Atheists: you cannot disprove the existence of GOd

[answerer]

The argument “against” the existence of God that I was refuting was an argument based on statements about God.

It almost presupposes God, the existence of whom it is trying to disprove. The argument essentially says, if there was a God, He would not allow evil to happen, but evil does happen so there is no God. All that has to be done is show that the logic is faulty, namely, just because evil exists, it doesn’t mean God doesn’t.

That would only be an argument for the non-existence of a BENEVOLENT god. Or a god that HAS to fight another being for prominence. That is how they used to explain the vicissitudes of life, multiple gods and demons. Then monotheism came along due to people amassing in larger and larger groups and needing to consolidate sects and power. And eventually a new rationale had to be made for the existence of evil: that somehow it was human’s fault for giving into the temptation that god dangled in front of them.

I gave a few reasons why. The argument stated that if God existed, he would not allow evil because he is good. This is faulty because if God exists, he must allow evil, precisely because this would make him good (as I pointed out). This is not an appeal to faith but rather a statement that love requires freedom, or it is no longer love. Cold hard logic here. Since the atheist is pointing out goodness (essentially love), this is something that the atheist apparently understands.

In my mind, that is one of the strongest arguments of how god could allow evil. But it does not follow that there necessarily is a god. Plus, creating humans would be a selfish act. God wanted something to love, but knew that he would have to create evil in the process. This argument also necessitates that prayer serves no purpose. For if SOME prayers are answered, then god is demonstrating that he COULD intervene to stop evil.

My question then is… where has this idea of good and evil come from? From where does an atheist derive his standard of what is good and what is not? Let’s tackle this point and we’ll really be getting somewhere…

I’ll field that one. If I had never even heard of, nor thought of the concept of god, then I would still have considered nazis to be wrong. Unless of course I was a Nazi, (who believed in god, but still did not recognize the evil.) My recognition would have come from living with my atheist parents who treated me right and instilled in me empathy.

 

[hunter2]

Why is it that so-called atheists are never the last to answer questions from those they are discussing things with?

(Sorry about the dangling participle.)

I have YET to see an “atheist” answer “the last question posted” in a thread!

Actually, they DO do that, but the answer, if given to the question asked of them is some variant of “You’re just being irrational and not worth my bothering to talk with you.”

Why do you suppose that is?

The answer might be at the heart of the religious mindset. A religious minded person cannot be backed into a corner logically, because they always have a backdoor into the realm of god. The atheist lives with the burden of a humble mind. He is aware that anything is possible in realms beyond what we can directly sense, but he cannot say with certainty what those mysteries MIGHT hold. He also does not have the convenience of codified speculation about the supernatural to fall back on.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Why is it that so-called atheists are never the last to answer questions from those they are discussing things with?

(Sorry about the dangling participle.)

I have YET to see an “atheist” answer “the last question posted” in a thread!

Actually, they DO do that, but the answer, if given to the question asked of them is some variant of “You’re just being irrational and not worth my bothering to talk with you.”

Why do you suppose that is?

The answer might be at the heart of the religious mindset. A religious minded person cannot be backed into a corner logically, because they always have a backdoor into the realm of god. The atheist lives with the burden of a humble mind.

Do you mean humble as in, “obedient to proper authority”, or as in, “not particularly effective”?

Humility is putting oneself at the service of one who is owed proper deference. The so-called “atheist” puts his mind at the service of nothing but his own PERSONAL preconceptions, and says (professes) that, “Unless I have PROOF first I will not believe”, while doing precisely the opposite of that in his experiments in science! He will DO what needs doing to prove or disprove a scientific observation, but abjectly refuses to do what needs doing to prove or disprove a religious observation.

That particular hypocrisy is the cornerstone of the so-called, and atheistic scientistic materialist promoted, war between science and religion, which in fact doesn’t exist.

He is aware that anything is possible in realms beyond what we can directly sense, but he cannot say with certainty what those mysteries MIGHT hold.

Without divine revelation anything is possible in some “other realm beyond our senses”, but with divine revelation the things possible and impossible in the “sensible”, via prayer, realm of “God-stuff” are clearly set out as knowable.

Since the “atheist” violently refuses to do what is necessary to sense the truths in this “God-stuff” realm, he never does sense them, and then, after not receiving that for which he hasn’t worked, arrogantly and loudly claims that there is no evidence to support what he guaranteed by his actions that he could not receive, he always presents a very interesting character!

Why is this? Because the most potent and prime axiom of his religion (that of the scientistic materialist) is that no experiment is to be done which introduces any concept of God.

He also does not have the convenience of codified speculation about the supernatural to fall back on.

We don’t work from “codified speculation” but rather from “divine revelation from God via the Church”, which are a rather small set of absolute truths, and which we speculate on using the “tool” of theology. There are any number of theologies within the Church (Catholic), though they MOSTLY agree, but Church dogma is set, yet being further illuminated through time, as it was given directly from God by God through the “human voice” of the Church.

But, the Church is concerned not with the material sciences (knowledge of the material world, of the “whats and hows”), other than a major interest in getting more of it, but rather with the religious sciences (knowledge of the moral world, of the “whys and why-nots”).

The so-called atheist is interested in maximizing “comfort” for those on earth. The Catholic (Christian) is interested in minimizing sin so that all God’s creations “run optimally” for mankind’s benefit for his (mankind’s) eternal existence, being both on earth and ever after.

 

[hunter2]

Do you mean humble as in, “obedient to proper authority”, or as in, “not particularly effective”?

I don’t know if English is your primary language, but humble does not mean either of those things. Anyway you should have been able to figure it out from context. I use humble in the sense that one is not so arrogant that they think they can figure out which religion, if any, has got it right about the supernatural.

Humility is putting oneself at the service of one who is owed proper deference. The so-called “atheist” puts his mind at the service of nothing but his own PERSONAL preconceptions, and says (professes) that, “Unless I have PROOF first I will not believe”, while doing precisely the opposite of that in his experiments in science! He will DO what needs doing to prove or disprove a scientific observation, but abjectly refuses to do what needs doing to prove or disprove a religious observation.

A religious observation is by definition not provable or disprovable. Whenever a religious proposition becomes testable, then it becomes science.

Since the “atheist” violently refuses to do what is necessary to sense the truths in this “God-stuff” realm, he never does sense them, and then, after not receiving that for which he hasn’t worked, arrogantly and loudly claims that there is no evidence to support what he guaranteed by his actions that he could not receive, he always presents a very interesting character!

Violently? What kind of nonsense is this? Are you joking? How circular your logic is. If you believe hard enough, you will end up believing?

Why is this? Because the most potent and prime axiom of his religion (that of the scientistic materialist) is that no experiment is to be done which introduces any concept of God.

Science simply cannot appeal to supernatural causes. There is no way to scientifically explore that which has no boundaries.

The so-called atheist is interested in maximizing “comfort” for those on earth. The Catholic (Christian) is interested in minimizing sin so that all God’s creations “run optimally” for mankind’s benefit for his (mankind’s) eternal existence, being both on earth and ever after.

Oh yes, the ever humble Christian whose powers extend to the souls of all creation.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Do you mean humble as in, “obedient to proper authority”, or as in, “not particularly effective”?

I don’t know if English is your primary language, but humble does not mean either of those things. Anyway you should have been able to figure it out from context. I use humble in the sense that one is not so arrogant that they think they can figure out which religion, if any, has got it right about the supernatural.

Apparently you also worship before the Holy Dictionary, as well. So be it. I did figure out what you were refering to by your use of “humble”, and my repost (response as per “fencing” [blades]) was to contrast a proper use of the word with the “odd” use that you probably didn’t mean but which you seemed to mean.

I understand where you’re coming from, being one who has been inculcated with the fallacious idea that any “divine revelation of truth” is simply impossible and unreal, and that “no religion is the true religion (mostly because their believers are deluded as to what ‘God’ REALLY means)”.

With that understanding, I shall now sound like a complete idiot (to you), in that God has informed us (Catholics) that His Church has it perfectly as regards God-stuff (aka the supernatural), while all other religions have a portion of that fullness of truth in as much as they are congruent WITH the Church (Catholic), or at least in as much as they follow natural law.

We have no need to be untruthful, and no desire but to do it “humbly”, meaning “not putting ourselves before the proper authority”, in proclaiming truth as truth.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Humility is putting oneself at the service of one who is owed proper deference. The so-called “atheist” puts his mind at the service of nothing but his own PERSONAL preconceptions, and says (professes) that, “Unless I have PROOF first I will not believe”, while doing precisely the opposite of that in his experiments in science! He will DO what needs doing to prove or disprove a scientific observation, but abjectly refuses to do what needs doing to prove or disprove a religious observation.

A religious observation is by definition not provable or disprovable. Whenever a religious proposition becomes testable, then it becomes science.

Yet another case of defining red horses as not horses because only black horses are horses.

I understand you position perfectly, and agree with it based on your logic and premises. I simply disagree with your logic and premises, and therefore arrive at a different conclusion than you do.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Since the “atheist” violently refuses to do what is necessary to sense the truths in this “God-stuff” realm, he never does sense them, and then, after not receiving that for which he hasn’t worked, arrogantly and loudly claims that there is no evidence to support what he guaranteed by his actions that he could not receive, he always presents a very interesting character!

Violently? What kind of nonsense is this? Are you joking? How circular your logic is. If you believe hard enough, you will end up believing?

DId you leave out an “anything” on the end, there?

Yes. Atheists are always violent, because they do not like being shown as refusing to do something which their own principles DEMAND that they do in search of a truth, and throw a tantrum, as you just did, when shown that that is exactly what they’ve just done.

No one can “just believe hard enough” to get confirmation of a particular belief if that belief is not true, and the proceedure to test it is done properly.

One can certainly get “demonic confirmation” of any particular belief if one WANTS that belief to be true and never checks with the proper authority as to whether that belief is in fact true.

Once again, if you simply don’t believe in divine revelation, then this makes less than no sense to you, other than being “circular” and “delusional”.

Which is WHY it is a grace from God to allow oneself to accept the offered grace of having faith in God long enough to be graced by His presence.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Why is this? Because the most potent and prime axiom of his religion (that of the scientistic materialist) is that no experiment is to be done which introduces any concept of God.

Science simply cannot appeal to supernatural causes. There is no way to scientifically explore that which has no boundaries.

You are perfectly correct when you define “knowledge”, which is what science is, as only of the scientistic-supporting materialist variety of knowledge.

This, your, kind of knowledge, which is a portion of science which you mistake as the whole of knowledge (science), SHOULD exclude the workings of God, because it’s concern is with God’s creation which is our environment, which is a beautiful and wonderful MACHINE created FOR US for our use as a (relatively) predictable useful “tool” for our existence in this “time” realm.

My kind of knowledge (science) is concerned with the right and wrong ways of USING the material universe so as to best help man find God and please Him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
The so-called atheist is interested in maximizing “comfort” for those on earth. The Catholic (Christian) is interested in minimizing sin so that all God’s creations “run optimally” for mankind’s benefit for his (mankind’s) eternal existence, being both on earth and ever after.

Oh yes, the ever humble Christian whose powers extend to the souls of all creation.

What is this “power” you’re refering to?
What does “extends to the souls of all creation” mean?

Thanks in advance for explaining the meanings of what you say.

 

[joeybaggz]

Which brings me to…
Joeybaggz:
You seem to want to turn everything into a debate on evolution. Sorry. Not buying.

My comment about random chaotic events was simply an attempt to get you to look at things from a different perspective. Perhaps I should have known better. Anyway, it’s not the major victory you may think it is (though I thought this was a discussion, not a competition), but if it makes you happy, pop the corks and have some champagne, because life is short.

I’m not really looking to score any “Gotcha’s” in this discussion. I’m just here to present my views, so there really is no call for excessive End Zone celebrations. This isn’t a WWF Death Match. It’s more like a friendly scrimmage.

Merry: I’ve learned on this forum that no atheist and theist are going to agree on anything. The best one hopes for is a cordial discussion. As I stated somewhere else, any “argument” between a theist and atheist is like discussing quantum physics with a 9 year old kid in the barrio in Mexico city, in Swedish (not quite verbatim) I still believe that.

You see, there are far more lurkers who read this thread than posters, about 10 to 1. Atheists are very adept at framing the discussion, and since so many posters will respond to your points using faith or the Bible as a rationale for their point of view, the atheistic/agnostic counter is easy. I thought I’d offer a little something different. Besides, we faithful Catholics are so used to those who oppose our views using the tactic of capturing the language that we too often just roll over and give up. The pro abortion group does it all the time. I guess the problem is that some of us don’t want to quit. How uncivil of us.

Your statement about trying to get me see something from a different perspective actually did what you wanted. Problem is, I couldn’t find anything scientifically proveable as beneficial in our known world that was the result of random/chaotic events. Cancer was the only thing I came up with. When science finds it, I’ll be happy to believe it. Once it is proven, demonstrable, and faisifiable. Actually that whole paragraph was a bit condescending in tone, but I’ll let it pass. I’ll just say it was part of a “friendly scrimmage”

As to turning everything into a debate about evolution, well from a theistic point of view, you gotta admit, evolution is the 800 pound gorilla. It is also, for most of us lurkers and posters, the easist of the theories to relate to. I can understand you’re not wanting to buy in. Though I think it’s a good theory, it is full of holes and gaps. The fact that it is a good “Swiss cheese” theory makes it the best fertile ground for the discussion between the two camps.

And we’re not looking for gotcha’s either (though I can’t speak for all posters). It’s just that (and I am not including you in this number, you have been quite civil) it is my experience that any atheist who posts seems to expect that when his/her self-congratulatory and self-professed, superior logic is assailed, he get’s all medieval on us. If the score in his or her mind isn’t Atheists 48, theists 0, out comes the ad hominem garbage.

You see, for us theists, it is so difficult to go from an eternal void with no first intelligence or Creator, to ducks, dolphins, and the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders. Especially because that crafty old God the Father won’t allow us to put Him in a test tube. Sure would make our stand a bit easier. It’s so hard to prove an unprovealbe existence, at least from a scientific point of view. But, we’ll keep trying, and forgive us when we serve up a viewpoint that is difficult to assail for the atheists point of view. Though it may seem like it, it really isn’t an end zone celebration, and there is no champagne. Although don’t deny us a wafer of bread … and a sip of wine. Or as we Catholic would call it …

 

[hunter2]

Apparently you also worship before the Holy Dictionary, as well. So be it. I did figure out what you were refering to by your use of “humble”, and my repost (response as per “fencing” [blades]) was to contrast a proper use of the word with the “odd” use that you probably didn’t mean but which you seemed to mean.

I understand where you’re coming from, being one who has been inculcated with the fallacious idea that any “divine revelation of truth” is simply impossible and unreal, and that “no religion is the true religion (mostly because their believers are deluded as to what ‘God’ REALLY means)”.

With that understanding, I shall now sound like a complete idiot (to you), in that God has informed us (Catholics) that His Church has it perfectly as regards God-stuff (aka the supernatural), while all other religions have a portion of that fullness of truth in as much as they are congruent WITH the Church (Catholic), or at least in as much as they follow natural law.

We have no need to be untruthful, and no desire but to do it “humbly”, meaning “not putting ourselves before the proper authority”, in proclaiming truth as truth.

You must be thinking of someone else. I don’t know what you mean by “(response as per “fencing” [blades]) was to contrast a proper use of the word with the “odd””

“divine revelation of truth” is simply impossible and unreal, and that “no religion is the true religion (mostly because their believers are deluded as to what ‘God’ REALLY means)”.

Any divine revelation of truth is possible. Any religion is possibly the true religion. That is why you must be humble and accept that you are not in a position to choose which one is true, if any.

 

[hunter2]

What is this “power” you’re refering to?
What does “extends to the souls of all creation” mean?

Thanks in advance for explaining the meanings of what you say.

The so-called atheist is interested in maximizing “comfort” for those on earth. The Catholic (Christian) is interested in minimizing sin so that all God’s creations “run optimally” for mankind’s benefit for his (mankind’s) eternal existence, being both on earth and ever after.

This is the “power” i am referring to. You guys are not only pompously deciding what is sin, but talk about “optimal” and “eternal” etc…

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
“divine revelation of truth” is simply impossible and unreal, and that “no religion is the true religion (mostly because their believers are deluded as to what ‘God’ REALLY means)”.

Any divine revelation of truth is possible. Any religion is possibly the true religion. That is why you must be humble and accept that you are not in a position to choose which one is true, if any.

If it’s DIVINE revelation, how can two “thruths” which directly contradict each other both be actually TRUE?

They can’t of course, and this simply tells me that you, the person stating that “Any divine revelation of truth is possible”, either has no idea of what “divine” means, or you simply do not believe in “divinity”.

Which is it?

We humble ourselves to the (singular) truth. We refuse to do as you apparently do, which is to ARROGATE to ourselves the decision of what is true and what is not.

But, I absolutely believe that you are right in believing as you do based on the “evidence” that you accept, from your refusal to do the work necessary to receive the evidence available, AS evidence due to your incomplete understanding of the word “science” (knowledge).

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
What is this “power” you’re refering to?
What does “extends to the souls of all creation” mean?

Thanks in advance for explaining the meanings of what you say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
The so-called atheist is interested in maximizing “comfort” for those on earth. The Catholic (Christian) is interested in minimizing sin so that all God’s creations “run optimally” for mankind’s benefit for his (mankind’s) eternal existence, being both on earth and ever after.

This is the “power” i am referring to. You guys are not only pompously deciding what is sin, but talk about “optimal” and “eternal” etc…

The truth can be delivered poorly, but it can not be delivered as untruth.

You see any statement of non-relativistic scientistic materialistic truth as “a pompous delivery”, regardless of either the actual pomposity of the deliverer, or the truth of the delivery of information.

We don’t decide on what sin is! Sin is defined by God, who has told us what it is.

You will believe nothing which violates your religion, and to define “sin” is to violate your religion, as in your religion there are no absolutes allowable (among other reasons!).

We know what is optimal in human action in the moral realm of science (knowledge). We know there is an “eternity” (possibly more than one in nested configuration) in which all creatures (created things) exist “forever” which (to be clear to folks such as yourself) is what “eternal” means.

Why would we allow YOU to keep us from talking about what we know, and promulgating what is best and most wise for all mankind to know?

 

[BlaineTog]

This is the “power” i am referring to. You guys are not only pompously deciding what is sin, but talk about “optimal” and “eternal” etc…

Atheists try to find what is optimal, too, though. After all, isn’t that what politics supposedly is? Trying to find the best way to live together? And ethics, too, is necessarily ordered towards the betterment of humanity.

 

[Paladin_V]

Freedom to choose good does not imply freedom to choose evil. “Freedom of the will” means not inexorably coerced by another entity. Just because a will is not inexorably coerced does not mean it cannot be infallibly moved and yet act freely, as you yourself admit.

No, this is an absolute refutation of the free will defense. The free will defense says that a loving God must permit us to choose evil in order to also allow us to choose good. But as you admit a loving God does NOT have to permit us to choose evil since He can infallibly bring about good without violating our free will, which means we are still free to choose good, and do so freely.

This is really a can of worms. First, I might say that while the free will argument does not refute a loving God, but rather supports the idea, it is much too complex when you really get into it and there are much easier and better ways to show that God must necessarily be loving (despite the fact that evil exists). So I’ll just reply to the objections, but the grace and nature discussion is better discussed elsewhere.

Ok, so I admitted to something too hastily… you claimed that God can infallibly move us to choose good over evil without violating our free will and I said that I agree. Well, I’m going to take back my assent. That statement is FAR to general; it is insufficient, and lacking in clarity. Explain how it is that God moves us infallibly to choose good without violating our free will, for starters. If you can, please, do share, because it’s something that no one has done in a fully complete and clear way… not St. Thomas, not St. Augustine, not the Molinists… it’s a mysterious thing.

If by your statement you mean that God can cause us to choose good in every single circumstance without violating our free will in each circumstance, than that is not true. God can and does give us efficatious grace which will move us to infallibly choose good in a given circumstance, but this depends on our free assent on some level before hand (on the level of sufficient grace as the Thomist would say). There is a level at which we are responsible for choosing God or not, and at this level, God cannot force us to choose Him.

Thus, for every circumstance, there IS a level at which, if we choose, we can reject sufficient grace and consequently efficatious grace, which we need to do good. God can not cause us to choose good by giving efficatious grace if we have rejected sufficient grace (and thereby rejected the offered efficatious grace). We know this from human experience and from the Church.

So, really, this is much more complicated than one sentence. This has been studied by the best theologians and philosophers in history, who have given us some pretty darn good answers… but all theories have some objections. What we do know, though, is that we ARE responsible for choosing evil, that we need God’s grace to do good, that God always offers sufficient grace, and that, if we actively reject God’s loving grace, He cannot cause us to choose it freely (precisely because we have actively rejected it).

At any rate, an atheist is incapable of understanding any of this, so it’s probably best not to dwell on this too much.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

…
At any rate, an atheist is incapable of understanding any of this, so it’s probably best not to dwell on this too much.

Indeed. My dog has a better grasp of how my car works. At least she seems to know, as if by “magic”, what the concept of “getting run over” means.

 

[dbg]

It is impossible to do so. But if you feel that you would like to try, let this be a friendly, academic/theological thread on the existence of God using scholarly works and/or universal principles.

I don’t consider myself an “atheist” but I do not believe “God” exists. And here’s the proof. I hope your first loyalty is to the truth, rather than to your “faith.”

1 Let “God” be as your “Saint” Anselm defined, that singular being greater than which cannot be conceived. Let’s call it “God” for short

2 Let’s suppose that “God” is a logically consistent concept and is conceivable by me.

3 Well then I can conceive of a being greater than “God” – namely a being that is so great that it cannot even be conceived by a mere mortal such as myself.

1. But that contradicts the definition of the concept “God”

5 So either “God” (as defined by Anselm) is not a logically consistent concept and/or “God” is not conceivable by me (or you).

1. Let’s take case A: “God” is not a logically consistent concept. Well in that case, “God” doesn’t exist since something logically inconsistent cannot exist.
2. Let’s take case B: “God” is not conceivable by me (or you). Well in this case, that means you are proposing the existence of something which you have no concept of. You might as well say, “I believe in the existence of this … well I can’t form any concept of it, but I know it exists and I bet you can’t prove it doesn’t exist!” … well of course I couldn’t since there’s nothing you have conceptualized in the first place for me to disprove the existence of! What I can do however is point out that whatever “God” may exist, that if we have no concept of it, then any word used to denote it is devoid of meaning. Even some of your own “philosophers” admitted as much (though your Aquinas disagreed) by acknowleding that no word in any human language or for that matter any creaturely language can be truly predicated of “God” – so for example one couldn’t say that “God” was “good” properly speaking. Well, in that case, why should I love “God”?

Here’s another unrelated argument against the existence of God … here we’ll define God simply as the being that could not be more perfect. Let’s call it “Pod” so we don’t get it confused with “God” above.

Well love is a perfection such that the more fervent one’s love, the more perfect it is. But there is no maximum fervor one can possess with respect to love. As a passion, for any intensity level, one can always conceive of it at a greater intensity. So while there could (as far as this reasoning goes) be a being that could become more and more fervent in its love with no limit in potential, there couldn’t be a being that is as fervent as possible in its love in actuality simply because there’s no upper bound to fervor levels.

Instead of trying to get people to believe in some imaginary God, you all should encourage people to love. Even one of your “saints” said, “Love and do what you will.”

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I don’t consider myself an “atheist” but I do not believe “God” exists.

So, he starts off with a self-contradictory statement. I must wonder what “atheist” means to our hero?

And here’s the proof. I hope your first loyalty is to the truth, rather than to your “faith.”

1 Let “God” be as your “Saint” Anselm defined, that singular being greater than which cannot be conceived. Let’s call it “God” for short

This “works” (is “logical” with a particularly skewed form of logic) for “infinity” as well, which is what is really being described here, and not God.

2 Let’s suppose that “God” is a logically consistent concept and is conceivable by me.

So, he’s set up a definitional self-contradiction and uses it to “prove” that the thing defined by that definition is self-contradictory.

Very, uh, “clever”?

3 Well then I can conceive of a being greater than “God” – namely a being that is so great that it cannot even be conceived by a mere mortal such as myself.

Since it’s definitionally impossible, given the REAL definition of God, to describe a being greater than the can’t-be-greater-than-God, he CAN’T in reality “conceive” (I wold ask for a definition of “conceive” as used please!) of that which by definition can’t be conceived.

1. But that contradicts the definition of the concept “God”

This cavalcade of arbitrary defining has created precisely what it was created to define! Imagine that!?

5 So either “God” (as defined by Anselm) is not a logically consistent concept and/or “God” is not conceivable by me (or you).

Since he didn’t start with a proper understanding of ANY sensible definition of God, it’s not overly surprising that an untruth would be the conclusion of this nonsensical train of misdefinitional artifice.

1. Let’s take case A: “God” is not a logically consistent concept. Well in that case, “God” doesn’t exist since something logically inconsistent cannot exist.

1. Let’s take case B: “God” is not conceivable by me (or you). Well in this case, that means you are proposing the existence of something which you have no concept of. You might as well say, “I believe in the existence of this … well I can’t form any concept of it, but I know it exists and I bet you can’t prove it doesn’t exist!” … well of course I couldn’t since there’s nothing you have conceptualized in the first place for me to disprove the existence of! What I can do however is point out that whatever “God” may exist, that if we have no concept of it, then any word used to denote it is devoid of meaning. Even some of your own “philosophers” admitted as much (though your Aquinas disagreed) by acknowleding that no word in any human language or for that matter any creaturely language can be truly predicated of “God” – so for example one couldn’t say that “God” was “good” properly speaking. Well, in that case, why should I love “God”?

Here’s another unrelated argument against the existence of God … here we’ll define God simply as the being that could not be more perfect. Let’s call it “Pod” so we don’t get it confused with “God” above.

Well love is a perfection such that the more fervent one’s love, the more perfect it is. But there is no maximum fervor one can possess with respect to love. As a passion, for any intensity level, one can always conceive of it at a greater intensity. So while there could (as far as this reasoning goes) be a being that could become more and more fervent in its love with no limit in potential, there couldn’t be a being that is as fervent as possible in its love in actuality simply because there’s no upper bound to fervor levels.

Your “argument” is not against the definition of God, but rather the definition of INFINITY. You’re not talking about God at all.

Instead of trying to get people to believe in some imaginary God, you all should encourage people to love. Even one of your “saints” said, “Love and do what you will.”

These are the axioms which you either have been graced to believe or not:

1. God is All-Love
2. God is All-Powerful (omnipotent)
3. God is utterly unique in nature

To start a “train of reasoning” from any basis other than the above, with a goal of proving God’s existence or nonexistence is abject silliness, and merely a new production of “Intellects GONE WILD!”.

 

[BlaineTog]

2 Let’s suppose that “God” is a logically consistent concept and is conceivable by me.

God is not understandable. We understand a little, because He chose to reveal himself to us, but not nearly all.

No, we are proposing the existence of something we have a limited concept of. We only have a limited concept of art, too, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Well love is a perfection such that the more fervent one’s love, the more perfect it is. But there is no maximum fervor one can possess with respect to love. As a passion, for any intensity level, one can always conceive of it at a greater intensity. So while there could (as far as this reasoning goes) be a being that could become more and more fervent in its love with no limit in potential, there couldn’t be a being that is as fervent as possible in its love in actuality simply because there’s no upper bound to fervor levels.

You’re slipping in other definitions and assumptions without acknowledging them. For one thing, you assume that by “Love,” we merely mean a “passion,” which is a terribly small view of it.

[/QUOTE]

 

[johnlal]

Atheists: you cannot disprove the existence of GOd It is impossible to do so.

This is the old “Flying Spaghetti Monster” argument. Since nobody can disprove the existence of an unseen God, he must be real. By the same logic, so is the Spaghetti Monster, and his noodly appendages.

venganza.org/