Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DarkBronzePlant · 02-26-2002, 12:09 PM

I can already anticipate some objections to this very simple bit, but I thought I would throw it out there and see if it can be molded into anything useful:

1. One of god's attributes is omnipresence.
2. Therefore, if god exists, he is everywhere.
3. God is not here with me.
4. Therefore, I can conclude that god does not exist.

Technos · 02-26-2002, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkBronzePlant:
I can already anticipate some objections to this very simple bit, but I thought I would throw it out there and see if it can be molded into anything useful:

1. One of god's attributes is omnipresence.
2. Therefore, if god exists, he is everywhere.
3. God is not here with me.
4. Therefore, I can conclude that god does not exist.

God? What god? Which god are you talking about?

Jayhawker Soule · 02-26-2002, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkBronzePlant:
I can already anticipate some objections to this very simple bit, but I thought I would throw it out there and see if it can be molded into anything useful: ...

IMO, it cannot.

tronvillain · 02-26-2002, 02:45 PM

Something which is omnipotent and omniscient will be omnipresent, but that doesn't imply it is everywhere.

Kenny · 02-27-2002, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkBronzePlant:
I can already anticipate some objections to this very simple bit, but I thought I would throw it out there and see if it can be molded into anything useful:

1. One of god's attributes is omnipresence.
2. Therefore, if god exists, he is everywhere.
3. God is not here with me.
4. Therefore, I can conclude that god does not exist.

I deny 3.

tronvillain · 02-27-2002, 05:57 AM

Seems like a pretty good premise to attack, but as I point out premise two is also a reasonable target.

DarkBronzePlant · 02-27-2002, 06:59 AM

I thought point 3 would be a major point of contention. With regards to point 2, though, could an omnipresent being or entity not "be everywhere"? Or would he/she/it simply not be present everywhere in a detectable manner?

Draygomb · 02-27-2002, 07:27 AM

2 is just a restatement of 1, which is definitional. So 3 really is the best way to go. 3 is so weak it about collapses under its own weight.

Clarice · 02-27-2002, 08:25 AM

For it to work with P3, you'd have to include as a premise that God's presence is always detectable by you. I don't think that premise is a feature of Christianity or any other religion. The argument would be that He's there, but you're closing your "heart" to Him.

Boro Nut · 02-27-2002, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kenny:


I deny 3.

What a brilliant answer. You should be a politician Kenny.

Boro Nut

02-26-2002, 12:09 PM	#1
DarkBronzePlant Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: San Francisco, CA USA Posts: 3,568	Where is the omnipresent being? I can already anticipate some objections to this very simple bit, but I thought I would throw it out there and see if it can be molded into anything useful: 1. One of god's attributes is omnipresence. 2. Therefore, if god exists, he is everywhere. 3. God is not here with me. 4. Therefore, I can conclude that god does not exist.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-26-2002, 02:45 PM	#4
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Something which is omnipotent and omniscient will be omnipresent, but that doesn't imply it is everywhere.

02-27-2002, 05:57 AM	#6
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Seems like a pretty good premise to attack, but as I point out premise two is also a reasonable target.

02-27-2002, 06:59 AM	#7
DarkBronzePlant Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: San Francisco, CA USA Posts: 3,568	I thought point 3 would be a major point of contention. With regards to point 2, though, could an omnipresent being or entity not "be everywhere"? Or would he/she/it simply not be present everywhere in a detectable manner?

02-27-2002, 07:27 AM	#8
Draygomb Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Harrisburg, Pa Posts: 3,251	2 is just a restatement of 1, which is definitional. So 3 really is the best way to go. 3 is so weak it about collapses under its own weight.

02-27-2002, 08:25 AM	#9
Clarice Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: North Carolina Posts: 862	For it to work with P3, you'd have to include as a premise that God's presence is always detectable by you. I don't think that premise is a feature of Christianity or any other religion. The argument would be that He's there, but you're closing your "heart" to Him.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.