as He wishes ... nor His omniscience i.e. His knowledge of all things past present and future.

The only lacuna in your argument is that God knows both His initial position on a particular issue as well as the fact that that He will change His mind, if that is what He will do.

Do I really need to point out to you the utter absurdity of the concept of prayer? I'll toss in the obvious example of fervent christians with lost limbs who pray to be healed, which has yet to happen. I fully expect you to respond with something along the lines of "God works in mysterious ways, he doesn't always answer prayer".
As for everything else you wrote there, it's all a contradiction. It violates the law of non-contradiction: A = A, Not A = Not A, A =/= Not A. Again, I have to point out to you that if God changes his mind, even knowing in advance that he will, this then renders his knowledge that he will do Action X on December 29th false, thus negating his omniscience. Again, you can't have both. Either God has the ability to change his mind (an ability he must have if he is to claim the attribute of omnipotent), thus rendering his knowledge of what actions he will do false...or he has knowledge of what actions he will do, but cannot change them. Knowledge that on December 29th, God will do action X, cannot be the same as knowledge that on December 29th, he will do action Z (where X and Z cannot both be accomplished at the same time).

tommy2bad · 24-12-2014 4:33pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

People can try and experiment with things like democracy in the real world, even if it's something that has never been done before. Here's the difference between trying democracy and trying God: one shows results that can be examined and verified, the other doesn't. The god claim I can only verify after I'm dead (and that's if I still have a consciousness once I kick the bucket).
Another difference between democracy and your God claim is that democracy is an action, something one can do. The god claim is a belief, nothing more nothing less. How do you 'do' a belief? Try a belief? A belief is something you either accept or don't accept. I can't try a God belief for 30 days, or get my money back. I can't experiment believing in something I haven't been convinced is true. (How many times do I have to point that out?)

Again your mixing up believing with knowing. Yes you can try believing in god as if it were true, it called faking it, you might not ahem...believe, but it's what most believers do a lot of the time. You cant get your money back for the simple reason it costs nothing money wise, time commitment and stuff like that yes but belife is foc. BTW it's not about what happens after you die, pie in the sky when you die is the worst reason to believe anything, and I include democracy, nationalism and everything else people have died for in that. Any fool can find a cause to die for, what we need are reasons to live for or at least reasons we can live with.

J C · 24-12-2014 4:38pm

wrote:

“Faith and feelings are the warm marrow of evil. Unlike reason, faith and feelings provide no boundary to limit any delusion, any whim. They are virulent poison, giving the numbing illusion of moral sanction to every depravity ever hatched.

Faith and feelings are the darkness to reason’s light.

Reason is the very substance of truth itself. The glory that is life is wholly embraced through reason. In rejecting it, in rejecting reason, one embraces death.”

Amoral/immoral Reason has been responsible for some of the greatest atrocities committed by Humanity ... one only has to think of the French Revolution, which prided itself on the appliance of reason ... only to have the Seine run red with the blood of those sacrificed to 'reason' on 'Madame Guillotine'!!!
... or the horrific experiments conducted by a 'monster of reason', like Josef Mengele, for example.
I also agree that blind faith based on immoral premises is equally dangerous ... and has proven so in the past, as well.
... but the contention that reason is always a good thing ... and faith a necessary pre-cursor to evil, is dangerously incorrect.

RikuoAmero · 24-12-2014 4:42pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Again your mixing up believing with knowing. Yes you can try believing in god as if it were true, it called faking it, you might not ahem...believe, but it's what most believers do a lot of the time. You cant get your money back for the simple reason it costs nothing money wise, time commitment and stuff like that yes but belife is foc. BTW it's not about what happens after you die, pie in the sky when you die is the worst reason to believe anything, and I include democracy, nationalism and everything else people have died for in that. Any fool can find a cause to die for, what we need are reasons to live for or at least reasons we can live with.

Fake it till you make it. Wow...is that the best you can do? So instead of giving me cogent arguments backed up by logic, data, or evidence, your advice is to just pretend that I believe it (is your god really that shallow? Wouldn't he see right through me?) until somehow I can muddle my thinking up and convince myself that...well, I have been convinced of this god claim.
As for the belief not costing me anything...yes it would. If I were a believer, that would entail me believing not just that there is a god, but this one specific claim out of the myriad of claims throughout history. I'd probably then have to mix in other claims with it, such as that marriage is reserved for heterosexuals only. Your god claim isn't just one simple thing: it's a whole mess of claims.
No, I'm not mixing up belief with knowing. Belief is a subset of knowledge. I cannot have a belief in something I have no knowledge of. I define knowledge as justified true belief.

RikuoAmero · 24-12-2014 4:48pm

J C wrote: »

Amoral/immoral Reason has been responsible for some of the greatest atrocities committed by Humanity ... one only has to think of the French Revolution, which prided itself on the appliance of reason ... only to have the Seine run red with the blood of those sacrificed to 'reason' on 'Madame Guillotine'!!!
... or the horrific experiments conducted by a 'monster of reason', like Josef Mengele, for example.
I also agree that blind faith based on immoral premises is equally dangerous ... and has proven so in the past, as well.
... but the contention that reason is always a good thing ... and faith a necessary pre-cursor to evil, is dangerously incorrect.

Here's the question - how do you differentiate between a faith that Person A has, that happens to be built on true/moral premises, and faith that Person B has, that happens to be built on false/immoral premises? The only thing that A and B have is faith that this thing is true - they're not applying reason or logic to it.

J C · 24-12-2014 4:49pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Do I really need to point out to you the utter absurdity of the concept of prayer? I'll toss in the obvious example of fervent christians with lost limbs who pray to be healed, which has yet to happen. I fully expect you to respond with something along the lines of "God works in mysterious ways, he doesn't always answer prayer".
As for everything else you wrote there, it's all a contradiction. It violates the law of non-contradiction: A = A, Not A = Not A, A =/= Not A. Again, I have to point out to you that if God changes his mind, even knowing in advance that he will, this then renders his knowledge that he will do Action X on December 29th false, thus negating his omniscience. Again, you can't have both. Either God has the ability to change his mind (an ability he must have if he is to claim the attribute of omnipotent), thus rendering his knowledge of what actions he will do false...or he has knowledge of what actions he will do, but cannot change them. .

I'll not be diverted by your argument over prayer, other than to say that it does sometimes work.
In relation to the omnipotent argument ... it is of course totally possible for God to change His mind and to know that He will do so.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Knowledge that on December 29th, God will do action X, cannot be the same as knowledge that on December 29th, he will do action Z (where X and Z cannot both be accomplished at the same time)

This isn't how omniscience works ... God knows (from before time and space was established by Him) that He would have done action X on December 29th but because of repentance, He will do action Z.

RikuoAmero · 24-12-2014 4:54pm

J C wrote: »

I'll not be diverted by your argument over prayer, other than to say that it does sometimes work.

Then show me someone with a lost limb who prayed to your god specifically and had it re-grow. This is an extraordinary claim to make and thus it requires extraordinary evidence. How about something like the person praying while surrounded by a team of doctors, who then sign a document promising to resign if ever it's shown that this regrowing limb was faked?

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments