Post on another forum, need some feedback/counters

[ChristianLoeschel]

Original post:

1. Religion - I believe that the only correct answer to whether or not God exists is "I don't know." Anyone who says they KNOW God does or does not exist is lying.

Reply by Defendant:

Its true that you can never disprove the existance of of a supreme being. Its just logically impossible. However, to quote Richard Dawkins here, I can also not disprove the flying spaghetti monster, and we can all agree that belief in the flying spaghetti monster is rather absurd. I will say this: I cant say for certain god doesnt exist, but the probability of his existance is far too low to accept as fact without extraordinary proof. Simply put, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
I can, however, demostrate many logical fallacies and contradictions in the CHRISTIAN god, to a point where the existance of the god as described in the bible is a logical impossibility.
Example: God loves everyone. God is omniscient. God is omnipotent.
These three statements are mutually exclusive.
I dont believe in God. Therefore, if he existed, I am going to hell. God loves me, therefore he doesnt want me to go to hell (eternal damnation isnt necessarily something you wish on someone you love). God knows all, therefore, he knows I dont believe in him, and he also knows what it would take for me to believe, even though I may not. Since he can do anything, he can therefore provide whatever it took for me to believe, and thus save me from purgatory. Yet he doesnt. So either, he doesnt love me, or he doesnt know I dont believe in him, or he cant do what it takes to make me believe.

Reply to that:

Wow this incredibly simplistic and narrow thinking. Seriously, if you consider yourself an intellectual, the first step is to take your head out of your ass. Straw-man arguments might have worked in middle school, but at this point you are just revealing yourself with posts like this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Defendant
Its true that you can never disprove the existance of anything. Its just logically impossible. However, to quote Richard Dawkins here, I can also not disprove the flying spaghetti monster, and we can all agree that belief in the flying spaghetti monster is rather absurd. I will say this: I cant say for certain god doesnt exist, but the probability of his existance is far too low to accept as fact without extraordinary proof. Simply put, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.


You realize that extraordinary proof is completely subjective to the observer and the societal generated standards at the time of observation. At one time volcanic eruptions were extraordinary proof of not just the existence of the gods, but also of their nature. More recently, the transmission of light from the sun to the Earth was extraordinary proof of the ether. Any comfort you feel in scientifically accepted extraordinary proof reveals your scientific ignorance.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Defendant
I can, however, demostrate many logical fallacies and contradictions in the CHRISTIAN god, to a point where the existance of the god as described in the bible is a logical impossibility.


Did you copy this from a pamphlet you bought for $2.99 advertised in the back of many magazines? Seriously, because if this is your own work then you are being far more reactionary and dependent upon the thinking of others than those you would call “sheep” sitting and listening to sermons every Sunday.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Defendant
Example: God loves everyone. God is omniscient. God is omnipotent.
These three statements are mutually exclusive.
I dont believe in God. Therefore, if he existed, I am going to hell. God loves me, therefore he doesnt want me to go to hell (eternal damnation isnt necessarily something you wish on someone you love). God knows all, therefore, he knows I dont believe in him, and he also knows what it would take for me to believe, even though I may not. Since he can do anything, he can therefore provide whatever it took for me to believe, and thus save me from purgatory. Yet he doesnt. So either, he doesnt love me, or he doesnt know I dont believe in him, or he cant do what it takes to make me believe.


A lot of people smarter than you and I and everyone else on this forum have destroyed this line of thinking. Try this argument out for size. Prior to creation all that is is God. Creation is itself an act of God reducing to allow for something (the universe) that is not God to exist. God cannot be present in this creation as that would destroy creation, turning back what is not God to God. Therefore God is both omnipotent and only it is only due to God’s restrain that the universe exists.

If you want to argue that there is no god, a perfectly noble argument, make sure you have something interesting to say. For instance, a far more interesting and relevant question you should be asking isn't "why do so many people believe in something that I think is clearly not true?" but "why does the belief of others threaten me so much that I would recite adolescent arguments as proof that I am right?". Although you claim agnostic, your rationale reveals a true-believer.

Finally, if you really want to explore these ideas, I would recommend reading Simone Weil and Nietzsche. If you have already, do it again. Also, a steady supply of shrooms wouldn't hurt. You will come to some profound understanding about yourself and how you relate to existence as you percieve it. But what you posted concerning the existence of god is the equivalent of the oft-recited poker phrase "but they were sooted".[quote][/quote]

[ChristianLoeschel]

The one thing that doesnt ring true to me is this:

Prior to creation all that is is God. Creation is itself an act of God reducing to allow for something (the universe) that is not God to exist. God cannot be present in this creation as that would destroy creation, turning back what is not God to God. Therefore God is both omnipotent and only it is only due to God’s restrain that the universe exists.

This basically says that God and the universe cannot occupy the same space at the same time, and that thus God cannot be involved in his creation. That does not logically follow in my opinion, although i might be missing something here.

[Betsy]

okay, I'm a little confused about who's who in this debate and who said what, but it's interesting that the believer spends all of his/her time insulting the non-believer instead of raising actual facts or arguments to support his/her belief.

When he/she says something about how the forum discussions have already destroyed the non-believer's point, I have a feeling what they consider "destroying" was merely foaming at the mouth about what they BELIEVE to be true, without any factual or evidentiary basis for those beliefs. They all interpret the bible however they want to fit the argument. You can ask 10 different christians WHY something is the way it is, and they'll answer what god meant by that very authoritatively, even thought their only authority is their own interpretation of something in the bible.

ridiculous.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

I'm a deist (as least so far as I understand deism) - god is the universe, the universe is god. I can't prove it, you can't disprove it. Let's worry about something else (like are we going to get enough government control to do enough to reverse global warming before it's too late for humanity).

[Doug]

I'm a deist (as least so far as I understand deism) - god is the universe, the universe is god.

DOUG
That particular brand of deism is typically called pantheism. Einstein had that view of God.

[Doug]

These three statements are mutually exclusive. I dont believe in God. Therefore, if he existed, I am going to hell. God loves me, therefore he doesnt want me to go to hell (eternal damnation isnt necessarily something you wish on someone you love). God knows all, therefore, he knows I dont believe in him, and he also knows what it would take for me to believe, even though I may not. Since he can do anything, he can therefore provide whatever it took for me to believe, and thus save me from purgatory. Yet he doesnt. So either, he doesnt love me, or he doesnt know I dont believe in him, or he cant do what it takes to make me believe.

Reply to that:

Wow this incredibly simplistic and narrow thinking. Seriously, if you consider yourself an intellectual, the first step is to take your head out of your ass. Straw-man arguments might have worked in middle school, but at this point you are just revealing yourself with posts like this.

DOUG
One of the most powerful and most recent additions to the pantheon of atheistic arguments is Ted Drange's Argument from Nonbelief. I use an abbreviated form of the argument in my book. A longer version is available online here.

Basically Drange argues what you state above, that if God were to exist, AND if he really wants you to be saved, AND if salvation meant that you must have certain beliefs, then God would take the steps necessary to see to it that you are convinced of those beliefs. And this does not in any way interfere with one's free will. After all, I can convince you that I exist, and no one accuses me of robbing people of free will.

The argument from nonbelief is a strong argument. The person who says that one who uses that argument has his head up his or her ass is the one who is engaging in "incredibly simplistic and narrow thinking."

A lot of people smarter than you and I and everyone else on this forum have destroyed this line of thinking. Try this argument out for size. Prior to creation all that is is God. Creation is itself an act of God reducing to allow for something (the universe) that is not God to exist.

DOUG
OK, so creation ex nihilo. There was no non-god stuff, and by magic there is all of a sudden some non-god material. Great argument--by mere assertion.

God cannot be present in this creation as that would destroy creation, turning back what is not God to God.

DOUG
a. Show this. Why would God being in the universe make the universe into God. I can be in the universe and not make the universe into me. I can be in a building yet the building doesn't turn into me. Why can't God be in the universe without the universe turning into God?
b. MOST theologians would disagree with the position given here. Most theologians would say that God can be in the universe and yet the universe does not become God. In fact, many theologians would insist that God is omnipresent. Obviously the person giving the argument here would not hold that God is omnipresent. So the point is: since most theologians disagree with the basic premise here, it is not at all obvious that the concept of God and/or the concept of the universe entail that God cannot enter the universe without the universe turning into God.

So more argumention would be needed to show this. Let's see it.

Therefore God is both omnipotent and only it is only due to God’s restrain that the universe exists.

DOUG
That God entering the universe would make the universe become God does not show that God is omnipotent. Rather, it seems to show the reverse. God can't do something that is easily accomplished by everyone else who has ever existed--entering the universe without destroying it.

If you want to argue that there is no god, a perfectly noble argument, make sure you have something interesting to say. For instance, a far more interesting and relevant question you should be asking isn't "why do so many people believe in something that I think is clearly not true?" but "why does the belief of others threaten me so much that I would recite adolescent arguments as proof that I am right?". Although you claim agnostic, your rationale reveals a true-believer.

DOUG
It looks like this person is intent on changing the subject because he can't deal with the arguments pertinent to the issue of God's existence.

Why do so many people have a false belief about God, that God exists? That question is easily answered by many avenues, not the least of which is that billions are spent every year instilling that belief into the young and maintaining that belief in adults.

[ChristianLoeschel]

Thanks a lot for the feedback. Heres my eventual response to him. I am sure it has a great number of holes in it, but youre welcome to critique it

As far as the first point of supernatural proof goes, heres my take on it:
I completely agree that "extraordinary" is a matter of definition, and I am willing to concede that you have a very valid point, mainly because I cannot honestly say that I know what I would consider sufficient proof. On the other hand, an immense number of cases that were originally thought of as extraordinary proof, such as lightning, volcanoes, etc, have been later shown to be far from supernatural, which raises scepticism about attributing new, unexplained phenomena to god.

The point I really would like to address further here is what you call a "straw-man argument". First of all, I would like to point out that in no way was this argument targeted at disproving God in general, rather at rebuking the biblical god. The God of the Christian religion is generally seen as intricately involved in his creation, with the attributes of benevolence, omnipotence and omniscience. You have yet to refute my argument that these 3 are mutually exclusive given the existance of purgatory. If anything, you have added an extra option, also one inconsistent with the biblical God, being that God cannot be present in his creation.

I have a very hard time accepting your proposition for Creation (God was everything, and reduced his own presence to allow for his creation, i.e. the universe). First of all, this argument precludes the existance of a God, as well as assuming that he was there before the universe. This assumption implies that there was something going on before the creation of the universe, and due to time being tied to space, before time. This is a problem: God can for that reason not possibly have created time, which cannot logically be since its creation would have had to occur prior to its existance, i.e. before time. This is obviously a contradiction.
Thus, any God must logically be a product of the universe, not the universe a product of God.

Next, consider the principle of omnipotence. The way it is defined by most philosophers is the ability to do whatever is logically possible. For example, C.S. Lewis defines Gods power as "power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible". This means an omnipotent being cannot create a logical contradiction, ergo if it was logically impossible, God could not do it. Thus follows that if the universe was logically impossible, God could not have created it. If it was, however, logically possible, then God is not needed to create it.

[Dardedar]

Christian, I think your method of going after the contradictory natures of the Christian god is an excellent one. Doug has often used this as a main pillar of his argument for atheism in his debates. We have DVD's of most of his debates perhaps you might like to borrow one (or buy one for a couple bucks).

This reminds me that we really need to have a pamphlet on this topic. Something like:

The contradictory Natures of God
How you can know the God of the Bible cannot exist.

Here is a handout Doug at his debate in Birmingham Al. These are the arguments he developed during the debate. We do have a DVD of this debate:

***
Five Arguments For Atheism

A. The Presumption of Atheism
1. If there is no extraordinarily strong evidence for the claim that God exists, then we are justified in believing that the claim is false.
2. There is no extraordinarily strong evidence for the claim that God exists.
3. Therefore, we are justified in believing that the claim that God exists is false.

B. Incoherent Attributes Argument.
1. Any being with contradictory attributes cannot exist.
2. God is a being with contradictory attributes.
3. Therefore, God cannot exist.

C. The Argument from Evil.
1. If God exists, then there would be no needless suffering in the world.
2. There is needless suffering in the world.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.

D. The Argument from Nonbelief.
1. If God exists, then God wants everyone to be saved by having the beliefs necessary for salvation.
2. If God wants everyone to be saved by having the beliefs necessary for salvation, then everyone would have the beliefs necessary for salvation.
3. Not everyone has the beliefs necessary for salvation.
4. Therefore, it is false that God wants everyone to be saved by having the beliefs necessary for salvation.
5. Therefore, God does not exist.

E. The Moral Argument
1. If God exists, then Biblical atrocities are morally permissible.
2. Biblical Atrocities are not morally permissible.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.

Suggested Reading:
Burton Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1995)
Douglas E. Krueger, What is Atheism?: A Short Introduction. (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1998)
Theodore Drange, Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1998)
Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990)
Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991)
David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and the Posthumous Essays, Richard H. Popkin, ed. (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co., 1985)
Paul Kurtz, Forbidden Fruit: The Ethics of Humanism (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1988)
Robin LePoidevin, Arguing for Atheism: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (New York: Routledge, 1996)
***

I went through my files and found this too. Something Doug wrote sometime ago. It might be an excerpt from his book or just notes from a lecture.

***
B. The concept of god is incoherent, so god cannot exist.

A good case can be made that the notion that the concept of god is incoherent. When I say that the concept of god is incoherent, I do not intend that in a pejorative sense; rather, I mean it quite literally in the sense that the different parts of the concept do not cohere, they do not all fit together conceptually. The concept is self-contradictory. My approach will be twofold. First, it will be shown that xians as a group hold incompatible views of god, and then I will show how the traditional xian concept of god also disagrees with itself, that is, it leads to contradiction and absurdity. My goal in doing this is based on the principle that, although a being with unusual powers or characteristics may exist, a being with contradictory features cannot exist. A contradiction is always, by definition, false.

1. Xians and those of other religions disagree about god’s characteristics.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that there are competing views as to the nature of god. Where there is, or has been, monotheism (the view that there is exactly one god), there are, or have been, different accounts of what that being’s characteristics are. Xians say one thing, Moslems another, Zoroastrians another, and so on. These claims contradict one another, so they cannot all be true at the same time. Hence, it is impossible for there to exist a being described by all of these religions. A xian may retort merely that these other religions are false, and that the xian concept of god is the only one which is correct, so he or she need not contend with competing views from other religions. This is simply avoiding the issue, but even if it were true, the xian is not out of the woods yet. Even among xians the concept of god is not consistent.

For example, some xians recognize that if god knows the future, then the future must be already determined, and thus we do not have free will. Others assert that because we do have free will that the future is not fixed, and thus god can know all about the past and the present, but he cannot know the future. Now, god either does or does not know the ¸ future, so it cannot be that both of these views are true. Thus, there cannot exist a being which is described by both of these views.

Some xians believe that their god speaks through an infallible pope. Other xians deny that there is a god who does so. Either there is or there is not a god who speaks through an infallible pope in Rome, so there cannot be a being who is described by both of these.

Some xians believe in an explicit contradiction-- that 1 = 3. I mean, of course, the doctrine of the trinity. Many xians believe this view in a manner which is explicitly contradictory. In fact, one can even accuse xianity of not being monotheistic because of the trinity. Of course, other xians, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, reject the "one essence, three persons" view, which further compounds the contradictory views within xianity.

Other examples of contradictory views among xians are easy to find, so there is no need to dwell on à them here. To some extent the different denominations of xianity are a result of differing interpretations of the concept of god and god’s will. Thus, with such a wide range of concepts of god in xianity, when the atheist is asked whether he or she believes in the xian god, the atheist may be tempted to reply ÒWhich one?Ó Where one view is true, another must be false. The views cannot possibly all be true at the same time, not simply because they are different, but because they are contradictory, so there cannot exist a being who matches all of these descriptions. A being who had contradictory attributes could be described correctly by a contradictory statement, but a contradictory statement is defined as a statement which is necessarily false. A contradiction can never be true in any possible circumstances. Thus, there cannot exist a being who has contradictory attributes.

2. The concept of a god who possesses the traditional divine attributes reduces to absurdity.
There are some features attributed to god which are inconsistent in all the major versions of theism. Most theists hold that god is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnibenevolent (all-good or morally perfect), and transcendent (exists outside of space and time). If it can be shown that a concept of god such as this is incoherent, this would show that the traditional god cannot possibly exist.

There are some obvious contradictions between the traditional god’s supposed omniscience and his moral perfection. What is meant by omniscience, or all-knowing? On some definitions, omniscience is knowing everything completely which can be known. When we speak of knowing, we typically divide knowledge into three categories: 1) factual or propositional knowledge, which is to say that it is expressible as a true sentence or true belief; 2) procedural knowledge, which is the kind of knowledge about how to perform some skill, such as the skill used when one pla ½ys tennis or juggles; and 3) knowledge by personal experience. In this last case, for example, what is meant is roughly that one who says, "I have known poverty" or "I know war" means more than mere belief in the truth of certain sentences. Such a person means that he or she can draw on certain experiences of known circumstances to interpret statements about those circumstances.

Now, could a morally perfect being completely possess all three kinds of knowledge about things in which it is possible to possess such knowledge? Clearly not. For example, Al Capone could know by personal experience what it was like to enjoy running a criminal empire. Surely one important aspect of what it is to enjoy running a criminal empire is the experience of enjoying running a criminal empire. But god, being a morally perfect being, could not know this aspect of running a criminal empire; god cannot enjoy performing evil. Thus Al Capone could know some thing which an all-knowing being, god, could not. But god is supposed to know everything completely. So the concept is incoherent. Similarly, a serial killer could know by personal experience what it is like to derive pleasure from the torture of his random victims. But god cannot know this, being morally perfect. Thus, a serial killer can know things which an all-knowing being cannot. Again, this is clearly incoherent. God’s omnibenevolence is incompatible with his omniscience, so it is impossible for there to exist a being who has both of these properties. God is said to have both of these properties, so god cannot exist.

It can also be plausibly argued that procedural or skill-knowledge cannot be reduced to statements about beliefs. One can, for example, read all about swimming and practice all the swimming strokes on one’s living room couch, but until one has jumped into the water and actually tried swimming, certainly one Ì is missing an important aspect of what it is to swim. Thus, at least part of knowing what it is to perform a skill, such as swimming, would be knowledge which god cannot have because god is outside of space and time. A body takes up space, and god is not in space, since he is transcendent, so god cannot have a body. Since to swim one must be in space and time, and to completely know what it is to swim one must have a body to experience it, god cannot fully know what it is to swim. God’s transcendence is incompatible with his omniscience.

At this point some xians may interject that god had a body in Jesus. However, god is supposed to be omniscient all the time, not just when Jesus was on earth. There is also no record of Jesus ever swimming, although he was supposedly baptized with water, and he was said to have walked on water. Further, there is certainly no record of Jesus ever having the experience of driving a car, drinking soda pop, or experiencing the satisfaction of earning a black belt in karate. Even if god could know what Jesus experienced, this would not allow god to know all that can be known by experience with a body. God’s transcendence is incompatible with his being omniscient all the time, even when Jesus is not using a body, and god’s omniscience is not supposed to be intermittent. The concept is incoherent.

Another contradiction of omniscience: I can know what it’s like to find out I’ve made a mistake. Presumably god cannot know this, since it is said that god, who knows all, does not make mistakes, despite the story of the flood. Thus, I am not omniscient, but I can know things which an omniscient being cannot. The same can be said of knowing fear, horror, and so on. God is unable to know what it is to have those experiences, but humans can have such knowledge. So the concept of god as an all-knowing being is again contradictory.

There are many other examples of problems of omniscience, but for reasons such as these many xian philosophers and theologians have abandoned the traditional view of omniscience. However, coming up with another formulation of omniscience which avoids these problems, or others more serious, has thus far eluded theologians.

Contradictions of omnipotence, euphemistically called paradoxes, are well-known even to school children. Can god create a stone too heavy for him or her to lift? If god can do so, then not lifting the stone shows that god is not omnipotent, and, if god cannot create such a stone, then being unable to do so also shows that god is not omnipotent. God either can or cannot create such a stone, and either way god is not omnipotent, so god is not omnipotent.

Xian theologians typically respond to these sorts of problems by limiting the definition of god’s omnipotence. In fact, some xians believe that it is logically impossible for god even to move, since moving requires time and space, and god does not exist in either. One cannot juggle wit hout moving, so it would be logically impossible, by that it is meant self-contradictory, for god to do something as simple as juggle or even pick up a pencil. But this contradicts the feature of omnipotence. Surely one would not call a being all-powerful who could not even pick up a pencil. The concept is again incoherent.

God’s supposed transcendence results in other serious difficulties. If god exists outside of space and time, then god cannot make a decision. A decision takes place in time. At one moment one is deliberating, and at another moment a decision is made. If there is no time then this process cannot take place. A transcendent god cannot learn, listen, respond to prayer, and perform other such acts. All of those things take place in time. Many theologians have been so unwilling to reject god’s transcendence that they have accepted the notion that god cannot change or move in any way. If god does not exist in time, then god cannot perform any action whatsover. That this meant that god could not be active in the world seems not to bother these theologians. They try not to think about it, perhaps.

There are other inconsistent things said about god. God is said to be male, according to the bible, but god cannot be male if god has no body. To possess a body requires space, and god is said to be outside of both space and time. If god does not have a body, then god cannot have genitals. If god does not have genitals, then it is not clear how god could be considered male. God cannot be considered male because of gender orientation because there are presumably no other gods to which he can be attracted. That god impregnated Jesus’ mother Mary (Matthew 1:18, Luke 1:35, and other verses) is inconclusive. The pregnancy was not said to be accomplished physically, otherwise Mary would not be a virgin. That Jesus was male and said to be god is also inconclusive. Surely an omnipotent being could also appear as a woman. God is said to have created man in his image (Genesis 1:26), but god cannot have an image if he, being transcendent, could not have a body. In any case, the next bible verse states that god created man (meaning human beings) in his image, and it states ÒSo God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them (Genesis 1:27 (NIV)), so the alleged image could not have been that of a male if the female also was created in his image. Thus, it makes no sense to consider god a male if god has no body, no image, no genitals, no sexual orientation, and practices eternal celibacy. The concept of god as a male is inconsistent with his transcendence and other of his features (or lack thereof).

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Darrel and Doug - solid hits on/against christian god(s) and basically the god(s) of all what my mother called 'religions of the book" - doesn't particularly bother mine (universe = god, god = universe). However, above Doug said my form of deism is called pantheism. I thought pantheism was belief in a set of gods - the greek pantheon including Zeus, Hera, Hermes, etc. for example.