Proving God to be fake... In under ten seconds...

Originally posted by nj2day

I'm also not going to assist you in setting up a straw man...




I hope you don't think I'm trying to steer you in any given direction. I respect you too much for something so obvious. I am generally interested in what I asked but don't feel obliged to respond now. You have your hands full it seems and I don't want to distract any further...but I sure am reading!

reply to post by jackflap


kk... i'll answer then, but I can't answer for all dogmas...

There are some dogmas that believe that the idea of blood sacrifice was to atone for the "wrong" that happened in the garden of eden... and that man was perpetually in the wrong.. (god says he will not only punish you for your sins.. but he will punish all generations following).

They then claim that when jesus was crucified, mankind was atoned for this "original sin" and the blood of his son was the last blood sacrifice he required...


edit: shameless syntax errors

[edit on 21-2-2009 by nj2day]

Originally posted by nj2day
You told us earlier that you need to have a relationship with "the father" to be a good person... You're also lecturing us on this (for lack of a better term) made-up dogma... something completely unique to you... (which is convienient, because you don't have any sort of documents you have to adhere to... you can make it up as you go along... ) And assuming that out of all people in history.. YOU are the one who has it right...

Where did I ever say this? I've seen you accuse me of this multiple times, but you have never pointed out where I said that.

Let's get back to the crappy OP here.

God cannot be omnipotent and omniscient because God could change the future, and thus somehow "break" omniscience.

I've already demonstrated why this is ridiculously wrong.

Any other arguments?

reply to post by badmedia

Originally posted by badmedia

Originally posted by TruthParadox
But you don't need the Bible to live a good life...

No you don't need the bible. It's called a personal relationship with the father.

right here...

reply to post by thrashee


Its a pretty weak argument, the OP could have came out stronger than that...

But, the omniscient and omnipotent paradox is well documented...

More popular, and easier to express is the omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent argument... that argument, is literally ancient.... 300 bc or so...

But without further hesitation... here is the Riddle of Epicurus:

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
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?

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Please excuse my bad Grammer English is not my first language.

Apply Occam's Razor.

Religion
Life Created by god
God created by ?

Science
Life created by big bang
Materials and space needed for the big bang created by ?

In theory neither should have existed. Nothing should exist.
Matter cannot be destroyed or created only changed.

reply to post by nj2day

 

Well, heh. Life was created by chemical reactions, the Solar System(Or Universe) was created by the big bang, little bit of a difference there... Materials and space created by Energy. Energy can be explained if you wish to research further. Now which seems more Logical or Likely to have happened? God, or chemical Reactions. We have already made artificial DNA strands, minus the ability for them to replicate.

There is really a fight to which neither side will win, plain and simple, each side will argue their ideas as stated facts. But, If I have to pick a side, its going to be with science here...

Rekar

Originally posted by nj2day
Its a pretty weak argument, the OP could have came out stronger than that...

Agreed. But any argument along these lines would ultimately prove to be weak.

But, the omniscient and omnipotent paradox is well documented...

More popular, and easier to express is the omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent argument... that argument, is literally ancient.... 300 bc or so...

But without further hesitation... here is the Riddle of Epicurus:

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
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?

And now here is the problem with this argument: all of these subjective statements are laid about according to human thinking. It's patently absurd to try to rationalize what God "must" or "must not" do along such lines. After all, we're neither omnibenevolent, omnipotent, nor omniscient. All of these things quite literally mean "all" or "absolute", which is clearly beyond our ability to understand.

Consider problem #1: If he is able but unwilling, then he is malevolent. Said like a child who doesn't get whatever he wants. Such an absolute statement to make: if God is omnibenevolent, that means nothing harmful or evil must exist. What? This is not logically sound. The obvious problem here is that everyone can define differently what they think is bad or evil. So you're allowing humans to define what constitutes evil, and then use such a definition to claim God cannot be x or y. Baaaad logic.

Same thing with problem #2: If he is both willing and able, where did evil come from? Again, this is a subjective statement. Furthermore, if we're even discussing an all-knowing and all-powerful God, then we have no rational right to believe that what we experience in this one existence is qualitatively authoritive for ANYTHING.

Originally posted by nj2day
reply to post by thrashee

 

Its a pretty weak argument, the OP could have came out stronger than that...
But, the omniscient and omnipotent paradox is well documented...
More popular, and easier to express is the omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent argument... that argument, is literally ancient.... 300 bc or so...

But without further hesitation... here is the Riddle of Epicurus:

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
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?

That is mind bending. I know I said I wouldn't interject but I wanted to ask why you would be limiting what God can do?

I mean think of this for a second. Every time something bad was about to happen the circumstances around the event change so that no evil happens. Someone gets pushed in front of a car and magically the car hops over this individual with no injuries to anyone. A murderers bullet stops in mid-air and falls to the ground before impacting its victim. The words that are meant to be curse words come out as sweet as honey and edify all that can hear.

We would think this is the norm and just go with it as the normal ins and outs of life. We would be programmed into not doing evil. We would be then saying that this isn't fair to us. I really wanted to get that guy but poof there goes my clinched fist holding a bouquet of roses. This has to stop! Unless I am seeing it wrong.

Let's see, He created us and instead of having us meandering around the planet on a pre-programmed chain of events executed to precision....(This wouldn't be fair by the way)...He gave us an ability to see right and wrong and the choice to follow Him...

I don't know but I am getting to sleep now. Nj2day God does not doubt your existence.

reply to post by thrashee


Oh I didn't say that I was using that argument lol I was just showing the riddle...

by definition though, omnibenevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence are mutually exclusive...

But I am not fond of philosophy, as there are "soft definitions" and no wrong answers...

therefore, I'll respectfully obstain from response

Like I said, was just trying to show how the OP could have came out stronger.

Originally posted by nj2day
by definition though, omnibenevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence are mutually exclusive...

How exactly are they mutually exclusive? They're not mutually exclusive in the least.

reply to post by thrashee


Its known as "the problem of evil"... and is actually standard curriculum in college level philosophy classes...

Like I said.. I hate philosophy, so I"ll obstain from response... (ya tried to sucker me in lol I saw that )

Instead, I'll give you this link to a paper hosted by Standford University, written by a Philosophy professor...

It will lay out the debate thats been going on for about 2300 years... lol

happy reading... (pop a few Asprin before reading!)

plato.stanford.edu...

edit: I may not want to engage in philosophy, but I'll point to sources...


[edit on 22-2-2009 by nj2day]

Originally posted by nj2day
reply to post by badmedia

 

Originally posted by badmedia

Originally posted by TruthParadox
But you don't need the Bible to live a good life...

No you don't need the bible. It's called a personal relationship with the father.

right here...

Oh please, that's not even close to what I was saying. I was just saying you don't need the bible to learn the things in it. I was saying it in agreement with the statement, and I mentioned the 2nd part because often times Christians put the words of the bible over everything, when they will even admit needing a personal relationship to actually understand what it says.

I don't remember the post exactly off hand, but I'm pretty sure I went on to mention something to the effect that I didn't think I was a bad person before finding out the truth, just a bit blind and ignorant. Also pretty sure I mentioned that only good people need to be deceived and manipulated to begin with, not the bad people. So maybe next time put things in the correct context?

Originally posted by nj2day
Its known as "the problem of evil"... and is actually standard curriculum in college level philosophy classes...

With all due respect, I don't debate links, I debate posts. As I said, the problem of evil is that evil is subjective and a matter of perspective. The argument is flawed from the start. I don't need links to back up this logic because I'm formulating it on my own.

Think about it. This is like first making the premise that an alien species capable of technology far beyond our own visits Earth. And then arguing that because such alien technology does not obey what we understand to be true, it must therefore be impossible.

It's a matter of perspective. The problem with debating God versus evil is that we encapsulate the definitions of such along our own limited perspective of this one lifetime. And yet, we posit that God is all-whatever, and thus we must admit that an all-knowing God knows more than we do, and has a greater perspective than us. It's frankly as simple as that.

Originally posted by thrashee

Originally posted by nj2day
Its known as "the problem of evil"... and is actually standard curriculum in college level philosophy classes...

With all due respect, I don't debate links, I debate posts.

There's no debate than, I stated many times over in this thread, I won't debate philosophy.

I linked that article because I was thinking you were honestly trying to understand the riddle.

There is absolutely no point in arguing philosophy in my opinion, as there are no wrong answers.

At least with what badmedia and I have been going back and forth with... there is a right answer... We might not know conclusively what that answer is, but there is indeed a correct answer for our question...

Sorry if you came looking for a philosophy debate... I'd check out the philosophy forums...

edit to add: On the statement about me not forumulating my ideas... well... I was showing how the OP could have opened stronger... which then you decided to take up a debate against the riddle itself... heck, I think even in that post I ended up saying I wasn't going philosophical in the post I mentioned it in...




[edit on 22-2-2009 by nj2day]

[edit on 22-2-2009 by nj2day]

Originally posted by nj2day
There's no debate than, I stated many times over in this thread, I won't debate philosophy.

Then why did you join a debate that centers upon God and a logical paradox? This is not an evidential debate, but an entirely philosophical one.

I linked that article because I was thinking you were honestly trying to understand the riddle.

There is nothing to understand, because there is no riddle. As I said, the argument is flawed from the start.

There is absolutely no point in arguing philosophy in my opinion, as there are no wrong answers.

Sure there are. Or rather, there are less logical ones.

At least with what badmedia and I have been going back and forth with... there is a right answer... We might not know conclusively what that answer is, but there is indeed a correct answer for our question...

It sounds as though you will only argue that which you have some sort of hard evidence for. While on one hand I can understand that, on the other I'd say you're refusing to go out on a limb here. In other words, you're taking an easy way out.

Originally posted by thrashee
Then why did you join a debate that centers upon God and a logical paradox? This is not an evidential debate, but an entirely philosophical one.

You haven't read my posts have you? It has centered on statistical probabilities, lack of evidence, and burden of proof... While you can use log in philosophy, Logic is not philosophy.

There is nothing to understand, because there is no riddle. As I said, the argument is flawed from the start.

Great! thats awesome! glad you solved it... its been around for 2300 or so years!

Sure there are. Or rather, there are less logical ones.

Logic is not philosophy. I'm sure you're going to try and debate this fact.. but it quite simply not philosophy...

As far as my opinion, its a waste of time to debate something with no real answer...

You can argue all day that a tree doesn't make a sound when it is felled if there isn't anyone around to hear it... but at the end of the day... it accomplishes nothing

It sounds as though you will only argue that which you have some sort of hard evidence for. While on one hand I can understand that, on the other I'd say you're refusing to go out on a limb here. In other words, you're taking an easy way out.

Nah, the easy way out would be to remain agnostic on the position. I however, would like to find what "actually is", and not argue about angels on the head of a pin.

Originally posted by badmedia
Oh please, that's not even close to what I was saying. I was just saying you don't need the bible to learn the things in it. I was saying it in agreement with the statement, and I mentioned the 2nd part because often times Christians put the words of the bible over everything, when they will even admit needing a personal relationship to actually understand what it says.

Oh ok, both TruthParadox and I were mistaken then. While I can't speak for him, I withdraw my statement and apologize for any misunderstanding.

I don't remember the post exactly off hand, but I'm pretty sure I went on to mention something to the effect that I didn't think I was a bad person before finding out the truth, just a bit blind and ignorant.

If I remember right, it didn't, it just went on to describe your point of view and searching again... but I may be mistaken there too... and now that I know its a misunderstanding, I don't feel the need to go back and track the post down

Also pretty sure I mentioned that only good people need to be deceived and manipulated to begin with, not the bad people. So maybe next time put things in the correct context?

No context was lost... thats why both me and TP were kinda put off by that statement.

But, there lies the fault with typed word/email/postings: Intonation is lost.

Thus, its very easy for us to take something the wrong way... Like I said, I apologize for any misunderstanding.

Originally posted by nj2day
You haven't read my posts have you? It has centered on statistical probabilities, lack of evidence, and burden of proof... While you can use log in philosophy, Logic is not philosophy.

The entire OP is centered around logic and philosophy. If you don't wish to engage in such, then you shouldn't.

Great! thats awesome! glad you solved it... its been around for 2300 or so years!

Appeal to tradition (that's a logical fallacy). I doubt I'm the first person to have solved this, but frankly speaking, if I am, then these people weren't that smart to begin with.

Logic is not philosophy. I'm sure you're going to try and debate this fact.. but it quite simply not philosophy...

Huh? What does this have to do with anything? Logic and philosophy play hand in hand.

As far as my opinion, its a waste of time to debate something with no real answer...

Really? Then you admit it's a waste of time to debate God. I will accept this, then, as a concession to your prior statements.

Nah, the easy way out would be to remain agnostic on the position. I however, would like to find what "actually is", and not argue about angels on the head of a pin.

And yet slip in another appeal while doing so. I think, good sir, you need to make up your mind whether you are prepared to debate or not. If you are, then you better come in all guns blazing. Otherwise you just look, quite frankly, wishy-washy.

reply to post by nj2day


Ok np, I would just never say such a thing is why I drew issue with it. If it was implied, it was certainly not meant to be. Glad it's cleared up.