|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
 Posted - 08/01/2001 : 10:22:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
What about the big rock argument? I'd love to hear a religionist give a satisfactory refutation of that one.
Is that the one that asks if God can make a rock too big and heavy for He himself to move?
So what if He cannot?
Cannot what? Make the rock or move the rock once he's made it? In either case, it is demonstrated there is something that is beyond the power of a supposedly omnipotent entity.
Would it make sense to say that God is not omnipotent because he cannot create a round square? Why or why not?
quote:
Religionists don't like this argument. They usually pooh-pooh it as facile and sophomoric, or they label the person who uses it as a big juvenile delinquent. One thing they never do, or at least I have never heard one do, is refute it successfully.
It is more sophistic than sophomoric, but in any case it is as easily refuted as the round square argument above. The divine attribute of omnipotence does not include the performance of logically impossible acts, nor has traditionally implied any such nonsense. If it did, it would not be a descriptor at all but rather a logically contradictory and hence nonsensical predicate.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
 |
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2001 : 12:24:11 [Permalink]
|
Jim,
Despite what you may think, I am not here to ridicule your ideas. I simply am trying to refute your rationalist argument for the existence of God. The idea that one can say that god is unknowable and yet at the same time, can describe attributes of God is self-inconsistent. The medieval mystics suggested that God is unknowable but this is inconsistent with western ideas about God who has all sorts of attributes, emotions, prejudices, etc. We prefer to think in rational terms. We like to pat ourselves on the back knowing that we are following God's “will”.
I think that a discussion regarding a similar type of argument can be instructive as to my point of view. Most people will agree that there exists the possibility of intelligent life on other planets even though it is known that there is no life on other planets within our solar system and that even evidence of planets outside our solar system is inconclusive. There are a lot of “ifs” with this type of speculation. It is however a large leap from this type of speculation to attributing any characteristics to theoretical beings. To admit to the possibility of their existence is reasonable. To profess belief in them (and especially any specific attributes of them), is not logical.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
King X
New Member
3 Posts |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2001 : 13:55:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I posted earlier (2nd to last on page 5) mentioning that there was a credible witness of the realities of spiritual life beyond this one. A brief biography of this man can be found at:http://landow.stg.brown.edu/victorian/religion/swdbor.html
In reading the website, I find a few logical problems with your claim of a credible witness. Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) seems to have some scientific background in publishing on diverse subjects as mineralogy and mining techniques. However, he claims to have a vision of Christ in 1744. Pardon my inference here, but so did Jerry Falwell. (IMHO, Swedenborg is as about flamboyant as Falwell.) Claims of a credible witness must have coroboration to be scientifically valid. It is interesting to note that one of the noted philosiphers of the day, Emanuel Kant, devoted the entire book of Träume des Geistersehers to refuting Swedenborg's work.
Again, there is no empirical scientific proof of your claim, which was the basic thrust of the discussion.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2001 : 14:54:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
By the way, you are the one who said God could be proven. Saying "No proof of God exists, therefore there can be no God" is essentially the same as saying proof of God can exist. You are implying that 'proof' is possible. You prove it. I don't want to appear antagonistic, but your belief system should be able to withstand the test.
I think I may have said this, however, what I said was that no proof of a gods existence makes it irrelevent. That is also what I have gotten from the others who have taken this same line. No proof of interaction in this world would make the existence of a god irrelevent. I have never implied, to my knowledge, that lack of proof would imply that it can not exist. I am not the one making the claim of a non-corporeal, unknowable, unprovable being existing. I'm reminded of Carl Sagan's dragon in his garage. Is there some way I can prove the existence of this supposed beneficient big brother who is deeply concerned with every aspect of my life and if I don't bother to trust in others and believe his existence I am condemned to eternal hell fires.
I would much prefer, given those options, the mithraic tradition - there I would only be condemned to hell for 40 or 50 years and not an eternity.
Jim, I would like to ask you which particular religious belief you follow, simply so I know where I stand when referring to god. You've said you read the bible - so I am assuming that we are operating from the Judeo-Christian belief system here.
And another point as regards slavery in the bible, tho I can not remember nor can I find the reference, the term 'slave' and the term for 'indentured/bond servants' were the same and only translated seperately based on context. However, god describes in Dueteronomy that slaves of foreign origin may be owned unto the third and fourth generations. No where in the NT does Jesus counter this and when referring to servants in a house he refers to both those slave that may only be owned for 7 years and those that may be owned unto the third and fourth generations. This was the Judaic tradition and law, in which Jesus was raised. (I will assume for the moment, tho I do not agree with, the point that says Jesus was an actual historical figure. This avoids having to type supposedly repeated numbers of times.) Why would the term used for slave/servant in the OT be different than that used in the NT?
Slavery was condoned by the bible with specific rules regarding the treatment of slaves, no where does Jesus refute or modify the ownership or treatment of owned peoples as set down by his father. Therefore, Jesus can be assumed to have condoned the slavery his father set down in Deuteronomy, it is afterall scripture.
In response to the question: How do we know the bible is inspired?
quote:
The Bible itself speaks of inspiration. Referring to the Old Testament, Saint Paul says that 'all Scripture is inspired by God" (2 Tim 3:16). Saint Peter, speaking of the prophets, says: "No prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation. For not by the will of man was prophecy brought at any time; but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spriti" (2 Pet 1:20-21). According to the Bible itself, some New Testament books are no less divine and authoritative than the Old Testament books....
The best and only adequate proof for the fact that the Bible was written under the inspiration of God is the infallible word of the Catholic Church.
The Holy Catholic Church tells me that the Bible is the infallible inspired word of god. This is the same argument you use for believing in god. You say so. Why should I believe either of you without evidence of the existence of a god?
Why does the bible need to be interpreted?
quote:
The purpose of interpretation is to grasp the meaning intended by God, who is the chief author of the Bible. Since the Scriptures were written centuries ago in ancient languages, they are often difficult to understand. Moreover, the ideas propsoed in the Bible are frequently above our limited human understanding.
God can't write so I can understand his existence?
These excerpts are taken from an introduction to the Duoay bible, Edited by Monsignor John P. O'Connell.
quote:
It can hardly be necessary for us to remind you, beloved brethren, that the most highle valued ttreasure of every family library, and the most frequently and lovingly made use of, should be the Holy Scriptures... We hope that no family can be found amongst us without a correct version of the Holy Scriptures.
-Third Council of Baltimore; Dec 7, 1884
A correct version of scripture? Christians can not even agree on the version of scripture your supposed to believe. If god is one god and had one son Christ, why isn't the same scripture accepted by all christians? Why are there so many different version of the bible and why must it be interpreted?
These are only a few of the discrepancy problems I have with following blindly faith in an imperfect societal creation as is the Judeo-Christion god.
God is a construct of societies trying to enforce a set of behavioral standards and trying to explain the world around them. Religion is also a construct of societal leaders to control the thinking of the populace to an extent determined by the brutality of the punishments promised by the gods for disobedience. Eternal damnation in a lake of fire, they must have been pretty controlling to come up with that one.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2001 : 15:35:09 [Permalink]
|
If you think about it, slavery was very, very important to the Roman economy. Small wonder the slavery bits were left in.
In modern times the references are embarrassing passages that have been conveniently reinterpreted to fit our modern ethics.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Bradley
Skeptic Friend
USA
147 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2001 : 19:41:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Would it make sense to say that God is not omnipotent because he cannot create a round square? Why or why not?
"Omnipotent," by definition, means "able to do everything." If an entity is unable to do one something, it is, by definition, not omnipotent.
Therefore it does not follow that
quote:
The divine attribute of omnipotence does not include the performance of logically impossible acts, nor has traditionally implied any such nonsense.
quote:
If it did, it would not be a descriptor at all but rather a logically contradictory and hence nonsensical predicate.
A rather damaging admission.
"Too much doubt is better than too much credulity."
-Robert Green Ingersoll (1833 - 1899) |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 08:45:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Would it make sense to say that God is not omnipotent because he cannot create a round square? Why or why not?
"Omnipotent," by definition, means "able to do everything." If an entity is unable to do one something, it is, by definition, not omnipotent.
By "everything" and “something” here you must refer to conceivable actions, correct? But to "create a round square" is not an action; it is a nonsensical string of words. Similarly with "bend unbendable objects" and "forge a brightly large green ball which is red all over." Logical contradictions or type-crossings render such apparent actions into utter nonsense, and hence you cannot logically predicate them as abilities or inabilities of anyone.
quote:
quote:
The divine attribute of omnipotence does not include the performance of logically impossible acts, nor has traditionally implied any such nonsense. If it did, it would not be a descriptor at all but rather a logically contradictory and hence nonsensical predicate.
A rather damaging admission.
Not at all. How could it possibly be damaging for theists to admit that atheists have seriously misconstrued one of the attributes that they assign to God? Theists define their god(s) variously as they will, and hence it is inappropriate for unbelievers to tell them what "God" means or how to apply predicates such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence thereto. Such a task must be left to the theologians. We skeptics must confront the concept of God just as theists define it, rather than burning down straw gods of our own making; to do the latter is to waste our efforts disproving concepts about which no one gives a damn.
“All confess that God is omnipotent; but it seems difficult to explain in what his omnipotence precisely consists. For there may be doubt as to the precise meaning of the word 'all' when we say that God can do all things. If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, God can do all things, is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason he is said to be omnipotent.” Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica vol. I, 25, a.3
"Contemporary discussion on omnipotence holds that any definition of omnipotence that entails the following, an omnipotent being has the ability to bring about a state of affairs that is logically impossible to bring about, must be rejected." - Steve McKinlay in Omnipotence - The Problem of Impeccability and Divine Freedom
"Let's get one thing straight. We're dealing with logical limits here. No one wants to become embroiled in the odd sophistry of whether or not God can create round squares, rocks too heavy to lift, or married bachelors. For the sake of this discussion, there are no logically possible limits to God's omnipotence. God can do any logically possible thing." - atheist philosopher Argument Against God From Evil
“The stone paradox is either question-begging or logically incoherent. If God is not omnipotent, then God can create a stone too heavy for Him to lift. But if God is omnipotent, it's logically contradictory to suppose that can exist stone God can't lift, and the stone in question is thus nonsense, like a round square or the married bachelor.” – George Mavrodes (paraphrase)
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 08:50:22 [Permalink]
|
I got cut off...
"Let's get one thing straight. We're dealing with logical limits here. No one wants to become embroiled in the odd sophistry of whether or not God can create round squares, rocks too heavy to lift, or married bachelors. For the sake of this discussion, there are no logically possible limits to God's omnipotence. God can do any logically possible thing." - atheist philosopher James Still in Argument Against God From Evil
“The stone paradox is either question-begging or logically incoherent. If God is not omnipotent, then God can create a stone too heavy for Him to lift. But if God is omnipotent, it's logically contradictory to suppose that can exist stone God can't lift, and the stone in question is thus nonsense, like a round square or the married bachelor.” – George Mavrodes (paraphrase)
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 11:20:38 [Permalink]
|
Jim
3. Omnipresence - If God is not in all places at once, than things could happen without his knowledge.
If God exists outside dimensional space, than he would be everywhere at once.
Jim, I do like this new science fiction/ Harlan Ellison version of god that you have come up with. It sounds very modern and cutting edge. It has just a few problems that need to be hammered out before you can run with it.
As stated, omnipresence becomes exactly the same type of problem as the "immovable rock" that they are talking about above. You cannot be "outside dimensional space" and still be "everywhere". If you are only "outside" of a place then you are not "in" that place. You can be inside and outside at the same time, and being Omnipresent would necessitate that you were.
Also you don't seem to have researched what is known about the extra "Einsteinian" dimensions. Nor have you taken into account that time is a side effect of motion and what "being outside of time" would imply in terms of movement. Put down your Greek & Hebrew dictionaries and pick up some physics books. You'll love them-it's a very exciting subject.
Omnipresence also presents the problem that it negates the need for "Universal" knowledge that you like to claim is needed to demonstrate god.
If god, by your definition (not a pagan one by any means), is EVERY where then all one needs to be is SOME where to check out if there are any gods there.
I just happen to be somewhere, somewhere rather nice actually, right now. Wait a second and I'll look around and see if there is any being here that fits the description that you give………….mmmmm……….nope. No gods here. Therefore no omnipresence. No omnipresence means there is no god.
See, the definition must be reworked yet again.
Another thing that needs to be hammered out is that you are mistaking a literary device for a statement of fact.
There is a whole class of folk stories that have the common element of placing the protagonists in a location that can never be checked. Oisin feasts in Tir na n-Og, King Arthur sleeps in Avalon, Peter Pan is in Never-never Land, The Wizard of Oz is over the Rainbow, Santa is at the North Pole, Long ago in a Galaxy far, far away etc.. There is no physical way that the person hearing these stories can check the location-and that is the point of having the action take place there. There is a requisite suspension of disbelief when listening to these stories, to be able to enjoy them. After all, logically if the listener has no way to come by this knowledge then neither does the storyteller.
So, in these stories, god is supposed to live on the other side of the sky. The OT says that clouds are the dust kicked up by his sandals as he shuffles around up there.
Now when people finally got to the North Pole and into Earth orbit, they did not really expect to find anyone there. You see this entire class of story is named after the land of Tir na n-Og, they are called Fairytales.
Moving god from the other side of the sky to the "other side" of dimensional space is still the exact same literary device. Nice touch though. And you already know that it is fiction since it is your imagination that it has come from.
With science you get gypped in the storytelling fun part as you always have to be hard-nosed and never suspend your disbelief. You can only deal with facts. If the facts don't support the speculation you are required to toss the speculation out, or at least modify it. Fortunately for our emotional well being the actual facts are so wonderful in themselves that we no longer need the Fairytales.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 12:25:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Omnipresence - If God is not in all places at once, than things could happen without his knowledge.
I do not think it makes sense to talk of omnipresence in the sense of spatial extension, since God is defined as a non-spatial entity. When theists say God is omnipresent, I think they usually mean God is consciously aware of and able to directly observe everything in the universe.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 14:00:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Omnipresence...
I do not think it makes sense to talk of omnipresence in the sense of spatial extension, since God is defined as a non-spatial entity.
In Ireland we have storytellers called Shanachies One of the things they do to get a mood of magic started in their listeners is to spill out delicious double-talk which is in essence meaningless. But it sounds so wise that you don't want to question it for fear that you will seem foolish. It's wonderful on a rainy night, sitting around the fireplace.
Non-spatial entity yeah that's just that sort of thing. It's spooky and it kinda sounds like you know what you're talking about.Sort of. Not many of those old non-spatial entities around these parts though. They must be over on the Island of Eternal Youth. They probably don't take up too much room over there.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 14:57:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
I do not think it makes sense to talk of omnipresence in the sense of spatial extension, since God is defined as a non-spatial entity.
Non-spatial entity yeah that's just that sort of thing. It's spooky and it kinda sounds like you know what you're talking about.Sort of. Not many of those old non-spatial entities around these parts though. They must be over on the Island of Eternal Youth. They probably don't take up too much room over there.
If you've a case against the logical coherence of a non-spatial (or atemporal) consciousness, let's have it.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Jim
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 17:08:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
By the way, you are the one who said God could be proven. Saying "No proof of God exists, therefore there can be no God" is essentially the same as saying proof of God can exist. You are implying that 'proof' is possible. You prove it. I don't want to appear antagonistic, but your belief system should be able to withstand the test.
I think I may have said this, however, what I said was that no proof of a gods existence makes it irrelevent. That is also what I have gotten from the others who have taken this same line. No proof of interaction in this world would make the existence of a god irrelevent. I have never implied, to my knowledge, that lack of proof would imply that it can not exist. I am not the one making the claim of a non-corporeal, unknowable, unprovable being existing. I'm reminded of Carl Sagan's dragon in his garage. Is there some way I can prove the existence of this supposed beneficient big brother who is deeply concerned with every aspect of my life and if I don't bother to trust in others and believe his existence I am condemned to eternal hell fires.
Trish, I was referring to Slater, or anyone who makes the same statement. There seem to be different beliefs in atheism. My statement dealing with God's "position" requires a little understanding of hyperspaces. I believe the book "Flatland" was recommended by someone, check it out. I don't claim to have a grasp on this, either. I may sound like I am flipping back and forth, so bear with me. God does, in fact, exist everywhere. I believe our 4 dimensions are included in anywhere. We cannot recognize him with scientific data, there is none. God is not physical. There may be in the other 6 that physicists say exist, but it is unknowable. Like I have said before, there is proof, but it is not acceptable here. There is evidence that has been left behind, physical evidence, but it can all be rationalized. There are proofs that say mathematically that a 6 billion year old universe could not have evolved, not even for a 30 billion year old universe, not enough time. There is lots of evidence for design, but no physical proof that would be accepted here. Sorry.
quote:
Jim, I would like to ask you which particular religious belief you follow, simply so I know where I stand when referring to god. You've said you read the bible - so I am assuming that we are operating from the Judeo-Christian belief system here.
Trish, I consider myself a Christian. I understand all of the presuppositions that come with this. My concept of God comes from the Bible.
quote:
And another point as regards slavery in the bible, tho I can not remember nor can I find the reference, the term 'slave' and the term for 'indentured/bond servants' were the same and only translated seperately based on context. However, god describes in Dueteronomy that slaves of foreign origin may be owned unto the third and fourth generations. No where in the NT does Jesus counter this and when referring to servants in a house he refers to both those slave that may only be owned for 7 years and those that may be owned unto the third and fourth generations. This was the Judaic tradition and law, in which Jesus was raised. (I will assume for the moment, tho I do not agree with, the point that says Jesus was an actual historical figure. This avoids having to type supposedly repeated numbers of times.) Why would the term used for slave/servant in the OT be different than that used in the NT?
Trish, I'll do a little study tonight, and email it to you. There are at least 10 different words used for 'slave' in the NT, many more in the OT. If you could find me a specific verse that troubles you, that would help.
quote:
Slavery was condoned by the bible with specific rules regarding the treatment of slaves, no where does Jesus refute or modify the ownership or treatment of owned peoples as set down by his father. Therefore, Jesus can be assumed to have condoned the slavery his father set down in Deuteronomy, it is afterall scripture.
Once again, many different hebrew words for slave. You have to stay in the context.
quote:
In response to the question: How do we know the bible is inspired?
I'll assume that you are talking to me. There are many skilled people who have written volumes on this stuff. The Bible does contain macro and micro codes, which in the feild of cryptology indicates a coded message ("Cosmic codes," by Chuck Missler). I'm not into the predictive codes and other junk that is out there, but codes do exist, proven fact. There is the heptatic (7) structure. Although a little out there, it is well established that the Bible contains many sevens. What does this prove, I don't know, but no man could insert these patterns of sevens(God's number of completeness) and still have a readable message. Trust me, I've tried. There is the fact that the Bible was written by 40 different authors (who they are may be disputed in some cases) over thousands of years (this is also proven with many different studies on writing styles and the many different forms of Hebrew and Greek used in the text) and yet it is a congruent story. These are just some. In my opinion, from my own research, man could not have conspired to write the Bible as it exists today. A scientifically absurd notion.
quote:
The best and only adequate proof for the fact that the Bible was written under the inspiration of God is the infallible word of the Catholic Church.
quote:
The Holy Catholic Church tells me that the Bible is the infallible inspired word of god. This is the same argument you use for believing in god. You say so. Why should I believe either of you without evidence of the existence of a god?
I am not Catholic, and who cares what the Church says, anyway. I refer you to Acts 17:11, maybe it is not in the Catholic Bible.
quote:
Why does the bible need to be interpreted?
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 17:12:47 [Permalink]
|
Bible Codes!? Oh please.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
