A Question to the Atheist

[Psilon]

First of all, on the God thread, I think I have seen Atheists question Free will. I believe both sides arguements are wrong, but I will no state my belief just yet.

I would like to speak to a theologian when it comes to the idea of the Christrian God...I believe Christians are fighting an uphill battle most of the time...since the Western World (predominantly Christian) is the only part of the world that I think is advanced-(when I mean advanced I mean sociologically not technologically), it is natural to see Christianity attacked. Now I think people here, especially Atheists come up with the typical question of free will etc. I think I will propose an arguement to the Atheist.

This is an oldie but a goldie(sp?):

Here is a question, I have twisted the idea of the Christian God a bit. Now if I were to take the material world, we will find that eventhough the universe is gigantic, it is still made of a finite number of particles. Now God may not be infinite, He may be just be an emensley powerful being, powerful enough to create the universe. Now I have a case here where you cannot logically say "No, such a being cannot exist." So now you have to be in a state of uncertainity (Maxie please don't punish me because i used that word) . So no longer are you an Atheist, you are only an Agnostic. Am I right?

[Anthonynotes]

First of all, on the God thread, I think I have seen Atheists question Free will. I believe both sides arguements are wrong, but I will no state my belief just yet.

I would like to speak to a theologian when it comes to the idea of the Christrian God...I believe Christians are fighting an uphill battle most of the time...since the Western World (predominantly Christian) is the only part of the world that I think is advanced-(when I mean advanced I mean sociologically not technologically), it is natural to see Christianity attacked. Now I think people here, especially Atheists come up with the typical question of free will etc. I think I will propose an arguement to the Atheist.

This is an oldie but a goldie(sp?):

Here is a question, I have twisted the idea of the Christian God a bit. Now if I were to take the material world, we will find that eventhough the universe is gigantic, it is still made of a finite number of particles. Now God may not be infinite, He may be just be an emensley powerful being, powerful enough to create the universe. Now I have a case here where you cannot logically say "No, such a being cannot exist." So now you have to be in a state of uncertainity (Maxie please don't punish me because i used that word) . So no longer are you an Atheist, you are only an Agnostic. Am I right?

Um, no.

Your scenario still presumes that I should believe that there's actually something "beyond" or "out there" more powerful than us, on some supernatural level, which (as an atheist) I don't believe---the universe is governed by various laws of physics (some of which we've surely yet to discover), and IMO nothing more. The "finite # of particles in the universe" are just that... no connection by me to some metaphysical all-powerful entity that apparently seems particularly concerned with (if fundamentalists' views of God are to be believed) who I choose to date/my sex life/whether or not I opt to worship another deity or religion. :-)

-B.

[Psilon]

Originally posted by Brainatra
>>First of all, on the God thread, I think I have seen Atheists question Free will. I believe both sides arguements are wrong, but I will no state my belief just yet.

I would like to speak to a theologian when it comes to the idea of the Christrian God...I believe Christians are fighting an uphill battle most of the time...since the Western World (predominantly Christian) is the only part of the world that I think is advanced-(when I mean advanced I mean sociologically not technologically), it is natural to see Christianity attacked. Now I think people here, especially Atheists come up with the typical question of free will etc. I think I will propose an arguement to the Atheist.

This is an oldie but a goldie(sp?):

Here is a question, I have twisted the idea of the Christian God a bit. Now if I were to take the material world, we will find that eventhough the universe is gigantic, it is still made of a finite number of particles. Now God may not be infinite, He may be just be an emensley powerful being, powerful enough to create the universe. Now I have a case here where you cannot logically say "No, such a being cannot exist." So now you have to be in a state of uncertainity (Maxie please don't punish me because i used that word) . So no longer are you an Atheist, you are only an Agnostic. Am I right?<<<

Um, no.

Your scenario still presumes that I should believe that there's actually something "beyond" or "out there" more powerful than us, on some supernatural level, which (as an atheist) I don't believe---the universe is governed by various laws of physics (some of which we've surely yet to discover), and IMO nothing more. The "finite # of particles in the universe" are just that... no connection by me to some metaphysical all-powerful entity that apparently seems particularly concerned with (if fundamentalists' views of God are to be believed) who I choose to date/my sex life/whether or not I opt to worship another deity or religion. :-)

-B.
Um...maybe i didnt state my point clearly, can you disprove my claim of supernatural being?...

[James]

Originally posted by Psilon2011

Um...maybe i didnt state my point clearly, can you disprove my claim of supernatural being?...

Your claim is not to a supernatural being. your hypothesis is that there may be a being which created the universe. But does that make them a god? Speciffically does it imply any similiarity to a Christian god? It does not. And no one has agreed that an all powerful being created the universe in the first place, no one has agreed to the claim of this all powerful being. So I see no change to an atheist standpoint.

[FlatKlown]

First of all, it is impossible for anyone to say their nation (and/or hemiphere) is socialy advanced. Well you can say it, but it's not true, all nations have problems, all nations have up-sides.


can you disprove my claim of supernatural being?

About the "can-you-say-I'm-wrong-about-the-giant-supernatural-form-that-made-the-universe-question", many, many, many, MANY PROFESSIONAL Christian and Atheist scientists have debated this over and over..... so I'm going to continue this child-like game of who can attempt to make more sense.


Can YOU Prove it?

Can YOU prove there is an "life-form" with the power to create, an entire universe? Can you stand up and say, "hey I am absolutely, possitively, certain that there is a supernatural life form that created this planet, and ALL of the other planets out there.... in SIX DAYS."? Could you, I know I couldn't.... IF I believed.

[Maxie Zeus]

I think we're unsure about what's being asked.

First, some definitions:

1. Theist: One who positively affirms belief in a Deity.
2. Atheist: One who positively denies belief in a Deity.
3. Agnostic: One who nether affirms nor denies belief in a Deity.

Now, technically, one can believe without evidence, so one can be a theist without evidence to back one's belief, and one can be an atheist without evidence to back one's belief. At this level, there is no use asking for a "proof" of one's theism or atheism.

So, I gather you are asking possible evidence for a possible Deity, or for possible evidence against the existence of such a Deity.

Your question is complicated by the presence of the word "possible." An atheist doesn't need to argue that God's existence is impossible, only that it is not actual. This would be like me arguing that there is no elephant in the next room: I hear no trumpeting, or stamping, detect no stench, and believe that my roommate would be highly unlikely to have an elephant in the next room. But, you reply, isn't it possible that there is such an elephant? Yes, I serenely concede. I could be wrong. But I don't think I am. In the same way, the atheist can freely concede that God might exist, or might possibly have existed. To be an "atheist," though, he has only to argue that the evidence is against this possibility being realized.

So, yes, possibly the finite material universe was created by a Deity. But the fact that it is is a possibility doesn't mean I should can't deny that it was -- any more than the fact that there might be an elephant in the next room dosn't mean I can't deny that there is.

[Nightwing]

Originally posted by FlatKlown
Can YOU prove there is an "life-form" with the power to create, an entire universe? Can you stand up and say, "hey I am absolutely, possitively, certain that there is a supernatural life form that created this planet, and ALL of the other planets out there.... in SIX DAYS."? Could you, I know I couldn't.... IF I believed.

I dunno. It makes sense and all but something doesn't seem to do it for me. It seems like that's just taking the easy way out. Like it eliminates the need for imagining or thinking beyond what we know. Plus from what it sounds like I think it's very possible that the studies done are accurate enough for this to be the open and shut case that it is. Why they're judging whether or not something exists based on the proof of laws of physics and science and all that stuff which they themselves say isn't even at it's peak of efficiency yet.

But I don't wanna be an "agnostic" or whatever cuz I don't like labels. I just wanna be me quite frankly. Since that's what I am, that's all I have, and that, along with all the other mes in the world is what I should be caring about.

In fact....I think I have something to say that sums up how I feel.

Don't analyze how to believe in god, analyze how to believe in yourself. :)

[Psilon]

Originally posted by SJJ


Your claim is not to a supernatural being. your hypothesis is that there may be a being which created the universe. But does that make them a god? Speciffically does it imply any similiarity to a Christian god? It does not. And no one has agreed that an all powerful being created the universe in the first place, no one has agreed to the claim of this all powerful being. So I see no change to an atheist standpoint.

ok...forget my supernatural being....can u proove that god does not exist. No it is impossible to do so. I am not arguing the Theists standpoint I am arguing the agnostic stand point.

Maxie, the elephant analogy is good, (I prefer the rock that protects people from tiger attacks, from the Simpsons:))...now I agree with you, however I still have a question. You bring up the definition of an atheist.

Atheist: One who positively denies belief in a Deity.
The question I have is denying 'belief' in a Deity a 'belief'

[Psilon]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by FlatKlown
[B]First of all, it is impossible for anyone to say their nation (and/or hemiphere) is socialy advanced. Well you can say it, but it's not true, all nations have problems, all nations have up-sides.


Are u arguing relavatism?

[Anthonynotes]

Originally posted by Psilon2011


ok...forget my supernatural being....can u proove that god does not exist. No it is impossible to do so. I am not arguing the Theists standpoint I am arguing the agnostic stand point.

Maxie, the elephant analogy is good, (I prefer the rock that protects people from tiger attacks, from the Simpsons:))...now I agree with you, however I still have a question. You bring up the definition of an atheist.

Atheist: One who positively denies belief in a Deity.
The question I have is denying 'belief' in a Deity a 'belief'

Well, as someone else stated earlier, can you prove to me (an atheist) that God *doees* exist?

While I can understand arguing the agnostic viewpoint (that there's no proof either way to support or deny the existence of a supreme being), for me I don't have sufficient reason to believe there is one, based on the evidence I have at hand (how the workings of the universe works/has worked to date, the laws of physics, other non-western cultures' takes on religion/deities, etc.). While we're all of course free to believe whatever we want, the to me *extremely* remote possibility that *any* superior/supreme being exists, let alone the one specifically described in Christian religion, all of which assumes I go along with the multiple logical assumptions made for such a being possibly existing ("if there's a vague possibility of extra-dimensional realms existing, and if there's a chance that one of these realms could support life, and this lifeform were sentient, and..." etc. etc.) isn't enough to persuade me...let alone start worshipping said infinitely-small-chance-possibly-existent entity.

Plus, for me, there's also various things about Christianity specifically that I dislike (including that from Biblical texts, the Christian God doesn't sound like someone I'd want to worship even if I were a believer in a supreme being) or can't believe (miracles, angels, oceans parting, the "Adam and Eve" story, etc.). That and being at college with various religious fundamentalists telling me that everything from "Pinky and the Brain is un-Christian" to "gays are apparently lesser beings/we 'love the sinner, but hate the sin'/perversions of nature/immoral heathens" also didn't exactly do much to sway me over...

-B.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Psilon2011

ok...forget my supernatural being....can u proove that god does not exist. No it is impossible to do so. I am not arguing the Theists standpoint I am arguing the agnostic stand point.

Maxie, the elephant analogy is good, (I prefer the rock that protects people from tiger attacks, from the Simpsons:))...now I agree with you, however I still have a question. You bring up the definition of an atheist.

Atheist: One who positively denies belief in a Deity.
The question I have is denying 'belief' in a Deity a 'belief'

Yeah, the great tiger-repelling rock! :D

Is the denial of the existence of God a belief? It sure looks like it. For instance, Lucy denies the existence of the Great Pumpkin. That is, she believes the Great Pumpkin does not exist. (Note the word "believes.") But substitute the word God" for "Great Pumpkin." Then to deny the existence of God is to believe that God does not exist. Again, looks like a belief, the belief in the non-existence of something.

Actually, I think some medieval theologians tried arguing that it is impossible to disbelieve in God; I think the basic argument was that the meaning of the word "God" was such that anyone who understood the word had to believe in God -- it was a logical truth. But I don't remember the exact argument.

Probably the most famous argument against the existence of God was stated elegantly by David Hume (remember Hume, Psilon ;) ?) It's the "Problem of Evil": God is, by definition, omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good. Now, if God is all these things, then He knows when evil manifests itself, he is able to prevent evil from manifesting itself, and He has the desire to prevent it from manifesting itself. So if God exists, then evil should not. But evil exists. Therefore, God does not exist.

That is the argument that the "Free Will" defense is supposed to get around: Evil (both moral and physical -- like earthquakes) is due to the agency of free beings (men and devils), and God, in pursuit of a greater good, permits the exercise of free will even when it leads to evil. Suffice it to say that no everyone is convinced by the free will defense, but that's another matter.

[Psilon]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus


Yeah, the great tiger-repelling rock! :D

Is the denial of the existence of God a belief? It sure looks like it. For instance, Lucy denies the existence of the Great Pumpkin. That is, she believes the Great Pumpkin does not exist. (Note the word "believes.") But substitute the word God" for "Great Pumpkin." Then to deny the existence of God is to believe that God does not exist. Again, looks like a belief, the belief in the non-existence of something.

Actually, I think some medieval theologians tried arguing that it is impossible to disbelieve in God; I think the basic argument was that the meaning of the word "God" was such that anyone who understood the word had to believe in God -- it was a logical truth. But I don't remember the exact argument.

Probably the most famous argument against the existence of God was stated elegantly by David Hume (remember Hume, Psilon ;) ?) It's the "Problem of Evil": God is, by definition, omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good. Now, if God is all these things, then He knows when evil manifests itself, he is able to prevent evil from manifesting itself, and He has the desire to prevent it from manifesting itself. So if God exists, then evil should not. But evil exists. Therefore, God does not exist.

That is the argument that the "Free Will" defense is supposed to get around: Evil (both moral and physical -- like earthquakes) is due to the agency of free beings (men and devils), and God, in pursuit of a greater good, permits the exercise of free will even when it leads to evil. Suffice it to say that no everyone is convinced by the free will defense, but that's another matter.


With the word God thing, couldn't u have a different definition of God like Buddhists do.

I think Hume's arguement makes perfect sense.
I think free will is an illusion though...cause and effect...for example if u were to start at the beginning of the inception of the universe and u knew all the variables you would be able to figure out everything, from what I was going to eat tommorow at dinner to what program I will do in the university.

[RogueMartian]

Hume's argument is poor because it assumes that there is such a thing as "evil". Since we do not know the nature of God, if such a deity exists, then we cannot say whether or not something is evil. People invented concepts of good and evil to keep members of society in line. Murder=bad=evil. Whether or not a deity likes murder, eating meat on fridays, or premarital sex can't be known, so what is evil depends on what each society says is socially acceptable.

The idea of god that most major religious propogate is in my opinion, nonexistent. The idea of a major deity at all is also probably nonexistent. People have a hard time with whether or not god exits because the very nature of the definition of God is that we cannot define it. Anytime God is defined, he is easily proven non-existent. With no definition, you are worshiping nothing, and with a definition, he's nonexistent, and for that reason, God does not exist. At least that's my reasoning.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by RogueMartian
Hume's argument is poor because it assumes that there is such a thing as "evil". Since we do not know the nature of God, if such a deity exists, then we cannot say whether or not something is evil.

Hume's argument is perfectly adequate, if you accept the opening claim that God by definition is perfectly good. Since that is the conception of God that has the widest currency (and certainly had the widest currency at the time Hume wrote), that's the conception he designed his argument to attack.

Of course, yes, if you have a different conception of God, there has to be a different argument . . .

[RogueMartian]

Even if you accept that God is "perfectly good" then you must assume there is such a thing as perfectly good. Again, what is good and what is bad is entirely dependent on who you talk to. I don't disagree with Hume's theory, It clearly disproves the existence of the God worshipped by major religions, which was his point I'm sure. But in the abstract sense of God as simply an all powerful being we know nothing about, it doesn't really work.

[zimbach]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus
...Probably the most famous argument against the existence of God was stated elegantly by David Hume (remember Hume, Psilon ;) ?) It's the "Problem of Evil": God is, by definition, omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good. Now, if God is all these things, then He knows when evil manifests itself, he is able to prevent evil from manifesting itself, and He has the desire to prevent it from manifesting itself. So if God exists, then evil should not. But evil exists. Therefore, God does not exist.

That is the argument that the "Free Will" defense is supposed to get around: Evil (both moral and physical -- like earthquakes) is due to the agency of free beings (men and devils), and God, in pursuit of a greater good, permits the exercise of free will even when it leads to evil. Suffice it to say that no everyone is convinced by the free will defense, but that's another matter. That's right! Because free will is incompatible with omnipotence. God cannot voluntarily cede partial omnipotence in the interest of promulgating free will, since that would, by definition, make God not omnipotent. This is, of course self contradictory, because the lack of the ability to voluntarily cede partial omnipotence is itself evidence for the lack of omnipotence.

Omnicience cannot be proved or denied because omnicience would be required to observe and measure it.

[Psilon]

Btw, RogueMartian, there is a debate about absolute good on another thread. (Is man basically good or evil).

I think predestination can be easily argued, through simple logic and absolute good can be contested...so then Humes 'solution' is no longer valid.

RogueMartian states:
"But in the abstract sense of God as simply an all powerful being we know nothing about, it doesn't really work."

However, the main problem is God's omnipotence. To be omnipotent God has all the knowledge of the universe and the power to do anything, this is the traditional to the understanding of all types of God.

However, at an aribratry(absolutely precise) precise time, you cannot arbritaraily(absolutely precise) know the precise frequency. This is mathematically proven, and so not even God can contest this fact. So omnipotence goes out the window. So once again the concept of God has to change...so whats the next concept.

I believe the next concept, is the one I stated at the beginning of the thread. So how do we disprove this concept...I think I know...but I want to see other peoples opinions.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by RogueMartian
Even if you accept that God is "perfectly good" then you must assume there is such a thing as perfectly good. Again, what is good and what is bad is entirely dependent on who you talk to. I don't disagree with Hume's theory, It clearly disproves the existence of the God worshipped by major religions, which was his point I'm sure. But in the abstract sense of God as simply an all powerful being we know nothing about, it doesn't really work.

:shrug: Yeah. There being different concepts of God, there will have to be different arguments offered pro and con. Psilon asked if there were any arguments against the existence of God, and I offered one of them.

My interest is piqued by your rejection of the concept of "perfect goodness." Probably this is just a semantic quibble. But I'll ask for clarification anyway: Would you also reject the concept of "benevolence," of desiring and intending to act in a way that benefits other creatures?

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by zimbach
That's right! Because free will is incompatible with omnipotence. God cannot voluntarily cede partial omnipotence in the interest of promulgating free will, since that would, by definition, make God not omnipotent. This is, of course self contradictory, because the lack of the ability to voluntarily cede partial omnipotence is itself evidence for the lack of omnipotence.

Mmmmm . . . I don't think so. "Omnipotence" refers to the power -- the ability -- to do anything. But simply because you have an ability does not mean you are automatically and always exercising it. You may have the ability to stand on your head, but that doesn't mean you are always standing on your head; sometimes you forbear to do so. In the same way, God may have the ability to force us to do certain things -- to always perform benevolent actions -- but He may forbear from doing so. In so forbearing, He would create the arena of free will.

[RogueMartian]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus
My interest is piqued by your rejection of the concept of "perfect goodness." Probably this is just a semantic quibble. But I'll ask for clarification anyway: Would you also reject the concept of "benevolence," of desiring and intending to act in a way that benefits other creatures?

I don't see how anyone can reject the concept of benevolence. Benevolence is what creates socities among many creatures. How else could humans function in society, wolves in packs, or any other social animals within their social groups without helping one another? But benevolence has nothing to do with good or evil. For example. If a wealthy person gives money to starving children he is not necessarily a saint. If he doesn't give money to starving children, that doesn't mean he's evil. Of course, I think ideas of good vs. evil are sort of juvenile, there are always two sides to everything. They're nice concepts for stories, but are hardly applicable to the real world.

[James]

I sound with RogueMartian, I don't believe in 'perfect goodness'. I'm not entirely sure it's possible to do anything that isn't to the benefit to yourself. Even a sacrifice for another - could a character who does such a thing lived with himself if he hadn't? So again, it is the preferable action for himself. Something he has to do for personal sanity as well as for others.

Without going back to the Good/Evil thread, perfect goodness seems a simplicity in itself. What's good and what's evil is a very personal code to all of us, I don't think it can be realistically defined as an absolute.

All these arguments to whether this questions affect the existence of a god are academic. They all have to run on base assumptions. Even if it's simple logic. Perhaps a god like being's laws and perameters extend outside this sphere, so making theological judgements becomes more difficult. Even worse, your god may be entirely different to what you hope to define. You may find out we are in his image and as such we have a very emotive god who has a particular love for grass or house flies. Boy we'd be in trouble then. As it was so succinctly put about his omipetent ways, you can't assess what you can't obtain evidence of.

Find a code to live by and live it. There is no way in my eyes you can possibly deduce a satisfactory standpoint. Believe or do not. Don't try and work out the arguments for and against as there are none. You have no evidence either way. That's the beauty in Faith. You don't question, you just do. If that makes for a more spiritually comfortable life. That I am happy for you. I really am. And jealous too.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by RogueMartian

I don't see how anyone can reject the concept of benevolence. Benevolence is what creates socities among many creatures. How else could humans function in society, wolves in packs, or any other social animals within their social groups without helping one another? But benevolence has nothing to do with good or evil.

What is your definition of "benevolence," then? It is usually defined as being disposed to perform acts of goodness.

Even if we leave aside "perfect goodness" for "benevolence," the concept clearly has application to the nature of God. "Perfect goodness," "perfect benevolence"; either of these expresses the same theological concept.



Originally posted by RogueMartian
Of course, I think ideas of good vs. evil are sort of juvenile, there are always two sides to everything. They're nice concepts for stories, but are hardly applicable to the real world.

It's getting slightly off the subject, but what words do you use, for instance, when describing acts of rape and mass murder, or monetary charity? Do you make no moral or aesthetic judgements at all? Are the notions of "right" and "wrong" similarly empty of meaning? I'm curious. I've never met anyone who (at least as you seem to) claimed that ethics is entirely vacuous.