Futile Confrontations Between Theists and Atheists

[En_Route]

[
As to the "in spite of evidence", I wasn't aware there was any evidence against the existence of a god, or that it was even possible to have evidence against something described as being outside nature.  Which I admit is unfair and special pleading, but it works against theists too -- they can never claim, honestly, to know their god exists, only to believe it.  That's an incredibly big stick in the craw for many of them.

The concept of the Christian god can be shown (in the view of many atheists,including yours truly)  to be self-contradictory on a number of grounds;  the counter-arguments are not simply confined to those surrounding lack of evidence but are also sited in the realm of philosophy.

[Genericguy]

Energy - Wikipedia

In physics, energy (Ancient Greek: ἐνέργεια energeia "activity, operation"[1]) is an indirectly observed quantity. It is often understood as the ability a physical system has to do work on other physical systems.[2][3] Since work is defined as a force acting through a distance (a length of space), energy is always equivalent to the ability to exert pulls or pushes against the basic forces of nature, along a path of a certain length.

In God's case however, the laws of nature can never touch him; he is totally outside them in all conceivable cases.

If a god has the ability to do work, then the god would be using a form of energy. As per the magic example, perhaps this new energy would be added to the list of known energies... Kinetic, magnetic, "gods will". Nothing can both exist and be outside of nature, as nature is everything's existence.

Edit: last sentence. Me no done good at talk speaking.

[En_Route]

Energy - Wikipedia

In physics, energy (Ancient Greek: ἐνέργεια energeia "activity, operation"[1]) is an indirectly observed quantity. It is often understood as the ability a physical system has to do work on other physical systems.[2][3] Since work is defined as a force acting through a distance (a length of space), energy is always equivalent to the ability to exert pulls or pushes against the basic forces of nature, along a path of a certain length.

In God's case however, the laws of nature can never touch him; he is totally outside them in all conceivable cases.

If a god has the ability to do work, then the god would be using a form of energy. As per the magic example, perhaps this new energy would be added to the list of known energies... Kinetic, magnetic, "gods will". Nothing can both exist and be outside of nature, as nature is everything's existence.

Edit: last sentence. Me no done good at talk speaking.

It's work, but not as we know it. The definition of the Christian god is one of an entity which exists outside nature. Your assertion that nothing can exist outside nature therefore boils down to an assertion that a god defined in this way cannot exist.

[Genericguy]

Your assertion that nothing can exist outside nature therefore boils down to an assertion that a god defined in this way cannot exist.

"So say we all."

Redefine your god, or he/she/it doesn't exist.

Edit: What I should have said was: "in my opinion, you need to redefine your god or provide an explanation for your gods exemption."

[Genericguy]

Or at least provide a reason for me to think otherwise.

[En_Route]

Your assertion that nothing can exist outside nature therefore boils down to an assertion that a god defined in this way cannot exist.

"So say we all."

Redefine your god, or he/she/it doesn't exist.

It's not my god. There are a number of valid arguments to support atheism. I just don't think this is one of them.

[Genericguy]

It does nothing to support atheism. After all, "god works in mysterious ways". There is more than enough room for theists to agree, although I doubt many will. What I should have said was: "in my opinion, you need to redefine your god or provide an explanation for your gods exemption."

(your, as in non-personal your)

[En_Route]

It does nothing to support atheism. After all, "god works in mysterious ways". There is more than enough room for theists to agree, although I doubt many will. What I should have said was: "in my opinion, you need to redefine your god or provide an explanation for your gods exemption."

(your, as in non-personal your)

A problem I have with your argument (your- personal !) is that it depends on the assertion that if anything exists it is therefore part of nature. What is your authority for this?

[Genericguy]

Nothing can both exist and be outside of nature, as nature is everything's existence.

Is this statement not logically sound? Provide evidence to the contrary and I will gladly concede.

[Asmodean]

If nature is defined as the sum of everything in existence, the statement holds its water. The definition for the purpose of this discussion has been provided, so a problem, I see not.

[En_Route]

Nothing can both exist and be outside of nature, as nature is everything's existence.

Is this statement not logically sound? Provide evidence to the contrary and I will gladly concede.

The statement depends on the premise that nature is everything's existence. That seems to me to be an assertion that nothing supernatural can exist. In other words, the strong atheist position.

[Genericguy]

The statement depends on the premise that nature is everything's existence. That seems to me to be an assertion that nothing supernatural can exist. In other words, the strong atheist position.

All it means, is that I label this specific version of god "supernatural", as in against the known laws of nature.

[En_Route]

The statement depends on the premise that nature is everything's existence. That seems to me to be an assertion that nothing supernatural can exist. In other words, the strong atheist position.

All it means, is that I label this specific version of god "supernatural", as in against the known laws of nature.

This I think comes back to your proposition that If God were found to exist he would thereby become part of nature. But god as defined is not part of the material universe, so this does not follow.

[Genericguy]

Is it pretentious of me to quote myself?

Things that are considered supernatural are outside of science. However, when a person proposes something to be true, they are in fact claiming that it is natural and not supernatural. They turn it into a scientific hypothesis by simply asserting it as truth. It is up to scientific testing to discover if it's even testable in the first place. We decide it's not testable and put it back in the supernatural category, comfortably outside of science once again.

My op.

[technolud]

I'm not all that up to speed on my God definitions.  But do I understand what is being said here is that:

1) God exists in a supernatural state.
2) You can't explain, reason or refute this from a rational (non-god believing perspective)
3) So as a non-believer you don't have the tools to talk about the existance of god.

Is this correct?  Any Theists want to dive in here?  Animateddirt, you started this mess.