The Futile Arguments Thread

[defendor]

I'm sorry I wasn't trying to waste your time.  I'm trying to understand the other side of the argument.

[Stevil]

I'm sorry I wasn't trying to waste your time.  I'm trying to understand the other side of the argument.

OK, maybe I overreacted. It was a bit of a shock to me, and I felt at the time of reading it that you were using it as a way to teach me something.

Although I do like to be the student I do very much appreciate honest discourse, and did feel there would have been a better way to get to the point, e.g. I express my view and you express yours. But anyway, people have different styles of communication. I was just momentarily taken aback, I jumped to the wrong assumption about where your question was coming from.

[hackenslash]

So asking "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it?" is just as much nonsense as asking "Can God draw a square circle?" The logical contradiction here being God's simultaneous ability and disability in lifting the rock (the statement "God can lift this rock" must have a truth value of either true or false, it cannot possess both). Therefore the question (and therefore the perceived paradox) is meaningless. Nonsense does not suddenly acquire sense and meaning with the addition of the two words, "God can" before it.

What does God do that's labelled as sin?

Can he build a stack of bricks so heavy he can't lift it? I can, so if he can't, that's a power I possess that he doesn't, and no logical absurdity. Can he do something he didn't know he do? If he can, he isn't omniscient. If he can't, he isn't omnipotent. These two characteristics are mutually exclusive, and that's aside from the omnipotence paradox. Again, this is a power I possess, so that would be two powers I possess that this allegedly omnipotent entity cannot.

I can go on all day invoking powers I possess that an omnipotent deity cannot and still remain within the boundaries of logic. This isn't a statement about the bature of god, it's a direct response to the idiotic characteristics that have been made up for him by others in a fatuous and childish attempt to make him sound impressive. No doubt he did sound impressive to ignorant, semi-literate bronze-age nomads, but he sounds less than impressive to anybody with two functioning neurons.

You can't get out of the logically absurd attributes assigned to your celestial peeping-tom by simply asserting that the question is logically absurd. You have to address why it's absurd, in precisely the same way that I have demonstrated these characteristics attributed to your imaginary friend are logically absurd and mutually exclusive.

[Stevil]

If I were to tell you that all the energy in the universe is just an explanation for the Holy Spirit, on what grounds could you disagree with me?

This is a rather unspecific statement. How is energy an explaination for the Holy Spirit? How is one to read this explaination? How does this explaination relate to the Christian god as described in the bible or does it explain a different god?
It seems to me that you have an interpretation of your understanding of energy and the universe and that interpretation would differ from my understanding of the universe (or in my case infinite space including a possible infinite number of universes). It seems that this explaination is likely subjective and doesn't explain a Holy Spirit for all observers with regards to their respective interpretations. As science discovers a better understanding of our environment our interpretations are more and more likely to align, however the way Christianity is defined with regards to emotive and conceptual ideologies it seems the convergence in interpretations will only ever be with regard to the material existence or as I term it, our reality. Science does not look to explain human ideologies or morals.

[Whitney]

It seem awfully absurd to picture the holy spirit running through my electrical lines and making water boil.  There is no need to apply religious concepts to things like energy since we know the way energy behaves isn't magic; it has explanations.

[defendor]

Stevil- I have never meant to be antagonistic or twist anything back on you.  I don't think the written words do justice to voice influx.  But I genuinely do appreciate how you have responded and thank you for being understanding.

I think with the Holy Spirit and energy question was simply a way to grasp and correlate things scientists are willing to give to innate topics within the laws of Physics.  For example, God is essentially neither created nor destroyed, but the scientific community won't allow this to be a meaningful topic.  But science will say that matter and energy both can neither be created nor destroyed.  Also with the understanding of a Theistic God from a Christian world view, God is what is holding all things together and making them work.  This could be a valuable explanation of God and/or Energy.  But also, scientists don't know if energy could be conscious, I mean are you able to think by the workings of a bunch of chemicals, invoking chemical energy.

The word "omnipotent" is never used in the Bible, but has been inferred primarily by one of God's Hebrew titles, "Shadday," which is most often translated "almighty." However, the Bible never claims that God can do all things. In fact, the Bible makes a point that there are things that God cannot do. The Bible says that God cannot commit sin. God cannot lie. Therefore, biblical omnipotence does not mean that God can do all things. God cannot do anything that is contrary to His holy character. However, God can do anything that He determines to do. This is a true meaning of omnipotence - the ability to do anything that one sets out to do. The ability to fail is not a part of omnipotence.  

Asking questions that are simply rephrased Chuck Norris Jokes are absurd.

[LegendarySandwich]

The word "omnipotent" is never used in the Bible, but has been inferred primarily by one of God's Hebrew titles, "Shadday," which is most often translated "almighty." However, the Bible never claims that God can do all things. In fact, the Bible makes a point that there are things that God cannot do. The Bible says that God cannot commit sin. God cannot lie. Therefore, biblical omnipotence does not mean that God can do all things. God cannot do anything that is contrary to His holy character. However, God can do anything that He determines to do. This is a true meaning of omnipotence - the ability to do anything that one sets out to do. The ability to fail is not a part of omnipotence.

So, is creating a rock so heavy that he can't lift it contrary to his Holy nature?

Cannot he not set out to create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it? Is that an impossibility for him?

Plus, there's still the problem of omniscience.

Asking questions that are simply rephrased Chuck Norris Jokes are absurd.

Postulating that the Judeo-Christian god exists is absurd.

Two can play the assertion game.

[Whitney]

Asking questions that are simply rephrased Chuck Norris Jokes are absurd.

The could god lift a rock so big he couldn't lift it type questions (or jokes if you prefer) is where the chuck norris fan boys got the idea for their jokes.

But they aren't absurd; they are a humorous way to investigate the nature of this god concept.

[defendor]

If we are going to investigate the nature of the Judeo-Christian concept of a God, we need to address pertinent issues that deal with his being.  

This is a quote of C.S. Lewis that I've used before:

Asking "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it?" is just as much nonsense as asking "Can God draw a square circle?" The logical contradiction here being God's simultaneous ability and disability in lifting the rock (the statement "God can lift this rock" must have a truth value of either true or false, it cannot possess both). Therefore the question (and therefore the perceived paradox) is meaningless. Nonsense does not suddenly acquire sense and meaning with the addition of the two words, "God can" before it.

So the question itself is based on the premise of an illogical fallacy violating the law of non-contradiction.  This does not indicate his being violates the law of non-contradiction, but the question itself is in violation of the law of non-contradiction, assuming that the being of God can violate the law of non-contradiction.  God cannot be both all good and all evil at the same time.  God cannot both be all powerful and not all powerful at the same time. Violating the law of non-contradiction has no value in understanding the premise of God's omnipotence.  The question itself is a meaningless paradox with no value.  

In the past, the argument of the medieval ages was 'how many angels can stand on the end of a pin?'  If we are going to attack non-essentials that have no value as questions in understanding how or why God can exist, then you will get answers that have no value in understanding how or why God can exist.

[fester30]

He's got a point.  We do treat it as fact that god does not exist, and we can't prove he does.  I don't call it faith, but he's mostly right about that argument.  Where does he see our argument, though?  Does he hear us saying it in church?  How often does an atheist approach him in public with it?  I know I see his side of the argument daily.  I see it on tv when I'm watching sports, infomercials, or Fox News.  I see it on the street when churches are doing fundraisers like car washes.  I see it downtown when the local homeless guy has a sign that tells us to repent for the end is at hand.  I see it in the city in front of the missions with the "Jesus Saves" signs.  I don't stumble upon places or situations on a daily basis where I hear the other side of the argument, except for here.  Every time I see the argument in favor of a god, those who are spreading that word are doing so as if it is fact, and we're foolish for allowing our souls to go to hell.  The atheist side of the argument is largely in places like this; a forum set up specifically for us.

[Whitney]

God cannot be both all good and all evil at the same time.

Um..the bible claims god created both good and evil; so how is the above not implied from what the bible says?

fester, I don't claim it's a fact that a god doesn't exist; we have quite a few agnostic atheists on this forum.  As for the Christian God, it definitely doesn't exist if defined through a literal understanding of the bible.

[AnimatedDirt]

God cannot be both all good and all evil at the same time.

Um..the bible claims god created both good and evil; so how is the above not implied from what the bible says?

God is good.  God defines Good.  Knowing good, "creates" evil.

I am the LORD, and there is no other.
I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

Has God literally created Evil as He (allegedly   ) created the sun, the moon, man...?  The claim is not that God created Evil, the claim is that because God is, Evil exists.  If there is no God, then Good ceases to exist and Evil with it.  Which goes back to the question of objective morality.  It is in this sense that God "created" Evil, not in the literal.

[Stevil]

If there is no God, then Good ceases to exist and Evil with it.  Which goes back to the question of objective morality.  It is in this sense that God "created" Evil, not in the literal.

As an atheist I do not subscribe to Good and Evil, these things are concepts postured by the various scriptures.
Are you saying that objective morality defines that which is Good and that which is Evil?
Are you saying that if we can prove that there is no objective morality standard then we have proved that there is no god?
Thus, Is your definition of god, the authoritative source of objective morality?
The assumption here is that it takes a god to author objective morality which precludes the possibility of a natural objective morality.

So, some questions with regards to exploring whether objective morality is viable:
What is the definition of a moral?
What is the definition of objective morality?
What is the definition of subjective morality?

Is it not possible for objective morality to come from a source other than a god?
Are all morals objective or is there some subjectivity in the mix as well?
If morals have a mixture of objectivity and subjectivity how can we identify which parts are objective and which parts are subjective?
Do morals only pertain to humans and not other animals?
How are humans made aware of the objective morals and how can we trust that this is the correct set of objective morals?
For objective morals to be deemed as objective does this mean that all humans would agree with them?
If all humans agree on a moral does that mean it is objective or is there another possibility e.g. common sense, survival of species, do unto others as you would like done unto you?
Which humans would be excluded from a consensus regarding the accuracy of a moral?
If we have a moral, how can we test it in such a way that we know it is both accurate and objective?

Would we agree that if we cannot prove that a moral is accurate and objective and if humans disagree as to the accuracy of the moral then that moral is subjective?
Would we agree that if we cannot find any objective morals then there is no objective morality and hence no authority or author of objective morality?
Would we agree that if we can find one subjective moral then there is no objective morality and hence no authority or author of objective morality?
Would we agree that if there is no authority or author of objective morality then there is no god?

[Whitney]

I am the LORD, and there is no other.
I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

Has God literally created Evil as He (allegedly   ) created the sun, the moon, man...?  The claim is not that God created Evil, the claim is that because God is, Evil exists.  If there is no God, then Good ceases to exist and Evil with it.  Which goes back to the question of objective morality.  It is in this sense that God "created" Evil, not in the literal.

I don't see how you get that from the context nor how it would logically follow.

Say I design a new cutting edge vehicle but in order to make it work it has to produce some horrible smog...am I not responsible for this by product?  So if god designs "good" and by good existing "evil" exists (as a byproduct) is he logically not creating both good and evil at the same time?

[AnimatedDirt]

Stevil, Whitney presented a point that on the surface seems to be correct, when taken literally.  I clarified the point in context.  I'm not here to prove God exists.  I think it's been well established that even the Atheist cannot imagine how God HIMSELF could prove He exists should subject Himself to prove it to "your" satisfaction.  (see Will and Penhold debate)  The point is simply that IF God, then Evil exists because Good is defined.  IF God, then objective morality exists.

If Good is defined, Evil is created by default...opposite to good.