99Percent

We are all born atheists.

99Percent

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Philosoft

What do you see when you think about "infinity"? Whatever it is, it isn't infinite. "Infinity" is a place-holder, something that says, "a concept goes here but we can't conceive it so we'll use this word to represent what happens when we divide by zero or plot an asymptote." I don't know what you mean when you say infinity can be "usefully discussed." What, exactly, can we discuss about "infinity," itself?

<strong> Angle? I think you don't fully realize what you're saying. You don't even have the latitude to call it a creature. No words that we currently employ can be used to describe any thing that "exists" indepenent of the very laws that describe existence in the first place. The moment you employ the word "God" to describe an alleged concept, you are allegedly conceiving of a thing that is bound to logic. I've been through this a number of times and there's really no way around it. But don't take my word for it, W.V. Quine and A.J. Ayer have more to say.

<strong> And then some.

LordSnooty

You're right, yes. What I should have said was: why, if this evidence is so compelling, do rational people reject it? Irrespective of creed.

Paul

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by flatland:

"Basically, any discussion of proving a creator god of any type is meaningless. This is so because a creator god necessarily exists outside and independently of our universe, including its natural laws. Thus, any god that theoretically created our universe is not necessarily subject to laws that we cannot conceive of being otherwise, such as basic logic- non-contradiciton, excluded middle, etc."

To believe that a being can be outside of the laws of logic, or even that we can understand such a being, goes against the intuitions of pretty much everyone. We define 1+1 to equal 2, and to say that God would cause that not to be the case is simply to change something psychologically about us. Skepticism about analytic proposition is the deepest skepticism one can accept, and few people, I think, will bite the bullet and accept it.

Further, a case can be made that we have no idea what it means to say "God exists" if we don't have analytic access to the predicates within "God." If we don't know what "omnipotent," "omniscient," etc., mean, we don't know what "God" means. And if we do know what they mean, we can see when they contradict each other. So if we don't know what "God" means, then you can't say God exists, or even that He is not subject to the laws of logic.

Finally, to say God is not subject to the laws of logic is to believe in a concept of God that is vulnerable to the deductive argument from evil. Of course, you could say that we cannot even frame deductive arguments with "God" in any of the terms, but there's really no convincing reason to believe that. The vast majority of Christian philosophers throughout history deny it. I'd say most laypersons would deny it. And it's self-refuting, or at least unconfirmable de jure.

Now, one other response to make is this. If you're talking about the God we can't talk about (which you are if you say His existence beyond the laws of logic lets Him escape from incompatibilities), then you're talking about a different God than I am, and than most apologists and atheologians are. So you're free to believe in this de jure unconfirmable "thing" you can't understand or define or know anything about, and the rest of the world and I will continue to talk about a being, part of Whose perfection includes the fact that mortals can indeed have some sort of epistemic access to Him. I would say that part of God's perfection would have to include the proposition that humans can talk about Him and understand what it means to say He has certain predicates.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Wackyboy:

"The second is the, 'God's characteristics are incoherent or incompatible' argument. Sometimes I like to call it the 'How can a loving God send an nice person to Hell' argument. This seems to fall apart to me because God by definition, and this holds true for any god, transcends natural law -- what flatland said."

Then you're saying we don't know what "omnipotent" and "omniscient" and "morally perfect" mean. Either that, or that we don't know whether they apply to God. If the former, you should inform people who write dictionaries that they're wasting their time, and people who have those words in their vocabulary that they're wasting their mental activities. On the other hand, maybe you believe that we just don't know whether they apply to God. But God is defined to have those predicates. So you're left with the position that we don't know what "God" means, and I don't think many theists or atheists will be comfortable with that conclusion.

The atheist can reply back and say that any time they (or the vast majority of Christian thinkers throughout history) are talking about God, they're using a word that we do understand. So we're talking about two different beings. Your being is the undefinable, unconfirmable being; we'll never know whether this being has any particular attributes and therefore whether it exists. Our being is the one, part of Whose perfection is the fact that humans can indeed know whether it is omnipotent or omniscient or morally perfect.

Finally, if God can do even the logically impossible, then the deductive argument from evil is sound. And most theists won't want to admit that there is a sound deductive argument with "God does not exist" as the conclusion.

In sum, I don't think saying that God is incomprehensible will help much. You're immediately removing yourself from the God Who is the subject of most of the discourse on the topic.

As for other reasons, you completely neglected the Problem of Suffering, which, I believe, provides enough reason to think that more likely than not, God doesn't exist. This is a major reason that people are positive atheists.

flatland

Philosoft:

You just usefully discussed infinity without truly understanding it. The word 'infinity is indeed a placeholder for a concept that we can discuss, in asymptotic formulae or division by zero, without actually comprehending it. We can say things like 'unbounded' or 'limitless', and understand what the linguistic definitions mean, although our minds cannot truly conceive of them. For more along these lines(although on the idea of dimensions, and with social commentary embedded), read the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/014043531X/qid=1039211535/sr=2-3/ref=sr_2_3/103-4469105-5104666" target="_blank">book</a> I named myself after; <a href="http://www.geom.umn.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/" target="_blank">Flatland</a>, by Edwin Abbot.

And why is it I cannot use the word 'god' as a placeholder in the same way I use 'infinity'? If you could link to some articles by Quine or Ayer, I'd be happy to read those instead.

Metcalf:
I'm not trying to say that. I'm trying to say that god could have created the logical, mathematical, physical, etc. laws without being subject to them himself.

As for access to predicates, I think that any concept involving infinity (omniscient, omnipotent, etc.) can be understood linguistically at best, and not truly. You can say god is omniscient or omnipotent, but you cannot truly understand these things.

In addition, I do not believe in this conception of god. I do not believe in any conception of god. I am simply bringing it up since it seems to me to be an interesting argument, and one I haven't considered until just recently. I am merely opening up the possibility for discussion.

Ronin

Not quite, not quite ~ the concept ‘is’ un-graspable, but still available for ‘imaginative nonsensical speculation’ not rational thought…which is the thread topic.

And Oxymoron and Vorkosigan (among several others in this thread) have soundly addressed your position and put it to rest as incorrect.

There is documented evidence to the contrary ~ which has already been thoroughly exposed.

Well, it is my hope that these opinions will have some significant effect on your mindset.

No leap whatsoever ~ try harder to include the assorted other God(s)ess(es) myths found in this wonderful world into your assertion and you may begin to realize this truth.

You asked for our opinions and many of us disagree with your thesis ~ we are not ‘jumping all over’ you ~ despite any martyr complex you may be harboring.

People may and have ‘believed’ in any number of credulous claims in large numbers ~ there are more factors at work that the actual subject of ‘God(s)ess(es)’ (such as indoctrination, threats/rewards, peer pressures and outright genocide ~ this does not make any specific claim rational or factual).

I have just determined which one you are.

No ~ it is one of the many reasons not to believe in Yahweh and/or Christ…but not a reason to not be Hindu or Zoroastrian.

They were using the Christian Bible for their Christian model.

How does your representation differ and how has it come to change from theirs?

And, as usual, you just happen to be the True Christian ™ this time around ~ how convenient, the last one that told me that was a pedophile…damn mislabeled jars.

How do you claim to know this?
Please provide the ‘them’ in your assertion for us to interview and analyze.

Though I have expressed my particular negative experiences with the dogma of Christianity ~ these experiences are definitely not the only reasons that I do not believe in Yahweh or the fable of Jesus.

The entire cult is, obviously, no different than any of the other mythic hero legends found throughout the world and its history ~ easily debunked by even you who, no doubt, do not believe in Zeus or his half-god son Hercules.

I totally agree with you here ~ nor does it support the existence of ‘God(s)ess(es)’ when the followers behave justly and with compassion.

We must thoroughly examine the evidentiary claims of the theist without intimidation or bias and come to a conclusion regarding the rational existence of the stated being regardless of any appeal to emotion.

God does not exist.

You seem to ignore that the characteristic of benevolence is an entirely rational one and definable.

Using your analogy, your ‘God’ is not bound to be benevolent, just, loving or any of the things you attribute to ‘Him’ and/or his ‘Son’ Jesus because ‘He’ is ‘transcendent’.

This perspective only indicates how irrelevant and irrational even a ‘faithful’ belief in such a creature would be.

I have to agree with Vorkosigan here, Wackyboy ~ you’ve just clarified the strong atheist position well regarding ‘leaps of faith’.

You’re position was clear from the outset ~ and you have now been shown how incorrect it is regarding atheism.

I will add that to my list of notable quotes.

Ronin

You very well could ~ but what new information then would using the word 'god' supply?

I could just as easily use the word 'doomaflitchee' as a placeholder in exactly the same way, right?

Autonemesis

What leap of faith did you make when choosing not to believe in Zeus?

I made the same "leap" to not believe in Jehovah. In fact, you and I are both positive atheists, if you want to get right down to it. I just positively assert the non-existence of one more god than you do.

What do you think of Zeus as god? That's exactly how I regard Jesus as god. When you figure out why you don't believe in Zeus, you'll have figured out why I don't believe in your god.

You feel "jumped on" because we didn't agree with you? That we had the audacity to respond in some way other than the course that your prior imaginary conversation with us dictated? The nerve of some people!

Sounds like a wild speculation. How do you know this?

Of course we can determine if God's characteristics are incoherent. Omnipresence is an easy one, which I disproved earlier in this thread. You have to redefine what "under my desk" means in order to cling to omnipresence as a viable attribute to assign to God. Omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence are incoherent when all three are applied to the same entity. You must discard the usual meaning of "benevolence" in order to resolve the contradiction. In this sense, belief in God subtracts meaning, it doesn't add any. Benevolence has to be defined as "whatever God does" to avoid the contradiction inherent in a omniscience, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God, which I presume, since you profess Christianity, describes the one you believe in.

Bottom line: you don't have to be omniscient or omnibenevolent or omnipotent to show that omnibenevolence is incompatible with omniscience and omnipotence.

Grow up yourself. Disagreeing with you is not a personal attack.

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>