Prove that God doesn't exist.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Are you just being obtuse?

God made 'free will' knowing how it would be used.

There are two consequences of this.

1) there is no free will. It is logically impossible.
2) god is responsible for all actions committed by the people he made.

And that is the end of the road for christianity.

 

[numinus]

OMG (no pun intended)... the wheels of logic are really completely off your cart.

If all Jesus did was to get people to "share some food they already had" while that is a very nice thing it is certainly no miracle.

You actually prove MY point. That there have been many good men over history. Whether exceptional strong or smart or good at peace making. Jesus no doubt was one of these men.

And we see this even today in religion. Mother Teresa was no doubt a wonderful, unbelievably giving person... now though she's been risen to Saint.

When in reality she was a wonderful person who's now deceased... period.

Eh?

Exactly what would you have the creator do, hmmm?

You want a booming voice of self-declaration every 15 seconds? Would you believe what is logically inescapable regarding his existence then?

Actually, he has done something even more than that. He laid out the whole of creation for you to see and gave you the rational faculty to marvel at it. And what, may I ask, do you do with that rational faculty? You cling to the absurd and counter-intuitive belief that everything came from a perfectly natural and scientific NOTHING. I do not know exactly how your meandering logic works or if you were simply dropped on the head as a child. Personally, I cannot even fully grasp the concept of absolute nothing since it only occurs in the realm of ideas (mathematics and logic). And even there, its existence and distinctness is real.

As for the miracle of sharing, I have no problem accepting a 'miracle' as mundane as that -- especially when the act was done in complete disregard for one's personal welfare. What the act of sharing represents is the more profound miracle of metanoia or change of heart. In that singular instance, as in any instance we find ourselves doing a moral good for itself, they achieve for one brief moment, a perfection of human nature.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

''Actually, he has done something even more than that. He laid out the whole of creation for you to see and gave you the rational faculty to marvel at it. ''

Just a shame he didn't provide any evidence.

And also a real shame that he made his own existence a logical impossibility.

And also a shame that he made the devil.

And Hitler and Stalin and Bush and Cheyney.

 

[9sublime]

Then the definition of perfection appears to be rather arbitrary, in that case. When can you differentiate perfection and imperfection if you can simply fall back on the claim that any imperfection is a perfection of imperfection?

No, this is not my point. Just because I am called Jack does not mean my son will be called Jack. Just because God is (apparently) perfect, does not mean he neccessarily has to create a perfect creation. If he does not wish to utilise his perfection, he doesn't HAVE TO.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

God isn't perfect anyway.

He made evil

 

[9sublime]

No he didn't, he allowed evil. There is a difference. Marginal, but there is.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

God made lucipher, he gave him the capability to be evil knowing that he would use that capability. If, under those circumstances god continued to make Lucipher he must have made him with the intention of bringing evil into the world.

Lucipher was god's vehicle for evil.

 

[numinus]

god made lucipher, he gave him the capability to be evil knowing that he would use that capability. If, under those circumstances god continued to make lucipher he must have made him with the intention of bringing evil into the world.

Lucipher was god's vehicle for evil.

against absolute stupidity, even god contends in vain.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Could someone decode that please if it is decodable?

It may just mean 'I can't answer the point Dawkins makes but I will not accept it'.

 

[numinus]

Could someone decode that please if it is decodable?

It may just mean 'I can't answer the point Dawkins makes but I will not accept it'.

I have already roundly debunked all your silly assertions. If you think I am going to repeat myself for your benefit, then think again -- if thinking is even possible with you.

After all, you couldn't understand last time. There is no indication that will change this time around. So why the hell bother with someone with an intellect comparable to an ameoba?

 

[Mr.Dysfunctional]

I have already roundly debunked all your silly assertions. If you think I am going to repeat myself for your benefit, then think again -- if thinking is even possible with you.

After all, you couldn't understand last time. There is no indication that will change this time around. So why the hell bother with someone with an intellect comparable to an ameoba?

Really thou.. I'm not sure why everyone gets to the point of personal attacks that have no basis on the subject... But again.. maybe all the latest posters in this thread should review our Rules policy
You can find them here ---> https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1220

Clean up your posts people!!! to much loose lip service going around.

 

[Lagboltz]

The formal solution may be presented as follows:

Let O be the set of things god can do.

1. O is a universal set
Proof: Definition of 'omnipotent' as naively stated.

2. O complement is the set of things god cannot do
Proof: Definition of the set complement - for any set S, its complement, S complement, is the set whose members are not members of S.

3. O complement is an empty set
Proof: Complement laws - the complement of a universal set is an empty set
Principle of extensionality - two sets are equal if they have the same elements

4. O complement is a subset of O
Proof: Properties of empty set - for any set X, the empty set is a subset of X.

Conclusion: The set of things god cannot do is an element of the the set of things god can do -- hence god is omnipotent.

Numinus, you have a logical error in your reasoning.

Let U be the universal set of all possible things that can be done.
Let O = set of elements of all things God can do.
Let f be an element of U = "God can create a stone that he cannot lift."
The element f represents a fallibility or failure.

Agnapostate's argument can be stated,

1. Either f is an element of O or f is not an element of O.

2. If f is an element of O then God has an element of fallibility.

3. If f is not an element of O, then O is a proper subset of U, and God can't do all things.

4. Therefore the set O either consists of a fallibility or it is not universal.

Numinus, where your logic fails is in what do you do with the element f?
In your step 3. You say O complement is empty.
Therefore f must not be in O complement, because O complement is empty.
Therefore, since O and O complement are disjoint, f must be in O.
Therefore O has an element of fallibility.

Your statement 3. is in error, because O complement is not empty.
Therefore your statement 4. O complement is a subset of O is a logical contradiction.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

And while you are at it Numinus please explain why god is not responsible for Lucipher's actions when god made Lucipher and knew how he would turn out.

 

[top gun]

Eh?

Exactly what would you have the creator do, hmmm?

You want a booming voice of self-declaration every 15 seconds? Would you believe what is logically inescapable regarding his existence then?

Actually, he has done something even more than that. He laid out the whole of creation for you to see and gave you the rational faculty to marvel at it. And what, may I ask, do you do with that rational faculty? You cling to the absurd and counter-intuitive belief that everything came from a perfectly natural and scientific NOTHING. I do not know exactly how your meandering logic works or if you were simply dropped on the head as a child. Personally, I cannot even fully grasp the concept of absolute nothing since it only occurs in the realm of ideas (mathematics and logic). And even there, its existence and distinctness is real.

As for the miracle of sharing, I have no problem accepting a 'miracle' as mundane as that -- especially when the act was done in complete disregard for one's personal welfare. What the act of sharing represents is the more profound miracle of metanoia or change of heart. In that singular instance, as in any instance we find ourselves doing a moral good for itself, they achieve for one brief moment, a perfection of human nature.

You know... in a free country there's nothing wrong with having unprovable beliefs or believing in Fable as fact.

This has happened all through history and it really just matters on how much the "story" is picked up on and who buys into it.

We all know about Santa Claus and how that real person, a good man that made and gave gifts to children of a small village... evolved over time to a magician living at the North Pole with hundreds of Elves making toys for delivery by magic sleigh & flying Reindeer all over the world all in one night.

Or there's the true historical facts of Vlad the Impaler would was a leader of forces in Transylvania. He would impale captured prisoners and display them on the stakes at the entrance to his country to scare off future his adversaries... that evolved through tale to a pale, blood sucking, Count Dracula vampire that could only be killed by he himself being stabbed in the heart with a stake.

So push whatever story you want or makes you personally feel better... but it's still just another evolved, way out of reality, tale.

 

[Dr.Who]

If he had to resort to such a process, he is imperfect himself.

I disagree with the logic of that but for the sake of the discussion I will ignore that and move on.

Let's stipulate for the moment that if He HAD to resort to such a process He would be imperfect.

Who says that He HAD to do that? Suppose He just wanted to do that.

Now back to the question of imperfect. If you mean less than absolutely omniscient or absolutely omnipotent then I would say that most theologians already think that God is virtually omniscient and virtually omnipotent but do not extend that to absoluteness. They base this on the bible. The bible never uses the words omniscient nor omnipotent but it does mention God's knowledge and power and implies that they are very great. We are left to deduce for ourselves just how knowledgeable and how powerful He is.