• 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!

Poll: The best argument against God, capital G.

What is the best argument against God?


  • Total voters
    60

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
To be omnipotent requires infinite power by definition, physical or not the claim of omnipotence still exists.

You're defining omnipotence as something physical, though. That's what matter and energy are, physical. But that wouldn't be the case for the classical God. That's the issue.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
You're defining omnipotence as something physical, though. That's what matter and energy are, physical. But that wouldn't be the case for the classical God. That's the issue.

I am not defining omnipotence, i am using the accepted definition.

As i understand it many would disagree with you on your definition of God though.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Not at all, I don’t particularly believe in deity.

Yes i realise that.


Well, the question that I was responding to was that of the definition of “power”, which appeared to be at issue between yourself and @Ostronomos, not power as it applies to the God concept.

The whole thread is about the god concept, that's what my argument is based on
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
I am not defining omnipotence, i am using the accepted definition.

Omnipotence is the ability to do all things. How the doing gets done isn't part of the definition, generally. Either way, your definition doesn't apply to something non-physical.

As i understand it many would disagree with you on your definition of God though.

Nearly everyone I know, or have heard of, who believes in a monotheistic sort of God believes that God is non-physical. People who believe God is a physical object are most certainly the minority.
 

VoidCat

Use any and all pronouns including neo and it/it's
Yes , this was the beginning of the end for me.

Or, as I used to put it in the first stages of my slipping away from theism: “Who in the f~(k needs a God who doesn’t do anything that I require of it, or make itself present in a time of need? Who in the Christ needs a ‘hidden God’?
Well that begs the question what is the point of talking to a deity? Is it to serve you or is it for other reasons?

For me in paganism it's to build a mutal relationship. How can you do that with a hidden god? Also to your point a god that cares about you will be present in a time of need.
 

VoidCat

Use any and all pronouns including neo and it/it's
Well that begs the question what is the point of talking to a deity? Is it to serve you or is it for other reasons?

For me in paganism it's to build a mutal relationship. How can you do that with a hidden god? Also to your point a god that cares about you will be present in a time of need.
@dybmh This is another argument that i dont see your list. It's not a good argument but it is an argument. That is the relatability of a deity. Oftentimes wanting a relationship with a deity is a reason to honor them. In abrahamic religions their God is perfect. Super powerful unable to make mistakes. I don't want to work with a god like that. I can't relate to them. With pagan gods or luciferian ones you can relate to them. They are flawed. As flawed as humans but on a bigger scale cuz of how powerful they are. And i can see an argument for why worship something that's flawed but for me that's easier then worshiping a perfect being. I can also see an argument for ways you can relate on other levels to an abrahamic God.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Omnipotence is the ability to do all things. How the doing gets done isn't part of the definition, generally. Either way, your definition doesn't apply to something non-physical.

I see omnipotence as in Oxford languages as : the quality of having unlimited or very great power.
And omnipotent as : (of a deity) having unlimited power.

It's the words power i am working with.

So are you saying no physical power doesn't need energy? Could you please explain.

Nearly everyone I know, or have heard of, who believes in a monotheistic sort of God believes that God is non-physical. People who believe God is a physical object are most certainly the minority.

Probably but of more than half the world population believing in a big G God even a minority is a lot
 

Zwing

Active Member
I see omnipotence as in Oxford languages as : the quality of having unlimited or very great power.
And omnipotent as : (of a deity) having unlimited power.
Yes, this is power as potential, as is suggested by the etymology of the word omnipotence. It is power describing a state of being, rather than relating to a process in which work is done. Do you see? The word omnipotence is re-analyzable into English as “all potency” (omnis + potentia); potency here more obviously has nothing to do with work or the expending of energy.
 
Last edited:

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
So are you saying no physical power doesn't need energy?

Something non-physical wouldn't be bound by physical laws of matter and energy.

Probably but of more than half the world population believing in a big G God even a minority is a lot

If you're interested in critiquing the view of a tiny minority...okay? :shrug: I can't stop you.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Yes, this is power as potential, as is suggested by the etymology of the word omnipotence. It is power describing a state of being, rather than relating to a process in which work is done. Do you see? The word omnipotence is re-analyzable into English as “all potency” (omnis + potentia); potency here more obviously has nothing to do with work or the expending of energy.

Potence : having great power, influence, or effect.

Not particularly obvious if you take big G religious belief of the abilities of their God
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Yeah, that is my personal estimation, and obviously yours as well, but it is unprovable and unverifiable.

Correct but just as a believer sees evidence for a God, i see evidence against a god. Not proof, but evidence. My E=MC2 argument is (to me) one piece of that evidence.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Correct but just as a believer sees evidence for a God, i see evidence against a god. Not proof, but evidence. My E=MC2 argument is (to me) one piece of that evidence.

Yeah, but you have to show that all of the universe for all cases is physical and that the universe is everything that exists.
E=MC is not a universal theory of all of the universe. It only applies to a part.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I'd love to see you prove that.

That works both ways. My E=MC2 argument is a step but not proof


Your belief that God is a physical object?

No my belief that a goodly number of god believers believe god is physical

Yes, Christine, yes it is a tiny minority.

I don't believe it's tiny. Certainly judging by comments on these pages it is a good percentage. Even a few percent of over 3.5 billion is substantial
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
That works both ways. My E=MC2 argument is a step but not proof

Go ahead and show the whole argument.
No my belief that a goodly number of god believers believe god is physical



I don't believe it's tiny. Certainly judging by comments on these pages it is a good percentage. Even a few percent of over 3.5 billion is substantial

Mkay. You're not dealing with the mainstream view of the God of the Philosophers and Abrahamics, but...okay. :shrug: Do as you wish.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Go ahead and show the whole argument.

The bible claims the Abrahamic god to be omnipotent. Omnipotemce is infinite power. Power is energy expended over time. If energy were infinite (as required by omnipotence) then mass couldn't exist. You and I are mass


You're not dealing with the mainstream view of the God of the Philosophers and Abrahamics, but...okay.

As i said, a percentage.
 
Top