Poll: The best argument against God, capital G.

[Zwing]

Einstein, who succeeded thru
not just brains, but perseverance.

This is the wrong word. It was Einstein’s fruitfully vivid imagination that made him such a great theoretical physicist, and which separated him from the crowd. So you see, raw intelligence measures are not the be all and end all for predicting success.

 

[RestlessSoul]

That's not a definition.

OK.
But that comports with my theme.

Can you clarify?

Again, clarify, perhaps elaborate with less jargon?

To save me the effort of clarification, can you perhaps re-read? I’m tired and I want to go to bed. Will revisit the thread in the morning. Probably.

 

[Left Coast]

Can a god make a burrito so hot he (she?) can't eat it?
Yes or no....a contradiction.

Omnipotence has long been understood by theists with the caveat that it doesn't include things that are logically impossible, such as creating a square circle and so on. This is why you see "maximal" or "great" power as part of the definition rather than the ability to do literally anything conceivable.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is the wrong word. It was Einstein’s fruitfully vivid imagination that made him such a great theoretical physicist, and which separated him from the crowd. So you see, raw intelligence measures are not the be all and end all for predicting success.

Correcto.
I put that under the heading of brains.

 

[Revoltingest]

To save me the effort of clarification, can you perhaps re-read? I’m tired and I want to go to bed. Will revisit the thread in the morning. Probably.

I did re-read....several times.
It strikes me that you're posting what you think,
in terms you think in, but it's not clear to me.
Is it not possible to explain your understanding
to someone not used to your jargon?

 

[Revoltingest]

Omnipotence has long been understood by theists with the caveat that it doesn't include things that are logically impossible, such as creating a square circle and so on. This is why you see "maximal" or "great" power as part of the definition rather than the ability to do literally anything conceivable.

I've also heard them argue that omnipotent gods are above logic.
But all this hypothetical wrangling aside, the real problem with
gods is the lack of any convincing evidence & explanatory power.
In short, gods are unnecessary.

 

[Left Coast]

I've also heard them argue that omnipotent gods are above logic.

That version of theism is, IMO, one of the silliest.

But all this hypothetical wrangling aside, the real problem with
gods is the lack of any convincing evidence & explanatory power.
In short, gods are unnecessary.

What's your response to contingency-based arguments, ie the idea that the universe is contingent and thus must have a necessary cause?

 

[Revoltingest]

That version of theism is, IMO, one of the silliest.

Is it?
I can't really argue against it.
I just find it woefully unsupportable.

What's your response to contingency-based arguments, ie the idea that the universe is contingent and thus must have a necessary cause?

What does "contingent" mean to people
making that argument?
The premise that the universe has a "cause"
shouldn't mean leaping to a particular clause.
I just know that the universe exists. Whence
& why it came about isn't knowable, & thus
not productive to ponder or answer.

 

[Left Coast]

Is it?
I can't really argue against it.
I just find it woefully unsupportable.

Any ideology that refuses to acknowledge the validity of logic is ultimately self-defeating.

What does "contingent" mean to people
making that argument?

It means it's possible it couldn't exist.

The premise that the universe has a "cause"
shouldn't mean leaping to a particular clause.

What other candidates are there for causes of the universe?

I just know that the universe exists. Whence
& why it came about isn't knowable.

That's interesting, why do you say it's unknowable?

 

[dybmh]

Wrongo pongo. Set aside episodes of
non-omnipotence...
During a period of omnipotence, gods
cannot make burritos so hot they can't
eat them.

But, but.... it can make the period of non-omnipotence. That means it's always omnipotent. It always has the option to make that burrito and it always has the option to setup the conditions where it cannot eat it. That's omnipotence.

Now, if it didn't have those options, OK, ok, that's a good point. But since God has the option always and forever, omnipotence is retained.

Gimmie a real argument that this is not correct? Pretty please?

 

[Revoltingest]

Any ideology that refuses to acknowledge the validity of logic is ultimately self-defeating.

The same could be said of non-disprovable beliefs.

It means it's possible it couldn't exist.

That's easily defeated by the fact the universe exists,
ie, if it couldn't exist, it wouldn't be here.

What other candidates are there for causes of the universe?

I venture no guesses for such candidates.

That's interesting, why do you say it's unknowable?

We've no way to observe anything prior to the Big Bang.
And the physics we know is unable to analyze its inception.

 

[John D. Brey]

Well, just in case, I'm working on a killer tan in Florida.

View attachment 78033

Your signature implies that without magical thinking religion can't survive. Well, Karl Popper was non-religious and said, and his buddy Einstein concurred, that all true thought is magical. It's just that people retroactively attribute it to rational, or inductive reasoning, completely blind, almost magically so, to what it is they're doing in broad daylight without their mind acknowledging or accepting the ruse that is their belief that thought is anything other than magical.

Religions use the word "faith" for thought rather than "magic" since so many magicians often turn out to be chomos. [Clearing throat] . . . I guess a lot of Catholic priests like that kind of magic show for the kids too. . . It's a wicked world and getting wickeder.




John

 

[dybmh]

[citation needed]

I know I've got something somewhere... hang on... I didn't just make this up...

Ah! Got it!

...the paradox is a problem only for necessary omnitemporal omnipotence, that is, for the view that there is a being who exists necessarily and is necessarily omnipotent at every time (Swinburne 1973; Meierding 1980). There is no problem for a being who is only omnipotent at certain times,​

Omnipotence | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

Only if you re-define omnipotence.

Not at all. God is capabable of a lapse of omnipotence and would joyously do so for the purpose of saying, "HA-ha, critics! dang that's a hot burrito!"

This is another example of the greed of the theists. Wanting to have an omnipotent god and having it being non contradicting at the same time. You can't always get what you want - especially not two thing that contradict each other at the same time.

It's not greed, it's just not sweating the small stuff. Heavy rocks, hot burritos, who really cares?

 

[John D. Brey]

John D. Brey said:

From my perspective anyone who could hold that position without some modicum of pain would be impervious to the fires of hell such that at least there's nothing to fear from holding onto such a position. It seems to me that the position as stated could at best be considered Attitudinal Asbestos.​

​

Could you dumb that down for me?

They claim that for the most part newborns are immune from pain until their brain and their bodies get on the same sheet of music and they begin to interpret certain kinds of stimuli as "painful" for the good of their own protection. God forbid a child get the stimuli associated with pain and pleasure backward so that a mother finds her young child burning his hand off in a fire with a serene satisfied look on his face.

God-consciousness is like a flaming fiery conflagration in the soul. God forbid a soul not appreciate the stimuli of God-consciousness so that they go through a life of living hell with a serene satisfied look on their face. Throughout my life when I've encountered atheists I've felt like I'm seeing persons sitting in a bonfire with a peculiarly serene and satisfied look on their face. At first I thought it was a really neat trick, i.e., that they were able to fake it. But I soon learned that it really is possible to get wires all bollixed up in the mind so that the sound of Amazing Grace makes some people taste chocolate.

John

 

[Left Coast]

The same could be said of non-disprovable beliefs.

Not necessarily. An unfalsifiable belief isn't necessarily an irrational one.

That's easily defeated by the fact the universe exists,
ie, if it couldn't exist, it wouldn't be here.

That would be news to philosophers everywhere! You exist, are you claiming you must exist? There's no way you couldn't exist?

Note: there's a difference between saying something can't exist and saying that something can't not (ie, must) exist.

We've no way to observe anything prior to the Big Bang.
And the physics we know is unable to analyze its inception.

Currently yes. Though perhaps at some point we may know more than we know now. Philosophically, we can also reason about what would cause the universe without empirical experimentation.

 

[Revoltingest]

They claim that for the most part newborns are immune from pain until their brain and their bodies get on the same sheet of music and they begin to interpret certain kinds of stimuli as "painful" for the good of their own protection. God forbid a child get the stimuli associated with pain and pleasure backward so that a mother finds her young child burning his hand off in a fire with a serene satisfied look on his face.

I've never heard anyone claim that infants are immune to pain.

God-consciousness is like a flaming fiery conflagration in the soul. God forbid a soul not appreciate the stimuli of God-consciousness so that they go through a life of living hell with a serene satisfied look on their face. Throughout my life when I've encountered atheists I've felt like I'm seeing persons sitting in a bonfire with a peculiarly serene and satisfied look on their face. At first I thought it was a really neat trick, i.e., that they were able to fake it. But I soon learned that it really is possible to get wires all bollixed up in the mind so that the sound of Amazing Grace makes some people taste chocolate.

That was weird.
How to respond....how to respond...?
Some statements!

I never believed in any gods.
(The idea seems a silly delusion.)
I've no worries about bonfires, Heaven, or Hell.
I enjoy the existential pleasures of material existence.
I take measures to postpone death, but I don't fear or worry about it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not necessarily. An unfalsifiable belief isn't necessarily an irrational one.

I disagree.

That would be news to philosophers everywhere! You exist, are you claiming you must exist? There's no way you couldn't exist?

I don't say that I or the universe must exist.
Only that we do.
And this disproves this claim you proffered....
"It means it's possible it couldn't exist."

Our disagreement might be
about mere use of language.

Note: there's a difference between saying something can't exist and saying that something can't not (ie, must) exist.


Currently yes. Though perhaps at some point we may know more than we know now. Philosophically, we can also reason about what would cause the universe without empirical experimentation.

When more is known,
we can deal with that.
I have the here & now.

 

[Nakosis]

Your signature implies that without magical thinking religion can't survive. Well, Karl Popper was non-religious and said, and his buddy Einstein concurred, that all true thought is magical. It's just that people retroactively attribute it to rational, or inductive reasoning, completely blind, almost magically so, to what it is they're doing in broad daylight without their mind acknowledging or accepting the ruse that is their belief that thought is anything other than magical.

Religions use the word "faith" for thought rather than "magic" since so many magicians often turn out to be chomos. [Clearing throat] . . . I guess a lot of Catholic priests like that kind of magic show for the kids too. . . It's a wicked world and getting wickeder.




John

When philosophers and theoretical physicists get together reality can certainly become weird.
Though I'd agree with Popper that magic infests our everyday thought.

I'm not against magical thinking as long as it remains useful to the individual though I'd avoid placing any faith in it.

Is the world more wicked or has society simply become less forceful at getting us to hide the abnormality we've always had?

 

[Heyo]

I know I've got something somewhere... hang on... I didn't just make this up...

Ah! Got it!

...the paradox is a problem only for necessary omnitemporal omnipotence, that is, for the view that there is a being who exists necessarily and is necessarily omnipotent at every time (Swinburne 1973; Meierding 1980). There is no problem for a being who is only omnipotent at certain times,​

Omnipotence | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

So, you adhere to the Thomasists concept of maximal greatness? (Not every Theist does.)

Not at all. God is capabable of a lapse of omnipotence and would joyously do so for the purpose of saying, "HA-ha, critics! dang that's a hot burrito!"



It's not greed, it's just not sweating the small stuff. Heavy rocks, hot burritos, who really cares?

If we can agree that the god you refer to is of limited omnipotence, there is still room for rational discourse. In my experience there are many theists who reject logic for the opinion of an all powerful god that defies logic. And I can't reason with someone who rejects reason.

Next step: can your god defy the laws of nature?

 

[RestlessSoul]

I did re-read....several times.
It strikes me that you're posting what you think,
in terms you think in, but it's not clear to me.
Is it not possible to explain your understanding
to someone not used to your jargon?

Maybe posts #1149 and #1150 on the thread Life From Dirt will clarify the idealism vs realism debate for you. I think that’s maybe where I lost you?