Zadok001

xian:

Methinks you're a bit confused.

Premise: "There can be only one GPB." I'll grant you this premise. One GPB. No more, no less. Now... Why is it YOUR GPB? My GPB looks like this:

Invisible
Pink
Unicorn
Immoral
Infinite
Unjust
Omnipotent
Omniscient

The IPU is the GPB. Obviously, your God does not exist, since that would be a second GPB, which there cannot be.

Why does your God get priority?

xian

"And logically you know there might very well be none. "

of course there might be none. But regardless, the GPB is NOT an IPU. THere is only one GPB. It might exist, it might not exist, but it is not the same as an IPU or any other infinite potential deities out there. It exists alone (if it does exist)


"My GPB looks like this:

Invisible
Pink
Unicorn
Immoral
Infinite
Unjust
Omnipotent
Omniscient "


And your GPB is not the GPB.

Moral > Immoral. Just > Injust.

Autonemesis

Look, when somebody asks you for clarification, the proper response cannot possibly be "it was already clear." The person would not ask to clarify if it was already clear.

Christians are so fond of altering definitions to escape logical quandries, that asking them to define their terms is essential if any communication is to take place.

xian

" The person would not ask to clarify if it was already clear. "

yes they would. infinite means what the dictionary says it means. don't make me look it up for you.

Autonemesis

That only states half of it. There can be only one, or there can be NONE. There cannot be two or three, or more. None, or one, those are the choices.

Or none. The "greatest POSSIBLE being" must be a concept that admits that such a thing may not actually exist (else it would be called simply the "greatest being").

That's funny. The word "infinite" (and the concept) is an invention of humans. Unless you plan to be the sole Christian on the face of the earth to claim that God invented English (or Latin, as the case may be), you need to backtrack and retract that statement about what humans can and cannot grasp.

xian

"There can be only one, or there can be NONE"


Yes, I agree.


thereby refuting the IPU argument. One or none. BUt not a google raised to the google.

Autonemesis

Oh, shut up with the patronizing.

(from dictionary.com)
infinite (adj): "1. Having no boundaries or limits. "

So there is no limit to the evil God does, is that right?

What - you say God does no evil? Then in what way does he have no limits?

xian

"So there is no limit to the evil God does, is that right? "

if evil was an attribute of the GPB, then it would have infinite scope. Infinite describes a scope.


But Evil is not an attribute for the GPB, therefore your statement is invalid.

it can be Reworded as thus: “there is no limit to the Gods goodness"

fishbulb

Xian,

The arguments you outline are not intended to prove that no god exists. They are intended to provde that various incarnations of the Christian God (and related gods) are nonsensical. Let me elaborate:

What is illogical is the notion of omnipotence. This argument succinctly demonstrates that nothing can be omnipotent. Either God can lift any rock or he can create an unliftable rock (or he can do niether), but he cannot do both. Omnipotence is a concept that is carelessly thrown around by many Christians to casually try to explain away many inconsistencies between the Bible and theology on the one hand, and observed reality on the other. But because omnipotence is a nonsense concept, these arguments are also without merit. This argument is a counter to sloppy definitions and sloppy thinking, and is an admonishment for believers to define their God clearly, concretely, and cogently if they wish to be taken seriously by critical thinkers.

The point of this argument is that there are perhaps countless theologies that have existed and which continue to exist. Even among Christians, there is so much disagreement as to the nature of God that there are at least three major sects which comprise at least dozens of sub-denominations. Even within a particular denomination there is a great deal of dissent. The only thing each subgroup of Christian has in common is that, believing in one true God, they believe that everyone with a different view must be wrong. The argument here is simple: suppose, for arguments sake, that I were to accept that there is a one true God. Why should I believe it is yours and not the God of the Roman Catholic church, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the Church of Mormon, the Coptic Church, or any one of the many, many other Christian groups who claim to be in possession of the truth? For that matter, why not Shi'a or Sunni Islam or any of the Judaic sects? Convincing a skeptic to believe in a god is only step one; convincing her to believe in your God requires even more evidence.

This is a refutation of the "first mover" argument. For a very long time, some Christians have unconvincingly tried to provide a logical proof for God that rests on the premise that nothing can exist without having been caused (created), so the fact that the universe exists implies that it was created. By whom? By God, of course. Even if we accept this argument that the universe had to be created, it in no way establishes that the Christian God must have been that creator. But more fundamentally, the argument is self-contradictory because it posits an uncreated and eternal God as the solution to the problem that there cannot exist uncreated entities. If it is possible that an eternal God could exist, why is it impossibe that an eternal universe could exist?

The God described in the Bible, especially but not exclusively the Old Testament, does many things that any well-adjusted person would find arbitrary, cruel, petty, and just plain evil. Moreover, one need not look hard at all to see abject suffering in the world. Many Christians argue that God is immensely powerful and ultra benevolent. When their bluff is called, they resort to re-defining their terms: evil and benevolence have a special meaning when applied to God. They convince themselves that God had only the best of intentions when he caused or allowed a child to be born with a crack addiction or conjoined at the head with its twin; that sentencing an infant to a short, painful life is the height of benevolence. It is an obviously false claim. It is based on deceitful use of plain language; using a well-understood word to mean something completely different from its accepted meaning.

Argument number four simply calls a spade a spade and demonstrates that, if the words cruel, vindictive, and jealous have any real meanings, then the God of the Bible is a cruel, vindictive, and jealous God. They might also point out that the Israelites from the time of the Bible seemed to think that as well and were very upfront about it: God is someone to be obeyed out of fear, not cherished out of love.

In short, all these arguments do is take the evidence and conclusions supplied by Christians and demonstrate that the evidence does not support the conclusions.

Arguments that posit that God does not exist at all are equally plentiful, but they more typically argue that what is offered as evidence of God's existence is really not evidence at all, but rather ancient mythology.

Clutch

Let's see. You claim that only your god satisfies a suitably specific definition of your god.

I point out that this is true of any object, and hence, that your point is trivial.

I then gently point out that you've utterly missed the idea behind IPU examples, confusing them for arguments about definitions when they are in fact arguments about evidential special pleading.

You ignore all this, and simply reiterate again and again that only your god satisfies the strictest definition of your god. Of course, this breathtaking observation is also true of my microwave oven, so it's hard to see what is to be inferred from it.

Not definition -- evidential special pleading. Before unveiling your amazing refutation of the argument, you ought to make sure you have at least a minimal grasp of how it works.