Happy Atheist Forum

I've been talking with a friend of mine about the three apparently 'Perfect aspects' of the abrihamic god, Omnipotence, Omnicience and omnibinevolence.

The first of them, omnipotence can be removed with the 'Immovible Object' argument

QuoteWikipedia - Either God can create a stone which he cannot lift, or he cannot create a stone which he cannot lift.
If God can create a stone which he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent (since he cannot lift the stone in question).
If God cannot create a stone which he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent (since he cannot create the stone in question).
Therefore God is not omnipotent.

This shows that Gods power isnt infinite, just very high

This also disproves Omnicience as for god to be all knowing, he would have to know everything that is going to happen in the universe. For this to happen, God would have to have infinite capacity for knowlege. The only way to do this would be to have infinite power. I think you can work out the rest.

Or in algebreic terms:
Gods power = x
All time = a
all knowlege = k

a*k = infinity
x =/= infinity (as shown in the 'immovible object' argument)
.'. x =/= ak

As for Onmibenevolence, if God created an immovible object, it would have to have infinite mass, creating a dip in the space time continuum so steep that the whole universe would be destroyed
now thats what i call love  :brick:

Ryy  

The immovable object argument has long since been trashed by all but the most inept theists.  Omnipotent means possessing all logically possible powers, it doesn't address whatever nonsensical, paradoxical sentence we throw at theists, and indeed, they are easy to make.  God cannot make something simultaneously light and dark, either, nor exist while not existing.  Alternatively, he can, and our logic is wholly incapable of handling the concept, this being a fault of logic, if it were true, rather than a problem with God.  Either way, it breaks under strain.

Omniscience and omnipotence are fundamentally at odds, though, as if God knows all of the future, then he cannot change it, otherwise he indeed did not know the future.  The reply I've heard is that God sees all possible outcomes, but that's useless because then he never actually knows what might happen.  It's equivalent to my saying anything might happen, which isn't at all helpful.

However, not being omnipotent doesn't mean God cannot be omniscient.  You seem to be mincing words, where infinite energy equates to infinite power.  Indeed, if God is external to the universe, he may not require it, but let's say he does.  Possessing infinite space and energy does not equate to being omnipotent, as there may be no way for God to utilize this energy or space beyond omniscience.

Finally, space, if not time, is a property of this universe, so there may reasonably be no space to bend with an object of infinite mass.  Also, if indeed such an object would destroy the universe, it clearly has not been created, so this actually supports there being an omnibenevolent God.  Indeed, your statement can easily be turned around on you, as you're asking for God to prove herself, so you're the selfish one who would be willing to sacrifice the universe, where God is not, demonstrating benevolence.  In other words, do not use this argument.  

If you want some logical inconsistencies, I recommend the Epicurean Paradox:

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able, then he is not omnipotent.
If he is able, but not willing, then he is malevolent.
If he is both willing and able, whence cometh evil?
If he is neither willing nor able, why call him God?

The problem this one runs into is that it's up to you to define evil.  That may not sound like a problem, but there's no all-encompassing objective definition (hmmm, isn't that strange, theists?).  God may not allow any true evil in the universe, or it may be an absolute minimum of evil.  Still, the paradox raises good questions, even if it isn't a true paradox while evil is undefined.

meh

Anyway, for the god to be outside of the universe then he cannot be made out of matter or energy. This is because the definition of 'universe' is a space where matter or energy exists. For a God to be able to manipulate the universe, he would have to use energy. as energy cannot be created or destroyed then where is this energy coming from if the God does not contain any?

You're right with the 'Immovible object' argument and i admit that we were basing the whole thing on a very shaky foundation but as i said, this god has to exist, if it does, inside this universe.

Ryy

God cannot, by definition, be a denizen of this universe, otherwise he couldn't have created it.  No theist will suggest that she exists soley in this universe.  And space is not just a place where matter and energy exist, indeed space can exist without either being present, and it is necessary, lest space not exist wherever matter and energy are not.

No, the theist idea seems to be more that God is external to the universe, but possess the ability to interact with it.  Presumably, God draws off some private, external pool of energy, or requires none at all, just being able to effect change (after all, she did start the universe, presumably without energy).  Simply put, there is not enough data to say it can't happen, sort of like the people who occasionally remark that a mind cannot exist without matter comprising it.  This is all fine and good around these parts, but as theists like to remind us, we can't know that 100%  

Isn't it great how all of God lies in a lack of certainty, made into a certainty itself.  So perverse...

QuoteIsn't it great how all of God lies in a lack of certainty, made into a certainty itself. So perverse...

Not as perverse as the things done in the name of these Gods..

Anyway, should i take Philosophy at A level? if i do it will mean i have 5 A levels to do  

Quote from: "PipeBox"Alternatively, he can, and our logic is wholly incapable of handling the concept, this being a fault of logic, if it were true, rather than a problem with God.  Either way, it breaks under strain.

I think that you outlined the counter positions well, but I just wanted to comment on this part. This is a position some take, but I would suggest that taking such a position is a self-induced auto de fe, the likes of which the intellect does not survive.

It is, but it still has a point beyond the typical "you can't know God meshes with logic!"  That being that if God does exist and we've got it wrong, the fault lies with logic.  Still, it throws all reasoning out the window.  Didn't say I liked it, but I've heard it, and my reply was that the same could be said of Thor.  The important thing to the person defending God is that you can't disprove their assertion.

Quote from: "Ryytikki"

QuoteIsn't it great how all of God lies in a lack of certainty, made into a certainty itself. So perverse...

Not as perverse as the things done in the name of these Gods..

Anyway, should i take Philosophy at A level? if i do it will mean i have 5 A levels to do  

Take philosophy, by all means.  I know nothing of it, but I have it brought against me endlessly in debate with theists, and constructing a valid philosophical argument on the spot is very hard to do.  I often miss something and there's every chance my arguments might get leveled by an argument that isn't water-tight itself.

*EDIT*

Don't take what you can't reasonably handle, though, too many classes makes Jack a dull, burnt-out boy.

Debates are more like a game of chess than they are a game of trivia. I don't need to be right in order to win, I merely need to be better at it than you. It is a common, and false assumption that being right is all that is required to win. The most important requirement is persuasiveness, and no good debater is above employing the odd rhetorical device in order to fill in the gaps.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Debates are more like a game of chess than they are a game of trivia. I don't need to be right in order to win, I merely need to be better at it than you. It is a common, and false assumption that being right is all that is required to win. The most important requirement is persuasiveness, and no good debater is above employing the odd rhetorical device in order to fill in the gaps.

You are correct, sir!  But knowing the rebuttals to the philosophy they employ gives you a much better chance of winning if your opponent or audience is intelligent.  Otherwise, start yelling and go for the arguments from authority, ad populum, ad hominem, and appeals to emotion.  Get loud and inform your opponent they are WRONG.  Generally, people and audiences will fall somewhere between extremes, but I think even the layperson is more impressed if you can undermine the other person's argument rather than the person.

Quote from: "PipeBox"You are correct, sir!  But knowing the rebuttals to the philosophy they employ gives you a much better chance of winning if your opponent or audience is intelligent.  Otherwise, start yelling and go for the arguments from authority, ad populum, ad hominem, and appeals to emotion.  Get loud and inform your opponent they are WRONG.  Generally, people and audiences will fall somewhere between extremes, but I think even the layperson is more impressed if you can undermine the other person's argument rather than the person.

It would be "Ma'am", but neither are required.  

I didn't mean employ fallacious and sophomoric retorts. I meant knowing how to phrase things, and present them as maximally persuasive to the audience, and with style and class. I am saying that even if right you need to do this if you hope to win against a half decent rhetorician. Being uppity, insulting, and emotional is rarely a good strategy. The audience also has to like you. People that like you are far less critical of the things you say than people that don't.

Debate is an art form. What memorably comes out of debates are often witty, and clever quotable retorts that don't really help bolster points or arguments. Like Huxley's famous retort to Bishop Wilberforce when asked "“Was it from your mother’s side or your father’s side that you were descended from an ape?”, he retorted "If the question is whether I would rather have a miserable ape for a grandfather or a man of means and influence who uses these gifts to introduce ridicule into a grave scientific discussion, I unhesitatingly affirm my preference for the ape!”

Those are the things that people remember. Not the technical, axiomatic validity of your points, but the wit, class, lucidity, eloquence and force with which you deliver them.

Here's an interesting thought:

Jesus is the way... out of the "Omni" problems!

How?  3 steps:
1) God manifests himself as a man (Jesus).
2) God creates a big rock
3) Jesus (who is God) is unable to lift the big rock.

Done!

You can play this game with any of the "Omni" connundrums, nes pas?
JoeActor

Quote from: "joeactor"Here's an interesting thought:

Jesus is the way... out of the "Omni" problems!

How?  3 steps:
1) God manifests himself as a man (Jesus).
2) God creates a big rock
3) Jesus (who is God) is unable to lift the big rock.

Done!

You can play this game with any of the "Omni" connundrums, nes pas?
JoeActor

Now you just have to square the logical circle that allows god to simultaneously be two separate and different people, and have both people be the same person.

Perfection does not produce flawed results. Therefore God is myth or God is not God.

Good enough?

Quote from: "Sophus"Perfection does not produce flawed results. Therefore God is myth or God is not God.

Good enough?

What is a "flaw" is largely a matter of opinion unless one knows the standard by which a model is meant to fit. So, unless you know "god's mysterious plan" (which is by definition mysterious) you cannot assert that anything is a flaw. It is logically possible that everything in existence is exactly how god wants it to be, and is thus without flaw with regard to the standard the universe was built to meet.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"

Quote from: "Sophus"Perfection does not produce flawed results. Therefore God is myth or God is not God.

Good enough?

What is a "flaw" is largely a matter of opinion unless one knows the standard by which a model is meant to fit. So, unless you know "god's mysterious plan" (which is by definition mysterious) you cannot assert that anything is a flaw. It is logically possible that everything in existence is exactly how god wants it to be, and is thus without flaw with regard to the standard the universe was built to meet.

This is what the Christians (and most other religions) have asserted... that his creation was flawed (presumed a "Sort of Christian" would know that). But if it's a Deistic God you wish for me to address then I still stand by what I said: God is not God. He would be either unintelligent and insufficient or aware and evil to make the world as it is.

Quote from: "Sophus"This is what the Christians (and most other religions) have asserted... that his creation was flawed (presumed a "Sort of Christian" would know that).

Being a sort of Christian I actually know that when the universe was first constructed it is asserted to have been perfect by most Christian theological thought, and then an act of people rendered it not perfect any longer.  

People are asserted to be flawed only by an act of will, which needed to be possible for them to be perfect originally. So everything was perfect originally, and then became flawed, thus all that "fall of man" talk.

So god performed no actions that resulted in flawed results, asserting that it still counts because he created people, who intern took actions which resulted in flawed results would be an association fallacy.

QuoteBut if it's a Deistic God you wish for me to address then I still stand by what I said: God is not God. He would be either unintelligent and insufficient or aware and evil to make the world as it is.

Well, I don't know why you would think I'd want you to address a deist god, but asserting stuff about it is hardly "addressing" it.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Being a sort of Christian I actually know that when the universe was first constructed it is asserted to have been perfect by most Christian theological thought, and then an act of people rendered it not perfect any longer.  

People are asserted to be flawed only by an act of will, which needed to be possible for them to be perfect originally. So everything was perfect originally, and then became flawed, thus all that "fall of man" talk.

We only use free will poorly because of our character flaws, though.  Jesus presumably had free will, and committed no sins, yes?  He either had special knowledge, a will beyond that of any other Christian since him, or had no character flaws.  Outside advantage.  In any case, there's no arguing that if we were born with the desire to be perfect, obedient altruists that we would be anything else, even with free will around.  That's why there's Calvinists and Universalists, because they realized a long time ago that the megachurch version of God either setup man or he will (has) redeem(ed) all of them.

If there were no desire to sin, simply put, there wouldn't be any sin, even if the capacity remained.

Finally, as to how a sin by man would wreck the rest of the universe so that there would be meteors, polar reversals, earthquakes, sickle cell anemia, ebola, malaria, and all that other stuff that doesn't exist as a matter of free will, I dunno.  (Oh, and I realize you're only a cultural Christian, but this deserves to be addressed.)

Quote from: "Hitsumei"It is logically possible that everything in existence is exactly how god wants it to be, and is thus without flaw with regard to the standard the universe was built to meet.

If that is the case, then your god is everything that Richard Dawkin's says he is.

Quote from: "PipeBox"We only use free will poorly because of our character flaws, though.  Jesus presumably had free will, and committed no sins, yes?  He either had special knowledge, a will beyond that of any other Christian since him, or had no character flaws.  Outside advantage.  In any case, there's no arguing that if we were born with the desire to be perfect, obedient altruists that we would be anything else, even with free will around.  That's why there's Calvinists and Universalists, because they realized a long time ago that the megachurch version of God either setup man or he will (has) redeem(ed) all of them.

If one holds that it is impossible to create a free agent that is created with only the inclination to do good, and that a being without free will is more flawed than one with free will, then they can, and do take the position that upon creation, people were maximally perfect, and it is an act of will, and character development that makes one do only good, and do no evil.

There is nothing paradoxical about Jesus unless one takes the position that it is impossible for a person to also completely refrain from ever committing wrong doings. God just came down, and showed the world how it is done, because no one was getting it quite right.    

QuoteIf there were no desire to sin, simply put, there wouldn't be any sin, even if the capacity remained.

There could then also very well be no free will.

QuoteFinally, as to how a sin by man would wreck the rest of the universe so that there would be meteors, polar reversals, earthquakes, sickle cell anemia, ebola, malaria, and all that other stuff that doesn't exist as a matter of free will, I dunno.  (Oh, and I realize you're only a cultural Christian, but this deserves to be addressed.)

I already did: it's "mysterious".

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"If that is the case, then your god is everything that Richard Dawkin's says he is.

Well, I don't have a god, but regardless, you and Richard Dawkins are free to hold negative opinions about god. Doesn't mean that everyone does, nor are they logically valid criticisms. It is merely an appeal to emotion.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Being a sort of Christian I actually know that when the universe was first constructed it is asserted to have been perfect by most Christian theological thought, and then an act of people rendered it not perfect any longer.  

People are asserted to be flawed only by an act of will, which needed to be possible for them to be perfect originally. So everything was perfect originally, and then became flawed, thus all that "fall of man" talk.

So god performed no actions that resulted in flawed results, asserting that it still counts because he created people, who intern took actions which resulted in flawed results would be an association fallacy.

You think in a box. God would have programmed freewill and every consequence related to it.  Nothing had to be made to function as it does. It could have operated in an entirely different way that would be just as satisfying with no consequences. Considering that certain results of freewill have made him melancholy, caused him to greive creating mankind, it shows that these consequences are not desired by him.  Well if he were omnipotent the consequences would not exist with freewill.

QuoteWell, I don't know why you would think I'd want you to address a deist god, but asserting stuff about it is hardly "addressing" it.

Intellectual laziness is against my lack of religion. Why do I always have to break out the crayolas?

He would be either unintelligent and insufficient...

To create the universe under the belief that he/it could forge perfection when in fact he/it could not (insufficient) would make him unintelligent. Or if he does consider it to be perfect with evil in its existence then he is evil and fully aware of it (Perfection demands there be no compramise. If evil equates to perfection in someones eyes, does that not make them evil?).

Quote from: "Sophus"You think in a box.

Indeed, it is a little box I call logic and reason. Feel free to gallivant in the fields of whimsy.

QuoteGod would have programmed freewill and every consequence related to it.  

"programmed freewill" is an oxymoron. If one is programmed, then they are not free.

QuoteNothing had to be made to function as it does. It could have operated in an entirely different way that would be just as satisfying with no consequences.

Assertion.

QuoteConsidering that certain results of freewill have made him melancholy, caused him to greive creating mankind, it shows that these consequences are not desired by him.  Well if he were omnipotent the consequences would not exist with freewill.

Unless it were not logically possible that they not exist with free will.

QuoteIntellectual laziness is against my lack of religion. Why do I always have to break out the crayolas?

Forgive me for not just accepting all of your assertions without you having supported them. How presumptuous of me.  

QuoteTo create the universe under the belief that he/it could forge perfection when in fact he/it could not (insufficient) would make him unintelligent.

Well, it would certainly make god wrong, but you have not given any reason to suppose that is what actually happened. You've just rephrased your assertion.

QuoteOr if he does consider it to be perfect with evil in its existence then he is evil and fully aware of it (Perfection demands there be no compramise. If evil equates to perfection in someones eyes, does that not make them evil?).

Not if this were the best of all possible worlds under the current circumstances. You're making an assumption that it could conceivably be completely without any evil, and still fulfill the perfect ends that god created the universe to fulfill. This requires demonstration.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Indeed, it is a little box I call logic and reason. Feel free to gallivant in the fields of whimsy.

Your logic is ill.  :brick:

QuoteWell, it would certainly make god wrong, but you have not given any reason to suppose that it what actually happened. You've just rephrased your assertion.

That's because it was never one in the first place. Does it click now? Does it make sense? Have you graduated from grade school?  

QuoteNot if this were the best of all possible worlds under the current circumstances. You're making an assumption that it could conceivably be completely without any evil, and still fulfill the perfect ends that god created the universe to fulfill. This requires demonstration.

As I said perfection would be just that: perfection.If he's satisfied living in "the best possible scenario" that's fine and dandy but that's not anywhere near perfection (and it would also mean God is not omnipotent as he couldn't achieve perfection). Quit limiting an omnipotent gods power. If he wanted perfection it would be. Look at it this way:

 a. God is the only thing exists
 b. He creates the universe

b can be done in any possible way to achieve the results he wants unless:

 c. external or internal limitations exists with god

 or the obvious pick

 d. There is no God.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"There could then also very well be no free will.

Do people not wanting to drink bleach indicate there is no free will, as well?

Quote from: "Hitsumei"I already did: it's "mysterious".

Sweet, that word is the omnibus!  
Wanna know a secret?  I created everything.  Mysteriously.  That means I don't have to tell anybody how, so they should just accept it happened.

Quote from: "Sophus"Your logic is ill.  :brick:

That's a tautology, 2 + 2 = 4 because of the way the terms are defined. If you mean your argument to merely hold tautological validity, then they are not worth addressing. Anything can be proven (beyond the logically impossible) using tautologies.  

QuoteThat's because it was never one in the first place. Does it click now? Does it make sense? Have you graduated from grade school?  

I'm starting to think that I shouldn't expect anymore than boasting from you.

QuoteAs I said perfection would be just that: perfection.If he's satisfied living in "the best possible scenario" that's fine and dandy but that's not anywhere near perfection (and it would also mean God is not omnipotent as he couldn't acheive perfection).

You are merely defining perfection to be impossible, and then saying how god cannot achieve it, and thus isn't perfect.

QuoteQuit limiting an omnipotent gods power. If he wanted perfection it would be. Look at it this way:

 a. God is the only thing exists
 b. He creates the universe

b can be done in any possible way to acheive the results he wants unless:

 c. external or internal limitations exists with god

 or the obvious pick

 d. There is no God.

You really find that logic box cramped, huh?

No god that can do the logically impossible, but not many theists hold to such a conception of god. So it's a straw-man.

Quote from: "PipeBox"Do people not wanting to drink bleach indicate there is no free will, as well?

I was saying if your scenario obtained. Though I don't see how someone wanting to drink bleach would be n authority on the ontological status of free will.

QuoteSweet, that word is the omnibus!  
Wanna know a secret?  I created everything.  Mysteriously.  That means I don't have to tell anybody how, so they should just accept it happened.

Insufficient though you may find the response, you're incredulity doesn't make it wrong. Saying "I don't believe you" and "that's false" are different. The latter is a positive assertion which requires a demonstration.

Assuming that it is wrong in an argument against it is begging the question. If you want to formulate an argument against a position, you need to offer more than your incredulity. You need to actually show that it is wrong.

That was the most humorous one yet. Christianity, I'm convinced, is a comedy.

I'm rather disappointed. I thought you were different from the others.

I hereby pledge to never to never use reason on a theist again. Curio's got the right idea. Fight comedy with comedy.

Well, I'm not a theist, but forgive me for not yielding to such persuasive and rational arguments as "but it's common sense!!", and "you're a grade-schooler for not agreeing with me!" (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.connect2edmonton.ca%2Fforum%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Ficon_rolleyes.gif&hash=e77af2599504ed252f7f07eb6b645df934002f18)

Quote from: "Hitsumei"I was saying if your scenario obtained. Though I don't see how someone wanting to drink bleach would be n authority on the ontological status of free will.

Sorry, I should have elaborated.  We don't drink bleach because we think it's nuts and we've a pretty good idea it'll kill us.  Nonetheless, this doesn't actually remove the capacity, and people will still do it if they think they should, certain circumstances being thought to justify the act.   Another analogy might be that a locked door doesn't fundamentally violate free will, even if it limits it.   Heck, even a locked door can be broken into.  God gives no apparent safeguards, and we are born with as nearly a de facto death sentence as possible.  This doesn't sound of a god, it sounds like we're about to start discussing a "protection" racket. . .

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Insufficient though you may find the response, you're incredulity doesn't make it wrong. Saying "I don't believe you" and "that's false" are different. The latter is a positive assertion which requires a demonstration.

Assuming that it is wrong in an argument against it is begging the question. If you want to formulate an argument against a position, you need to offer more than your incredulity. You need to actually show that it is wrong.

Sorry, was just having a bit of fun.  You're right, it doesn't make it impossible, but you've not justified it aside from offering that word.  That is, you haven't shown it to be possible, and Christians are the ones making claims of the properties of God and the history of the Cosmos.   That word would not normally be justification for anything, but many people desire God to be a reality, and if "mysteriously" is required to make it possible, they're willing to use it to bridge a very wide gap.  I find it intellectually contemptible to give God such a pass, "mysteriously" is just a way to say "whatever is required for it remain possible."  Indeed, I cannot falsify this assertion, it is beyond it.  But you could be right.

Oh, and sorry, I'm not meaning to stir up a ruckus, so I'll step back now.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Well, I'm not a theist

A Christian that's not a theist  :pop:

Quote from: "Sophus"Would the peanut gallery like to say anything?  :hmm:

Never heard of cultural Christianity?  The description of being sort of a Christian only need mean that she finds some of the doctrines have merit, or heck, maybe none.  Maybe her friends and family or just neighborhood is Christian.  She never really told us what she meant by it, and sort of gives a lot of space for differences.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quotebut forgive me for not yielding to such persuasive and rational arguments as "but it's common sense!!", and "you're a grade-schooler for not agreeing with me!" (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.connect2edmonton.ca%2Fforum%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Ficon_rolleyes.gif&hash=e77af2599504ed252f7f07eb6b645df934002f18)

Right, except those were my own personal form of comic relief. The actual arguments were of course completely refuted by your impressive ability to deem them an assertion.

Both of you give me the impression the argument is going nowhere.  When either asks for justification, the other denies it.  Don't throw things at me.  
 

Quote from: "PipeBox"Sorry, I should have elaborated.  We don't drink bleach because we think it's nuts and we've a pretty good idea it'll kill us.  Nonetheless, this doesn't actually remove the capacity, and people will still do it if they think they should, certain circumstances being thought to justify the act.   Another analogy might be that a locked door doesn't fundamentally violate free will, even if it limits it.   Heck, even a locked door can be broken into.  God gives no apparent safeguards, and we are born with as nearly a de facto death sentence as possible.  This doesn't sound of a god, it sounds like we're about to start discussing a "protection" racket. . .

Well, I don't buy free will at all, and this is partly why. We actually do have inclinations, and instincts that direct our behavior and action. I find this to be positive evidence against the assertion that we have free will at all. I hold the view that everything at the macro scale moving slower than the speed of light, and is temporal is subject to casuality, including human decision making -- as this is what our scientific knowledge suggests. The view that the will is free and non-casual given today's knowledge of the brain demands some kind of dualism, and I think that we have more than sufficient evidence to link consciousness, and minds to the brain.

These two taken together I think is strong positive evidence that metaphysical libertarianism is false.

QuoteSorry, was just having a bit of fun.  You're right, it doesn't make it impossible, but you've not justified it aside from offering that word.  That is, you haven't shown it to be possible, and Christians are the ones making claims of the properties of God and the history of the Cosmos.  

Indeed, I have not, nor have I attempted to demonstrate the metaphysical and ontological claims of Christianity true, and I agree that they have manifestly failed in demonstrating them true, and for this reason do not personally accept them as true.

My only point was that their failure to prove their assertions is not in themselves evidence that they are wrong. Even if their arguments were completely fallacious, to assume their conclusions false for this reason would be the fallacist's fallacy.

For instance:

P1)I am a person
P2)I speak English
C) Thus I live in Canada!!

Everything about this argument is true, but it is built on completely fallacious reasoning.  

QuoteThat word would not normally be justification for anything, but many people desire God to be a reality, and if "mysteriously" is required to make it possible, they're willing to use it to bridge a very wide gap.  I find it intellectually contemptible to give God such a pass, "mysteriously" is just a way to say "whatever is required for it remain possible."  Indeed, I cannot falsify this assertion, it is beyond it.  But you could be right.

Well, I don't personally buy it, I was just pointing out that it is not easy to refute -- if even possible.

Sheesh!

Now I know why he's called "God the Father":

QuoteOk you two!  Don't make me come down there!
I mean it!
I will pull this uinverse over and smite the both of you!
Ok, that's it!
No free will for anyone for 2 eons!

Thanks, the name's "God".  I'm here all eternity.  Try the creation, it's on special...

Quote from: "Sophus"A Christian that's not a theist  

You personally asked me what I meant by "sort of Christian" just the other day, and I answered you on this (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2899) thread.

QuoteRight, except those were my own personal form of comic relief. The actual arguments were of course completely refuted by your impressive ability to deem them an assertion.

Things you just say are true without actually arguing for them, or showing them true are in fact merely assertions.

Quote from: "PipeBox"Both of you give me the impression the argument is going nowhere.  When either asks for justification, the other denies it.  Don't throw things at me.  
 

I've made no positive assertions, I have merely pointed out flaws in reasoning, and failure to address, or appreciate certain positions. I don't need to hold, nor argue for such positions in order to do that.

And as I just outlined to you, my failure to do so would not make the conclusions of the arguments false. That requires positive demonstration.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"I've made no positive assertions, I have merely pointed out flaws in reasoning, and failure to address, or appreciate certain positions. I don't need to hold, argue for, nor think those positions are correct in order to do that.

Just playing devil's advocate then? It's as I've suspected. Do you simply like to debate? I'm getting that impression from you. No offense, but I'm still having a hard time figuring out your stance on anything because you seem to spend all your time debunking anything anyone says.  :pop:

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"Just playing devil's advocate then? It's as I've suspected. Do you simply like to debate? I'm getting that impression from you. No offense, but I'm still having a hard time figuring out your stance on anything because you seem to spend all your time debunking anything anyone says.  

It's not playing devil's advocate. To point out that someone is making straw-man or fallacious arguments against a position, is not playing devil's advocate. Playing devil's advocate is taking up a position that one does not actually hold, and then arguing for it. I have not done this at any point.

I do happen to hold the position the what I have said is false or fallacious is in fact false and fallacious, even if the position the points were meant to discredit is one that I do not personally hold.

Nor is this arguing for the sake of arguing. I do happen to think that pointing out when an argument has flaws, whether one agrees with the conclusion or not, is important. You may not though.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Things you just say are true without actually arguing for them, or showing them true are in fact merely assertions.

An assertion can be true. A lot of people make them under the assumption the cognitive level of others is high enough to grasp what is actually being said. KISS - Keep it short and simple. I used to exhaust myself writing "novels" against Titan. Ha ha. Moving heaven and earth to refute something is a waste of time when the opponent can't grasp or doesn't wish to. Oh and by the way, many of them weren't even assertions. Care to reread?  roflol

why does every thread i start turn into a catfight?  

Quote from: "Ryytikki"why does every thread i start turn into a catfight?  :D

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "Ryytikki"why does every thread i start turn into a catfight?  :D

Yeah, consider it a compliment   Hehe.

The obvious answer is God would create a stone so big he cannot lift it, then lift it, because to be truly omnipotent, he mustn't be bound by the laws of logic.

QuoteThe obvious answer is God would create a stone so big he cannot lift it, then lift it, because to be truly omnipotent, he mustn't be bound by the laws of logic.

Try telling that to a Theist

Anyway, the even most obvious argument is that god just turns around, says 'Screw this' and goes and has a beer. Makes much more sense

`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

I actually like this. I think it is a really well written passage. Is it original to you? If so, very nicely done.  

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "Hitsumei"`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

I actually like this. I think it is a really well written passage. Is it original to you? If so, very nicely done.  

It's Douglas Adams.

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "Hitsumei"`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

I actually like this. I think it is a really well written passage. Is it original to you? If so, very nicely done.  

No, no, that is the philosopher "man", who is occasionally mentioned in The Hitchhiker's Guild to the Galaxy book series. Dougles Adams is indeed a brilliant writer, I love his work. Dougles Adams isn't meaning to show the atheist position ridiculous either, this is specifically a jab at philosophers. He makes several.

Yeah, I think that's why I like it. It's a well written jab. I don't care who it is aimed at, it's just funny and damn good! I never read "The Hitchhiker's Guide" but maybe now I will. You've gotten me interested. I'll have to see if I can download it to my iPhone via eReader/Kindle/Stanza, whoever... Thanks!

McQ.   Nice.

Quote from: "McQ"Yeah, I think that's why I like it. It's a well written jab. I don't care who it is aimed at, it's just funny and damn good! I never read "The Hitchhiker's Guide" but maybe now I will. You've gotten me interested. I'll have to see if I can download it to my iPhone via eReader/Kindle/Stanza, whoever... Thanks!

I can highly recommend the Hitchhiker's Guide as well. It is so extremely funny. Some quotes.

QuoteThere is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.

QuoteArthur: You know, it's at times like this, when I'm trapped in a Vogon airlock with a man from Betelgeuse, and about to die of asphyxiation in deep space, that I really wish I'd listened to what my mother told me when I was young.
Ford: Why, what did she tell you?
Arthur: I don't know, I didn't listen.

QuoteUniverse - Population
It is known that there is an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the product of a deranged imagination.

Quote from: "Tom62"

Quote from: "McQ"Yeah, I think that's why I like it. It's a well written jab. I don't care who it is aimed at, it's just funny and damn good! I never read "The Hitchhiker's Guide" but maybe now I will. You've gotten me interested. I'll have to see if I can download it to my iPhone via eReader/Kindle/Stanza, whoever... Thanks!

I can highly recommend the Hitchhiker's Guide as well. It is so extremely funny. Some quotes.

QuoteThere is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.

QuoteArthur: You know, it's at times like this, when I'm trapped in a Vogon airlock with a man from Betelgeuse, and about to die of asphyxiation in deep space, that I really wish I'd listened to what my mother told me when I was young.
Ford: Why, what did she tell you?
Arthur: I don't know, I didn't listen.

QuoteUniverse - Population
It is known that there is an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the product of a deranged imagination.

Beautiful! LOL! Thanks, Tom!

nothing can beat the philosophy of Douglass Adams  

ok, here's another attempt

perfect god = perfect creations
perfect universe = one where a protector/guardian/creator isnt needed
lack of need = obsolete
perfect universe = lack of the obsolete
therefore god cannot exist in a perfect universe

Its fine until you point out that the universe isn't perfect

I was also having an argument about logical impossibilities with some theists who, when confronted with the Necessary non-existence argument, stated that god could both exist and not exist at the same time. Isn't that also an impossibility?
If that is the case then all the others also apply

Isn't winding circles around theists arguments fun  

You can prove anything if you just define your terms to support your conclusion.

1)Stupid person: person who disagrees with any of the premises or the conclusion of this argument, including this premise.
2)God: that which necessarily exists if the universe exists.
3)The universe exists
4) God necessarily exists (2) and (3), and if you disagree you are stupid (1).

This argument is completely logically valid, but it is rubbish because I just invented all of my premises on the spot.

in that case;

1) I forgot to take my meds today
2) .'. I am christ!
3) .'. god exists

Argument 23(DORE'S ARGUMENT) from http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

The most important thing about God was not mentioned"LOVE". God does not practice love He is love and that is why He limits His actions within His creation.God does not have to prove His omnipotence by lifting the rock.His proof would be in the creation of the rock.

Love to all in Christ Jesus

Quote from: "Godschild"The most important thing about God was not mentioned"LOVE". God does not practice love He is love and that is why He limits His actions within His creation.God does not have to prove His omnipotence by lifting the rock.His proof would be in the creation of the rock.

Love to all in Christ Jesus

The rock appears to have come about by wholly natural means.  We've yet to find the need to invoke a supernatural creator as we track backward through time.  And even if there was evidence a deity created the rocks just as they are, how are we to know which deity?  How are we to know if any of man's envisioned deities are even correct?  At best, you would have evidence of a deist god.  As of now, you don't even have evidence of that.  So how can you claim to us that God is proved by the existence of something else?  It's a huge break in what logically follows.

Now, disregarding the creation part, if God is love, and will never act overtly in the universe because he is love, then God is, for all intents and purposes, just love.  If you call your god an emotion, well, I can't deny that it exists, but why call an emotion, or say, the sun, a god?  There are many other emotions, and these aren't described as experiencing God, but they are equally emotive.  It looks as though some people decided to stick a trademark on love, to me.

I don't believe what isn't evidenced just because it is has an extensive mythology behind it, and it is accepted by the people who already believe as internally consistent.

Peace and good tidings to you, from a mortal man.

I was not trying to prove God,that is not possible as I have stated before.I wanted to share my view as a christian.So for you guys assuming there is God He is not only love but many other emotions and they are what limits His interferance in our free will.Also assuming there is God He is not just anything HE is everything that is good.I've read so many times on this forum that God has free will and I do not understand where that comes from I've never read He has free will in the Bible.

No trademark here.If it wasn't for Gods love I would be someone who most could not love and that is a fact.

Come about by natural means does that mean they made their ownselves now that would be some kind of miracle that's alot of different types of material to come together own its on behalf to have so many different types of rock.

think I'm going to hit the hay it's getting late

Love to all in Christ Jesus

Ah, but I see no miracle, but the same physics operating on the same matter.  I suppose if God has no free will, as you claim, and this is where it has brought us, then the Koran and Bhagavad-Gita are its will as well, as well as emotions.  Simply put, we are experiencing God.  This is a pantheistic belief, where all is God.  You seek to set a limiter of "all good things," but that is strange distinction, as the "bad" things are equally manifest, just as potent in reality.

Still I'm reminded of a quote by Gaius Baltar:  "God isn't on any side, God is a force of nature; beyond good and evil, we make good and evil."
But I don't feel compelled to worship reality, nor call it God.  I just look on in awe.   :lol:

Ah,I never said that God had no free will but that it was limited so that He would honor our choices,He has at many different times blessed me when I did not merit such. I am and will always be grateful to God for His grace.Because of His grace I do not have to merit anything to be blessed,if I had to earn my blessings then they would be nothing more than a payment and personally I like surprizes.God will act in our lives for many reasons some we understand some we do not and it is to glorify Him which I accept for my life because I believe there is a greater good than my desires.

Now,I have a question for you and remember I'm not a scientist so keep the language to the level of a layman:You asked someone on another post how humans arrived on this planet my question to you is this how did life first come into being on this planet?

Ah, that's an answer that would require a great deal of explanation, though.  See, if I give you a really simple answer, it will sound incredible to you.  You will poke and prod it and call me out on a weakness only present because I'm simplifying it so greatly.  And then I answer, and you'll reply, and we'll eventually end up deep in scientific terminology, and a rather complex final answer.  Nonetheless, I'll try to give you a simple answer.

Life is, when you get right down to it, a series of self-sustaining chemical reactions.  We're not made out of aether, as it were, but the same elements that make everything else.  Life arose out of the barest, smallest self-sustaining chemical reactions possible.  A 32-amino acid chain is capable of self-replication, and there may be even smaller.  So all you need is that sequence out of all the reacting molecules of the prebiotic era.  Given the size of the planet, that's a lot of chemistry all going on at the same time.  Clearly it worked.  It's likely we'd be able to watch it happen again and again if it weren't for the fact that modern, well-evolved bacteria suck up all the useful bits, "eating" anything they can.  Free amino acids and brand new primitive life wouldn't stand a chance on Earth now.

If you want the really simple, utter bastardization, all the worlds oceans and muds were the "Primordial Soup," and really, really, really simple single cell life developed somewhere under the governing forces of chemistry and then started spreading out to wherever the components needed to replicate could be found, the oceans being ideal.

Quote from: "Ryytikki"I've been talking with a friend of mine about the three apparently 'Perfect aspects' of the abrihamic god, Omnipotence, Omnicience and omnibinevolence.

The first of them, omnipotence can be removed with the 'Immovible Object' argument

QuoteWikipedia - Either God can create a stone which he cannot lift, or he cannot create a stone which he cannot lift.
If God can create a stone which he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent (since he cannot lift the stone in question).
If God cannot create a stone which he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent (since he cannot create the stone in question).
Therefore God is not omnipotent.

This shows that Gods power isnt infinite, just very high

This also disproves Omnicience as for god to be all knowing, he would have to know everything that is going to happen in the universe. For this to happen, God would have to have infinite capacity for knowlege. The only way to do this would be to have infinite power. I think you can work out the rest.

Or in algebreic terms:
Gods power = x
All time = a
all knowlege = k

a*k = infinity
x =/= infinity (as shown in the 'immovible object' argument)
.'. x =/= ak

As for Onmibenevolence, if God created an immovible object, it would have to have infinite mass, creating a dip in the space time continuum so steep that the whole universe would be destroyed
now thats what i call love  :brick:

Ryy  

A finite mind trying to understand infinite things. This is called putting God in a box.

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"A finite mind trying to understand infinite things. This is called putting God in a box.

god does not fit in a box, or for that matter a book

there are many levels to infinity

--- end transmission ---

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"[
A finite mind trying to understand infinite things. This is called putting God in a box.

So what makes you think you can understand god then? Is your guess any better? How are we to judge if someones guess is correct when there is no way to understand what they are guessing at?

Quote from: "PipeBox"Nonetheless, I'll try to give you a simple answer.

Life is, when you get right down to it, a series of self-sustaining chemical reactions. We're not made out of aether, as it were, but the same elements that make everything else. Life arose out of the barest, smallest self-sustaining chemical reactions possible. A 32-amino acid chain is capable of self-replication, and there may be even smaller. So all you need is that sequence out of all the reacting molecules of the prebiotic era. Given the size of the planet, that's a lot of chemistry all going on at the same time. Clearly it worked. It's likely we'd be able to watch it happen again and again if it weren't for the fact that modern, well-evolved bacteria suck up all the useful bits, "eating" anything they can. Free amino acids and brand new primitive life wouldn't stand a chance on Earth now.

If you want the really simple, utter bastardization, all the worlds oceans and muds were the "Primordial Soup," and really, really, really simple single cell life developed somewhere under the governing forces of chemistry and then started spreading out to wherever the components needed to replicate could be found, the oceans being ideal.

OK you made your point about simplfing the answer,I believe I can handle a bit more of the scientific wording,isn't it true that the atmosphere on earth at the moment that life supposedly began was not conducive to allowing amino acids to form?

I would send a Love to all in Christ Jesus but it seems that is not proper why I don't know it never was meant to be offensive.I have always ended my e-mails and ect. this way even to my nonchristian friends.Hope this will be more acceptible.

Quote from: "SSY"So what makes you think you can understand god then? Is your guess any better? How are we to judge if someones guess is correct when there is no way to understand what they are guessing at?

Most Christians believe that they can understand god only as much as he reveals himself to them, either through special or general revelation. An example of general revalation would include nature and the universe ect. An example of special revelation would be the bible. You can only understand as much as he wants  you to understand ect.

Hmm, I'm not sure exactly what you mean, Godschild.  We've found complex organic molecules, namely amino acids, form under a very wide range possible prebiotic atmospheres.  I can't find any source other than creationist websites purporting the idea that the atmosphere was unfit.  Namely, they accuse that it was too caustic; that there was too much oxygen, and it would destroy any biotic precursors.  They have no experimental data to back this up (demonstrating how unlikely organic molecules are under their choice atmosphere, even, rather than a likely one), and we know for a fact there was far, far less oxygen in the atmosphere then.  It was primarily carbon dioxide and hydrogen, with trace amounts of oxygen and noble gases.  So if you were asking a more specific question about the atmosphere at the time, I'd ask you to be a bit more specific.

The best part is that is likely as anywhere else (arguably quite a bit more likely, Dr. Jack Stozak's model is well regarded) that the first life formed deep under the oceans around hydrothermal vents.  If life did form in the deep waters, then the atmosphere had no bearing, though it still was suitable by all indications.

Oh, and I don't have any problem being wished love in Jesus's name, but it's a statement that is so whored out I have trouble believing there's anything of substance there, similar to when people end conversations with "God bless," it seems more a way to end a statement than to express an actual sentiment.  Well, that, and it's a little weird wishing someone love by proxy.  If you wish us well, don't be afraid to wish us well on your own.  It doesn't bear less weight to us, it just makes us more inclined to believe it is authentic, and it also doesn't hurt knowing that you're doing it as a person who would/might still do it without a belief in God.  After all, saying "God's making me wish you well," just doesn't have a good ring to it.  Hope that makes sense.  But we're not gonna chase you off the board for a sentiment or a turn of phrase.  

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"

Quote from: "SSY"So what makes you think you can understand god then? Is your guess any better? How are we to judge if someones guess is correct when there is no way to understand what they are guessing at?

Most Christians believe that they can understand god only as much as he reveals himself to them, either through special or general revelation. An example of general revalation would include nature and the universe ect. An example of special revelation would be the bible. You can only understand as much as he wants  you to understand ect.

Or in other words, you can only understand the things in the bible, any thought that deviates from this is wrong. How convenient.

Quote from: "PipeBox"If you want some logical inconsistencies, I recommend the Epicurean Paradox:

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able, then he is not omnipotent.
If he is able, but not willing, then he is malevolent.
If he is both willing and able, whence cometh evil?
If he is neither willing nor able, why call him God?

The problem this one runs into is that it's up to you to define evil.  That may not sound like a problem, but there's no all-encompassing objective definition (hmmm, isn't that strange, theists?).  God may not allow any true evil in the universe, or it may be an absolute minimum of evil.  Still, the paradox raises good questions, even if it isn't a true paradox while evil is undefined.

That's not really a problem. Most religions admit evil exists (i.e. that what their god regards to be evil). For christianity it is sin.
Christians will readily agree that sins are evil, and that sins exist.

Quote from: "PipeBox"Hmm, I'm not sure exactly what you mean, Godschild. We've found complex organic molecules, namely amino acids, form under a very wide range possible prebiotic atmospheres. I can't find any source other than creationist websites purporting the idea that the atmosphere was unfit. Namely, they accuse that it was too caustic; that there was too much oxygen, and it would destroy any biotic precursors. They have no experimental data to back this up (demonstrating how unlikely organic molecules are under their choice atmosphere, even, rather than a likely one), and we know for a fact there was far, far less oxygen in the atmosphere then. It was primarily carbon dioxide and hydrogen, with trace amounts of oxygen and noble gases.

My source is Walter L. Bradley,PH.D. Bradley was speaking about Stanley Millers experiment that was based on a theory by Alexander Oparin.I'm sure you are familiar with it so no need to give any details except for the atmosphere he used which was ammonia,methane and hydrogen.Bradley said this type of atmosphere would be conducive to forming ammino acids and it was as far as the experiment went.However Bradley said that NASA scientist have shown that the primitive earths atmosphere was carbon dioxide,nitrogen and water.He stated that these inert gases will not react in a way to form ammino acids and that recent experiments have shown this to be true.I'm not a chemist but from my use of CO2 and N2 these gases would not be considered caustic.

I'm not one who uses Christ's name flipantly the ending to my replies is to show that I care about others no matter what they choose to believe God has respect for everyone and I'm a child of God so I do the same most of the time,human,not perfect.

About the deep ocean vents I've read that the heat coming from them would destroy complex organic compounds.I need to follow up on Jack Stozak's model.

To me all the other endings sound,well you know not right,not right for me anyhow so... to all here's lookin at ya!

Actually, I wasn't terribly familiar with Walter Bradly before now, I'd just seen his research sourced several times.  He's a scientist to be sure, and carries a degree in engineering science and a doctorate in materials science, both from the University of Texas in Austin, which makes me wonder why I don't see the non-reducing atmosphere argument (that the atmosphere wasn't caustic enough; that it lacked catalytic gases and instead was far too inert) more often, especially since it was only recently upset.

Walter Bradly is right about the difficulty in catalyzing biotic materials in the environment of his choice, but he does little in consideration of exposed catalytic metals on Earth's surface (nickel and iron, namely), where even nitrogen may catalyze hydrogen [1] (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/116307667/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0).  But the early Earth's atmosphere no longer meets his predictions, the most recent research being completed in 2005, where we found both that there was far less hydrogen escaping from the atmosphere than previously thought [2] (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1106983), and that there was a great deal of outgassing from chondrites [3] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11539652), meteorites still falling in massive quantities in the wind-down from planetary accretion.  Nevermind that even in a perfectly nonreducing atmosphere, large quantities of local atmosphere would still reduce, such as in the vicinity of volcanoes.

Finally, hydrothermal vents are great for starting life off (possibly)!  Not only do they spew chemicals ranging from sulfur to iron, the heat helps get things mixing, and provides energy for endothermic chemical reactions to take place (not that they necessarily needed to, early on).  Intense heat could serve as a mutagen for early RNA, but since it isn't very advanced, it has little to "fear" from random mutation.  Even modern RNA may remain functional with 30% of its bits switched out, which is why you'll never see creationists arguing it is irreducibly complex (that is to say, the wildcard aspect of much of its amino acid chain still serves a purpose no matter how much you mess with it, within reason).  If you were implying that it was simply too hot around the hydrothermal vents, primitive archaea dwell around the vent mouths even now, feeding off them (chemosynthesis) and providing an ecological base much akin to what photosynthesis is for us light-dwellers, and even fatty acid vesicles are stable in almost boiling conditions.  But convection currents would repel RNA from the worst of the heat (try getting a hot air balloon to hit its burner after it's already running full blast), not that it needs the protection, and help early "strains" to spread around.  Eventually convection would bring them back near the vents, too, as this super-primitive life would not have any other means of locomotion.    So again, the atmosphere may not even be a necessary component for early life, but it being possible for life to develop on the surface remains a possibility and a boon to abiogenesis hypotheses.

By the way, I found this to be a wonderful video based on Jack Szostak's (sorry, I was spelling by memory before) model:

[youtube:172luuix]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg[/youtube:172luuix]

Sorry if it got too complicated, every one of those sources is an eyeful (they always are!), but I'd rather give you links to the relevant sources than just claim plainly that Walter Bradley's science no longer applies to prebiotic Earth.  Again, ask anything and I'll try to help your understanding, though we're fast approaching the current limits of mine.

Pipebox has become my favorite poster on anything regarding evolution or abiogenesis.

Do you have any formal training in this?

Quote from: "SSY"Or in other words, you can only understand the things in the bible, any thought that deviates from this is wrong. How convenient.

Not sure where you got the first part from, or for that matter the second. Maybe you were responding to someone else.

Quote from: "SSY"Pipebox has become my favorite poster on anything regarding evolution or abiogenesis.

Do you have any formal training in this?

Thank you, and I do not have any formal training in biology, just a lot of interest.  I try to keep up with biology and cosmology, though cosmology feels like a lost cause trying to keep up with, lately.  There are so many models, and so many things yet left wanting of experimental verification, and so much that makes my head hurt just trying to gain some slight glimmer of understanding.  I'm starting to prefer biology where the facts are far more concrete, and where the math is easier, but I'd still rather read and contemplate on the cosmos.  I prefer interstellar hydrogen to zebrafish, what can I say?  I'll read on pretty much any topic you put in front of me, though.

But all of this is off topic, and I wonder of the science post didn't kill another thread.  
So many of these have been left unanswered.  I hope the creationists are at least reading.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"

Quote from: "SSY"Or in other words, you can only understand the things in the bible, any thought that deviates from this is wrong. How convenient.

Not sure where you got the first part from, or for that matter the second. Maybe you were responding to someone else.

I was thinking along the lines of, of the only way god seems to reveal himself directly is through the bible, so the only way to know him is through the bible. As any thoughts about god not in the bible don't seem to go down too well with the church, this seemed like an easy way for them to dismiss it, by just saying "god has not revealed himself to you" while still being able to pontificate about god, as they have read the bible.

Quote from: "SSY"

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"

Quote from: "SSY"Or in other words, you can only understand the things in the bible, any thought that deviates from this is wrong. How convenient.

Not sure where you got the first part from, or for that matter the second. Maybe you were responding to someone else.

I was thinking along the lines of, of the only way god seems to reveal himself directly is through the bible, so the only way to know him is through the bible. As any thoughts about god not in the bible don't seem to go down too well with the church, this seemed like an easy way for them to dismiss it, by just saying "god has not revealed himself to you" while still being able to pontificate about god, as they have read the bible.

obviously it depends on the denomination and their position an the authoritativeness on scripture, but even with that said, even the most fundamental christians believe god to have revealed himself through more than the bible. The bible is by far their primary source but they believe that god revealed/reveals himself in other ways, and for a christian to say that god hasn't revealed himself to someone would be heresy. Also, their are loads of people who claim to be christian who use the title for elitist purposes, this is also heresy according to the christian faith. If your finding that most christians are these types of people, tell em to read their bible.

I'm not sure if anyone has thought of this before but here's an interesting disproof of a perfect god:

If God is perfect he must not have any needs or wants.

Creation is a direct result of desire.

Therefore, a perfect God did not create the universe.

Quote from: "SWATSON0039"I'm not sure if anyone has thought of this before but here's an interesting disproof of a perfect god:

If God is perfect he must not have any needs or wants.

Creation is a direct result of desire.

Therefore, a perfect God did not create the universe.

Welcome to the forum, and thanks for jumping right in. Good thought here.

1) A perfect being can not change.  To change implies becoming either more or less perfect.  Becoming less perfect renders the being imperfect, and never perfect, and becoming more perfect implies the being wasn't perfect to begin with.  A being not perpetually perfect is not truly perfect.
2) God, as described by the Bible, exhibits change.
3) Therefore God, as described by the Bible, is not perfect.
4) The Bible describes God as perfect.
5) Therefore, the Bible is inaccurate in at least one description of God
6) If a source has a single inaccuracy, it is not perfectly reliable.  
7) Therefore, the Bible is not perfectly reliable.

I've approached many theists with this logical procession, and few have given any solid criticisms.  Typically they attack the idea that God changes, despite numerous changes listed in the Bible ( most notably expressing regret after the flood ).  Can anyone knock it out?