themadhair
Well-Known Member
You can be both.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution is False and Impossible
- Thread starter SilvaMo0n
- Start date
Actually an atheist doesn't say god does not exist, they believe he does not exist, there's a difference.
ThereIsNoSpoon
Active Member
An atheist does not believe God doesn't exist, he just doesn't believe in Gods existence.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
nonbeliever_92
Well-Known Member
This statement is slanted in favor of saying that god exists, though i get your point.
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
Yeah. Because you cannot disprove God, it's irrational to say "God does not exist". It's just as irrational as saying "God does exist".
So, instead of working with does exist vs does not exist, we work in probabilities. What is the probability of God existing? Very slim. At least a God with the properties as described by the Abrahamic religions.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
And how do you calculate those odds?
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
Because NO ONE can prove that god exists then i would say it is rational to say he/she/it doesn't.
-Q
Danarch
Robot!
I would put it another way - One can neither prove, nor disprove the existence, or nonexistence of any Deity(s) at this point in time. -
For me, a belief that god does not exist would be be in contradiction to a possibility that it does exist, if only for the fact that there is no evidence to prove otherwise. I was just trying to understand more about it.
I wonder when a betting line will be created at the casinos for these odds:drool:
ThereIsNoSpoon
Active Member
What makes you believe that ?
It is actually a statement that is in my view uterly false. It rests on the premise that any "deity" is just any "abstract something that someone calls god".
But when you look at the "concrete implementation" of supposed deities (meaning their attributes, traits and certain supposed acts) then you can formally disproove some combinations within the context of normal human logic.
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
Exactly, such as the co-existence of all the "omni-" attributes of the proposed Judeo-Christian God.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Comments like this are why I love my signature.
Yerda
Veteran Member
I've often wondered that. It doesn't make sense to me at present.
There are only 3 "omni- attributes", and they go together just fine (for the panthesitic/panentheistic "god") (being as they are integrally related). Any others are inventive, to say the least.
For instance, what would distinguish "omnibenevolence" from ordinary "benevolence"?
Last edited:
DarkSun
:eltiT
I disagree.
I've heard it said that an omnipotent God cannot be all powerful, since He cannot create a wall He cannot jump over.
But to tell you the truth, since there's also an omniscient attribute to God, he probably could find a way to jump over that wall and be omnipotent at the same time. And your brain would probably die as you watched Him do it.
ThereIsNoSpoon
Active Member
Actually this is mostly a stupid trick made by non-theists that should know better.
Logically omnipotent of course can only mean that God could do all that is possible.
By mere definition you cant do the impossible or it wouldnt be impossible.
Hence its not needed to be able to do a logical impossibility in order to be called omnipotent.
Apart of that one of course may say that certain omnis contradict each other.
One of the combinations is omniscience and omnipotence.
In any case we already however will find trouble definining the words really in the first place
DarkSun
:eltiT
Actually this is mostly a stupid trick made by non-theists that should know better.
Logically omnipotent of course can only mean that God could do all that is possible.
By mere definition you cant do the impossible or it wouldnt be impossible.
Hence its not needed to be able to do a logical impossibility in order to be called omnipotent.
Apart of that one of course may say that certain omnis contradict each other.
One of the combinations is omniscience and omnipotence.
In any case we already however will find trouble definining the words really in the first place
How is being all-knowing and all-powerful a contradiction?