INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

The rock problem is no less logically unsound than the circle square. If we define "God" as a being that can do anything and a rock that cannot be lifted as an impossibility (something that cannot be done), we have done nothing more than define ourselves into a corner.

What is going on here? That argument is at the top of the all time worst argument against God in human history. I have already anticipated it's use with both my and a scholars refutation of even the principle its self. I have to believe I have misunderstood and you were pointing out the insanity of the argument. Is that correct? The only argument that rivals the logical absurdity of that one is Dawkin's central argument which has been called the worst argument against God in the history of Western thought.

 

[1robin]

Whoever you wish to quote doesn't matter since they are wrong, and everyone is wrong at least some of the time, even Aquinas, and Descartes.

I made that claim specifically it is immune to what I knew you would say and in fact you did. I did not say they were right I said their credibility and therefore chance of being right far outstrips yours. In the absence of proof the next best things is expert testimony. They don not get any more expert that they are and you are not.

Your example of one of God's attributes being pitted against another is utter nonsense because you know very well that that is impossible.

It is not I who's argument necessitates that they must compete. That was the whole point.

If there were two Gods, one who was omnipotent, and another who was omnibenevolent, would the former be able to force the latter to lie? Yes, because the latter would be all-good, but not all-powerful, and could be forced to act against his own will, assuming, of course, that he had free will. However, since we are discussing a single God, who cannot compete against his own self, your comments are nonsense.

That is a hyper hypothetical and at least one billion steps to far for a finite mind to claim. Do you subscribe to the constant pecking will knock a whole in anything debate philosophy?

 

[1robin]

Sure, and as I just added to my previous post, "Whether God can, or cannot lift a rock of any potential size, whichever is true, that would not have anything to do with whether or not he has free will."

Does anything have any effect on that view. If you just wish Descartes and Aquinas out of relevance on what ground can the issue be settled? Logic is out. Irrationality won't dent it. convergent confirmation had no impact. Now the greatest scholars in history are irrelevant. That leaves the magic eight ball and whatever you claim as the only standards left.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Willamena]

What is going on here? That argument is at the top of the all time worst argument against God in human history. I have already anticipated it's use with both my and a scholars refutation of even the principle its self. I have to believe I have misunderstood and you were pointing out the insanity of the argument. Is that correct? The only argument that rivals the logical absurdity of that one is Dawkin's central argument which has been called the worst argument against God in the history of Western thought.

Not insanity, just impossibility.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I am interested in the whether two people in a forum backed up by a few hundred philosophers claiming the exact same obvious thing concerning this claim has the slightest effect on the one making it.

Exactly, and these are problems that they have to deal with. And by "deal with", I mean there is no logical way they can hold on to their positions without resolving these critical issues. These are not problems that you can just brush off..these problems are big fat ABSURDITIES that that shouldn't be logically held.

I wish you had been here more often recently. Agnostic must have a team of secretaries or those imaginary monkeys typing random posts. I do not have the time alone to keep up and I believe the sole hope for Agnostic's case is primarily my exhaustion.

Yeah it is a bit much.

I will give a funny one I heard the other day. While it may be theoretically possible a team of monkeys could eventually produce Hamlet. Only an atheist would find a copy of Hamlet and declare: Look what a bunch of monkeys did! Rock on.

Hahahaha

 

[Ouroboros]

Another problem with "God making a rock he can't lift" is that supposedly God isn't physical or natural, but a spirit and supernatural. He/she/it doesn't "lift" things. Which direction would be "up" for the lifting action and where would the gravity come from? A rock that can't be lifted would have to be infinitely heavy, i.e. infinite mass. Would it be placed on an infinite+1 massive planet? It just doesn't make sense.

It's like saying "Can God create a false to be true?" Or "Can God make 1 be 0?" Or "Can God make A to ~A?" There are things not even God can do.

And there are other things God can't do too. God can't sin. God can't disobey him/herself. God can't know what he/she will choose to do and then choose to do the opposite. And supposedly, God can't save a person who doesn't want to be saved.

So is there a limit to omnipotence? It seems like there must be.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Thief]

Message to 1robin: Consider the following from a Christian website:

PHIL 342 Handout 4



That adequately refutes your mention of a square circle, and a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it.

Regarding "under the supposition that God is omnipotent, it's [SIZE=-1]contradictory to suppose that there's a stone God can't lift," I said something similar. I said: [/SIZE]

"Logically, either God can, or cannot lift a rock of any potential size. If the former is the case, he cannot make a rock that he cannot lift. If the latter is the case, he is not omnipotent."

I would argue....your terms pressed upon God are illogical.

It's like saying...prove Yourself to me.
Change this stone to bread that I may eat.

 

[Agnostic75]

I would argue....your terms pressed upon God are illogical. It's like saying...prove Yourself to me. Change this stone to bread that I may eat.

I have argued that in the past many times, but now I am arguing the opposite, which is that since God does not have free will regarding his character, he is not able to provide additional evidence. In this thread, I have been discussing whether or not God has free will with 1robin, not anything about God providing more evidence.

 

[Thief]

I have argued that in the past many times, but now I am arguing the opposite, which is that since God does not have free will regarding his character, he is not able to provide additional evidence. In this thread, I have been discussing whether or not God has free will with 1robin, not anything about God providing more evidence.

Freewill is one thing.
The power of creation is something else.

Freewill must be harnessed.
It's rather unwieldy without restraint.
An unbridled heart is fickle.

And the power of creation without restraint is chaos.

 

[Agnostic75]

Free will is one thing. The power of creation is something else.

But free will is what I have been discussing with 1robin.

Freewill must be harnessed.

For humans, yes, if they have free will, but not for God since he does not have free will.

It's rather unwieldy without restraint. An unbridled heart is fickle.
And the power of creation without restraint is chaos.

God does not need restraint since he is perfect, and cannot sin, and knows everything. God is not able to act against his nature.

 

[Agnostic75]

If there were two Gods, one who was omnipotent, and another who was omnibenevolent, would the former be able to force the latter to lie? Yes, because the latter would be all-good, but not all-powerful, and could be forced to act against his own will, assuming, of course, that he had free will. However, since we are discussing a single God, who cannot compete against his own self, your comments are nonsense.

That is a hyper hypothetical and at least one billion steps too far for a finite mind to claim.

This is typical of when a person knows that they are in trouble, and refuses to directly discuss what their opponent has said. As I showed, it is quite obvious that omnipotence, and omnibenevolence can only compete with each other if we are discussing two separate Gods. It would be impossible for a single omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God to be pitted against himself. Such a concept is utter nonsense.

This is similar to the question of "Can God make a square circle?" or "Can God make a rock that He can't lift?"

There is no such thing as a square circle, unless you want to redefine those words.

Logically, either God can, or cannot lift a rock of any potential size. If the former is the case, he cannot make a rock that he cannot lift. If the latter is the case, he is not omnipotent.

Whether God can, or cannot lift a rock of any potential size, whichever is true, that would not have anything to do with whether or not he has free will.

It is not I who's argument necessitates that they must compete.

Yes it is. You said:

To an extent, the question of "Can God lie?" pits the ability of being able to lie (mandated by omnipotence) with His omnibenevloant nature prohibiting Him from doing so. This is similar to the question of "Can God make a square circle?" or "Can God make a rock that He can't lift?"

Consider the following from a Christian website:

PHIL 342 Handout 4

Aquinas: Omnipotence means God can do anything that is logically possible (i.e,, God cannot make married bachelors, etc.)

God can't defy logic (make square circles, etc.).

[SIZE=-1]God can't violate God's own nature (can't lie or be tempted, etc.).[/SIZE]

The doctrine of[SIZE=-1] omnipotence is philosophically confused.[/SIZE]

The paradox resolved:

[SIZE=-1]1. There are restrictions on God's omnipotence. As Aquinas noted, God can perform only logically possible feats.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]But also God's power is restricted by observing that some actions, while logically possible, are not logically[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]consistent with having been done by God.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]2. The paradox is either question-begging or logically incoherent. If God is not omnipotent, then there's no problem[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]in God creating a stone too heavy for even God to lift. But under the supposition that God is omnipotent, it's[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]contradictory to suppose that there's a stone God can't lift (Mavrodes' solution, see P 279).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]3. Frankfurt (P 281-282) argues that if God can do one logically impossible thing (create a stone so heavy it can't[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]be lifted), then God can also do another logically impossible thing (lift that stone).[/SIZE]

That adequately refutes your mention of a square circle, and a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it.

Regarding "under the supposition that God is omnipotent, it's [SIZE=-1]contradictory to suppose that there's a stone God can't lift," I said something similar. I said: [/SIZE]

"Logically, either God can, or cannot lift a rock of any potential size. If the former is the case, he cannot make a rock that he cannot lift. If the latter is the case, he is not omnipotent."

It is impossible for God to want to lie. Therefore, it is impossible for God to lie since lying must be preceded by wanting to lie.

Regarding Aquinas, and Descartes, when scientists present papers to science journals for peer review, what is most important is the arguments that the submitters make, not who they are. As you know, many leading scientists have submitted papers for peer review that were turned down. When I told you that one study showed that in the U.S, 99.86% of experts accept common descent, that did not stop you from claiming that all of macro evolution has problems. If 99.86% of experts accepted creationism, you would definitely use that as evidence to support your arguments. It is quite inappropriate for you to only use science as a convenience when you believe that it agrees with you.

Regarding the relative handful of creationist experts, a good number of them also accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory. Obviously, their scientific judgments are questionable.

One study showed that some of the most likely people to accept creationism are women, people who have less education, and people who have lower incomes.

 

[Agnostic75]

I will give a funny one I heard the other day. While it may be theoretically possible a team of monkeys could eventually produce Hamlet, only an atheist would find a copy of Hamlet and declare: Look what a bunch of monkeys did! Rock on.

But Hamlet was written by the descendant of a common ancestor of humans and chimps. Even your own source Michael Behe says that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Behe said:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.

You are in no position to lecture Michael Behe about common descent.

Since the Bible makes no distinction between atheists, and non-Christian theists, none of whom will be saved, your comments about atheists do not make any sense.

While it may be theoretically possible for creationism to be true, only a biblical literalist would reject overwhelming scientific evidence that supports common descent.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Exactly, and these are problems that they have to deal with. And by "deal with", I mean there is no logical way they can hold on to their positions without resolving these critical issues. These are not problems that you can just brush off..these problems are big fat ABSURDITIES that that shouldn't be logically held.

Would you say they're as absurd as... I don't know... An all powerful all knowing being who created a race knowing it would fall and easily giving them the means to fall contained in pieces of fruit, then sacrificed his only son, who also happens to be him, in order to correct the mistake he didn't have to make in the first place? Nah; science is definitely WAY crazier than that idea...:sarcastic

 

[1robin]

Exactly, and these are problems that they have to deal with. And by "deal with", I mean there is no logical way they can hold on to their positions without resolving these critical issues. These are not problems that you can just brush off..these problems are big fat ABSURDITIES that that shouldn't be logically held.



Yeah it is a bit much.



Hahahaha

Agreed in full.

 

[1robin]

I have argued that in the past many times, but now I am arguing the opposite, which is that since God does not have free will regarding his character, he is not able to provide additional evidence. In this thread, I have been discussing whether or not God has free will with 1robin, not anything about God providing more evidence.

That is not what I understood you to say. I thought you said.

1. God does not have freewill because he can't lie or change his nature. Which I provided more than sufficient reasons to dismiss.
2. You said God should have provided more evidence. Both me a Craig's statement showed you have no basis for demanding this but it has nothing even potentially to do with free will.

The first is a logical absurdity. The second has not logical aspect at all.

 

[Zanuku]

Welllllll
It's my own belief that it was not a big-bang of nothingness that started the universe, I think a species back then in a previous universe finally became so advanced they had created something that had the potential to totally annihilate and reshape their universe.
And wha'dya know.
Here we are.

 

[1robin]

This is typical of when a person knows that they are in trouble, and refuses to directly discuss what their opponent has said. As I showed, it is quite obvious that omnipotence, and omnibenevolence can only compete with each other if we are discussing two separate Gods. It would be impossible for a single omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God to be pitted against himself. Such a concept is utter nonsense.

You claim more victories for less reason than anyone I know. Sheer volume and the lack of effect are driving what I ignore or respond to. I wish for both our sakes your were far less prolific but far more effective. I love a good challenge in a short form. This is neither. You have left reality so far behind at times I just can't justify a response. If you gave 10 points of high quality instead of 100 of low quality I would address them all and enjoy it. Your constant duplicate posts are evidence even you can't dismiss.

There is no such thing as a square circle, unless you want to redefine those words.

Exactly.

Logically, either God can, or cannot lift a rock of any potential size. If the former is the case, he cannot make a rock that he cannot lift. If the latter is the case, he is not omnipotent.

A rock so heavy an omnipotent being can't lift it is just as logically absurd as a perfect God who would lie. They are nothing. They are not things.

Whether God can, or cannot lift a rock of any potential size, whichever is true, that would not have anything to do with whether or not he has free will.

Agreed.

Yes it is. You said:

That is not my statement you gave and what it says it that your argument is void because if necessitates two things that do not or can not conflict to conflict.

Consider the following from a Christian website:

PHIL 342 Handout 4



That adequately refutes your mention of a square circle, and a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it.

As I have said I like you but you do about everything possible to frustrate someone. I never gave any argument about heavy rocks. I said the argument is invalid. Then for some reason you claim I did and posts Aquinas saying it is an invalid argument just as I did. What are you doing? These irrational argument have all *every single one) come from you. I have been the one that has said they are not even coherent arguments. I will be very very generous and think that you made a very common and understandable mistake when reading Aquinas. He has a very bad habit of stating the problem as if it is his explanation. You must pay strict attention to the fact he states the claims of others and then resolves than as a format. Please by more accurate in what you state concerning what I have, Craig has, or Aquinas has etc.. You are making massive mistakes.

Regarding "under the supposition that God is omnipotent, it's [SIZE=-1]contradictory to suppose that there's a stone God can't lift," I said something similar. I said: [/SIZE]

Yes, Aquinas is stating a false presumption here just as you have then he latter resolves it. This is not the answer it is the problem. Aquinas is confusing until you get used to it. The rest appears to be based on the same mistakes. Please re-read him.

Regarding Aquinas, and Descartes, when scientists present papers to science journals for peer review, what is most important is the arguments that the submitters make, not who they are. As you know, many leading scientists have submitted papers for peer review that were turned down. When I told you that one study showed that in the U.S, 99.86% of experts accept common descent, that did not stop you from claiming that all of macro evolution has problems. If 99.86% of experts accepted creationism, you would definitely use that as evidence to support your arguments. It is quite inappropriate for you to only use science as a convenience when you believe that it agrees with you.

How did we switch to peer review? Peer review is not the topic, is not binding on the topic, nor is any more relevant than a system used in one aspect of academics. I have somewhere and entire file of several gigs of things one approved by peer review that were later rejected. Peer review in theory is a good idea but in practice a clique or in crowd political favoritism problem. However since it has nothing to do with the general credibility in Descartes or Aquinas legendary capacity it is of no import.

Regarding the relative handful of creationist experts, a good number of them also accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory. Obviously, their scientific judgments are questionable.

Of course they are I am one of the loudest questioners.

One study showed that some of the most likely people to accept creationism are women, people who have less education, and people who have lower incomes.

This is the fourth time you have posted this. You have all your arguments saved for pasting don't you and you have run out and are simply using them over and over again.