HelenM

This is an atheist argument.

Christians don't see God as limited to human logic. I mean, just ask them...pretty soon you will get to them saying "In fact, we can't understand God; his ways are higher than our ways [Bible quote]".

(If they are honest Christians)

love
Helen

Automaton

The rock argument is like the atheist version of Pascal's Wager.

If God can create a rock so big he cannot lift it, he can do the logically impossible. If it is possible for God to do the logically impossible, then it is surely possible for God to be both omnipotent and non-omnipotent. So, where's the argument?

In fact, a more sophisticated version of this argument is derived from the incompleteness theorem: Take the proposition "God cannot prove this statement to be true." If God concludes that the statement is true, then God is not omniscient, because he cannot know if it's true. If God concludes the statement is false, then God is not omniscient. If God cannot conclude the statement to be either true or false, then God is not omnipotent. (Not being omniscient is the same as not being omnipotent, because not knowing all truths would limit power.) However, it falls under the same trap, and is logically invalid.

Panta Pei

Of course, logical impossibilites or obvious contradictions such as the rock paradox can actually be explained in typical xtian irrationality by giving the process a mystical name.

For instance:

God can, in fact, create a rock heavier than he can lift through a process called "Heftamosis".

One God can be three divine entities by being in a "Triune" or "Trinity" condition.

Displaying of mystical divine light or some other sort of hocus pocus switcho-chango from mortal man to immortal God can be called "Transfiguration".

God can also create a square circle via an omnipotent process called "Quadula-orb Configuration".

ad nauseum <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Just thought you'd might want to know

~ Steve

theophilus

Juvenille. That's how.

theophilus

And that would be a trivial example and, so , shed no light on any discussion. Square circles, BY DEFINITION, cannot exist. It is impossible to prove that something which could exist does not exist - by logic or evidence.

theophilus

You guys are killing me with these trenchant arguments.
Boy, I wish I could have thought of that. "Put up or shut up;" I'll have to remember that.

theophilus

You might want to look up the word "sarcasm" in the dictionary before you attempt adult conversation?

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: theophilus ]</p>

theophilus

[quote]Originally posted by zamboniavenger:
<strong>No difference. He asserts that, because the scriptures were written through human agency, they are, de facto, unreliable. The same has to apply to anything he writes.
Is he claiming infallibility?

theophilus

I should have caught this earlier but BLTN.
This statement betrays the incipient self-righteousness that is at the heart of all atheistic pronouncements and demonstrates, once again, that you must first presuppose the bible in order to make meaningful statements about anything.

Notice the language:
"This is a horrible reason for believing in any religion." Well now, how exactly do you know that? This immediately raises the question, what would be a "good" reason for believing in any religion. Of course, we'd have to ask again, how do you know that.
Further, even if it is a horibile reason, so what? As an atheist, who are you to say what matters and what doesn't?

"You should not believe in something just becuase you fear punishment or want rewards." Same set of questions. These kind of statements imply an acknowledged, underlying value system. As an atheist, how do you assert the existence of such a system and, why should anyone be bound by your system (seems I've heard that question somewhere before)?

"That is an extremely selfish reason to believe in a god(s)." More of the same. Just vain babbling unless you can demonstrate some compelling standard.

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: theophilus ]</p>

lpetrich

Lots of different religions have claimed such things; people would often have visions of pagan deities in Greco-Roman antiquity, and skeptics like the Epicureans tried to account for such visions. Does Tercel thus accept that the Olympian pantheon is a set of real beings instead of figments of the imagination?

That does not prove anything at all; one need not be a liar in order to misunderstand something. Also, there are lots of miracles associated with creeds that Tercel undoubtedly rejects. Does he believe in the divine interventions in the Trojan War?

This is sort of like spiritualist mediums liking to work in the dark and psi researchers liking to do murky statistics. Where are the REALLY unambiguous miracles, such as putting a giant cross made out of diamond on top of the Kaaba in Mecca? And why haven't healing miracles put mainstream medicine out of work? Cars have put a lot of horses out of work, so why hasn't miraculous healing done similar wonders?

Argument from the sort of story that Tercel considers fictional when in other religions I don't find very convincing.

However, a likely natural-theology god is rather different from that of the Bible; consider Thomas Paine's beliefs.

An argument that proves very little, even if it was valid.

Grasping at straws.

The most that that would prove is that there is some entity that likes to create Universes for the fun of it, just to see what would happen.

That need not be the case -- consider a lot of "moral" behavior by social animals. Do bees in a hive indiscriminately sting each other?

However, I consider that a non sequitur, because I don't think that consciousness is well-enough understood to draw such conclusions from, and because there are alternative hypotheses, such as genetic engineering by extraterrestrial visitors.

A totally empty one.