Religion.

[Phoenix]

I already told you faith is illogical. Were you not here?

I'm not making arguments based on the whole "have faith in what ya can't see" thing.

I'm making arguments based on the whole "you can't prove me wrong" thing.

And with that said, you really can't. If I die believing in a God and I stay dead forever then what? Nothing... Congrats you were right. Big deal...

I know exactly what modern medicine has done. It's not enough though. I think I'll take my chances and stay away from fast food.

[Defeatist Elitist]

I already told you faith is illogical. Were you not here?

I'm not making arguments based on the whole "have faith in what ya can't see" thing.

I'm making arguments based on the whole "you can't prove me wrong" thing.

And with that said, you really can't. If I die believing in a God and I stay dead forever then what? Nothing... Congrats you were right. Big deal...

I know exactly what modern medicine has done. It's not enough though. I think I'll take my chances and stay away from fast food.

Then why are you defending it if it's illogical? :D And I can prove you wrong. There is actual Scientific proof of the non-existence of God. Besides, I'd like YOU to prove to me that the dragon in my garage doesn't exist! I don't actually mind people believing in God, as long as it never clouds their judgement or ideas.

And what do you mean about this last part? It has nothing to do with medicine. :D

[Phoenix]

Then why are you defending it if it's illogical? :D And I can prove you wrong. There is actual Scientific proof of the non-existence of God. Besides, I'd like YOU to prove to me that the dragon in my garage doesn't exist! I don't actually mind people believing in God, as long as it never clouds their judgement or ideas.

And what do you mean about this last part? It has nothing to do with medicine. :D

What was I defending again? Oh yeah... nothing. I'm not sure whether or not purple dragons exist or not, and am not going to be a presumptous prick and try to disprove it to make somebody else's point.

The last comment was about medicine. People eat unhealthy foods until they need to take medicine for the side effects.

[Defeatist Elitist]

What was I defending again? Oh yeah... nothing. I'm not sure whether or not purple dragons exist or not, and am not going to be a presumptous prick and try to disprove it to make somebody else's point.

The last comment was about medicine. People eat unhealthy foods until they need to take medicine for the side effects.

So, basically, you're saying you have no point?

[Phoenix]

I'm saying that I am defending nothing. I have plenty of points: ^ --> <-- V *points* Want one?

I've just been saying to keep an open mind when deciding what your reality is, cause chances are it could change. Evolution is fine now, but who knows what's coming up next down the line. This is history in the making. What are people going to think of all this crap later? Now I know the image you're getting, a world where somehow nearly everyone has common sense and doesn't even question evidence and evolution is as evident as Gravity. But that too is one of many scenarios. Hell. you know my future image? A peaceful world run by 144,000 spirit beings lead by Jesus Christ and I can finally not have to lock my damn door at night cause noone's going to break in. Also I have a hot wife in this image :P

Oh the possibilities

[Defeatist Elitist]

I'm saying that I am defending nothing. I have plenty of points: ^ --> <-- V *points* Want one?

I've just been saying to keep an open mind when deciding what your reality is, cause chances are it could change. Evolution is fine now, but who knows what's coming up next down the line. This is history in the making. What are people going to think of all this crap later? Now I know the image you're getting, a world where somehow nearly everyone has common sense and doesn't even question evidence and evolution is as evident as Gravity. But that too is one of many scenarios. Hell. you know my future image? A peaceful world run by 144,000 spirit beings lead by Jesus Christ and I can finally not have to lock my damn door at night cause noone's going to break in. Also I have a hot wife in this image :P

Oh the possibilities

Yeah, there are lots of possibilities. One of them is a hell of a lot more likely.

I have an open mind, and I have considered MANY different things. I choose the one that MAKES THE MOST SENSE. Just because there are an infinite number of possibilities doesn't mean that the most likely one is somehow less valid.

[Phoenix]

Yeah, there are lots of possibilities. One of them is a hell of a lot more likely.

I have an open mind, and I have considered MANY different things. I choose the one that MAKES THE MOST SENSE. Just because there are an infinite number of possibilities doesn't mean that the most likely one is somehow less valid.

I agree and have done the same thing. Only I had different results :)

[Defeatist Elitist]

I agree and have done the same thing. Only I had different results :)

Yeah, you see, that's why we have debates and arguments.

Now, I'd like to see you defend those points with actual facts, as opposed to word games. :D

[Phoenix]

Well my religion is one of those "don't bother defending it cause only the called out ones can understand the truth" ones. Sorry lol

But I'll be happy to defend other people's points that run along the lines of "philisophical crap" :P

[Defeatist Elitist]

Well my religion is one of those "don't bother defending it cause only the called out ones can understand the truth" ones.

So basically, your religion has no evidence behind it, and you concede to my point that it's wrong? Because not arguing a point at all is basically conceding it...

[Dr. Tarrasque]

He's better off not trying.

[Defeatist Elitist]

He's better off not trying.

It would save him some time, yes. :D

[Phoenix]

So basically, your religion has no evidence behind it, and you concede to my point that it's wrong? Because not arguing a point at all is basically conceding it...

If I thought my religion was wrong, I wouldn't be in it. I'm not as insane as I allow people to believe. I just don't like wasting time and energy. Rather than concede, I simply cover my ears and go "LAHAHLALHAHALAHALHA I can't hear you LAHLAHALAHALHLAH"

[Defeatist Elitist]

If I thought my religion was wrong, I wouldn't be in it. I'm not as insane as I allow people to believe. I just don't like wasting time and energy. Rather than concede, I simply cover my ears and go "LAHAHLALHAHALAHALHA I can't hear you LAHLAHALAHALHLAH"

At least you admit that you've got nothing. :D

[Phoenix]

At least you admit that you've got nothing. :D

I admit that I have nothing a logical person would believe. As I said religion is "illogical" no truly logical being would conform or concede to it without God showing up in person, therefore I concede my logic, but not my religion, sanity, or sense of reality.

[~seth~]

atheist someone show me proof there's a "god" then ill think otherwise ^_^

[Phoenix]

atheist someone show me proof there's a "god" then ill think otherwise ^_^

What? Isn't that backwards?

[~seth~]

What? Isn't that backwards?

what do you mean? i don't believe in any god and wont until im shown proof

[Phoenix]

what do you mean? i don't believe in any god and wont until im shown proof

God can't be proven anyway. Your post made it seem like you wanted the Athiests to prove there was a God, as if they'd do something like that lol

[Florete]

God can't be proven anyway. Your post made it seem like you wanted the Athiests to prove there was a God, as if they'd do something like that lol

I get what you're saying. He didn't put a semicolon after "atheist" so you took it directly as written.

[~seth~]

I get what you're saying. He didn't put a semicolon after "atheist" so you took it directly as written.

erm yeah im not to good with spelling/grammer ect lol

[Dr. Tarrasque]

God can't be proven anyway. Your post made it seem like you wanted the Athiests to prove there was a God, as if they'd do something like that lol

I believe this is what his post is supposed to look like:

I'm Atheist. Someone show me proof that there's a "god" then ill think otherwise ^_^

@Phoenix: The only people that have to show proof are those that believe in a god. Show proof that he/she/it is real, otherwise there's nothing that makes your god any less made-up than the others.

Edited December 1, 2008 by Boo

[Mr. Sirius]

Let me try and break it down for you why an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, perfect being is wrong:

Omnipotence is derived from omnis "all" + potens (gen. potentis) "powerful". It refers to a being that is "all-powerful". This means that the individual can do anything that they wish. This is not logical, and is not possible to obtain by any reasonable means. This is because in being able to do some things, you cannot do others. In being free of limitations, for example, omnipotence cannot possibly set limitations on itself. To use an age-old argument, he cannot create a rock that is heavier than he can possibly lift and possibly lift the rock. This is because it would be limiting what he is able to do.

Additionally, he cannot perform things that are outright impossibilities. For example, God cannot, under any circumstances, make an unstoppable force and an immovable object meet one another, because if an unstoppable force exists, an immovable object does not, and vice versa.

In this sense he cannot do things that defy each other. He cannot exist before he existed. He cannot move without moving. He cannot speak without speaking. He cannot create a circular square. This is because these concepts are incompatible.

So now that we have analyzed omnipotence, let us move on to the next quality attributed to God; omniscience.

Omniscience is derived from omnis "all" + scientia "knowledge". It refers to the ability to know everything there is. This means that the individual endowed with it is instantly aware of everything there is, past, present, and future. This is impossible, because in order for one to be endowed with the capability to see the future for a fact, it would necessitate a loss in free will.

In other words, omniscience does not refer solely to the world around the observer. If they know the future for a fact, that includes their own future. The problem here is that foreknowledge changes the future. For example, if John is endowed with omniscience and witnesses himself being hit by a car in five minutes, chances are he will use his sudden ability to survive by going inside and staying there. The problem is that if the individual is truly endowed with omniscience and this is the actual future they have observed, then they cannot act out to stop what will happen.

What this means is that while Johnny sees himself being hit by the car and desires to stop himself from being hit, he must be hit by the car, otherwise he did not see the actual future. And in the case of omniscience, it is not a simple glance or vision; it is total knowledge of everything at all points in time. One could argue that God can see each and every one of his choices and the effects of them, but this would not change that his options are still limited. In other words, God can only ever make one decision, and in the same sense that our choices are based off the environment and a process of cause and effect, so too would God's choices. He can only ever make one, and it's as deterministic as our own.

And now, moving on to omnibenevolence.

Omnibenevolence is defined as "unlimited or infinite benevolence". What this means is that an individual that is endowed with omnibenevolence will help to their utmost in whatever situation they are involved in. It additionally means that the one endowed with it is all-loving and merciful in every possible facet of existence.

This is not the case when it comes to the God in the Bible, especially the God of the Old Testament. This can be evidenced by simple passages:

Jeremiah 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

And another to boot:

Malachi 1:2-4 "I have loved you," says the LORD. "But you ask, 'How have you loved us?' "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" the LORD says. "Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals." Edom may say, "Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins." But this is what the LORD Almighty says: "They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the LORD.

These are not the words of an omnibenevolent God. He doesn't just dislike, he hates. "But Esau!" you say, "He only hates that which is evil!"

This could be argued. But his idea of evil is so skewed it is as though he is a child:

I Samuel 15:2-3 "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

One could potentially argue that he was killing the evil, but by no stretch of any wild imagination can one possibly rationalize calling suckling infants evil.

If you require more evidence of the lack of omnibevolence in God --quite the contrary, he is rather malevolent-- then I would be quite willing to oblige. I've dozens more.

Now let us address omnipresence.

Omnipresence refers to the ability to exist everywhere simultaneously. An individual endowed with omnipresence is ubiquitous, and aware of everything happening everywhere. There is no area he is not at, or unable to see.

Rather than listing the many impossibilities of any higher-thinking consciousness to being endowed with omnipresence, I will instead point to an enlightening article:

http://www.philoonline.org/library/mccormick_3_1.htm

Now let us examine them in conjunction:

Omnipotence is the ability to do all. While it is contradictory with itself alone, it is far less logical in the case of a being that knows everything past, present, and future. This is because if God is aware of all futures, he is aware of his own, and must adhere to what he has seen set out for himself. What this means is that God's will is severely limited, and he cannot do anything aside from what he's fated to do. This is quite contradictory to omnipotence, as he cannot even stop himself from performing his actions in the future.

This also does not follow to the Bible's actions of God. Were God omnipotent, and knew the many errors that man would have made at so many various times in the Bible, he should not have allowed them to occur anywhere. For example, even one not endowed with omniscience should have been easily capable of grasping the idea of two beings that are utterly incapable of grasping the meaning of good and evil by a tree you tell them not to touch and leaving them alone. He, with his omniscience, had no excuse to punish these individuals, when he was well aware of their actions. This can be applied to many events in the Bible. Continuing on:

Omnipotence, as earlier stated, is the capability to do all that one wishes. In the case of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent being, there can be no such thing as displeasure. This is because he, being omnibenevolent and omnipotent, would make a world without sadness. However, this is not the case. There exists sadness, fear, sickness, hunger, displeasure...The world is not possibly the result of an infinitely kind, loving, benevolent God endowed with infinite power.

Finally, let us examine perfection:

Perfection is a quality that is attributed to God constantly. What it say is that God is the best of the best; he is perfect in every manner possible.

However, this is impossible. Perfect is subjective. What you find perfect, I may find disgusting. But this is not the only reason that he is simply not perfect. Allow me to present the Unmotivated God argument:

Statement: God is perfect, therefore God can have no needs/wants. In particular, God could have no motivation to create the world; and a perfect being would not do something without motivation (i.e. a perfect being does not act randomly). Therefore, God did not create the world.

Explanation: for an entity X to want/need some Y means two things:

(1) X does not already have Y and

(2) X benefits or percieves to benefit from Y.

Clearly, God cannot benefit from anything, since God is already perfect. Therefore, God can have no motivation to do anything, in particular to create the world. An even stronger statement is true: God cannot decide to want/need something at a certain point if he didn't want/need it before, since there can be no external stimuli independent of God itself (external stimuli is the only thing that can possibly alter God's judgement, since that judgement is perfect).

Therefore, since theists assert that God always existed, either God always wanted to create the universe, or God never wanted to create the universe. If God never wanted to create the universe, we would not be here (yet we are here!); if God always wanted to create the universe, the universe would have always existed - and thus:

(1) the universe would not have been created at all, or

(2) God could not possibly want to create the universe since the universe would have always existed.

Ara...with due respect to your erudition, I find that your argument is, at times, a sweeping assumption without giving real proof and, I suppose, you are guilty of several things.

1) You are guilty of anthropomorphism.

2) You are guilty of equivocation.

I wish that when you give examples, you should remember what you have said before.

[Florete]

Might as throw in my two cents; I'm more or less Christian, though not the hardcore "Praise Jesus, Oh holy Jesus!" type. I gave up trying to convert people back in middle school. I stick with my minor faith because I tried to get rid of it during my Freshman year in high school.... and that turned out to be my worst year of school ever.

Edited December 1, 2008 by Red Fox of Fire

[Phoenix]

I have no interest in proving the existence of God. It's not my job and frankly, I'm not to concerned with what others believe. It's not important in the end. Look at it like this. You live, then die. Nothing changes that, even the existence of God, it's just that if God does exist, some believe they get to go to heaven and chill with the main man.