question to the all the atheists

You didn't refute my argument for why someone who's omniscient cannot do that, all you did was make a contradictory statement with no counterargument.

Here's an example of what you're doing:

You: "Cats can be everywhere at once"

Me: "No, if they're everywhere, we would have to be able to observe them everywhere and not observe anything else."

You: "*lists a definition* Nowhere in the definition of 'cat' or 'anywhere' does it say that."

Me: "It doesn't have to say it; when you look in the dictionary for premarital sex it doesn't say whether it's right, wrong, or amoral either; so, by inference, they can't be everywhere at once, because I can only observe one cat, and if cats can be everywhere at once, than it would be impossible for anything else to take up space as all space is already taken up by cats."

You: "Cats being everywhere doesn't mean you can observe them anywhere and that no space is left for anything else other than a cat to be observed."

Me: "So you just repeated yourself without refuting what I said."

You: "I simply made the point that that's easily refutable, because cats being everywhere doesn't mean you can observe them anywhere and that no space is left for anything else other than a cat to be observed."

Do you see what's wrong with this? All you did was bring a contradictory statement to what I said (I said cats being everywhere at once meant we would not be able to observe anything but cats, and then you said no it didn't), however you failed to show or explain how my logic is incorrect and how the fact that cats are everywhere doesn't entail that you can't observe anything else but cats.

This is our actual conversation, where you did the exact same thing as shown in my example:

You: "om⋅nis⋅cient   /ɒmˈnɪʃənt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [om-nish-uhnt]

–adjective 1. having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.


No where in either of those definitions does it say that to be these things cancels out the allowance of a change of state and or thought?" which basically what you're saying is "the definition doesn't say it, therefore it's possible that someone who's omniscient to change his or her mind."

Me: "No, the definition doesn't say He can't change His mind, but the dictionary definition of kill(v.) doesn't say it's immoral either; but by inference, if God is all-knowing, then if he changes his mind, that would mean that his previous knowledge was incorrect. But guess what? If God knows everything, that means he knows whether in the future his knowledge claim would be incorrect or not, or whether he will be proven wrong, which also means that he cannot believe something that is absolutely incorrect to be knowledge, as he already knows it is not by knowing whether or not in the future he will be proven incorrect. So omniscience entails infallibility. So he couldn't change his mind. Any omniscient god would be infallible in their claims, in fact. (though, God's omnipotence contradicts his omniscience, supposing his omnipotence is intrinsic)"

You: "I would like to make the point that just because you know everything does not mean you cannot change your mind my good man. Sometimes even knowing something you still must make a different decision." or basically what you're saying here is "You're wrong, you can change your mind even if you were omniscient."

Me: "So you basically just repeated yourself without refuting what I said."

You: "I simply made the point that your point of not being able to be omnipotent and still change your mind is easily refutable. Any one can change their mind and still know all that there is to know. Any one thats omnipotent or omnscient at least." or simply put, what you're saying is "I just made the point that your point is easily refutable. Anyone can change their mind, even the omniscient and omnipotent." (still no counter-argument against my argument; I made a counter-argument against this claim, but all you did was repeat it and implied that by doing so you totally refuted my position)

Maybe it is easily refutable, but where's the refutation?

It's as if I were to tell you "And that's easily refutable as well: it's impossible to change your mind if you're omniscient." and you ask me "okay, so you're just repeating yourself." And then I say, "No, I'm just showing that it's easily refutable: it's impossible to change your mind if you're omniscient."

That's exactly what you're doing. This is essentially circular reasoning.

 

Hmm well this entire thing leads back to the simple question of how do we know what is right and wrong? Or what is material and immaterial? Or what is truth and what is lie? I could continue with that line for ages but simply put. What you see is not always what you get. Even though cats may exist everywhere at once there is no way of knowing that that is the only place of existance there is.

When it comes to the human- god chain there is a simple question for it all. IF god is not real then how are we to dictate what is right and what is wrong? But then if God is real he defeats all known logic in stating that he is omnipotent that he always was and always will be. As far as we know nothing can be yet be without being, nothing can become without having some one to make it become. Thus where did God come from? Who made God? If God is real why did he make us? All of these are valid points and you are correct in the fact that I cannot truly disprove your theory. But I can make the point that as the old saying goes one man's trash is another's treasure. What you percieve to be impossible others see to be merely improbable, and others yet see it to be not only possible but likely.

 

This is irrelevant to the topic of omniscience; however, it is relevant to the topic of God being all-powerful as being morbid because God could command atrocities, which implies something that is wrong.

We know what is right and wrong by our mental faculties.

I don't get you here. I can't believe cats exist everywhere because it runs contrary to empirical information.

So I know cats don't exists everywhere at once because I know I can observe cats by sense-data, and my sense-data observes things other than cats, which would be logically impossible were cats everywhere at once.

Also, we started already with an assumption of what is truth and what is lie. I'm not going to ramble off to fundamentals, because that's not my focus right now.

The same way we do so now. If God exists, it doesn't change the state of existence unless God himself would will it. So we would still dictate it by how we do so now, regardless.

You mean if God is real we cannot make statements about his nature anyway? If that's what you're saying, I was not arguing that and will not argue that, because we were assuming the Judeao-Christian God, which means we must take assumptions of his nature from Christian philosophy to heart when talking about the Judea-Christian God.

Also, you can say he defeats all logic; but that would already be presupposing he exists. By reason, in most cases, you can only assume a negative proposition when the diametric proposition does not yet meet the criteria for being believed or known. At the most fundamental sense, the human is the fundamental subject and body of knowledge because that is where the human begins, so to discover he must use his faculties. The human can only seek to know or believe whether the Judeao-Christian God exists or not by virtue of his faculties.

So your statement that God is above logic is futile and useless, supposing that was what you were trying to say.

Agreed.

I disagree with this statement; something X that is the only thing that exists and has nothing outside it cannot be assigned a cause and therefore does not have a cause. And I find reason to believe such an X is possible. Whether there is such an X is another story.

However, if we try to seek a cause not knowing whether there is or is not, we must thus first start seeking if the object we are seeking a cause for has anything outside of it in existence. Since God's existence has not been shown, neither has he been shown to be the cause of the universe. You can't assume the universe has a cause either without showing something outside of it exists and that this thing meets the criteria of a cause, which you haven't.

Occam's Razor; this question is valid were we to hypothetically assume God exists (i.e. if-then), and leads to Occam's Razor. But that isn't even necessary at the current moment.

Which that doesn't make any one's position any less or more valid than the other; in fact, it puts them on par. So that doesn't help in deciding which claim is true or not.

And also, what you just said implies the truth is for us rather than to us or about us. And this implication is a relativist fallacy.

 

If 'god' didn't matter to our values or expressions in experience, how could the passage of time be experienced within ourselves such that the psychic energy could signify something happening outside. Within ourselves there is the idealization of sequential time events for the horizon imagining the presence of reality to the knowledge of its active occurrence.

Time just the same is fielding tasks in the expert capacity: we know that we know; that is the Existence of a world with our bodies. God is indifferent to all that? No, because the project resists my tasked action like the imagination was 'a' world or 'the' world as much as reality. If god does not exist then what I am imagining can be a helucination; or it can be the tip off for the accomplished relief of anxiety.

 

Radical skepticism applies even were a god to exist.

Just imagine if we debate the existence of cats (yes, cats are cute) - with radical skepticism, we can't. We couldn't believe or know anything except perhaps the essential presence of existence/consciousness.

Therefore, if a god does exist, it wouldn't matter because radical skepticism still covers humans with doubt; maybe the existence of a god is as illusory as my sense-data may be.

The thing is, yes, I may be a brain in a vat and thus my sense-data is existent but of an illusory status, but such is nothing but a possibility and is irrelevant to our knowledge - for when we say we know the sky is blue we speak of our sense-data. Whether it is illusory or not, we know the sky is blue whether it is so at the level of illusion or not.

Plus, pragmatically speaking, our sense-data, illusory or not, is affective to us and thus whether we are brains in vats is irrelevant. And because I can only rely on my sense-data, and my faculties, as I am my own center for the acquirement and inference of knowledge, then I cannot believe or say I know I am a brain in a vat, therefore I cannot believe my sense-data to be illusory.

 

I disagree. There are people in certain tribes who see eating other humans as a thing to be looked well upon. As a matter of fact they see it as a loving sacrifice to do so. Thus the truth of their "mental faculties" are different from the truth of our mental faculties. Which leads to the previous stated opinion that truth is different for everyone, thus there is no such thing as absolute truth.

Once again I think the theory of multiple things being able to exist at the same time within different zones of reality can be proven by simply looking at the world around us. Each object whether it be organic or inorganic has a set place for itself in this world. Where you stand when you get up in the morning is your set place. Where the snow comes down out of the sky is its set place. But it is entirely possible for these objects to overlap into other set places and even times. I would expound more but it would get us too far off topic. The realative multiverse is an entire years worth of discussion all its own.

Let us go with the predispostion that God is real. Granted niether of us really believe in God as he is portrayed in modern religion but let us say that he is for this lil experiment. Then let us go further and say that the Judeo/Christian God is the real God. Define for me what God is. If you say he is omnipotent then tell me have you ever seen or comprehended anything truly omnipotent? I know I havn't. Contemplated yes but not comprehended. Thus we cannot truly know what omnipotent, omnecsient, or infinite truly is. Which then leads to the realization that God is beyond our natural logic. And were to to take this theory and place it into a non god believing society it would still turn out the same results. Men have argued over God for centuries due to the fact that the shear majesty "he" has proclaimed to have throughout history defies all logic we know.

Well at least we finally agree on something.

There is no proof that anything has ever existed without a creator in the history of mankind. And before you say space we cannot truly say space had no creator. As a matter of fact it is far more likely that our galaxy was created. Let me state this point more clearly with proof and statistics

1:If the centrifugal force of planetary movements did not precisely balance the gravitational forces, nothing could be held in orbit around the sun.

2: If the universe had expanded at a rate one millionth more slowly than it did, expansion would have stopped, and the universe would have collapsed on itself before any starts had formed. If it had expanded faster, then no galaxies would have formed.

3:Any of the laws of physics can be described as a function of the velocity of light (now defined to be 299,792,456 meters per second). Even a slight variation in the speed of light would alter the other constants and preclude the possibility of life on earth.

4: If water vapor levels in the atmosphere were greater than they are now, a runaway greenhouse effect would cause temperatures to rise too high for human life; if they were less, an insufficient greenhouse effect would make the earth to cold to support human life.

5: If Jupiter were not in its current orbit, the earth would be bombarded with space material. Jupiter's gravitational field acts as a cosmic vacuum cleaner, attracting asteroids and comets that might otherwise strike earth.

6: If the thickness of the earth's crust were greater, too much oxygen would be transferred to the crust to support life. If it were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would make life impossible.

7: If the rotation of the earth took longer than 24 hours, temperature differences would be too great between night and day. If the rotation period were shorter, atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.

8: The 23-degree axel tilt- of the earth is just right. If the tilt were altered slightly, surface temperatures would be too extreme on earth.

9:If the atmospheric discharge (lightening) rate were greater there would be too much fire destruction; if it were less, there would be too little nitrogen fixing in the soil.

10: If there were more seismic activity much more life would be lost; if there were less, nutrients on the ocean floors and in river runoff would not be cycled back to the contintents through tectonic uplift. (Yes even earthquakes are neccesary to sustain life as we know it!)

 

It is the case opinions differ, but that does not disprove objective truth. Also, I used the phrase mental faculties because that's what humans use to go for truth; I never made a statement as to which line of reasoning is correct or incorrect. So, I used that phrase in order to broaden the possibilities. I nowhere made the statement that the fact that you use mental faculties alone validates or makes one's opinions sound. I never once made a meta-truth claim here. All I meant was, if something is above your means of acquiring knowledge, and it can defy it, then that thing either becomes automatically false or simply irrelevant, as humans are their own center for acquisition and they are their own subjects of knowledge and cannot exceed themselves. Therefore, such a thing ought not be believed in or said to be known.

Suppose I were to say then, that something with eyes is able to see; then you say that no, eyes cannot see. And you say that's illogical, and then I say my statement is above logic. No it's not, because logic deals with the relationship of language and categories with ontology. If you thus say that "God exists" and then proceed to say that he is "above logic," you are wrong, because since it is a statement you made it automatically constrained by logic, since logic deals with the relationships within language and the relationship between language and ontology.

So, my two basic points are:

1) Humans are the subjects of knowledge and the centers of their own inquiry. I.e., Humans cannot exceed the cognitive capabilities (specifically logical capabilities) they have when asked to exceed them, therefore they must accept their constraints. Accepting their constraints would be not to believe in things that run contrary to these constraints or cannot be examined by these constraints, as being above these constraints.

2) Any statement made by a human is constrained by logic as it establishes language, and has a relationship with the ontology of things and also holds relationships withing itself; it is not possible for a statement, claim, or notion to exceed logic when expressed.

There also is absolute truth; the most basic ones are: existence and personal consciousness.

It's not a multiverse; it's one reality and universe with different subjective stances.

No; certain things are purely true and do not need empirical observation, just rationalism. Why? I already have enough relevant information from the concept itself of omniscience. I already reasoned from ALL-knowing to the fact that an omniscient God would be infallible and wouldn't change his mind. ALL implies a concept of infinity; I can't grasp infinity, but I do know infinity, infinite-knowledge, means you can grasp any knowledge with no limitations. So I also know and understand that this would include knowing whether or not you will be mistaken and/or proven wrong in the future and knowing all information and thus knowing that you know something (there's the deduction). Therefore, God cannot be mistaken because he would already know everything that is mistaken.

Also, compare this to human knowledge: human can make knowledge claims which are fallible. Why? They do not know everything; the opposite of that would result in the opposite: infallibility. Thus, no changing of mind. So God is infallible and cannot change his mind.

Apparently it is not, as was shown.

And, also:
"1) Humans are the subjects of knowledge and the centers of their own inquiry. I.e., Humans cannot exceed the capabilities they have when asked to exceed, therefore they must accept their constraints. Accepting their constraints would be not to believe in things that run contrary to these constraints or cannot by examined by these constraints as being above these constraints.

2) Any statement made by a human is constrained by logic as it establishes language, and has a relationship with the ontology of things and also holds relationships withing itself; it is not possible for a statement, claim, or notion to exceed logic when expressed."

Also, yes, things in mankind have been made without a CREATOR; supernovas were not created by anything, they were caused. There is a difference between a creation and a simple effect.

But, either way, that wasn't my claim; I never said something like that has existed in the history of mankind. What I said was it is possible that something like that might exist and/or there is the potential for something like that to exist. I never said that it as a matter of fact existed.

 

ITT: Internet warriors battle to the death

 

Short of inventing a new term to describe my none-ism, perhaps I could say that this seems to be close to what I think on the subject :


"When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.
So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic."

Thomas Henry Huxley

 

Well its quite difficult for me to pretend he does exist (in order to answer your question) because i dont think he/she/it does. If he did it wouldn't change my mind on not being religious though.

 

I think Epicurus said it best:

If god is willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
If he is able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
If he is both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
If he is neither able nor willing?
Then why call him god?

 

again what is evil?

 

My major problem with Epicurus is the rigid "either-or" structure of his dilemma. The first point, that a god who is willing but not able to prevent evil is not omnimpotent, suffers from a misconception about "omnipotence" that theologian Charles Hartshorne covers well in his book Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes. Omnipotence does not mean the ability to do logically inconsistent things, like make white blackness. Omnipotence does not mean being able to do things against one's essential nature. If God is all good, it isn't a limitation on omnipotence to say that God can't do evil. Free will theologians also argue that by giving humans free will, God placed a self-imposed limitation on His omnipotent ability to control their decisions. Self-imposed limitations do not compromise omnipotence. Hartshorne goes on to argue that God gave at least some freedom to the rest of His creation, down to the sub-atomic level--a notion that is consistent with Quantum physics. That means that even an omnipotent, omnisicient deity doesn't know how it's all going to play out. But (S)he is still potent enough to be called God. Even in Epicurus' time, the gods were not all powerful and all knowing, just superhumanly so.

 

I have a lot of apoligising to do.

 

If god existed it would take all of the fun out of masturbation.

 

How,so?

 

^ well if he is omnipresent then he is watching you!

 

So?

 

Maybe the idea of Jesus watching you wank turns some of us on

 

Man, that's perverted!