Easiest philosophical proof against the "all powerful god of major religion's"?

The mind is still limited if you say God doesn't exist to to contemplating only a world without God. And you can't say for certain what has been ascertained through a belief. It has nothing to do with these base characteristics you're describing. It's a real possibility that one can explore scientifically if one so chooses.

 

These possibilities can only occur when contemplated, that's about as 'scientific' as it goes, it is all a product of the mind internally. Feelings, beliefs and so forth are all factors of the conscious no matter what characteristics that are used. To limit all possibilities to only a god is where the mind is most limited; taking God out of the picture still may grant a limit, but it still leaves the mind even freer to explore other concepts with a more justifiable pathway. It's like limiting ourselves from ever actually visiting a black hole. You cannot say anything is 'real' when we can only postulate with our own self-data, but to begin ruling things out at least keeps the mind and imagination pumping.

 

Belief in God is totally justifiable and worthy of exploration if that is your area of interest. It isn't limiting to the imagination that is interested in it. And if you're not interested in it to begin with, how can you really say what value is derived from it, or what is to be gained from it? Even Einstein said his goal was to understand the mind of God.

 

This post is in shambles. I don't see how any of this critizes what I said at all. Can you please respond to quotes in a more structured way, I would like to hear what you have to say about it.

 

Well first of all, 'the mind of God' to Einstein is metaphorically speaking about the physics of the universe, not a personal god. He's always misunderstood when he speaks of 'God.'

I use to be a believer, and the derivatives from it are nothing that's especially needful and not already initially inside, the need for 'parental guidance' no longer seems necessary after discovering your own inner conscious. And those who were never initially interested may have never needed this sort of substance in the life to begin with, yet they all seem to be morally and emotionally sufficient anyway.

 

Lol. You make me wade through the above and then you have the nerve to say that my last post was a shambles?

I quoted you once in my last post. What exactly is it about quotation marks that you don't understand? Read my last post or don't. I don't care. Your premise is flawed - not because of the conclusion you draw, but because of your flawed rhetoric. You have assumed that "god" shares or even has motivations as we understand them in this argument and you use this assumption as the backbone of your argument. I've explained to you why this assumption is incorrect, but you refuse to address it. What else is there to say?

I do have a suggestion for you, that might help you with any future premises. I strongly recommend you read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Logical-Self-Defense-Ralph-H-Johnson/dp/0070326665"]Amazon.com: Logical Self-Defense (9780070326668): Ralph H. Johnson, J. Anthony Blair: Books

Cheers

 

No Thanks, I much prefer what I am reading right now.

I've also graduated in philosophy at a masters level, your not going to get off on that though are you??

 

lol, I was waiting for that to come out. Congratulations. I still recommend you read the book.

 

this is fun .
e

i like the format of your presentation .
and hope you refine it from what you have learned
from/with us . nothing ? you have encountered
different writing styles alive . the word is the media .
for instance , words of philosophy can be like geometry .
word associations can model the geometry of matter .
no understanding ? he he ha . go physical .

 

Most of the commentators so far have been atheists. Even the choir has problems with the logic of your post. Let me give you a Christian's reaction, and see if anything is salvageable.

First of all, it seems to me you have developed these premises from human experience and psychology(where else would they come from?) and proceed to apply them to an entity that is, by definition, superior to and outside of human experience. I doubt that even most Evangelical Christians hold such a primitive anthropocentric concept of God, although a literalist might infer one from Genesis. Second, you are accepting a traditional Abrahamic concept of God as an omnipotent, omniscient being, which is appropriate enough in dealing with Yahweh/Allah, but might not be adequate in describing the God of process theology--the God I have in mind when I use the term. A number of Christians, including psychologist William James, theologian Charles Hartshorne, physicist Freeman Dyson, and astrophysicist Bernard Haisch, follow Socinius in denying that God is omniscient or omnipotent. Hartshorne, in his book Omnipotence and other Theological Mistakes, argues that God limited both of those properties to allow an element of indeterminacy for the multiverse. Why? We don't know. Possibly for reasons similar to the supposed advantages of the free market: to see what interesting developments occur from the interplay between chance and the laws of physics. Dyson suggests a "principle of maximum diversity" according to which "the laws of nature and intital conditions are such as to make the universe as interesting as possible". Prove it? Impossible. But we can bet on it.

 

there 's once an athiest who got drunk too much
and so submitted to AA therapy . essentially it is
a therapy based in rationalism ... um , as in research
shows ...

then , too , AA therapy insists dependence upon a higher
power is necessary to manage a psycho-chemical addiction .

to the athiest the philosophy of rationalism was comfortable .
but what to do with accepting a higher power ?

he resolved this simply and was reprogrammed . his
higher power is the AA group , specifically its contingent
of advanced and unified re-programmed units .


should ChangeHappens idea be useful , then may it
to apply to just higher power ? remove the god-language
and see what happens .

ha! here's your paradox ...
a philosophical proof is all powerful

 

About the bold; tell me, is anger not a anthropomorphic characteristic?

Are you so ignorant that you yourself don't know that the bible always shows that an all powerful god exists and yet that he has anthropomorphic characteristics such as anger??

My point is that an all powerful being cannot have desires, drives and wants.

Anger is a desire, drive and want to change our initial environment as it exists into another, through power of will.

 

Why the hell should I attempt to argue what YOU conceptualize god to be??

What, am I here to cater to your definitions of god???

I came here to show how you cannot resolve the most influential belief in god, because it is clearly a contradiction to have all powerful ability and also have desires, wants and drives.

THAT IS IT! THAT IS ALL!!!

I didn't say that I accept this concept of god, AS THE ULTIMATE CONCEPT OF GOD THAT OHHH MMMYYY FUCCCKING GOD EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE POSTERS HERE HAVE TO ACCEPT!!!!

 

it can be resolved because the belief is not influential .

god is small
and experiences of god are few ,
then comes death . be peaceful
in that last moment . this peace shall
not require desire and one last intention
will bloom - for children

 

#1 You failed to show that "is is clearly a contradiction to have all powerful ability and also have desires, wants and drives".

#2 You continually narrow the terms of your original premise - which is good, because it gives your premise focus. Unfortunately, it's off putting because you use this "narrowing down" in your rhetoric against counter arguments as if it's up to the reader to determine what you really meant - when really the source of your frustration at being misunderstood can be attributed to the ambiguity of your premise and many of your subsequent responses.

#3 Why do you get so angry and frustrated when people take the time to counter your argument. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that your premise was in fact a work in progress and that your original purpose for posting was to receive feedback. Your tone throughout this thread toward anyone that challenges your idea ranges from snarky to outright indignant. If you're so convinced of the irrefutability of your claim (and clearly you are not) why post it at all? I'm all for spirited debate, but I think it's possible to have one without being insulting, insulted or pontificating IN ALL CAPS!

 

The weaknesses in your syllogism are still apparent. You posit that a conscious entity must have the attributes which observable conscious entities on earth do in fact have. But by definition, God is different from any observable conscious entity, so your inference is based on a faulty premise. Then you argue that an omnipotent being wouldn't be needy, and therefore would just sit around being Himself. The retort you could expect from most Christians is that God didn't have to create anything, and did not do so because he needed to. He did so because He chose to do so. Why did he choose to do so? Because He just did, which is the prerogative of omnipotence.

Christians long ago addressed the argument that God couldn't be omnipotent, because He couldn't make a rock He couldn't lift. Omnipotence isn't taken to imply that God can do things that are logically contradictory--like making black whiteness. And by traditional concepts, God gave us free will, which implies divine self-limitation. If God chooses to limit His own powers, he can do so and still be omnipotent, as long as he can take them back. The arguments I presented in this regard were not just my views but those of respected theologians. If you're purporting to refute "the all powerful God of most religions", I think you need to take the views of their theologians into account.

There are good reasons to doubt the existence of such an entity, but since you structure your arguments as formal logical deduction, they stand or fall according to the rules of logic. I think the logic is faulty.

You now import into the syllogisms a literal interpretation of the Bible. If you mean to define the God of "most religions" as the God of fundamentalist Christians, you might say that. Otherwise, non-fundamentalist believers might find this confusing. Most Christians do not place the same emphasis on the Bible as the source of religious knowledge, and certainly not a literal interpretation of it, that Christian fundamentalists in the United States do.


Over to you.

 

Okie if you're a Christian, then we're all Christians here lol

 

I agree with ChangeHappens in that to be anthropomorphic is by definition, to be limited. That being said, I do not agree with his conception of power. A little power is the same as a lot of power.

 

You have failed to show me what how it isn't. You don't know necessarily what your talking about., hav you ever studied philosophy of religion at a University Level??

Didn't we resolve this already?? Didn't I tell you that I was arguing against a specific conception of god? If I remember correctly, you criticized me for using a definition of god that is found in Christianity and Islam. You thought that I was narrowing my argument, but I was just using that as an example that represents what the majority of the world believes when it comes to 'god'.

Coming fro a guy who insults people pretty much all the time.....

How many times have I seen you insult people here, bud??

Your joking right??

Also, where have I insulted anybody here??

When it comes to bold, I just am stressing what I am saying because I have already said it before!!! Doesn't it get frustrating to you when I post a specific concept of god and people criticize that you are using a limited concept of god??