xian

i have never seen an atheist use any argument to demonstrate polytheism.

i have seen atheists use polytheism to challenge the logicity of a specific monotheistic deity.

Mageth

the GPB is defined as a being, for which there is no being that could possibly be greater.

Forgive me for a little foray; there may be holes in here that I'm missing, but it makes sense to me:

Ok, so one can (objectively or subjectively) define a GPB. Granted, such a definition exists.

I asked you earlier to define what you mean by "existence", which you have not as of yet, so I will. A philosophical definition of existence is "instantiation in reality, or actual being."

As I said earlier, it's not possible for us finite beings to determine, even if we know a "god" exists, that that god is indeed the GPB, or even for the god to prove to us that it is the GPB. Indeed, one might argue that the GPB could not even determine if it was the GPB itself, for to do so it would have to assume it was the GPB!

So even if I grant that any particular god (e.g. the Judeo-Christian god, or the IPU) exists, there's no way to determine in reality that the god is the GPB. You can define it that way, assume it's the GPB, and use logic to show that a GPB can exist, but neither you nor the god can demonstrate, or know, that it's the GPB.

So I'll grant that the definition of a GPB exists, but the GPB does not, cannot demonstrably exist in reality, neither in this natural universe nor in the "supernatural." Thus, the GPB does not exist.

fishbulb

Once more into the breach, I see.

Soma:
Let us back up here a bit. You say that God is omnipotent. Alright. Now you define omnipotence as "being able to do anyting that is possible." You then say that God is omnipotent and that only God is omnioptent. So, what you're really saying is that to be omnipotent means to be God. This begs the question. All you have said is that God can do anything that is possible, without defining possible. Can God create an unliftable rock? Can he lift any rock? Can he read my mind? Can he bench 300 Kg? Can he make my laundry springtime fresh? Unless you can define "omnipotent" in concrete, non-circular terms, you aren't saying anything. As far as the above argument is concerned, God could be omnipotent and still not be able to make the Earth stand still or make snakes talk, because all that God has to be able to do in order to be omnipotent is be God, which he is by definition.

The cosmological argument is supposed to demonstrate that God does exist, but it does not even demonstrate that this is likely, even if you accept the premise of the argument, which is itself unsupported. Even if you accept the premise, nothing in the argument provides one iota of weight to the notion that the first and eternal entity was intelligent, or that even that it still exists.

But the premise itself is unsupported. It is an assumption that nothing can exist without a cause, and special pleading to tack on, "except God." Can you explain why it is not possible for something to have come into existence without a cause, but why it is possible for something to have always existed, having never been created?

Conventionally, we would accept that nothing can simply pop into existence (though astronomers seem to observe just such a thing happen on a regular basis). But, conventionally, we would also accept that everything has a beginning. What logic tells us is that we do not comprehend space and time in a way that allows us to make authoritative pronouncements about how the Universe came to exist, or if it has always existed.

And moving on to another topic...

It's not that I don't understand what you believe, it's that I think you are being disingenuous when you respond the criticism of the benevolent and powerful God supposition. What you are really saying is this: morality are the rules laid out by God. Being the creator of these rules, he can make them whatever he wants them to be, which means that he can exempt himself from them. You define evil as breaking God's rules and good as following them. Since God essentially automatically follows his own rules, he is always good.

But you know as well as I do that you have "countered" the problem of evil argument by simply redefining the terms good and evil. The argument states that it does not make sense that a powerful and benevolent God would allow evil things to happen to us. He would not let tidal waves wipe away villages. He would not allow babies to be born with crippling birth defects. He would not send millions of people to Hell for being mistaken in their belief. The term "evil" clearly means "does harm to humans." The argument points out the contradiction between a God who supposedly loves us and cares for us, and yet allows us to come to all sorts of harm, and often causes that harm deliberately. You simply say "Well, if we re-define evil to mean what I want it to mean instead of what you clearly intended by the word, then God is no longer evil." And, according to your definition, he isn't. But you still haven't addressed the actual argument.

It is important to note that the problem of evil is not meant to prove that no god exists, but rather that Biblical stories, theology, and copious quantities of empirical evidence contradict the (relatively recent) notion of a Christian God who is our powerful benefactor, guardian, and saviour.

tribalbeeyatch

Ummm.... The very argument that you've given is, I think, an example of a demonstration of special pleading.

EspressoSnail

So... why does god have to be the greatest being in the universe?
How do we know he/she/it didn't just lie and say he/she/it was the GPB?
A book written by men, a book of stolen myths, a book in which god is given some rather nasty human qualities, is the only proof some people give that god is the GPB.
Why does god have to have those qualities?
Can't he/she/it be different than what a cult says that he/she/it is?
Why are humans so special to have been supposedly created by the GPB instead of by some slightly less (but still possibly close to being truly) perfect being of power? Or even a flawed being could have created everything....
Perhaps the real GPB is watching the whole universe and laughing at what some pitiful excuse for a mammal on a small planet, in a small spiral of stars is arguing so fervently about...

------------------
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
-Albert Einstein

Philosoft

This is merely the same definition-by-omission. If locality is a property that is possessed by only some (naturally) existent things, there must be a property, say alocality, that is possessed by other (supernatural) existent things. Thus far, I only know what alocality isn't. See a pattern developing here?
Yeah, much better. 'A supernatural thing may or may not have the property of locality.'

Jinto

Preposterous. No true GPB would stoop so low as to laugh at a lesser being.

xian

we agree on the definition of existence. althought i think there is something to be said about conceptual existence. nevertheless, lets proceed.

you say that humans cannot determine what the GPB is. To some extent I agree with this.

Logic will tell us some of the GPB's attributes, but certainly not in all of the details we would like, but most certainly enough of them to mutually exclude an infinite amount of other deities (including the IPU). I don't need to "know" everything about the GPB to believe in the GPB. This is an element of faith to believe that the GPB is there, and that some of the attributes that I subjectively do not understand, are still 'greatest' even though I lack intricate knowledge of such.

I believed in the GPB long before I became a Christian. It was when analyzing the Christian God that I realized the definitions I already already believed about God "a priori" to my knowledge of the JCG, that there was a match.


And because something cannot be demonstrated to exist in "reality" does not necessitate that it does not exist. Demonstration is necessary for the scientific method, but not for existence. there is not a logical problem with something existing supernaturally.

Hawkingfan

No it isn't. The term "great" is VERY subjective.

xian

"If locality is a property that is possessed by only some (naturally) existent things, there must be a property, say alocality, that is possessed by other (supernatural) existent things"

how could you have "alocality" as something that can be "applied" as a property of something?

since when did the lack of something require it to be a property? THis is an excluded middle fallacy. You don't believe in the IPU. You lack belief in it. Does that mean you have the property of "aIPUism?"

I would hardly call that a property.


Yeah, much better. 'A supernatural thing may or may not have the property of locality.' :=rolleyes: "

there is nothing contradictory in that statement. there is no logical fallacy in postulating supernatural existence.