IS GOD REAL?!

[Corey]

It's a simple case of belief, believe what you want, just don't impose upon the happiness of others because their belief is different

[Hyperqube]

Half-assing a task and consistency aren't mutually exclusive (unfortunately).

Agreed. So it would help if the anti-theists, in their proof that God doesn't exist, stop consistently presuming there's no Omnipoweerful being which works in mysterious ways.

 

You might not like the fact 'omnipotence' & 'works in mysterious ways' are attributed to many God (the christian God for example),

But that doesn't make their stance half-assed. It makes it irrefutable - which is something else.

 

 

 

Edit: when you say "would it have changed anything if I just left 'wise beyond our comprehension'? It's a figure of speech" you miss the ball completely, because it's not a figure of speech. we are talking about a being that litterly is wise beyond our comprehension. By trying to ommit it - you're trying to move the goalpost, to an a priori reasoning - and are no longer talking abotu the same thing theists are talking about.

 

A priori: We understand God

if we assume there's a God, we don't understand what he's doing

Conclusion: there is no God

 

Hypercube...why does it have to be this difficult with you every single time?

Because I'm an agnost. I neither identify as theist nor atheist.

I'm on the side of both "God could exist" and "God isn't necessary"

And am on the opposite side of both "there is a God" and "God is impossible"

 

There are solid arguments pro & con. But there are also bad ones.

And bad arguments should be adressed, so they don't persist.

 

I don't see you complaining when I decimated Shining's arguments why there would be a God. Or point out to 3.50 that Genesis isn't as accurate as he claims it is.

But that doesn't mean that oppositely, for example, you got a point when you complain something wasn't written down in scripture.

[Gren]

Agreed. So it would help if the anti-theists, in their proof that God doesn't exist, stop consistently presuming there's no Omnipoweerful being which works in mysterious ways.

 

You might not like the fact 'omnipotence' & 'works in mysterious ways' are attributed to many God (the christian God for example),

But that doesn't make their stance half-assed. It makes it irrefutable - which is something else.

 

 

 

Edit: when you say "would it have changed anything if I just left 'wise beyond our comprehension'? It's a figure of speech" you miss the ball completely, because it's not a figure of speech. we are talking about a being that litterly is wise beyond our comprehension. By trying to ommit it - you're trying to move the goalpost, to an a priori reasoning - and are no longer talking abotu the same thing theists are talking about.

 

A priori: We understand God

if we assume there's a God, we don't understand what he's doing

Conclusion: there is no God

 

Because I'm an agnost. I neither identify as theist nor atheist.

I'm on the side of both "God could exist" and "God isn't necessary"

And am on the opposite side of both "there is a God" and "God is impossible"

 

There are solid arguments pro & con. But there are also bad ones.

And bad arguments should be adressed, so they don't persist.

 

I don't see you complaining when I decimated Shining's arguments why there would be a God. Or point out to 3.50 that Genesis isn't as accurate as he claims it is.

But that doesn't mean that oppositely, for example, you got a point when you complain something wasn't written down in scripture.

 

Except for the fact that it's logically impossible for an omnipotent being to exist....also, apparently we were created in god's image, and Allah, Moses and Jesus had reportedly no trouble understanding god or his agents, so it should follow that we can all understand god.  So the idea of an omnipotent, wise beyond our understanding god, is anything but irrefutable.  Also, the fact that in response to any queries some theists go-to response is "Well, god works in mysterious ways" is most assuredly half-assed, as it requires almost no effort, and neglects to construct an argument that has even an ounce of logic.   It's a lazy way of thinking, one that is nice and cozy, apparently irrefutable to those who hold it.  That is half-assed thinking.  

 

I don't care which side you are personally on.  What does bother me is that you tend to just argue semantics.  You take one sentence, often take it out of context, and point out something wrong in that sentence, but more often than not, you don't even make a point or an argument.  

 

E.g.: 

 

"Err ... do you know what "beyond our understanding" means?

 

That's like a firstgrader asking other firstgraders "Don't you think Kasaprov should have moved his rook instead of his queen?"

 

Yes, and now what?  Where are you going with that?  Where does this line of thinking lead?  Are you going to offer a definition of 'wise beyond our comprehension'?  It's necessary for you to do so, since your analogy is imperfect, as Kasparov is not necessarily intelligent beyond the grasp of a first grader (there are savants obviously) and he also isn't omnipotent, not even to a first grader.  I'm not even suggesting you're necessarily wrong, as I can't be sure of that until you actually construct a proper argument around this statement.  

[Hyperqube]

Except for the fact that it's logically impossible for an omnipotent being to exist...

you mean, the good old "Can God create a stone he can't life" thing? That's no different then "Define God as the cause, there's cause, so God exists": It's predefining omnipotence as impossible, therefore anthing omnipotent can't exist.

 

logically sound, but a priori reasoning.

 

Oppositely, from an other perspective, that argument is complete nonsense, because omnipotence isn't impossible (making it 'false implies anything' logic). Consider

• God can create a stone of any weight. That means an object of {0 - infinity} kg
• God can lift anything. God has a lifting power of infinite newton

These two statements do not contradict each other in any way.

Seeing as god can lift anything (infinity), defining his creation ability to trump this lifitng power (a.k.a. infinity+1) is nonsense - becuase the same logic that puts that item within god crafting power (infintiy+1 = infinity, so God can make it) puts it within gods lifting power (infinity+1 = infinity, so God can lift it).

 

Moses and Jesus had reportedly no trouble understanding god or his agents, so it should follow that we can all understand god.

(sidenote: we should understand God, because he's omnipotent. It's obviously not because Mosus & Jeses could do something , we can all that that)

 

Also, the fact that in response to any queries some theists go-to response is "Well, god works in mysterious ways" is most assuredly half-assed, as it requires almost no effort, and neglects to construct an argument that has even an ounce of logic. It's a lazy way of thinking, one that is nice and cozy, apparently irrefutable to those who hold it. That is half-assed thinking.

Except, And all of the complaints you have about the reasoning, also apply to the argument "it's not because we don't know, that there isn't a rational explenation behind it".

 

"it requires almost no effort" check.

"neglects to construct an argument that has even an ounce of logic" check.

"It's a lazy way of thinking" check

"irrefutable to those who hold it" check.

 

because it's the same argumant, just mirrored:

• I can't immagine there be {a rational explenation} ... so God {exists}.
• I can't immagine there be {a reason why God would do that} ... so God {doesn't exist}.

Pointing out that we might not underand God is not a half assed argument - it's pointing out the other person is making an argument from personal incredulity fallacy.

 

Are you going to offer a definition of 'wise beyond our comprehension'?

It's necessary for you to do so, since your analogy is imperfect, as Kasparov is not necessarily intelligent beyond the grasp of a first grader (there are savants obviously)

Why? An analogy is a tool to convey a point. It is conveyed. We *get* why

 

a firstgrader asking other firstgraders "Don't you think Kasaprov should have moved his rook instead of his queen?"

is silly. It might not be perfectly the same, but we understand why it is silly. Likewise, saying

 

"Don't you think a being which is litterly wise beyond our comprehension should have done X instead of Y"

is silly.

[Gren]

you mean, the good old "Can God create a stone he can't life" thing? That's no different then "Define God as the cause, there's cause, so God exists": It's predefining omnipotence as impossible, therefore anthing omnipotent can't exist.

 

logically sound, but a priori reasoning.

 

Oppositely, from an other perspective, that argument is complete nonsense, because omnipotence isn't impossible (making it 'false implies anything' logic). Consider

• God can create a stone of any weight. That means an object of {0 - infinity} kg
• God can lift anything. God has a lifting power of infinite newton

These two statements do not contradict each other in any way.

Seeing as god can lift anything (infinity), defining his creation ability to trump this lifitng power (a.k.a. infinity+1) is nonsense - becuase the same logic that puts that item within god crafting power (infintiy+1 = infinity, so God can make it) puts it within gods lifting power (infinity+1 = infinity, so God can lift it).

 

(sidenote: we should understand God, because he's omnipotent. It's obviously not because Mosus & Jeses could do something , we can all that that)

 

Except, And all of the complaints you have about the reasoning, also apply to the argument "it's not because we don't know, that there isn't a rational explenation behind it".

 

"it requires almost no effort" check.

"neglects to construct an argument that has even an ounce of logic" check.

"It's a lazy way of thinking" check

"irrefutable to those who hold it" check.

 

because it's the same argumant, just mirrored:

• I can't immagine there be {a rational explenation} ... so God {exists}.
• I can't immagine there be {a reason why God would do that} ... so God {doesn't exist}.

Pointing out that we might not underand God is not a half assed argument - it's pointing out the other person is making an argument from personal incredulity fallacy.

 

Why? An analogy is a tool to convey a point. It is conveyed. We *get* why

 

a firstgrader asking other firstgraders "Don't you think Kasaprov should have moved his rook instead of his queen?"

is silly. It might not be perfectly the same, but we understand why it is silly. Likewise, saying

 

"Don't you think a being which is litterly wise beyond our comprehension should have done X instead of Y"

is silly.

 

 

1.  You just argued that god can create a stone of any weight theoretically possible.  That's not what we're arguing about.  The argument is about omnipotence.  You left out the proposition:

 

1. God is omnipotent

2. Thus, God can do absolutely everything

3. God can create a stone he cannot lift

4. Therefore god is omnipotent

 

Clearly 2 and 3 are not logically compatible.  God being omnipotent is not logical.  You can go ahead and believe he is because it says so in scripture, but the concept of omnipotence is not logical. 

 

 

2.  I guess our definitions of 'half-assed ' just aren't the same.  Fortunately for us, establishing what is half-assed and what isn't will add zero value to the argument on god's existence so we can probably just stop wasting more time on it.  

 

 

3.  You need to define 'beyond our understanding' since by definition, you can't actually understand anything beyond our understanding and therein lies the fallacy of your analogy.  I can explain to a child how chess works.  I can then explain to the child why a chess player made a certain move.  The child - assuming he/she has sufficient intelligence - will now, upon clarification, understand the chess move.  Clearly, if god is beyond our comprehension, such an explanation that would lead to the understanding of his actions would not work, since it would assume that some of us can understand god and can explain it to the others.  Of course that's exactly what religion tells us happened, i.e. god talked to Moses and he conveyed the message to his followers.  Therefore, in the eyes of religion at least, god cannot be totally beyond our comprehension.

 

Both of these arguments really aren't very interesting though and both (the omnipotence and beyond our comprehension argument) are intellectual positions akin to a 4 year old holding his finger 1 inch from your face and saying he's not touching it so you can't swat it away.  They're childish, beyond reasonable logical conclusion and thus not valid for valuable argument in favour of god's existence.  Let's be honest here, if a theist and an atheist had a public debate and the theist at one point resorted to "Well, your objection is invalid because god works in mysterious ways and you can't understand it", everyone in the audience would pretty much accept that as a loss on the theist's part.  It's basically the same as retreating from a battle to avoid complete annihilation.  You're alive, but you still lost.  

[A-money]

Most certainly not.

[AppuBob]

 

Yes, God is real.

 

Although I was born into a Christian home, i've thought much about my religion and I cant see anything else that makes sense.

 

Im not going to go into detail about why I believe, because religion is just such a massive topic concerning savior, afterlife, why things go wrong, creation, etc etc etc, but im going to give 3 statements that happen to be on my mind right as im typing this.

 

#1.

 

To me Christianity is the only thing that makes sense. God created the world, he created the entire universe all for mans enjoyment. In the first 6 days God created everything, water, land, energy, us. With just his bare will he commanded everything into place, but according to Genesis 2:7 when he made us he actually came down to earth and breathed life into us. I don't know about you, but to me that makes me feel so incredibly special. The fact that he just commanded every land mass in the galaxy just from his will, but he came down to earth and spent time creating us. Every cell has a job, he created and programmed all of it.

 

My take on the counter to this (life came about on its own) is that how can life be just brought about? Cells literally cannot come from nothing. if you have Abiotic material sitting there, you literally cant make a cell from it. you just cant. So it makes 0 sense how the world was just sitting here chilling and then "all the sudden over time the right amount of elements mixed and created the first prokaryotic cell" then that cell magically survived in perfect conditions, and made more then one day one of those just magically popped into a eukaryotic cell and then that cell magically grew into a fish then that fish magically grew arms and then that armed fish magically evolved into a dinosuar and blah blah some other animal blah blah apes blah blah us. It just doesnt happen, no matter how much time you have.

 

#2.

 

God is always there for you. No matter how much you mess up, no matter what you do he will never abandon you. He brings the good out of every bad situation. For example when I was a kid my dad died. It was terrible. My sister was constantly crying wondering where her dad was, I missed him too, and it just didnt seem like anything good could come from it. But, here I am 10 years later with 2 brothers that I wanted so bad as a kid, and also with a step-dad that I never have hesitated to call Dad. I am so grateful for what happened... not for the loss of my dad's life, but just for how things turned out. Good things always come from bad things if you give them time, and prayer.

 

My take on the counter to this (why do so many bad things happen) is that bad things are purely a work of the devil. Every time someone storms off from God because something bad happened to them, the devil wins that one. The devil constantly lures you in with temptation or pain to try to steer you away from God and the plan he has for you. When bad things happen people tend to blame God saying "how could you let this happen". I understand where they're coming from, because I know what its like to lose someone, but the real way to get through it stronger then before isnt to turn away. The best way to put down the devil and not let him be a dictator over your life is to constantly seek God out, and let him take care of you during the bad times.

 

#3.

 

This is directly towards OP.

You said your mom brought you into Christianity but you dont believe. I can understand that, sometimes it does feel smothering when someone is forcing it on you. I'd recommend:

A: Getting into a youth group that feels down to earth to you. A lot of people think Christianity is very routine and boring, because some churches make it like that! If you can, try to find a group thats not so routine and can get work done with the lord but also has fun together. I was in a youth group with a guy named Brandon as our leader. He kinda forced us to come out about how we felt about stuff, and talk about the word and what we read and after a while it got to where I couldn't wait to go to church on Suinday.

B: Digging into the word. Brandon really taught us how to get into The Bible. Not reading it for memorization, or reading it like you read a novel, actually reading an UNDERSTANDING it. We would read anywhere from 2-8 verses together as a group and dissect it so much just to really understand what it meant. I didn't, but I wish I did write down everything in a journal. So when reading the bible its more about quality then quantity. Read small amounts, and spend a bit of time on them. I haven't read in a while, but I really need to start up again.. it puts me in a lot better of a mood. Genesis 1, Matthew 28, all of Acts are good books imo.

 

I'm not claiming i'm perfect by being a christian, in fact I mess up so much I still can't believe someone gave their life specifically for my sins. 

I know this forum isn't flooded with Christians, but hopefully everyone is okay with me saying what was on my mind about the whole post. I like a lot of people on this forum, 90% of which have very different beliefs then me.

 

EDIT: Sheesh thats a lot of text.. sorry about that.. hopefully you have a few minutes to read.

 

Excuse me for saying this, but you are only saying this because you were raised to. If you were born in a muslim family, I swear you would've been muslim and would've believed in allah.

[Hyperqube]

You can go ahead and believe he is because it says so in scripture, but the concept of omnipotence is not logical.

 

This isn't a matter of scripture. This is a matter of logic

 

Let 'A' be the collection of absolutely everything - the infinite vastitute of everything and it's mother.

Let 'C' be the collection of things God can create

Let 'L' be the collection of things God can lift

 

What you say is

1. Given: C = A and L = A (God is omnipotent)

2. From 1, we know C = A (God can create anything)

3. Presumption: (C = A) ⇒ [ (C ∩ -L) ≠ ∅ ] (God can create anything, so this implies he can create an object he can't lift)

4. From 2 & 3 L ≠ A, ergo 1 is false. (So, God isn't omnipotent)

 

But lets look at that presumption, shall we?

(C = A) ⇒ [ (C ∩ -L) ≠ ∅ ]

↓ (as C in fact A)

true ⇒ [ (C ∩ -L) ≠ ∅ ]

↓ ("true ⇒" can be removed)

[ (C ∩ -L) ≠ ∅ ]

↓ ( as C=A)

[ (A ∩ -L) ≠ ∅ ]

↓(as L is in fact A )

[ (A ∩ -A) ≠ ∅ ]

↓(per definition of '-' & intersection: no element is in X and -X at the same time: or (X ∩ -X) = ∅ )

false

 

The problem isn't that C = A and L = A are incompatible with each other - the problem is that you introduce a presumption that is in contradiction with your givens. (C = A) ⇒ [ (C ∩ -L) ≠ ∅ ] can only be sensable presumption if C ≠ L. But in ignoring  C = L = A , you end up with a logical proces that presume there are things God can't lift, to conclude there are things God can't lift everything.

 

 

You can go ahead and believe circlular logic proves omnipotence is not logical. It doesn't. circlular logic doesn't prove anything.

 

 

 

 

 

Or, if that's still to complex: It becomes even MORE clear when we cut out the middleman and substitute strength for forklifts:

 

Then consider your premise, which is now: "I define "create anything" as "able to create a rock one can't create a forklift for" "

 

That is obviously contradictory.

 

 

3. You need to define 'beyond our understanding' since by definition, you can't actually understand anything beyond our understanding and therein lies the fallacy of your analogy. I can explain to a child how chess works. I can then explain to the child why a chess player made a certain move. The child - assuming he/she has sufficient intelligence - will now, upon clarification, understand the chess move.

Really, is that that you don't get, or don't WANT to get "first graders" vs world  chess champion?

 

Is it  beyond your understanding that 'beyond our understanding' implies they DON'T have that sufficient intelligence. You know ... as in ...BEYOND their understanding.

 

Sheesh. OK. Screw the firstgraders. That's apparently too close in level of understanding. Take ants vs the scientists who created the GPS satilites.

And No - not the hyper intelligent ants. take the 5 most dummest ants in the entire history ants.

 

Consider the uselessness, of one of these ants - in whatever limited language they have - asking to the 4 other ones, why the scientist put a certain device in a certain spot (namely - though that ant wouldn't know this - the switch that alters the internal clock to compensate for special and/or general relativity that the satelite will have to deal with once in orbit)

 

Do you Honestly expect the other ants to be able to give a coherent answer to that?

 

No? Well, then you perhaps will grasp why it is silly to think asking "well, I know you presume God is beyond our understanding, but why would he do X?" somehow makes sense.

 

 

Let's be honest here, if a theist and an atheist had a public debate and the theist at one point resorted to "Well, your objection is invalid because god works in mysterious ways and you can't understand it", everyone in the audience would pretty much accept that as a loss on the theist's part.

 

Err ... no? Atheists consider that a loss on the theist part. Theist consider that a good point. Because, just like "don't know, but can have rational explenation" (which theists consider a loss, while atheists a good point), the argument feeds cognative bias.

 

Oh dear, the guy of the other team points to something I don't know or understand ... but hey, the guy on my team is right: my world view has a safeguard against things I don't understand. So hey, the guy on the other team is wrong: what he's talking about is actually no problem at all.

[Gren]

Hypercube, if you honestly believe that the arguments 'god is omnipotent' and 'god is beyond our comprehension' count for anything in serious intellectual circles, I can't help you.  You will get laughed out of every debate with those arguments.  I'm not going to waste anymore time arguing against them.  You didn't disprove the logical inconsistency of an omnipotent being, you just redefined omnipotent to mean maximally powerful in the context of what we know to be possible in this universe.  

 

As for your analogy, it was incomplete.  You've refined it, but of course that's rather useless, since the argument 'god is beyond comprehension' is simply ad-hoc argumentation and it just doesn't hold up in debate.  Theists do not consider that "god works in mysterious ways" is a good point.  Maybe you do, but any reputable theist philosopher does not.  

[Hyperqube]

You didn't disprove the logical inconsistency of an omnipotent being, you just redefined omnipotent to mean maximally powerful in the context of what we know to be possible in this universe.

 

Nope. Sorry. To quote

 

Let 'A' be the collection of absolutely everything - the infinite vastitute of everything and it's mother.

 

Not

 

Let 'A' be the maximally powerful in the context of what we know to be possible in this universe

[meme chan]

I'm not opinionated and personally see reasons for and against for this topic yet nothing decisive.

I'll just wait it out and see if anything happens once I'm gone maybe it'll end abruptly, (very anti climactic) or maybe I'll be sent to heaven or hell or something.

Some argue that this world is so complex that it would need a creator, alike how a watch is not formed naturally but instead made by a designer and engineer of sorts, others will argue that this complex system is merely just the product of millennia of development, from the simplest of things up to creating the complex beings that we are today.

 

On a different note, I've heard people sort of act as though religion and science can't go side by side for some reason - my question is how is that so? I personally think that you can be religious and still be strongly scientific, after all - Science is just understanding our world; the universe, not a belief system.

Feel free to discuss

[Hyperqube]

On a different note, I've heard people sort of act as though religion and science can't go side by side for some reason - my question is how is that so? I personally think that you can be religious and still be strongly scientific, after all - Science is just understanding our world; the universe, not a belief system.

Feel free to discuss

As it stands there were times religion stood directly opposite to science (ex. Gallileo), and there were times they stood side by side (ex. the huge amount of colledge & universities funded by the catholic church).

As for the ability to be religious & strongly scientific at the same time, Pascal & Newton would probbably agree.

 

 

But IMHO, the God Question alone is already complex enough for one thread.

[Gren]

 

Nope. Sorry. To quote

 

Let 'A' be the collection of absolutely everything - the infinite vastitute of everything and it's mother.

 

Not

 

Let 'A' be the maximally powerful in the context of what we know to be possible in this universe

 

 

Sure.  However, infinite vastitute of everything  could be interpreted to mean everything that's possible in our universe.  And then the same problem arises as with the 'wise beyond our understanding' argument:  by definition, a human cannot experience or know what either of things mean, especially if you extend the meaning of 'omnipotence' to things that are possible beyond what we can experience, ie. the universe.  I continue to maintain that these two arguments aren't very valuable for proving the existence of god, but I'm sure you and others may disagree.  

 

We can go on an argue about this for the next 3 pages.  But the fact is that people who've spent much more time thinking and writing about this than either you or I have (both on the theist and atheist side) have been having this debate for 1000s of years and we still don't have a clearly established winner (of course some theists would argue that we do, as would some atheists).  And does it really matter?  The belief or disbelief in god only becomes harmful once it's mixed with a certain kind of doctrine.  On one hand we have religion that has misused the concept of god to further its own often secular motivations (e.g. absolution letters, god said this, you're doing that, so now you're guilty and must be removed, etc.) and on the other hand you've got terribly oppressive communist regimes who employed atheism as a form of state anti-religion.  Both were harmful.  

[♠Derpeh♤]

Excuse me for saying this, but you are only saying this because you were raised to. If you were born in a muslim family, I swear you would've been muslim and would've believed in allah.

 

Not sure if you know but Judaism (Jews), Islamic (Muslims) and Christians all believe in the same God/Allah.

 

Jews believe them to be the chosen people, muslism focus on the teaching of Muhammad that Jesus was just one of the many prophets and Christians focus on the teachings of Jesus that he was the son of God. This is why practically all the fundamentals/foundations are exactly the same because they all branch from the "same God" but they focus on different parts or have focused on a certain interpretation thousands of years ago which is why they seem so "different" today.

 

Feels like deja vu since I've pointed this out to so many people on the forums in the past especially when some were essentially bashing on their own God. 

[Hyperqube]

Sure.  However, infinite vastitute of everything  could be interpreted to mean everything that's possible in our universe.

Well, if you're gonna argue that everything doesn't mean everything, then sure, it could be interpreted like that. But I didn't.

 

In fact, it has never become relevant, because I do not use the "size" of A - I simply apply non-hypocresy: God can create "anything" and he can lift "anything". Those are the same to collections - which I refer to as A

 

givens:

• C=A, or God can create anything
• L=A, or God can lift anything
• -A = ∅ (since you want it specified, there is nothing outside of 'anything')

Actual logic applied to the givens

• (A ∩ -A) = ∅ (definition of '-' & intersection)
• (C ∩ -A) = ∅ (seeing as C=A, regardless of -A = ∅)
• (C ∩ -L) = ∅ (seeing as L=A, regardless of -A = ∅)

Evaluation of the premise you want to include

• (C = A) ⇒ [ (C ∩ -L) ≠ ∅ ]
• true ⇒ [ (C ∩ -L) ≠ ∅ ]
• true ⇒ false

Ergo, logic 101, this premise can't be include if you want meaningful conclusions.

 

And does it really matter?

ABSOLUTELY ! As an agnost, if there were to have proof that omnipotence is logically impossible, then that would be HUGE !!!!

 

But from logcal point of view, as it stands, you seem to make the most basic of mistakes: forgetting the null set

• C=A --- Given: God can make anything)
• A=(L U -L) --- Logic applied to anything: anything, that is the collection of things God can and can't lift
• -L ≠ ∅ --- (From 2) There is a collection of objects God can't lift, so there are objects God can't lift
• -A = ∅ --- Given: anything is anything
• L ≠ A -- From 3 & 4

step 3 is the mistake: it's not because there's a collection of objects God can't lift, that there are objects God can't lift: the collection can be the empty set.

[Gren]

Well, if you're gonna argue that everything doesn't mean everything, then sure, it could be interpreted like that. But I didn't.

 

In fact, it has never become relevant, because I do not use the "size" of A - I simply apply non-hypocresy: God can create "anything" and he can lift "anything". Those are the same to collections - which I refer to as A

 

givens:

• C=A, or God can create anything
• L=A, or God can lift anything
• -A = ∅ (since you want it specified, there is nothing outside of 'anything')

Actual logic applied to the givens

• (A ∩ -A) = ∅ (definition of '-' & intersection)
• (C ∩ -A) = ∅ (seeing as C=A, regardless of -A = ∅)
• (C ∩ -L) = ∅ (seeing as L=A, regardless of -A = ∅)

Evaluation of the premise you want to include

• (C = A) ⇒ [ (C ∩ -L) ≠ ∅ ]
• true ⇒ [ (C ∩ -L) ≠ ∅ ]
• true ⇒ false

Ergo, logic 101, this premise can't be include if you want meaningful conclusions.

 

ABSOLUTELY ! As an agnost, if there were to have proof that omnipotence is logically impossible, then that would be HUGE !!!!

 

But from logcal point of view, as it stands, you seem to make the most basic of mistakes: forgetting the null set

• C=A --- Given: God can make anything)
• A=(L U -L) --- Logic applied to anything: anything, that is the collection of things God can and can't lift
• -L ≠ ∅ --- (From 2) There is a collection of objects God can't lift, so there are objects God can't lift
• -A = ∅ --- Given: anything is anything
• L ≠ A -- From 3 & 4

step 3 is the mistake: it's not because there's a collection of objects God can't lift, that there are objects God can't lift: the collection can be the empty set.

 

Look Hypercube, I'm not going to lie to you, I've never taken a class in the philosophy of logic.  I'm not familiar with the language you're using to present your arguments.  Maybe they're good, but I can't tell, since I don't know what for example this even means: 

 

(A ∩ -A) = ∅

 

Common sense however tells me that god can't create a stone he cannot lift.  If he were able to, it would mean he's not omnipotent.  Likewise, he can't create a square circle, or make it so 2+2 = 5.  You seem to be well versed in philosophy, so you probably know these arguments.  

 

The only way around that argument I was able to find anywhere, is essentially calling a square circle an illogical concept, and therefore it does not disprove omnipotence, since a square circle cannot exist (like the married bachelor I'm also sure you're very familiar with).  For me, that's not good enough.  Omnipotent means literally being able to do everything (omni = everything).  "Everything" however evidently doesn't involve illogical concepts like round squares or married bachelors and therefore - in my own humble opinion - there can be no such thing in this world as omnipotence.  

 

That's where this argument sits as far as I can tell and I couldn't find anything to suggest that it's been settled for one side or the other.  Atheists define "everything" as absolutely everything including illogical concepts and theists define "everything" as everything that could occur in this universe (so not 1+1 = 3).  

 

[Huchick]

tbh there is no proof to back anything up. like they are all so unrealistic. if jesus and god and all that were real, how come they were only seen hundreds of years ago, why not now?

oh, probs bc now we have videos and if it was real someone would record it. like so much of stories about god just make no sense and just don't have proof. 

 

"OH, WELL THEN HOW WAS EARTH CREATED"

lmao idk, was probably just ALWAYS here. ur asking how a planet was created, but im asking how adam and eve were created. and how god created everything. how did he do that? like there is no proof. 

[Hyperqube]

Look Hypercube, I'm not going to lie to you, I've never taken a class in the philosophy of logic.  I'm not familiar with the language you're using to present your arguments.

... you're not familiar with boolean logic and sets?? I would send a serious discussion to the school you attended.

 

Likewise, he can't create a square circle

...

The only way around that argument I was able to find anywhere, is essentially calling a square circle an illogical concept,

Oh, but it is quite simple:

• God can create anything
• God can lift anything

An object that god can't lift doesn't fall under "anything" (because of Given 2)

So, the fact that God can't make it doesn't contradict line 1.

 

Now, if you define as anything as absolutely anything - as in there is absolutely NOTHING that doesn't fall under anything

 

... then how come you presume there's a rock God can't lift (no matter who made it)?

 

This is not an "illogical concept" - this is a concept that breaks your own definition: you just presumed that their's an object not included into anything (as used in Given 2), while clearly anything should be all incompassing.

 

Atheists define "everything" as absolutely everything including illogical concepts

So ... your argument is: Omnipotence is logically impossible because if you use illogical concenps, logic stops making sense.

 

Problem though, is that logic has an answer for this.

 

(false ⇒ false) & (false ⇒ true)

Which is shorthand for: If you use illogical things, you can not logically prove anything - because you will be able to conclude anything you want

 

 

 

Edit: In fact - the definition you atribute to atheists was been proven to be impossible more then 100 years ago. It's why modern set theory uses aset of axioms, called ZFC.

[Spiritwalker]

Only Gaben exists

Praise Gabe

Before I eat I say thanks to Gabe

When I win a match I says thanks Gabe with a smile on my face

 

I did the same until MyM was out

[-҉҉҉҉҉o҉҉҉҉҉-]

    there is a god after all

[Sorz]

    there is a god after all

 

original and funny joke

[GMSkaldak]

plus, the order seems also a bit off, for example

• plants (day3, 1:12) before sun & stars (day4, 1:16) <heck, the earth (day1, 1:2) would predate the sun>

 

Plants were created before the sun yes, but light was created on the first day (Gen. 1:3-5).

 

Just a little something to point out  .

[Hyperqube]

Plants were created before the sun yes, but light was created on the first day (Gen. 1:3-5).

 

Just a little something to point out  .

 

Oh, don't get me started on creating light before the sun & the stars.

 

Even if one would argue that 'light' was an arcaic term for energy (which indeed predated sun & stars) - one wouldn't be able to link periods of abscence of light (refered to as "night") with the big bang. Not to mention it then would stop being what we refer to as light - And thus once again, getting in the situation God created plants before the thing plants needed to survive.

[=TNW= Maximus™]

I would say yes. Mainly on the basis of Pascal's Wager. 

 

Also, evolution and Christianity CAN co-exist. God could have made evolution happen.

 

Also, this guy summarizes it really well.  

[Shining]

Oh, don't get me started on creating light before the sun & the stars.

 

Even if one would argue that 'light' was an arcaic term for energy (which indeed predated sun & stars) - one wouldn't be able to link periods of abscence of light (refered to as "night") with the big bang. Not to mention it then would stop being what we refer to as light - And thus once again, getting in the situation God created plants before the thing plants needed to survive.

 

I dont think genesis is meant to be taken so literally. I think its a poetic sort of take on God's creation of the universe.