Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Will-I Am S. on March 15, 2011 at 7:55pm

I can prove non-existence doesn't exist literally and universally. It's because the definition states that itself can not exist. And thus I can prove a negative. It's no different than proving one cat to be impossible to be in a Box if the cat could never fit in the box. However, this doesn't mean there aren't higher beings that some fool might choose to bow to and worship as a god. :P

 

Under the definition of the Christian GOD or even Allah the cat could never fit in the box because the definition would be arguing that the Cat is the box, and is anything and everything in the box. :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vince Watkins on March 15, 2011 at 8:09pm

"Higher beings" and "a higher power." These are coherent words. I think anyone who has ever had a boss, a parent, or been pulled over for speeding will acknowledge a belief in a higher power.

And we can easily imagine that there might be a planet somewhere in the universe inhabited by intelligent beings who are technologically and biologically so advanced in comparison to us that they would certainly be higher beings.

It is even possible to fathom that they seeded a barren earth with life and gave us our origin... and that they may return and deem us a failure and destroy us. Would this make them deities any more than one of us would claim to be a deity to a bowl of sea monkeys?

Again... it is up to the asserter of said deity to coherently define "God."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Will-I Am S. on March 15, 2011 at 9:07pm

They have defined it, but most Christians seem to have no freaking clue that it had been. It's why I pointed to Chapter 14 in the Fount Of Knowledge, as posted a few posts above. Sure it's a bit ambiguous, but it's their definition none-the-less.

 

Abstract 1:
"The uncreate, the unoriginate, the immortal, the bound- less, the eternal, the immaterial, the good, the creative, the just, the enlightening, the unchangeable, the passionless, the uncircumscribed, the uncontained, the unlimited, the indefi- nable, the invisible, the inconceivable, the wanting nothing, the having absolute power and authority, the life-giving, the almighty, the infinitely powerful, the sanctifying and com- municating, the containing and sustaining all things, and the providing for all all these and the like He possesses by His nature. They are not received from any other source; on the contrary, it is His nature that communicates all good to His own creatures in accordance with the capacity of each."

Abstract 2:
"And yet again, there is His knowing of all things by a simple act of knowing. And there is His distinctly seeing with His divine, all-seeing, and immaterial eye all things at once"

It's pretty much the Cat is not just in the box, it's the box entirely. They made this description because they know that arguing these attributes separately (cherry picking), they could circumvent logic and reason.. Never will you see a theist (a smart one anyways), attempt to use all these together and actually attempt to address them together... It's also why they like to stick to just using "omnipotence", and "omniscience" while sweeping the rest under the carpet. It's so easy to prey on peoples vulnerabilities this way, or play a GOD of the Gaps mind game...

 

But when you slap them all together and then apply information theory to them, they all collapse entirely.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vince Watkins on March 16, 2011 at 3:39am

Will, that wasn't a definition. It was a run-on stream of bullshit.

Tacking together every word you connote as having to do with the subject and then calling it an abstract doesn't make it so and certainly doesn't make it the secretly agreed upon definition of every theist out there.

This is not what information theory is about.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Will-I Am S. on March 16, 2011 at 10:51pm

Actually it is what information theory is about.Information theory however has advanced to include physical, and digitized information. And you will find that many fields consider energy =/= information. In fact if you have read my article on information theory you would have realized that this is true. And I did give the definition of that particular god.  And when I give an abstract, it's a quote from the source material.. I'm telling you this because I was christian and that is the definition used.. Especially in Orthodox Christianity.

Yes it remains ambiguous to a point, but that's essentially the definition of god. At least the most complete definition you will get in regards to the Christian GOD.

 

If you were looking for a definition that could be applied to all GODs, you won't find one.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kara Smith on March 16, 2011 at 4:09am

Sheesh. I just go with Dawkins' definition.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Yager on March 15, 2011 at 8:45pm

It's not so much a logical issue as it is a natural issue. While I'm fairly certain you could prove to me you don't have a pig in your pocket, it's far more difficult to prove no one in the entire world has a pig in their pocket. Since I have a limited lifespan I could hardly check 7 billion pockets. Especially, during a debate or whilst writing a paper. Therefore, it is up to the person making a claim to prove it. Similarly, a Theist making a claim of a Deity should be required to produce the proof, not the Atheist to disprove it by checking for the Deity under every rock or nook or cranny. It's about logistics not logic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vince Watkins on March 15, 2011 at 9:12pm

I'd just as soon put a pig in my pocket and have done with it.

But there are such things as pigs and pockets. Even small pigs and big pockets. A pig in a pocket is a coherent concept. We know what pigs are and we know what pockets are.

But "God?" Someone still has all their work in front of them. Those who assert that there is a God have yet to offer a coherent definition of the utterance which must be done before they can move on to the business of proof.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Yager on March 15, 2011 at 9:30pm

Unfortunately, for humanity "god" is very often the "pea" in a shell game. The Theist says he knows god and convinces you to find him/her/it. While the Theist is lifting your purse you are focusing on the "pea". I think that describes almost every major religion in a nutshell. (Sorry, I couldn't resist)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vince Watkins on March 16, 2011 at 3:12am

Actually, I don't think most religious people, whether Christians, Jews, Muslims, or what have you, actually think their holy texts offer a cohesive definition of the Gods in which they profess to believe. They are happy to have a vague word to which they can tape all their mystical connotations and let it go at that. If there were a coherent definition, it would not require their special brand of faith, and they love faith.

But I don't have debates or even conversations based on their terms. I don't allow the premise in the first place. Intelligent conversation must demand logic.

So far, I have led quite a few away from theism.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Yager on March 15, 2011 at 6:51pm

There's no compelling evidence there are dieties. If there is bring it forward and let's take look. Thousands of diests have never been able to answer this challenge credibly and it isn't an Athiests responsiblity to prove the negative.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vince Watkins on March 15, 2011 at 7:19pm

While it is certainly proper manners for the person asserting the existence of something to provide proof, this is simply a matter of protocol.

As an atheist who would like to have less theistic interference in government and society, I think it is very much my responsibility to myself and my children at the very least to prove that God does not exist.

Luckily, this is not very difficult.

What is very difficult is finding someone who can posit a coherent definition for "God" so that I can prove it doesn't exist. Usually, most efforts are either incoherent/oxymoronic, or attempt to synonymize God with love, flowers, bees, birds, the universe, blue skies, and butterflies. Refusing to accept the premise that butterflies are a deity is easy enough.

So we see that there is not merely a lack of compelling evidence that there is a God, but there is absolute proof that there is not.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 54
• 55
• 56
• 57
• 58
• …
• 180
• Next ›
• Page