Well I guess he has ‘choice’ whether to destroy himself or not, but his character I believe will not allow that.

Quote:
“It also means that it has always existed and never existed”

How did you reach that conclusion from the word omnipotent? ok so he can not exist and exist, but he chose to exist.

Quote:
“It also means that it cannot be destroyed (even by its own hand)”

ok contradiction with first paragraph but only if he can’t choose.

this aethiest argument seems to suggest that the word omnipotent controls who God is, but I think God can choose.

the ‘word of God’ is said among christians to be inspired by God. So God says he is ‘omnipotent’, so this aethiest argument seems backwards, as aetheists choose to use word ‘omnipotent’ (inspired from God)-that is why christians believe it, yet aethiests say God does not even exist! How then can aethiests place so much importance on the word ‘omnipotent’, yet suggest its source isn’t credible-as it(God)doesn’t exist? Therefore aesthiests would have to use a source of information outside the bible to discredit christianity, not one within in the very thing they are disproving -”omnipotence”.

To make matters even worse for your case, if we assume your assumptions to be true, then your own argument is literally meaningless because your primare premise is in essence that words have no meaning whatsoever, this necessarily includes the words you choose to make the claim that words have no meaning, thus making that claim without meaning, which means then that words have meaning, which again results in the conclusion that words have no meaning.. etc ad infinitum. In other words this is a self-defeating position.

As for the rest, including the FACT that the world is round, not flat, I have started a thread on the WOTF for you. As Pedro asked, let us more this there.

Ok I see God as being like a person – man, accept he is supernatural-which in itself maybe beyond human comprehension – and God created our ability to comprehend.. And what if God deliberately limited human ability to comprehend without humans being able to realise it’s limitations? The supernatural is another realm that may not work exactly as the natural? Just thoughts..

Ok assuming the defintions such as ‘omnipotence’ are used in proper context, accurately interpreted and are in fact contradictory; well what if God is not simply all these things at once, he may choose, so at time A he is this at time B he is that?

What if the meaning of the words are used too ridgidly in some aethiest debates that by focusing on one facet of meaning they fail to see the multiple possiblities the word can manifest, that even at first glance may appear contradictory but are not?

That some deny what is already proved, as in your case of xn reactions to rational thought, in no way makes those responses rational, reasonable, or of the same objective value as rational, critical thought. There are still some who believe that the earth is flat and that it is merely 5000 years old. Would you likewise say that “there are two sides to the debate” with regard to the shape and age of the planet? Shouldn’t objective fact and sound reasoning enter into the evaluation at some point?

I had a skim read of http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/godlogic.html
to get my head around your speciality. Lets try to forget any negative behaviour that might cloud the discussion.

I’m not going to try write everything perfect-too consuming for me, recognise I’m trying not to be rude, its just easier if I don’t over regulate everything I write.

I’m not going to pretend everything I do-write is perfect, but I’ll try to be challenging without accusation and if I make a claim I’ll try to support it.

I saw some christian responses to aethism with a google search, obviuously there are two sides to the debate.

I have my own thoughts on God being real etc over a life time as a thoughtful left handed thinker, though they may not integrate well in this discussion, so obviously I’m trying to familiarise myself with what your talking about. obviously I can’t guarantee my interest will hold, but that doesn’t mean I have nothing to say, I might just be too tired, distracted etc!

The point here is that if you possess a basic understanding of what constitutes sound reasoning, and you have contradictory aspects in the premises or in the characteristics of any hypothetical entity, this is sufficient to know with absolute certainty that no such entity can exist.

Quite simple and straight-forward, without any possibility of any confusion.

Simply familiarize yourself with the basics of sound reasoning and you will find that in fact the conclusion of the arguments offered are necessitated by the premises, and that the premises are all true. This is the very definition of a sound argument. Your offering advice on how to construct a good arument falls upon deaf ears given that you have failed to offer even one valid, much less sound, argument yourself and given that you have employed fallacious reasoning including strawmen and ad hominems.

The claim that my thoughts or my arguments are fragmented is one which can be objectively proved one way or the other. Since you offered no evidence whatsoever of any fragmentation, nor could you find any, this is necessarily an intellectually dishonest tactic born out of the weakness of your own position combined with the presentation of clear and irrefutable proof of the falseness of your conlcusion.

BTW nice attempt to dismiss all intellectual endeavors and all of reason itself by labeling it merely “fancy language and related philosophy.” Here again we see a fine example of intellectual dishonesty on your part, as well as of course fallacious reasoning used in a futile effort to try to distract from the fact that thus far your position has not gathered even a single element of support in any fashion.

Whether or not you choose to hold contrary to reality beliefs is unimportant to me. Whether you are convinced by me or not is unimportant. If you have any interest in knowing the truth, in knowing the form that reality takes, then you ought to consider allowing that your belief can be falsified (even in principle) and allow reality to determine truth. If you will do this, and if you will familiarize yourself with the basics of sound reasoning, then you can convince yourself that impossible entites cannot exist. Short of this it is true that no amount of sound reasoning and evidence can shift a faith based position, for as we have seen faith does not allow for reality to disprove it, or allow that when reality and faith are in conflict is it necessarily faith which is ALWAYS mistaken. Reality determines truth.

Now if you are done with your red herrings and ad hominems, do you have anything at all which addresses the actual issues?

However I have never seen anyone claim they can prove God does not exist and I am not convinced by you either. It’s a very big call.

Now I’m not making an accusation about what you have or haven’t done, but within your own argument make sure that you challenge every thought and its source so that you can be confident that its fact and not just an assumption, fancy language and qouting related philosophy will not prove your argument. (REMEMBER THIS IS NOT AN ACCUSATION-JUST MY THOUGHTS).

To start new topics, as TXStorm mentioned, please use the Way of the Mind Forum. Thanks.

I do not care one way or the other if you wish to choose to follow reason and reality to discover truth or if you wish to remain head in sand telling yourself that you are seeing the light. That I am willing to point out the gross factual errors, and incredibly simplistic errors in reasoning which constitute the whole of your arguments and claims, is simply a sign that I have patience and if an emotion is shown it is only the love of reality and the appreciation for how it works.

What you call “fragmented” is what the world calls well developed. That you do not like the fact that a conclusion is shown to be necessarily true in no way changes the nature of the arugment or the conclusion. Our ideas are not our children, we must not treat them as our children. (A caution from Socrates that holds true today). Why not show a willingness to let reason and reality lead you to truth rather than presuming that you know how it must be, and thus attacking everyone who dares to open their eyes and allow themselves to be lead by reason and reality to discover what is actually true?

I believe that you believe that you could “easily challenge” the sound arguments which you have been presented, but if you would take the time to think through the arguments, to consider that reality determines truth, then you will find that in fact sound reasoning necessarily cannot be refuted. You can stand on the roof top all day and night long screaming that the wolrd is flat and 5000 years old, but never will these claims become true.

[quote]I can’t see the air but it exists, I don’t have proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, but many believe it will.[/quote]

Nice strawman tactic. You try to attack the INHERENT contradictions with the absence of some small ability. I cannot fly but that does not mean that I cannot understand flying.. Yeah I agree with those sorts of observations, but never can your wishful thinking, your faith, cause a square to cease to have four right angles and four equadistant sides. Therefore any claims about round squares are inherently contradictory and thus false. So too with the judeo-xn god on several grounds, including the one already explained repeatedly that of omnipotence.

Rather than attacking individuals why not address points honestly, REASONABLY, and civilly?

I can’t see the air but it exists, I don’t have proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, but many believe it will.

I think I could easily challenge your last post, but what will that achieve?

Maybe I’m wrong though?

I didn’t come to this forum to convince everyone I’m right, though that seems to be what your doing. I just wanted to bring some questions to light.

just maybe your wrong?

I think its healthy to consider the options, wouldn’t want to miss out on the truth, due to pride, fear, convienience etc. If you read my previous posts you’ll see I’ve struggled with certain things.

I use this style BECAUSE it is perfectly clear and easily understood by anyone who is willing to take words at their meaning and to be honest, civil, and reasonable.

You make a false assumption when you imply that logic is subjective. Logic is OBJECTIVE, so that there is no such thing as “your logic” or “my logic” or any such thing. Logic is simply the way that the world actually works. The rules of logic are merely descriptions of reality, not the creation of any individual.

Which brings us nicely to another mistaken notion you employ, that of there being more than one “reality.” I had to put reality in quotes because there necessarily cannot be a plural of the word which has any meaning. Reality simply is all that is. This necessarily encompasses all that is, therefore there cannot be two different sets both of which contain all that is.

The proofs are there waiting if you are willing to take even a single step in clicking a link to read them. That you are not willing to bring even that much effort to the discussion speaks loudly, if not well. Still here is a quick explanation of one of the aspects which causes the xn notion of a “god” to be necessarily impossible: omnipotence. This is the notion that this “god” is all powerful. This means that this god can create itself and destroy itself. It also means that it has always existed and never existed. It also means that it cannot be destroyed (even by its own hand). You see how these powers are inherently contradictory thus necessitating that at least one of them cannot exist while the others exist? This means that no being can be omniptent, therefore the judeo-xn notion of a “god” is inherently impossible and thus no such “god” can exist. Simply the law of non-contradiction seen in pratice.

As for the irrationality and shutting down your mind, since reason necessitates that the judeo-xn “god” cannot exist, to insist beyond this point, as you have, that we must allow that this “god” necessarily does exist else face the condemnation of not being “fair minded,” is to insist that we leave reason and reality behind. This is clearly neither fair nor reasonable, therefore it must be at least irrational.

As for faith not being identical to reason, I call upon you to simply read the words. Faith is a belief in something you know is false (honest reading of the notion) or a belief in something which is contrary to the evidence (extremely generous reading of the notion). Reason and knowledge are based upon what MUST be true, upon what reality determines is true, which puts reason at the opposite end of the spectrum from faith or other forms of mere wishful feeling. As for proving the idea that faith is the only or the best path to knowledge to be erroneous, that could not be easier. The objetive of faith is a warm fuzzy feeling, else the giving over of control to another. The objective of reason and critical thought it truth, that is to say knowledge of reality. The objective in discussions of existence is to determine TRUTH, not to gain some warm and fuzzy feeling or to give over control to another. Therefore faith is working at cross purposes to all efforts towards knowledge (necessarily so) making it akin to using day dreams to change a tire. You will never get to the objective using that methodology.

well… xns are irrational about only one thing…. god.

first of all whose logic, yours? some random philosopher that all aethiests have on their bedroom wall? (I don’t hate aethiests! But your last 2 posts TXStorm seem convoluted)

why don’t you give me atleast one ‘proof’ as you call it, so that I see the forum you speak of as worth reading, heck this is a forum.

your argument (or assumption) that you can’t be a christian and be reasonable at same time is based on what proof/reason?

who says you have to shut down your mind to be fair? I didn’t mean to be fair for the sake of my feelings, I meant to be fair to your self and all in finding truth.

I did not claim that faith is proof itself, but it’s a choice, perhaps a good one, can you ‘prove’ me wrong?

your last sentence is a bit frustrating, I guess if everyone is right there must be millions of realities, but according to your reality I guess all christians are totally irrational. What great supported fact have you yet brought to my attention (to falsify my claims)that I have objected to?

If you are interested in the conclusive proof that the xn god cannot exist, then simply take an introductory course in logic, or go to the WOTM forum and read the proofs already offered (or read any of the thousands of texts which have repeatedly pointed out the inherent contradictions in the judeo-xn notion of a “god.”

As to Anon’s claim that xns apply reason to the inherently unreasonable (“the word”) I would point out that stipulating that this is the case in no way makes it the case. Xns who apply reason to “the word” necessarily cease being xns at all since reason necessitates that contradictions cannot exist.

As to the implication that to be “fair minded” one must completely shut down their mind, that is to say that the must be willing to wholly abandon reality and reason to allow that faith is proof, and that the inherently impossible entities such as the xn “god” and square circles must exist, well this implication is simply a form of bullying as well as logically invalid since it takes the form of circular reaosning.

Those of faith, who are necessarily not willing to allow reality to determine truth are those who are failing to be “fair minded.” After all, they refuse to allow anything to falsify their claims.

I’m not saying their is 100% scientific proof and reasoning that the bible is true, but neither have I ever seen 100% scientific proof and reasoning that it is not.

The world I see around me as crappy as it can be, seems to have alot of amazing design ie human body, animals etc. Anyone that sets out to design something like engineers see how difficult it is to make something work let alone just throw it all together with a theoretical ‘big bang’. Most big bangs blow thing apart, not create.

it’s good that people on this forum are so willing to think for themselves unlike perhaps ‘some’ christians. Therefore its seems reasonable that people would be willing to let go of biases (if they have them) in order to be as fair minded as possible to reach fair conclusions.

Kren how did you come to the conclusion that spirituality – God cannot exist in reality?

Also I wouldn’t say that christians in general say not to challenge there beliefs, alot would say to meditate or study the word and apply reasoning to it. (not like they turn there brains off and become like zombies; “bible true, everything else false, bible true…”). Some churches are quite different too ie catholic, pentacostal…

My ex-girlfriend was always taught not to question her beliefs in church. And there is a very good reason for that– the church realizes that if people question their beliefs, they will not blindly believe in God, etc…. they will want proof. Not the Bible, written by, as Pedro says, primitive desert nomads. Not God’s word… how would they know it was proof? But rock-solid evidence. And truly, there is none– none that cannot be explained with other reasonings.

This dates back a long, long time. In the middle ages, nearly no one knew how to read. The Church took this advantage and made common people do [just about] anything they wanted. When Gutenberg invented the printing press and people started to read, the Church went nuts.

-d

You WOULD be right Matt. If such a thing did exist there would be no way for us to understand it, or it’s actions.

… except, we CAN understand reality. And such a thing can’t even start to exist in it…

Is the present king of France truly bald? (rather well known philosophy of language problem which fits this situation nicely)

I think the different between us and God is that he is holy and we are sinful. Being holy, sin is so repulsive to him-can’t mix sin and holyness together, that in order to restore our relationship, sin must be attoned for.

its strange stuff, if one agrees the supernatural exists how can we say we understand it all? But what gives us the ability to assume we can also dismiss it?

I don’t blame christianity directly for my sufferings, though in combination with my anxious, obsessive tendancies I had problems.