21 reasons to be an Atheist

[AnAtheist]

jimmy:

You are going to have to explain how this is proven in mathematics. It is impossible to prove. Because you can not understand omniscient or omnipotent, certainly does not mean it is impossible. Several of the greatest mathematicians in history have been Christians, for example Newton was a devout Christian. I highly doubt you have the mathematical genius of Newton.

That’s right, I haven’t.

But others have, like Russel or Gödel.

“Several of the greatest mathematicians in history have been Christians,” that is point 10 on the op’s list. Do you get the irony?


Besides other great mathematicians were Hindus, Moslems, or atheists. What’s the point?

 

[Darrel]

1. Omnipotence and omniscience are mathematically impossible. Thus an omnipotent and/or omniscient god cannot exist. (If you trust mathematics there that is.)

I love this arrogance,

God creates the entire universe (apart) from himself. Then people limit God to math or physics as if these limitations were not created by him.

-D

 

[TheGarg]

Stevereeno:

1. “Evil will always triumph over Good, because Good is dumb.”. Therefore, God does not exist. (Quote from the movie Spaceballs)

I love that movie…

 

[jimmy]

AnAtheist:

That’s right, I haven’t.

But others have, like Russel or Gödel.

“Several of the greatest mathematicians in history have been Christians,” that is point 10 on the op’s list. Do you get the irony?


Besides other great mathematicians were Hindus, Moslems, or atheists. What’s the point?

My point is that mathematics proves nothing regarding God, either way.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

Assume a set of all things, that can be known. You can then construct a power set of that set (i.e. knowing, that you know all). That power set has more elements than the original set, thus the original set could not include *all *knowable things. q.e.d.

this is a cantorian argument that is essentially a reductio of the idea that there is a set of all true propositions.

so let’s assume there isn’t such a set. what has this got to do with omniscience?

the proposition “there is a being that knows every true proposition and knows no false ones” is true or false regardless of whether or not there is a set of all truths.

AnAtheist:

Furthermore you get contradictions when you make self-referencing statements like the one with the stone. Russel’s antinomy is another good example. Or the work of Gödel.

right. but what’s that got to do with omnipotence?

 

[Stevereeno]

AnAtheist:

Assume a set of all things, that can be known. You can then construct a power set of that set (i.e. knowing, that you know all). That power set has more elements than the original set, thus the original set could not include *all *knowable things. q.e.d.

Doesn’t work. The assumption is wrong. It’s like starting a mathematical proof that begins: “Assume a set of all integers…”. Since God is an infinite being, then his knowledge is infinite, else he could not know himself.

 

[eptatorata]

john doran:

the proposition “there is a being that knows every true proposition and knows no false ones” is true or false regardless of whether or not there is a set of all truths.

Gödel’s incompleteness theorems? And what’s the difference between every true proposition and the set of all truths?

I have no opinion on the answers myself, but the proposition is either ill-defined, true, false, or cannot be shown to be either true or false.

 

[AnAtheist]

Stevereeno:

Doesn’t work. The assumption is wrong. It’s like starting a mathematical proof that begins: “Assume a set of all integers…”. Since God is an infinite being, then his knowledge is infinite, else he could not know himself.

Oh yes, that works with sets containing an infinite number of elements. btw there is a set of all integers.

 

[john_doran]

eptatorata:

Gödel’s incompleteness theorems? And what’s the difference between every true proposition and the set of all truths?

well, one is a set and one isn’t.

i’m not clear on what you’re driving at with the question. i mean, “sets” are postulates of set theory, and the problem posed by AnAtheist is a set-theoretical one; which is to say that it’s only a set-theoretical problem, and presents no particular difficulty outside of those parameters.

eptatorata:

I have no opinion on the answers myself, but the proposition is either ill-defined, true, false, or cannot be shown to be either true or false.

which proposition?

 

[eptatorata]

john doran:

well, one is a set and one isn’t.

That’s obvious. But isn’t “every true proposition” a set itself? Nitpicking about terminology aside?

i’m not clear on what you’re driving at with the question. i mean, “sets” are postulates of set theory, and the problem posed by AnAtheist is a set-theoretical one; which is to say that it’s only a set-theoretical problem, and presents no particular difficulty outside of those parameters.

I question your conclusion, but as I hold no position on the theoretical possibility of omniscience, I will not pursue this further.

which proposition?

“there is a being…”

 

[eptatorata]

AnAtheist:

Oh yes, that works with sets containing an infinite number of elements. btw there is a set of all integers.

Which Aleph order is god supposed to be? Can god be infinitely infinite?

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

right. but what’s that got to do with omnipotence?

We had the example with the rock.

…or an omnipotent god could terminate his own existence

…or create another god with equal powers. Would he then be able to defend himself against that other omnipotent god, if that one wants to terminate his (the first one) existence? If no he is obviously not omnipotent, if yes the other is not omnipotent, thus the first one was not able to create an omnipotent god… …

 

[AnAtheist]

eptatorata:

Which Aleph order is god supposed to be? Can god be infinitely infinite?

Don’t ask me. What does the Bible or the Church say?

 

[eptatorata]

AnAtheist:

Don’t ask me. What does the Bible or the Church say?

I misplaced my comment, the question wasn’t addressed to you.

 

[jimmy]

AnAtheist:

Assume a set of all things, that can be known. You can then construct a power set of that set (i.e. knowing, that you know all). That power set has more elements than the original set, thus the original set could not include *all *knowable things. q.e.d.

Furthermore you get contradictions when you make self-referencing statements like the one with the stone. Russel’s antinomy is another good example. Or the work of Gödel.

This arguement is starting from a falacy. It is based on a limitation which you are putting on God. Christianity teaches that God is omnipotent and omniscient. That means that he knows all there is to know and that he can do what ever he wants. You are starting from the assumption that there is a limit to the knowledge and power of God.

Second, Christianity teaches that God created everything from nothing. So, there was nothing that was before he created it, other than himself. Now, to claim that there is power that God does not have you must come to the conclusion that God did not create everything and that there is some power outside of himself that did so or just was.

That is against Christian doctrine, so your arguement is false, unless of course you want to beat a punching bag.

Next, the rock statement, “God can’t create a rock he can’t lift, so there is no god.” This is also false. Why? Because it makes a presuption that God has a limit to what he can lift. God can lift any weight. If you put 1 trillion pounds on a curl bar and say, “God lift that”, he will with out a problem. If you add another 1x10 to the 1 with a million zero’s, he will still lift it with out any problem. No matter how much weight you put on the bar, God can curl it with ease.

You are unknowingly putting a limit on the strength of God when you say he can’t make a stone he can’t lift, because you are implying that there is some weight he can’t lift. God has the ability to make a stone of any weight. Since God can lift any weight, and he can make any weight, the question is invalid.

You also can not put God’s omnipotence against itself, and claim God is not omnipotent. That is a fallacy. To say that God is not omnipotent because he can lift any rock and that it is not possible to make a stone that God can not lift, is fallacy. God is one, there is no outside force dictating a limit on his power. There is only his power that says he can do anything.

 

[AnAtheist]

jimmy:

You are starting from the assumption that there is a limit to the knowledge and power of God.

On the contrary. I am starting from the assumption there is no limit whatsoever.

That is against Christian doctrine, so your arguement is false,

Oh well, THAT’s why? Who can argue against that kind of wisdom…

God can lift any weight.

Yes, that means, he cannot create a weight, he cannot lift.
But okay, the rock example is not the best one.

There is only his power that says he can do anything.

Like terminating his own existence?
Like creating other gods like him?
Like creating a universe not exposed to the influence of any god including himself?
Like creating mathematics disproving his own existence?

 

[Steven_Merten]

I think part of the problem is the Church promoting this “invincible ignorance” over Jesus promoting, “He who seeks me, finds me.”

There is more to going to heaven than simply being ignorant of sin.

Why did the Israelites build a golden calf to worship? Because a false god golden calf, unlike God, likes it when people have orgies to worship it. Many sinners relish the concept that being ignorant of sin automatically negates the consequences of unrepentant sin which is spiritual death. The truth is that it is failure to seek out, love and obey God that sends one to hell.

On judgement day, when an athiest tells God he was only following his “invincible ignorance” beliefs, due to no solid evidence of God, God is going to give the athiest his ticket to hell, not due to a deficiency in “invincible ignorance” to sin but because he did not seek out truth and God.

Hundreds of trillions of years into eternal life, those who did seek out God will still be rejoicing that they believed in God even though there was “no scientific proof” that God existed. Hundreds of trillions of years into eternal damnation, those who did not seek out God, due to lack of “scientific proof of God’s existance” will still be saying to themselves, “What was I thinking!”

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[jeffreedy789]

Assume a set of all things, that can be known. You can then construct a power set of that set (i.e. knowing, that you know all). That power set has more elements than the original set, thus the original set could not include *all *knowable things.

if you have something in the power set that wasn’t in the original set, then the original set obviously didn’t have everything in it. ‘knowing that you know all’ would obviously be in the original set, if God were the one knowing it. why would He disclude His own omniscience from the original set?

do you get the irony?

i don’t. what’s the irony? they’re pointing out that if some of the greatest mathematicians we’ve ever had were christians, and christians know that there is an omniscient God, then the two concepts must not be mutually exclusive.

math can be misconstrued to prove that 2+2=5, too. have you seen that ‘proof’? we know that’s not true - and we know that God is true. just because we’ve manipulated our formulas to make something seem as though it weren’t doesn’t make the ‘proven’ thing true.

hey anatheist - have you read any rahner?

 

[jeffreedy789]

On judgement day, when an athiest tells God he was only following his “invincible ignorance” beliefs, due to no solid evidence of God, God is going to give the athiest his ticket to hell, not due to a deficiency in “invincible ignorance” to sin but because he did not seek out truth and God.

i’m glad you’re not God or the church.

i think you’re forgetting something called grace. that’s what the entire concept of ‘invincible ignorance’ is based on. we trust sinners who honestly don’t see reason for faith to the mercy and grace of God. just as we trust babies who die before they’re baptised, or murdered in abortions, to the grace of God.

none of us seek Him before He seeks us. we should ALL be damned for that. thank God that in His grace, He reaches out to save us - even the atheist, even the unbaptised baby - even me.

 

[john_doran]

eptatorata:

That’s obvious. But isn’t “every true proposition” a set itself? Nitpicking about terminology aside?

no, it’s not. it’s a proposition. maybe i’m not understanding you.

eptatorata:

I question your conclusion, but as I hold no position on the theoretical possibility of omniscience, I will not pursue this further.

look, if there’s a problem at all that is raised by this cantorian dilemma, it’s a problem for logic and metaphysics tout court, and certainly not (only) for theology.

“there is a being…”

oh. then i agree with you.