Soma

Empirical evidence is fallible. One cannot assume a temporal event has no cause -- which is logically absurd -- unless that event is eternal.

Jinto

Oh brother. Would you mind telling me why spontaneous events are so difficult for you to accept? (Other than the fact that your argument relies on the assumption that they are impossible, but I'll assume that this is a case of misunderstanding rather than intellectual dishonesty).

Lobstrosity

You keep saying this, but it isn't logically absurd at all. Of course one can assume that a temporal event has no cause. Cause and effect is just a byproduct of the approximate physical laws we see in the macroscopic world. It is not a physical reality at the microscopic level. It's counterintuitive, but just being counterintuitive is not enough to make it "logically absurd" or even improbable. Without any knowledge of physics, I find it hard to understand how you can so adamantly claim to know what is and is not physically absurd.

Soma

Can you demonstrate with absolute certainty that a spontaneous event has absolutely no cause?

Lobstrosity

Science can't demonstrate anything with "absolute certainty." No one can say with absolute certainty that the sun is still there. However, scientists can say with incredible confidence that spontaneous events have no "cause." If spontaneous events have causes, then the Bell inequality should be satisfied. The most accurate experiments show that in reality the Bell inequality is violated by more than nine standard deviations (which is huge) whereas the predictions of quantum mechanics are in excellent agreement. (See, this is why this should be taken to the Science Forum).

Silent Acorns

Xian,

On Infinite beings

First, I assume that the reason you believe that two infinite beings cannot co-exist is because each being (being infinte) must fill the entire universe leaving nowhere for the other to exist. Is this correct?

If so, you are relying on the principle that to two things cannot exist at the same location at the same time. But if this is true, and given that I (and you) exist then this infinte GPB cannot exist because it would have to exist in the same place as I (and you) do.

If it is possible for a finite being to co-exist with an infinite being, why is it impossible for two infite beings to co-exist?

"Greatest" Possible Being

I take issue with the descriptor "greatest". Greatest by what measure? All possible measures? It is impossible for a being to be the greatest by all possible measures since some measures are opposites of each other. Take these two measues:

1) mass
2) lack-of-mass

Obviously, no being can be the greatest in both these measures simultaniously. And before you say "mass>no mass", think again. There are times when having no mass is better than having infinite mass (like when you don't want to be found).

This also applies to your inclusion of "moral" in your list of GPB properties. Since "moral" is inherently subjective (as you have admitted yourself) you must rely on some "greatest morality" that the GPB has. The only way out of the "by what measure" counter-argument is to claim that the GPB alone knows what the appropriate measure is. But what do we have then?

A being who is the "Greatest" only because it says, "I am the Greatest". A claim that I could easily make for myself since no being in the universe has more Silent-Acorns-ness than me, and therefore no being is greater than me.

BadBadBad

Xian,

You started by listing a set of attributes for three different conceptual god like entities, Judeo/christian God, GPB, and IPU. Then you equated them, ie Judeo/christian god=GPB=IPU. Actually, I think your current position is xian god = GPB > IPU. However, I think the problem is that we haven't come to terms on these attributes. Let me start by disagreeing with your list of attributes that you started with. Then let's see if we have equality.

Here's my take on the attributes:

Judeo/Xian God
infinite
can not possbily be infinite by definition of text within Bible
unlimited
is limited by the descriptions provided in the Bible
independent
sovereign
moral
Is defined by the Bible to be an entity who commits truly evil and immoral acts
all loving
omnipotent (properly defined)
omniscient
Is defined as not having all knowledge in the Bible
defined as the GPB by xian
strictly limited to at least the depictions in the judeo christian bible.
can not exist because the Bible defines it with contradictory terms.
has been demonstrated to be myth and fable in the same way as other religions throughout history.
Can not possibly be defined as the GPB since it is an impossible being.

Some other God
infinite
unlimited
independent
sovereign
moral
omnipotent (properly defined)
omniscient (properly defined)
defined as the GPB by some other culture
it is defined as the God depicted in some other ancient "holy" text or legend
Can not possibly exist for exactly the same reasons that the Christian god cannot exist

IPU
infinite (not limited by the Bible)
unlimited (limited only by my imagination)
independent
sovereign
moral (not even a hint of immorality)
omnipotent (absolutely)
omniscient (absolutely)
invisible (properly defined)
pink (properly defined)
horse-like being with one horn (properly defined)
GPB by my definition and plenty of others
it is defined as the God depicted in atheist legend
Can possibly exist because I can add, delete, or change any of these attributes when ever and however I want such that the IPU can be defined as anything I want.


In summary,

Judeo-Christian God = Any other god conceived by mankind = non-existent

Therefore,

IPU = GPB = exists

All praise the almighty IPU


Now, to refute that, you're going to have to provide evidence that the Christian god is not contradictory, not fable myth and forgery, and that it's actually possible that God exists. Without evidence, your assertions as to God's attributes are just as meaningless as mine.

Dr Rick

It is illogical to assert that the GPB is inferior to the GPB. If the IPU is defined as the GPB, it cannot be inferior to the GPB

Just repeating an assertion does not make it logical. There are no limits to infinity, as clutch and others have shown you; continuing to ignore this point will not make it go away.

Even if your statement wasn't wrong, and there could be only one, there is no reason that the one couldn't be the IPU instead of the J-C omnigod. That point has also been made previously.


Your beliefs are not evidence of anything except your beliefs; they have nothing to do with the tilte of the thread that you chose.

Another strawman.

Yes; I don't know if it also makes your own subjective definiton of your proposed J-C god a contradiction because I don't know your subjective definition of your proposed J-C God.

The same reasoning deflates your irrational contention that the IPU arguement is an "atheistic fallacy." You can't logically conclude anything about it if you haven't defined the subjective definition of your proposed atheistic IPU. And if your subjective definition of your proposed atheistic IPU does not coincide with mine, than an arguement showing that your subjective definition of your proposed atheistic IPU is contradictory does not demonstrate that my subjective definition of my proposed atheistic IPU is contradictory.


And yet another strawman.

There is much more to logic than just lining words up vertically.

Rick

EspressoSnail

Not necessarily, you are assuming that the GPB has moral standards. Being perfect doesn't mean it has morals. Hmmm... I suppose perfection is subjunctive...

fishbulb

Am I wasting my time with this?

Soma:

Alright, if you wish to say that, if God exists, it is possible that he has the ability to perform a certain range of tasks, but you really don't know, then I will agree with you. We cannot rule out the possibility that God, if he exists, is capable of doing various things. But that isn't saying a whole heck of a lot about God.

I shall try to explain this one last time: if you make an unquantifiable claim about something, you may be right, but you haven't said anything interesting. It has nothing to do with infinite mass or logical paradoxes, though it is easy to come up with two plausible abilities that are paradoxical. That isn't important. The point is that if all you are willing to do is posit that God, if he exists, has certain abilities but we don't know what those are, you aren't saying anything worthwhile. I already provided some very down to Earth specifics. Can God stop the rotation of the Earth? Can God make snakes talk? Can God make my laundry smell springtime fresh? Can God commit suicide: permanently and irrevocably remove himself from existence? Do you know? Do you know anything about this being you call God and whom you are certain exists? If you cannot make any concrete, testable claims then your proposition cannot be evaluated, and you will not convince any skeptical minds that God exists.

With regards to the cosmological argument, I am not required to accept your premises if you cannot support them. The burden of proof is on you to support your premises, especially if you want to convince me that your argument is correct. Let me just address your final point:

The first sentence here is your premise. Intuitively, it makes sense, but a lot of things intuitively make sense and are in fact incorrect. That doesn't mean the premise is demonstrably false. It means that it has not been supported or refuted.

Your second sentence directly contradicts the first.

Next and, I suspect, finally,

Yes. Now do you recognize that your argument fails entirely to address the criticism it purports to invalidate? Your argument is internally consistent, but it has nothing to do with the objection to the problem of evil and the notion of a benevolent God.