Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 70

Thread: A challenge to Atheists! #2

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by garbonzo View Post
    It is not to show that God isn't worthy ofvworship if he is not omnipotent, I only what to discount his religion, because if I do that, researching the evidence that show the Bible is wrong. There is no reason not to believe in a God, and there is no reason to. Show me the evidence?
    Do you mean by this that you see no reason to either believe or not believe in God?

  2. #22
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by wynn View Post
    Do you mean by this that you see no reason to either believe or not believe in God?
    It's a logical fallacy: GodFallacies.com

    A guy gave me this:

    http://www.biblestudents.com/htdbv5/htdb0068.htm
    http://www.biblestudents.com/htdbv5/htdb0069.htm

    What can I say to him?

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by wynn View Post
    Because some beings, in order to recognize the folly of opposing God, must be made to do some things that they find really demeaning.
    That makes absolutely no sense. How would defecating help one "recognize the folly of opposing God?"

    I also didn't say I found it demeaning. You must be projecting in this case. I simply said I found it odd that it's something a created being would have to do.

    By the way, if you follow modern trends in bathroom and toilette design, there are many people who don't see anything really problematic with defecating. There's plenty of money to be made with it.
    I didn't say I found it problematic. Though, one could argue that it is slightly less than convenient in a large household sharing one bathroom, or when one is forced to do so in a public restroom. It's far from an ideal condition.

  4. #24
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    3,583
    What happens when the immovable object meets the unstoppable force? The unstoppable force goes around the immovable object. What happens when God makes a stone not even he can carry? He either A, leaves it as it lies, or B, if it needs to be moved he takes it out of existence, or C he creates something strong enough to move it, after all he created something to heavy for even He.

  5. #25
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    3,583
    He may not be able to carry it, but he can task me to do so.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Knowledge91 View Post
    What happens when the immovable object meets the unstoppable force? The unstoppable force goes around the immovable object. What happens when God makes a stone not even he can carry? He either A, leaves it as it lies, or B, if it needs to be moved he takes it out of existence, or C he creates something strong enough to move it, after all he created something to heavy for even He.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knowledge91 View Post
    He may not be able to carry it, but he can task me to do so.
    You're missing the point, chief. If he created a rock that he cannot move, then he is not omnipotent.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by garbonzo View Post
    It's a logical fallacy: GodFallacies.com
    What is a logical fallacy?

    That you have some say in whether you beoieve in God or not?


    What do you want to accomplish?

  8. #28
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by wynn View Post
    What is a logical fallacy?

    That you have some say in whether you beoieve in God or not?




    What do you want to accomplish?
    Why don't you read the site? I want to accomplish this: convert someone to agnostic.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by garbonzo View Post
    Why don't you read the site?
    I glossed over it.

    People have the constitutional right to free speech in many countries, and the poster you are referring to seems to be under the jurisdiction of such a country.


    I want to accomplish this: convert someone to agnostic.
    Oh.

    Why??

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by JDawg View Post
    That makes absolutely no sense. How would defecating help one "recognize the folly of opposing God?"
    It's just the first step in doing so.

    As you yourself admit, you perceive the need to defecate as

    It's far from an ideal condition.

    As far as standard definitions go, God has created living beings with the need to defecate. And no matter what else they do, no matter how much they rebell against God, they still need to defecate - which is something they find demeaning, or at least "far from ideal".
    So God wins, and humans see that it is impossible to override God's will.

  11. #31
    flat Earth skeptic Aqueous Id's Avatar
    Posts
    5,426
    wow this may be the first god thread in which "defecate" was not part of an ad hom


    Quote Originally Posted by garbonzo View Post
    I'm sure you guys have better ones. I am familiar with, "If God is Almighty, can he create a stone which he CANNOT carry?"

    God can not solve for x and y such that x=y and x≠y.

    God can not have existed forever, as He would be forever approaching the present asymptotically.

    The God of this very moment ... *now*... can not time travel to the moment he is telling Moses "I am the Lord your God", (i.e. coexist with himself) without lying.

    God could not say "Let there be light" in Hebrew, since the language wasn't invented yet.

    Before God said "let there be light" there was no light, only darkness. Therefore darkness existed forever. Therefore darkness can not be created.
    That is, even God can't create darkness.

    God can't create nothing.

    God can't create "round" or "flat" or "ugly".

    God can not draw a line that occupies 1cubic centimeter.

    God can not do anything faster than the speed of light.

    God can't guess.

    God can't go online and argue here against his existence.

    God can't make Rush Limbaugh "the Most Interesting Man in the World".

    God can't commit suicide. Oh wait: Jesus. Uh, no, that's a keeper after all.

    God can't uncrucify Jesus, and reinvent him as Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson and Osama Bin Laden.

    God can't make me greater than Him.

    God can not get down on his knees and beg for forgiveness, do 3 donkey kicks, lick my boots, and say: "Oh what a goose I am", while opening a brothel on every street corner in America.

    God can't make you do anything. He can't make you hate him. He can't make you burn down a church, or use the Bible as emergency toilet paper.

    God can't destroy Heaven.

    God can't slap Jesus in the face.

    God can't have an accident.

    God can not: pray to Baal, or love Satan, lie, steal, commit adultery, or kill. Oh, wait: God can kill. OK so there's one thing he can do. Maybe he can lie, too. But I'm pretty sure he can't commit adultery.

    God can not: turn himself into Gumby, with chewing gum legs, and make it the only chewing gum in the universe, and then walk and chew gum at the same time.

    God can't take the apostrophe out of "can't".

    God can't tell me what he can't do.

    God can not do anything on demand. For example, when I snap my fingers, God can not appear before me, impersonating Father Guido Sarducci,
    *snap*. see, nothing. He can't do it for you either. Try it.

  12. #32
    Oh, the weight of enlightenment!

  13. #33
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    2,364
    Quote Originally Posted by wynn View Post
    The thing is - all this has nothing to do with God, but merely with our reasoning.
    I'm not sure what you mean.

    In my case, I don't believe in the literal existence of God. So all of my thought about God is about the various concepts of 'God' that are prevalent on Sciforums and in the world. So yes, it's reasoning about the meaning and logic of concepts.

    If I was to become a theist, the variety of theism that I'd probably gravitate towards is an a-gnostic apophatic "negative theology", in which God exceeds all of our understandings and all of our religious concepts.

    So even if I was to become a theist, I'd probaly still be skeptical of all these nice pat little theological formulas, such as the trinity or the 'omni-'s' -- God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent etc. (How could a human being possibly know all that?) I'd probably still be interested in the logic of saying such things.

    For one, we can say all kinds of things about God - but there are very few of those things (or none) that we can actually test with our human capacities.
    And if we cannot test those things - how can we come to any conclusions as to whether they are true about God or not?
    Yes.

    How would we test whether God can create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift?
    Creating and lifting heavy stones is something that is to be empirically tested. So, how are we going to test it?
    It's just an example of a possible logical problem in the idea of omnipotence. Arguably omnipotence might not be a logically consistent concept, since it would seem to imply its own contradiction.

    As to what's true of a really existing God, should any such God exist, I have no way of knowing. I'm addressing theological tradition more than I'm trying to talk about God. It's the theological tradition that's doing all the talking about God.

    For two, questions like "Can God create a stone He cannot lift?" are based on an implicit kind of error refering to the sentence itself, a paradox.
    I'm not sure that's true. The example asks whether God can create a task that even God can't perform. But that created task needn't be a circular reference to the task of creating it. The impossible task might be an entirely different task. I can imagine the answer being 'yes', that God can create an impossible task, and the impossibility of the created task doesn't present any logical contradictions that I can see at the moment. Except the contradition with the theological doctrine of God's omnipotence, of course.

    The aim of those who make a point of asking "Can God create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift?" is usually to show that God is not omnipotent - and that therefore, God doesn't deserve to be worshipped.
    That's not true for me. As we discussed up above, I don't know anything about God. All I can really talk about is what various theists say about God. So my interest is largely in the meaning and the logic of theological statements.

    They do not wish to worship God to begin with, and so they try to come up with rationalizations as to why they are justified not to worship God.
    I don't have any interest in worshipping God, which is precisely why I feel no need to generate rationalizations.

    People who feel a big need to rationalize their failure to worship might still be fighting an interior battle within themselves. Many of them may still feel some kind of inner compulsion to worship God, if they are feeling the need to produce arguments against it.

    (They could have simply said No - but apparently, that is too plain or something.)
    I don't believe in God. Never have. I'm comfortable with that. But I'm deeply interested in religion and very interested in what the theists around me say. I often think about doctrines that I don't personally believe in, though doubtless in a more abstract fashion than many of the more devout theists would.

  14. #34
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    3,583
    Quote Originally Posted by JDawg View Post
    You're missing the point, chief. If he created a rock that he cannot move, then he is not omnipotent.
    Well, is it to heavy for him, or did he rule that not even he can "move" this rock as a rule of thumb? If he made it to heavy he can surly make it light again.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Yazata View Post
    The thing is - all this has nothing to do with God, but merely with our reasoning.
    I'm not sure what you mean.
    Automatically when we agree that we don't actually know anything about God, all our talking on the topic "God" is merely a matter of our reasoning.


    In my case, I don't believe in the literal existence of God.
    But what is that, "literal existence of God"? I don't understand what you mean by that.


    If I was to become a theist, the variety of theism that I'd probably gravitate towards is an a-gnostic apophatic "negative theology", in which God exceeds all of our understandings and all of our religious concepts.
    The notion of omnipotence also exceeds our human concepts.


    So even if I was to become a theist, I'd probaly still be skeptical of all these nice pat little theological formulas, such as the trinity or the 'omni-'s' -- God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent etc.
    (How could a human being possibly know all that?)
    Those three are not knowledge claims in the sense of empirical knowledge.


    I'd probably still be interested in the logic of saying such things.
    That's the interesting part, yes.

    I find it interesting how contemplating the implications of the usual definitions of God place one in a network of connections that are both limiting as well as providing direction and freedom for action.


    It's just an example of a possible logical problem in the idea of omnipotence. Arguably omnipotence might not be a logically consistent concept, since it would seem to imply its own contradiction.
    There are many kinds of logic. How do we choose which one to use for which problem?


    As to what's true of a really existing God, should any such God exist, I have no way of knowing. I'm addressing theological tradition more than I'm trying to talk about God. It's the theological tradition that's doing all the talking about God.
    But for some reason - and that is another interesting part - you get involved.

    Why are you interested in this topic? How far back, how deep can you trace your intentions for getting involved in discussions about God?
    I think asking oneself such questions can help a lot making one's involvement in discussions more meaningful to oneself.


    I'm not sure that's true. The example asks whether God can create a task that even God can't perform. But that created task needn't be a circular reference to the task of creating it. The impossible task might be an entirely different task. I can imagine the answer being 'yes', that God can create an impossible task, and the impossibility of the created task doesn't present any logical contradictions that I can see at the moment. Except the contradition with the theological doctrine of God's omnipotence, of course.
    For one, the question "Can God create a task that even God can't perform?" operates with particular notions of what God is, and how and why tasks are created and accomplished.
    Those notions can be shown to be problematic.


    "Can God act in irrational ways?"
    "Can God strip Himself of His omnimax status?"
    "If He can't, then He is not omnipotent."

    Do these two questions and the conclusion make sense?


    Then there are formal issues of logic:

    In a system of statements, do we measure the system's internal consistency by comparing any two statements?

    What if the system itself proposes to be ordered hierarchically, so that only statements that are on the same level are to be compared, but not those that are on different levels?

    We'd be making a mistake to treat a hierarchical system of statements as if it were a non-hierarchical one.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by wynn View Post
    Oh, the weight of enlightenment!
    I've never encountered someone so eager to call themselves enlightened, nor somrone who would say it so often, without regard for its appropriateness to the conversation.

    I've also never encountered a truly enlightened person who was so self-congratulatory.

    I'll leave it to you to decide which of these streaks has come to an end.

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Aqueous Id View Post

    God can not do anything on demand. For example, when I snap my fingers, God can not appear before me,ou either. Try it.

    If it would be so . you would be god . You talk as the tempter ( satan ) tempting Jesus . " bow to me and I give you the whole world "

  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by JDawg View Post
    I've never encountered someone so eager to call themselves enlightened, nor somrone who would say it so often, without regard for its appropriateness to the conversation.

    I've also never encountered a truly enlightened person who was so self-congratulatory.

    I'll leave it to you to decide which of these streaks has come to an end.
    Your sarcasm radar, is, apparently, trash.

  19. #39
    flat Earth skeptic Aqueous Id's Avatar
    Posts
    5,426
    Quote Originally Posted by wynn View Post
    Oh, the weight of enlightenment!
    yes, it's quite absurd to conjure up impossible tasks for the Almighty....

    almost like designing software for a system which has not yet been built....

    or, better yet, one which will exist virtually, once it's instantiated....

    or, better yet: can be instantiated on your platform, which tolerates errors...

    and rejected on mine, which purges the program, as in a virus sweep.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Aqueous Id View Post
    yes, it's quite absurd to conjure up impossible tasks for the Almighty....

    almost like designing software for a system which has not yet been built....

    or, better yet, one which will exist virtually, once it's instantiated....

    or, better yet: can be instantiated on your platform, which tolerates errors...

    and rejected on mine, which purges the program, as in a virus sweep.
    Anything to make yourself feel good and superior, eh?


    https://leerburg.com/Photos/dogattack.jpg

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. By Kellisness in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 03-27-12, 04:27 PM
    Replies: 141
  2. By Greatest I am in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 01-22-11, 01:00 PM
    Replies: 26
  3. By RenaissanceMan in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 01-05-11, 01:10 PM
    Replies: 581
  4. By laladopi in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 01-07-09, 09:03 PM
    Replies: 54
  5. By Michael in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 10-06-08, 01:50 PM
    Replies: 44

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •