A
AnAtheist
Guest
Good question, the problem is, that omni-anything leads to logical contradictions.
Of course NOT, that’s a contradiction within the definition.
- Status
A
AnAtheist
Guest
I think it has evelved, as it helps surviving of mankind. After all humans have to live in social groups, which cannot survive without proper behaviour.
Generally that might be true, but not with respect to the Christian God, as He is supposed be to be like us when it comes down to concepts like love and justice. Created after His image, remember?
My point exactly. A vastly powerfull not omnipotent being, is not a satisfactory god, as there is still room for a more powerfull being. But true omnipotence is impossible, hence no god.
D
dennisknapp
Guest
I’m curious, how do you account for existence? Is matter eternal? Did the universe create itself?
Peace
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Here is a website full of arguments for God’s existence.
Please look through them and tell me what you think.
peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
Peace
BTW, Kreeft is a Professor of Philosophy at Boston College.
J
john_doran
Guest
again, how so? what’s self-contradictory about “knowing all true propositions and no false ones”? or “capable of actualizing any logically possible states of affairs”? and so on.
do you have a formal demonstration that all propositions involving the property “omni” are contradictory? if so, i’d love to see it.
P
psychemusic
Guest
The only way one can claim that true omnipotence is impossible is to be omnipotent onesself. Only an omnipotent being can know the fullness of what an omipotent being can know. You place great faith in your ability to reason, but you couldn’t possibly know how much God can know; your argument is nothing more than an unsupported assumption.
Your math example was rather similar to saying that a human cannot know what it is like to be a dog, and even with our finite minds we actually have come to know quite a bit about the subject. Sophistry doesn’t lead to constructive dialogue.
Most atheists I know deny God not because He doesn’t exist, but because they intensely dislike some misrepresentation of Him. That’s rather like saying you don’t believe your parents exist because some stranger told you the most horrific lies about them to you, and you believed them even though they were totally innocent. That appears to be the case here. You refuse to believe in the existence of God, but you do so because, somewhere along the way, you grew to hate Him for attributes that He does not have (i.e. lack of omnipotence). I think somebody lied to you about God.
About your evolution example: you used the word “evil”. You introduced morality into the argument. If there is no God, then there can be no morality. If morality is a product of evolution within society, then one would be wrong, for example, to accuse the Nazis of a moral evil by exterminating the Jews, because that society as a whole dictated the “rightness” of murderig Jews; only the most hardened of persons could not see the absurdity of this.
You never addressed two of my arguments to you, namely:
- how you, as an admittedly finite being, can possibly know enough to be an authority on the non-existence of omnipotence, and 2) my assertion that your non-belief in the true God is because of your hatred for a false god that does not exist. Judging from the posts I’ve seen thus far, I haven’t seen a satisfactory answer from you on this.
P
psychemusic
Guest
What? I think you have it backwards. We are supposed to be like Him, not the other way around. What man would deny that men have corrupted love and justice? Do you then turn around and accuse God of not living up to the corrupt standard of men? and once judgment it made, you decide not to believe He exists? why take this last step of denying someone’s existence if you have a beef with them - a step which you would never take in your dealings with anybody else? Why not stop and consider that you might not have all of the answers, after all?
V
viktor_aleksndr
Guest
If it will be proven scientifically, accurately that the whole world will believe that the world was really created by itself then i would agree that GOD doesnt exist. But NOTHING can prove that because GOD exist!
M
mattman
Guest
AnAtheist,
You said,
“Good question, the problem is, that omni-anything leads to logical contradictions.”
Honestly I am shocked by this. I would like to echo doran, what arguments do you have that omni-anything leads to logical contradictions? Your reference to set mathematics or theory was not really an argument. Perhaps your argument was based on some principle found in set theory?
Perhaps we could start with why you think true omnipotence is impossible. Dilemma of the stone??? You seem to think that an omnipotent, and omniscient being would require some kind of determinism or theological fatalism. Either you have read the many responses to this charge against omnipotence and omniscience and have found those arguments faulty, or you have not read very much by way of response to these problems.
These issues have been elaborated on for centuries. There are several ways of showing that there are at least possible solutions to the problem of omniscience and free will. I look forward to hearing your arguments against the possiblity of an omnipotent or omniscient Being.
Matt
You said,
“Good question, the problem is, that omni-anything leads to logical contradictions.”
Honestly I am shocked by this. I would like to echo doran, what arguments do you have that omni-anything leads to logical contradictions? Your reference to set mathematics or theory was not really an argument. Perhaps your argument was based on some principle found in set theory?
Perhaps we could start with why you think true omnipotence is impossible. Dilemma of the stone??? You seem to think that an omnipotent, and omniscient being would require some kind of determinism or theological fatalism. Either you have read the many responses to this charge against omnipotence and omniscience and have found those arguments faulty, or you have not read very much by way of response to these problems.
These issues have been elaborated on for centuries. There are several ways of showing that there are at least possible solutions to the problem of omniscience and free will. I look forward to hearing your arguments against the possiblity of an omnipotent or omniscient Being.
Matt
A
AnAtheist
Guest
john doran:
“all of A, but not B” hardly qualifies for being “omni-”. If we use different definitions for a thing, no wonder that we reach different conclusions.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
No, I do not believe in Him in the first place. I can hardly “accuse” something, that does not exist. But I am free to “judge” a mythical being for its supposed actions written down in some myths. Like I judge the actions of Apollo in the Illias.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
Ok. Let me first classify those arguments, because many of same follow the same structure:
A) An ultimate cause is needed for the existence of X. / “Nothing comes from nothing.”
applies to arguments 1,2,3,6,7
B) The world looks designed with a hint to perfection.
arguments 4,5,8,17
C) Some abstract state of mind exists (justice,morality,conscience).
10,11,12,14,15
D) Statistical arguments.
19,20
E) Religious experience
9,18
13, the ontological argument, is a category F by itself I guess, 16 (Desire) is mostly C with a touch of B.
Now what I think:
Category E is anecdotal evidence and thus hardly credible. I surely never had a religious experience, and just because some other people claim to have had, well, people claim a lot of things, like having been abducted by UFOs. Plus, what about religious experiences experienced in other religions?
D - Just because a lot of people believe something, it is not automatically true. Pascal’s Wager is an invalid dichotomy. It omits too many possibilities to be even remotely considered. Like, there might be a god, but no afterlife. Or there might be an afterlife, but no god. And then, there might be the jealous god, who is more disgruntled about people believing in the wrong god than non-believers.
C - The human mind can be explained with evolutionary processes. So there is at least an alternative, and a god is not the only possible explanation (same applies for A).
B - I grant that argument some validity. The universe surely looks designed, but we don’t know how many universes there are, as by definition we can only observe one. The weak anthropocentric principle explains this ostensible design perfectly.
A - 1. There is scientific evidence that uncaused events do occur (if you follow the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics that is). 2. The cause-and-effect-chain has to end somewhere, but why stop at god? Why not go a step further and declare some uncaused principle “the divine” behind all gods (like Hindus and Buddhists do)? Or stop a step earlier and declare the universe or nature itself as “uncaused” (like I do)?
F - I regard this as no argument at all. That has more *non sequiturs *than all the other arguments together.
Anyway, some of those arguments do have a point to make, but none of it points to the Christian God alone. In fact there are god concepts out there, which fit some arguments far better. For example:
4 - perfect argument for Deism
16 - Buddhism
19 - Hinduism
20 - Islam
D
dennisknapp
Guest
The universe as uncaused? Please explain?
Peace
A
AnAtheist
Guest
Obviously the universe had a beginning. The question is, whether that beginning needed a cause. There are quantum effects happing without a cause, eg radioactive decay or virtual particle production in a vacuum.
From all we know, it just came into existence.
That is btw very much different from “it created itself”. And very much like a god, who did not create himself, but just exists for no reason or cause, as proposed in the category A arguments.
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Don’t take this the wrong way, but it seems that Kronos is your god. For if you give something enough time it will happen, correct?
I think there is a great difference in saying matter, that will have an end (our universe), is uncaused, as well as a Being who has no beginning and ending as uncaused.
Peace
J
john_doran
Guest
AnAtheist said:
why not?
but that is as may be what else would “omniscient” mean?
for sure.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
john doran:
Yes, but that leaves room for a “more than omniscient” being, which would not be compatible with an ultimate scient being. Besides, there are propositions, which can’t be classified as true or false in a boolean sense. How would they fit into your definition?
J
john_doran
Guest
don’t you think that’s a little weak a reason upon which to base one’s positive belief in a proposition? i mean, it’s as good a reason to believe that god exists: since, for all we know the universe was caused by god.
i’m not sure what you mean by “no reason” here: god’s existence is necessary.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
That is correct, but as it seems time itself began with the universe, so there is no infinite amount of time.
Well, I suppose we agree on the point, that there must have been some kind of uncaused something, so that the universe can exist. So far all the argument of category A are valid. But there are more than one possible identifications for that something. Out of my head I can think of the following:
- a quantum fluctuation
- a symmetry break
- “the divine”, ie some kind kind of principle, but not a mind, thus not a person
- a conscious mind, ie a person (= God)
J
john_doran
Guest
how so? if there is a being that knows every true proposition and no false ones, what else would there be for another being to know that is not known by the first being?
well, even assuming that bivalence does not hold and there are propositions that are neither true nor false, then it’s not possible to know them - what would that even mean? for example, if the proposition “i will go to the gym tomorrow” is neither true nor false, as some claim, then what would it mean to “know” it?
but those problems aside, i would say that the being in question would know true propositions of the form: “the proposition p is neither true nor false”.
- Status