Favourite Atheist arguments

[Koldo]

Ok well let me tell you what Christians have believed about omnipotence, essentially the bases of these beliefs cam from an old monk about 900ish years ago called anslem. Ever heard of the onotological arguement? That anslem. So he was the first one who first really thought of the perfect people or "the being that is the greatest that be conceived." ( I think that's how he put it.)

So anyway he defined the who possess omnipotence as being the source of all power (the only reason strength exists or that u have strength is because God imbues strength into creation, if I want I can go into more depth than this but maybe it would be better to make that another discussion if so) it also means that he can do everything that is logically possible. The reason why can only do the logically possible is because the Christian god is the god of order, and he imbues that order into creation ( it's why things pretty much are able to exist). It's also very important for the Christian god to be like this because in the nature of Christianity god is relational, however if god could do the logically impossible he would become impossible to have a relationship with. E.g. the Bible could be true but every word of it a lie, god could be omnibenelovent and omnimalevolent etc.

I agree that he would only be able do do what is logically possible. Let me add a caveat though: There is a distinction between doing what is logically impossible and doing what is contrary to common sense.

Using the cake example: It is contrary to common sense to able to create a cake out of thin air, but not logically impossible. It might even violate the laws of physics, but not the laws of logic. Creating a cake that happens to not be a cake, in the same sense of the word, is what would count as logically impossible.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok well let me tell you what Christians have believed about omnipotence, essentially the bases of these beliefs cam from an old monk about 900ish years ago called anslem. Ever heard of the onotological arguement? That anslem. So he was the first one who first really thought of the perfect people or "the being that is the greatest that be conceived." ( I think that's how he put it.)

...

I am not sure of that. Plato and Aristotle also had some words on that.

 

[PureX]

Sure. I have read quite a bit about the problem of evil, it is one of my favorite subjects in philosophy. I have read a lot of different "solutions", but most of them do either one of two things:

1) Reduce omnipotence by claiming that some sort of evil was necessary to achieve the best possible world.

2) Defining good and evil in whatever way is more convenient.

I am curious about what your proposed solution looks like.

My response (not solution) - exposing our cognitive inability to pass judgement. To know a "good" world from an "evil" world would require that we know what the purpose of the world's existing, is. But this is far beyond our cognitive abilities. So if we do choose to apply value judgments on the 'ways of the world', our judgment is going to be profoundly flawed, and quite irrational. Likewise, for value-judging our own experiences of being in the world as "good" or "evil", as we do not know even our own purpose for being here. And therefor could not possibly know what furthers that purpose and what doesn't.

 

[tarasan]

I agree that he would only be able do do what is logically possible. Let me add a caveat though: There is a distinction between doing what is logically impossible and doing what is contrary to common sense.

Using the cake example: It is contrary to common sense to able to create a cake out of thin air, but not logically impossible. It might even violate the laws of physics, but not the laws of logic. Creating a cake that happens to not be a cake, in the same sense of the word, is what would count as logically impossible.

That's it, would you agree that being a perfect being would have further limitations e.g. a perfect being cannot be imperfect.

 

[tarasan]

I am not sure of that. Plato and Aristotle also had some words on that.

Where they monotheists? Now I accept I could be wrong on this, I'm only looking as far back as when the Christians where having the conversation

 

[Koldo]

My response (not solution) - exposing our cognitive inability to pass judgement. To know a "good" world from a "evil" world would require that we know what the purpose of the world existing, is. But this is far beyond our cognitive abilities. So if we do choose to apply value judgments on te 'way of the world', our judgment is going to be profoundly flawed, and quite irrational. Likewise, for value-judging our own experiences of existence as "good" or "evil", as we do not know even our own purpose for being. And therefor could not possibly know what furthers that purpose and what doesn't.

Why would we need to know the purpose of our world to assess whether it is good or evil?

 

[Koldo]

That's it, would you agree that being a perfect being would have further limitations e.g. a perfect being cannot be imperfect.

Yes.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Where they monotheists? Now I accept I could be wrong on this, I'm only looking as far back as when the Christians where having the conversation

Unmoved mover - Wikipedia

 

[tarasan]

Unmoved mover - Wikipedia

I tip my hat to you sir, I shall amend it to first Christian who really started thinking about it.

 

[halbhh]

Bucket loads of empirical evidence against

Can you offer some of that?

 

[PureX]

Then my answer would be that I have no personal desire, nor personal need, nor practical results to believe that God exists or doesn't exist. And, that I don't find any of those criteria to be good at figuring out what is true or false.

That is not an unreasonable response.

But, how thoroughly have you explored these theistic possibilities? How do you know that you have explored them thoroughly enough? And that you are not short-changing yourself by dismissing the possibilities too quickly, too easily, or through bias?

- These are not justifications that you would ever owe me or anyone else, of course. I was just asking them rhetorically.

I would expect it to be settled by now because revelation is a major point in abrahamic religions. I would expect a revelation to settle the dispute, but rather than uniting people each new purported revelation only divides them.

That makes no sense to me at all. Probably no one on Earth holds the same exact idea of God as I do, at the exact same time. And if they did or didn't, so what? I neither expect it, nor demand it, because that would be silly, and pointless.

So why are you using this expectation as some sort of criteria for religious or theological validity?

 

[tarasan]

Yes.

Ok, now we get into where people start to deviate and to what degrees. Perfect being theology tends have some disagreements in terms of what makes a perfect being perfect and how the perfect qualities interact with one another. For example Christians would say that god is perfect in relationship (Christians would point to the trinity as how this is the case) and in face he imbues this quality into creation you will find that alot with Christian theology that not only does he contain the greatest possible attribute but he also tends to bestow some sense of it onto creation. So the only reason we are able to establish relationship with each other is because he does so as well. Do you agree to that (I'm sorry this is going slow it's just I'm working up to something and at times I think people word vomit onto the internet and the original intention of the post gets lost.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Okay then -- back to you: what is a god?

Hey, that's my line!

I don't know - and neither do you.

Well, then, what else is left to say, or do?

It's rather like Lewis Carroll's Borogroves. You don't know anything about them, nor do I -- nor about what it might mean to be "mimsy," before, after or during Brillig! Except to know that those things existed for some little time in Carroll's mind, and once in a while in mine, when I think about the poem.

But I never wonder what to do about "the Borogrove problem," or even if there is one. And so when I'm not feeling whimsical, they occupy no place at all.

Same with God. If you don't know what it is, then you don't even know IF it is, much less whether, if it does exist, it is even aware of humans and concerned with how we trim up the genitals of our children and whether we should paint our faces blue.

And so it can be safely ignored precisely as if it did not exist, which, in the circumstances, is the only really rational thing to do.

 

[Valjean]

We don't need to reach any "conclusions". We can simply choose to trust that the assertion that God exists is true (in whatever way we choose to conceive of it being so). And we can base this choice, logically, on the fact that we have no proof or probability, either way. And can therefor decide based on some OTHER criteria: like personal desire, or personal need, and/or practical results. (Note: we can also choose to trust that the assertion is false based on the same reasoning.)

This is an argument from ignorance. You're asking for proof of a negative.

Lack of evidence isn't evidence. There's lack of evidence for Cthulu, the FSM, unicorns and the Easter bunny, too. Do you seriously consider these credible till disproved?

No, it's a personal preference. Which is why I don't understand why you would expect such differences to be "settled by now". Why would it EVER be settled? The individuals keep coming and going, and choosing their preferences along the way. Which is completely logical, and reasonable, when no proof or probability can be ascertained. The validity of their choices rest on their individual criteria, and their personal results. Exactly as they should, under the circumstances.

Not personal, statistical -- and logical.

Which is why I don't understand why atheists seem to think, and insist, that it's some sort of logical "flaw" that theists conceptualize their gods each in their own ways.

Huh? What does individual conceptualization have to do with anything? Belief in anything with no evidence of its existence is unreasonable.

 

[ChristineM]

Can you offer some of that?

I did, later in the thread but again.

Childhood leukaemia
The futility of prayer
The anopheles mosquito
The marmot

 

[lukethethird]

Favourite Atheist arguments

Theist: There's an invisible God out there.

Atheist: Yes, yes there is, now take a couple
of these with a glass of water and try to get
some sleep.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

And so it can be safely ignored precisely as if it did not exist, which, in the circumstances, is the only really rational thing to do.

Yeah, but that won't in some cases stop someone to do the irrational thing. So it is not the same like say, claiming you can flay unaided in earth gravity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I did, later in the thread but again.

Childhood leukaemia
The futility of prayer
The anopheles mosquito
The marmot

That is only evidence against a good god. So we could still go to Hell.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Huh? What does individual conceptualization have to do with anything? Belief in anything with no evidence of its existence is unreasonable.

So what? It is not impossible. And if you actually believe in epistemological realism, that is unreasonable but a lot of in effect naturalist do believe in that.

 

[halbhh]

I did, later in the thread but again.

Childhood leukaemia
The futility of prayer
The anopheles mosquito
The marmot

If there were no life after death, then 'god' would be only a myth, and a myth about an evil 'god' at that.
(though it's illogical in that 'God' is practically defined as the one who wakens everyone from death to begin with, so....it's merely a misconception about the common bible to think otherwise about the content of that text)

If there is life after death, where those that suffer here temporarily live in bliss for a vastly longer time, then God is good.

(I'll post a good explanation in story form, from Christ, in a minute)