Philosoft

So God is, what, a Microsoft engineer?

Jayhawker Soule

No it's not.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by luvluv:

"Which arguments would those be?"

The cosmological arguments and the teleological arguments.

"I'd love to see this demonstrated."

God is self-contradictory, because an omniscient being cannot be omnipotent, nor can a morally perfect being.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Living Dead Chipmunk:

"How? And how can I come to this world-shaking absolute conclusion?"

Because the fact that I have a justified true belief that God does not exist is cognitively available to me. God is self-contradictory; it is impossible for an omniscient or a morally perfect being to be omnipotent.

Further, the existence of widespread intense apparently gratuitous suffering gives reason to believe this God probably does not exist, and justification for this belief, so I think it counts as knowledge, too.

At least, I assume that's the God about Whom we're talking here. It's what most English-speakers mean when they say "God."

Living Dead Chipmunk

Rimstalker:
....

.....?

That's it?

You're going to take my entire post and blow it off with a "nuh-uh!"?

Thomas Metcalf:

Congratulations. You've disproven a single specific example of a supreme being. But once again, attempting to apply the contradictory nature of a specific instance to the whole of the god concept is a composition fallacy.

Jayhawker Soule

As were all who made and continue to make similar claims:

• Hey Chippy, there's a Unicorn on the porch! [Chippy checks, but no Unicorn is found.]
• Hey Chippy, there's a Unicorn in the living room! [Chippy checks, but no Unicorn is found.]
• Hey Chippy, there's a Unicorn in the master bedroom! [Chippy checks, but no Unicorn is found.]
• Hey Chippy, there's a Unicorn in the kids room! [Chippy checks, but no Unicorn is found.]
• Hey Chippy, there's a Unicorn in the bathroom! [Chippy checks, but no Unicorn is found.]
• Hey Chippy, there's a Unicorn in the basement! [Chippy checks, but no Unicorn is found.]
• Hey Chippy, there's a Unicorn on the roof! [Chippy checks, but no Unicorn is found.]
• Hey Chippy, there's a Unicorn in the den! [Chippy checks, but no Unicorn is found.]
• Hey Chippy, there's a Unicorn in the basement! [Chippy checks, but no Unicorn is found.]
• Hey Chippy, there's a Unicorn on the porch next door! [Chippy is getting really pissed ...]

The process continues, door to door, year after year. At what point do you feel justified in generalizing from this experiences? The God-of-the-Gaps reigns over exponentially decreasing territory. At what point do you feel justified in generalizing from this experience?

[ Consider this Chapter 1 in the Chippy Checks cereal thriller. ]

Jayhawker Soule

Nope.
Yep.

Seriously, Living Dead Chipmuck,

( ... a difficult phrase to type with a straight face by the way ... )

the existence of Mab is not a testable hypothesis. You can not prove that Mab does not exist. In fact, Mab finds the assertion laughable ...

Hawkingfan

Have you read the bible? It says god has hands, and a nose, and a face and walks on the ground, and wrestles with people, and hides from people, shows himself, lives in the sky, can come to earth in physical form, etc...

We could have the same argument about Santa Claus. There are people who still believe Santa Claus exists. Do you believe in Santa Claus? Even though I don't believe in Santa Claus, I could still argue that he exists, much like Christians argue that God exists.

Or how about the little goblin in my car's engine who makes it run? We cannot test for him--I know, because he is invisible, has no mass, cannot be heard or touched or smelled. He is a supernatural being, but I KNOW he is there!!!

We've been in space (the heavens) around the earth and can see into the far reaches of space (we have pictures to prove it!!). We're here, there is no god, the Christians were wrong.

Christians have had their prayers tested and it is shown not to work. Modern-day miracles have been disproven countless times. The bible is full of scientific lies and contradictory statements.

Our world operates by laws of science, not metaphysical, supernatural goobledygook. God plays no role whatsoever in any scientific theory. It would be idiotic to believe such a thing.

Apples and oranges. Christian claims are different than Alien claims. I can say with absolute certainty that aliens have not created this earth, visited this earth, or have anything to do with us.

Also, Aliens would fall into the category of beings that are equal to humans in that they would have to have been created by someone (the Christian belief) or be apart of a scientific principle (which they do--quantum mechanics supports the idea of creating life by its theories).

Synaesthesia

ReasonableDoubt,

Ever seen Monty Python's dead parrot sketch. When you see no unicorn, that is evidence that the unicorn is invisible.

The thing about evidence is that what constitutes it depends upon our interpretive framework. To the theist, looking a the world and it's organization is evidence of design.
Evidence, in isolation, clearly isn't the problem.

The problem with God comes into the questions of what sort of theory God is. God is supposed to be able to explain everything possible because he can do, and be indirectly resposible for everything.

Since nothing is ruled out, it's not at all suprising that our understanding should conform to our God theory: It's impossible that it doesn't.

In other words, the epistemology upon which God relies trivializes evidence.

Living Dead Chipmunk

Ok, I have to get this off my chest...

I AM NOT ARGUING, AND WILL NEVER ARGUE, FOR THE EXISTANCE OF THE *CHRISTIAN* GOD!

Arg. What is it with you people? I take a strong agnostic stance and suddenly I'm promoting biblical inerrency? Religion is not a binary choice, for crying out loud!

Anyway.

ReasonableDoubt:
Sorry about confusing your name with Rimstalkers. Heh.

None. I don't feel that generalizing the existance of an entire philosophical concept because one culture's specific gods proved to be logical contradictions and/or didn't live where they were supposed to.

Specific god-archetypes can be disproven, but the overall concept of a higher power cannot be addressed by any logical tools we have at our disposal. We can prove such a being unnecessary, but then again, pet rocks are pretty unnecessary too, and yet they exist.

At the point someone asks me to contribute personal resources because of something along those lines however, I begin to become a bit more atheistic.