God fails ! Theist answer this !
Offline
How do you know that God is all-knowing? I know, I know - because the Bible says so.
Take this scenario:
God A exists, truly omnipotent and omniscient.
God A decides to create God B.
God A hides from God B right from the start, but leaves God B with the impression that he is the only and true god, and that he is omniscient and omnipotent, but in fact he is not.
How do you know your god is not a God B?
Therefore, noone, including God, can ever be sure to be perfect and omnipotent and -scient, yet your god has claimed to be so, and this is certainly an imperfection (whether or not he is actually the only true god, and also omnipotent and omniscient).
It sucks having TEPOMSU (the explanatory power of making stuff up) turned against you, doesn't it?
Warning I’m not a native English speaker.
http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download
- Login to post comments
Offline Q: How do you account for the problem of complete knowledge being paradoxical?
I thought that question was the answer. I can't account for the paradox. I thought just knowing it would have to be paradoxical was enough.
In big boy school, we learn that things which cause paradoxes must be false. There's this thing called the "Law of Non-Contradiction" which follows from the axiom (Law) of identity, and simply MUST be true, or any knowledge -- any at all -- would be completely and utterly impossible. The thing is, Descartes was right. Though he didn't reach the right conclusions in the end, he observed that asking the question of existence necessitates existence. Therefore, we know with 100% certainty that we exist. By extension, we know that we have knowledge, for we know that we have asked the question and thus verified with certainty our own existence.
This is actually very simple. You're correct. You cannot account for the paradox because it is impossible to account for it. It is a paradox, and therefore, there must be a false premise in your argument. God is the false premise. Since the very definition of god leads to a paradox, god cannot exist as you have described him. Either god does not exist at all, or it is not all knowing.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline I just mean what we call thinking is in no way the same for God. Its so different, that to even call it thinking is probably not accurate.
There's also this thing called the Law of Identity. I mentioned it before. One of the things that must be true of anything that exists is that it must exist as something. Something, by definition, is finite, for limits are inherent in descriptions. So, you are left with another paradox.
Let me explain further. In any description, we must have a universe of discourse. Simply put, a universe of discourse is everything that can possibly apply to the thing which we are describing. If I describe a solid object, the universe of discourse includes everything matter, and by extension, everything energy, since matter and energy are inextricably linked.
Trying to describe something without a universe of discourse is incoherent, for you have left literally nothing for it to be, and it must not exist. When you say that "thinking" for god is not thinking for humans, you have left us no universe of discourse, for the only description of thinking that we have is the one that includes the way humans think. That would be namely the physical processes of brains creating the emergent property of thought.
By telling us what god's thinking is not, you have given us no information as to what it is. Therefore, your statement is empty. You are literally speaking of nothing.
You need to read these essays before you keep trying to defend your position. You're woefully lacking in the basics of logic.
"The Omnis" - The bible assertions of the christian god's omnipotence, omniscience
What are Epistemic Rights? A Basic Primer in Critical Thinking
A Materialist Account for Abstractions - or - How Theists Misplace the Universe.
'Supernatural' (and 'immaterial') are broken concepts
Part 7: The Structure of Reasoning
Part 8: Language problems and Logical Fallacies
Once you've read all of this, you might be ready to talk intelligently about this. Right now, you're just displaying a gross lack of any understanding of logic and philosophy.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline Thanks Hambydammit, I was going to bring up Law Of Identity but was not sure if I should begin too deeply since I am relatively new to the forums. 
- Login to post comments
Offline Obviously I think God is omniscient.
But as far as explaining that further, it is impossible.
I think its an anthropomorphism I subscribe to God, who doesnt think because that would involve change. I just dont know where to go from there since I cant really use the statement "what if God didnt know X". By definition, its a meaningless statement.
Why? What if God didn't whether you would believe in him or not? Is that so odd?
What if God didn't know what would happen in possible alternative universes?
I think we could think of a host of questions. (Of course, my problem is with the term "god" which you have said means "something else"
So, "What if Something else didn't know the fate of antimatter..." Well, you can see why I consider "god" a meaningless term.. But you seem to say it MEANS something (something else, in fact!)
Also, what problem do you have with God not knowing a few things? Is it really a problem? Does it suddenly make god lesser and less of worship in your mind?
I'll tell you one thing god doesn't know: The experience of being an atheist.
(I bet many Theists here will say it does: that god can actually believe it doesn't exist. This is why Theism has the potential to rot the brain"
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
- Login to post comments
Offline Thanks Hambydammit, I was going to bring up Law Of Identity but was not sure if I should begin too deeply since I am relatively new to the forums.
Don't be scared... we all like the law of identity
Jump in headfirst anytime
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline
God just wants to drink the sweet milk of our tears.
- Login to post comments
Offline I can't believe I'm going to answer the OP. This is an incredibly STOOPID hypothetical question. Yes, that's "stupid" with two "O"'s. That's beyond stupid. BEYOND STUPID I SAY!
Here's my answer:
God A didn't create us, God B did. We therefore owe loyalty to God B, not to God A. So there.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei
- Login to post comments
Offline There's also this thing called the Law of Identity. I mentioned it before. One of the things that must be true of anything that exists is that it must exist as something. Something, by definition, is finite, for limits are inherent in descriptions. So, you are left with another paradox.
I read all those links. That guy todangst is pretty smart. I concede that my statements about God are meaningless in a sense. I think I already said that before. I not only believe in the negative theology. I think it has to be that way. God by definition is outside the universe, hence outside the universe of discourse, since there is nothing else to compare him to. (Even if I make my universe of discourse the physical universe+God, I dont think that helps)
I believe for something to exist, if it is a type of being, it must exist as something.
If something exists as pure being, it is not a type of being. It is just "being" and it not only might not exist as something. It must not exist as some-thing. If it did, it would be a type of being and not pure being.
Yes, I have just said God isnt anything...any-thing.....it is what you call negative theology. Its incoherent in the sense that there are no other things to compare God to. But there must be a difference in the two incoherencies because there should be a difference between no-thing and that which all things are a type of. (If not, At least we can say the universe came from no-thing and all agree!) And although in no way did I specify what God is like, I did tell you "something" about God by telling you what he is not. So I personally wouldnt say it was totally incoherent.
Now, in practice, I think we are in a closed box. God is outside the box but can affect whats going on inside the box. So some want to think of God as accessing other dimensions that we cant. Some just call it supernatural. I dont have high hopes that the supernatural will one day be called the natural and be able to test it and "see" it. In practice my universe of discourse are the effects that God produces in people, the testimonies, the experiences.
So I think talking about the "otherness" God is kind of a dead end. I dont know what else I can say about it that isnt "incoherent". We can talk about his attributes - omnicience, omnipotence, etc...But cannot really talk much about what he "is". But as for the original question, it just makes no sense to say God A doesnt know about God B. Gods attributes otherness, oneness, immutability, omniscience, omnipotence all follow from being pure being. Its almost axiomatic. Thats what God has to be if he exists. I understand that most of you would still say that pure being does not exist and that the statement "God exists outside the physical universe" is incoherent. Thats fine. I get it.
- Login to post comments
Offline I can't believe I'm going to answer the OP. This is an incredibly STOOPID hypothetical question. Yes, that's "stupid" with two "O"'s. That's beyond stupid. BEYOND STUPID I SAY!
Here's my answer:
God A didn't create us, God B did. We therefore owe loyalty to God B, not to God A. So there.
Oh, wow! So you must have some brilliant evidence for us, then, that there was a God who made us and we owe our loyalty to?
Please show us!
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
- Login to post comments
Offline
How do you know that God is all-knowing? I know, I know - because the Bible says so.
Take this scenario:
God A exists, truly omnipotent and omniscient.
God A decides to create God B.
God A hides from God B right from the start, but leaves God B with the impression that he is the only and true god, and that he is omniscient and omnipotent, but in fact he is not.
How do you know your god is not a God B?
Therefore, noone, including God, can ever be sure to be perfect and omnipotent and -scient, yet your god has claimed to be so, and this is certainly an imperfection (whether or not he is actually the only true god, and also omnipotent and omniscient).
It sucks having TEPOMSU (the explanatory power of making stuff up) turned against you, doesn't it?
Let's examine your argument, and see if a Christian can answer it.
The argument you're making goes something like this: God B acts as a Cartesian deceiver for God A, and God A creates us with the impression that he is the only God. Cue the Fall, the Garden of Eden, the Flood, and a few other events, and we have exactly the situation we're in today. How could a God really be omniscient, if it is impossible for him to know for sure that this isn't the way it happened?
Can a Christian answer this argument? I think so, and in fact, I think it falls apart without any real help from me. Your premise: "God A exists, truly omnipotent and omniscient." Since you are trying to prove that true omniscience is impossible, your conclusion contradicts this premise, and your argument fails.
Cheers.
Presuppositionalist.
Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???
A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.
- Login to post comments
Offline I think my post got cut off at bottom, or at least it looks that way on my computer. As I was saying:
Can a Christian answer this argument? I think so, and in fact, I think it falls apart without any real help from me. Your premise: "God A exists, truly omnipotent and omniscient." If true omniscience is impossible, then your conclusion contradicts this premise, and your argument fails.
Does this argument, assuming it succeeds, have any implications for your worldview? I think so. Your premise is (implicitly) that if a statement cannot be rendered immune from Cartesian doubt, it cannot be considered knowledge, and its opposite must be taken seriously. For brevity, call this the "doubt premise". Now, if the doubt premise is true, then you do not know that God does not exist, and must seriously consider the possibility that he does. If the doubt premise is false, then I do not have to take seriously the possibility that a God B exists, and I can ignore your argument.
Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???
A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.
- Login to post comments
Offline I can't believe I'm going to answer the OP. This is an incredibly STOOPID hypothetical question. Yes, that's "stupid" with two "O"'s. That's beyond stupid. BEYOND STUPID I SAY!
Here's my answer:
God A didn't create us, God B did. We therefore owe loyalty to God B, not to God A. So there.
YES a answer at last .
1.You admitted that god is not all knowing are you a standard theist ?
2. You admitted that your god is finite.
3. God B knowledge is wrong therefore he can be wrong in other areas.
4. What is going to happen if God A decides to pull the plug from god B ? Or god B gets destroyed and he cant protect you from the only true powerful god A ?
5. How can god B and you know that afterlife is real and not a deception of god A ? How can you prove that god B isn’t hallucinating ? After all you admitted that your god is wrong in one area. Heaven and hell don’t exist humans end in the grave and god B will end sometime in the future disprove this.
BTW Your arrogant ton interested me , do you realize you made a logical fallacy that I think is a variant of appeal to authority in your scenario its appeal to creator.
You admitted for your god to be wrong and you still are going to follow him lets make a funny scenario :
Creator = you obey without question
Stalin creates from scrap life (genetic engineering , nanobot assembly , robotics you name it).
Stalin = creator for new life
Stalin = wrong decisions and not all knowing.
You in your mentality think Stalin is all knowing and follow him since he is your creator. Do you see your problem ? You admitted to be able to follow Stalin (I love the word “Stalin” if you replace the word “god” with the word “Stalin” and show theists their own arguments with this change they suddenly start being rational ).
Can a Christian answer this argument? I think so, and in fact, I think it falls apart without any real help from me. Your premise: "God A exists, truly omnipotent and omniscient." Since you are trying to prove that true omniscience is impossible, your conclusion contradicts this premise, and your argument fails.
I think you never heard of “Reductio ad absurdum” did you ? I have taken this scenario and shown it flows are you admitting that the concept of omission is impossible ? And god is wrong ?
Warning I’m not a native English speaker.
http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download
- Login to post comments
Offline "The argument you're making goes something like this: God B acts as a Cartesian deceiver for God A, and God A creates us with the impression that he is the only God. Cue the Fall, the Garden of Eden, the Flood, and a few other events, and we have exactly the situation we're in today."
Presup, I disagree that the OP was making an argument that god B acts as a Cartesian deceiver, which would primarily denote evil intent and deception. I could write volumes here but would prefer to suggest the book entitled "On Modern Origins: Essays in Early Modern Philosophy" which covers Rene Descartes and his Evil Thinker/Genius hypothesis from A to Z. It is a must-read covering this topic.
Based purely on the OP suggestion, god B is unaware of God A and god A didn't necessarily create B to be a deceiver. I must've missed any other implication. But sometimes I read too quickly....
Further, are you assuming that the OP meant/suggested that we humans were created by God A? Or that God A places humans under the impression that B is the only god ?
"Now, if the doubt premise is true, then you do not know that God does not exist, and must seriously consider the possibility that he does."
Earlier in your post you asked if a Christian could answer the argument and then added, "I think so, and in fact, I think it falls apart without any real help from me." Since you made this statement, I will then assume that you are a Christian and therefore must conclude that when you use the term "god" in the portion underlined above that what you really mean is the "Christian God." Am I correct in this assumption?
Thanks in advance for your clarifications.
- Login to post comments
Offline "God A exists, truly omnipotent and omniscient." If true omniscience is impossible, then your conclusion contradicts this premise, and your argument fails.
I see your point, but it is still a good question. Even if god A is not truly omnipotent and omniscient, it just means we need to modify the question a bit (add in "as far as he knows" or something). It doesn't mean that the whole thing is invalid and you can just ignore it (although ignoring things you don't like is the religious way).
I like how the theists like to make up definitions as they go along to help with there argument. It's always "by definition, god is outside the universe" or outside time or whatever. I guess if something is imaginary you can define it however you like.
Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.
Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51
- Login to post comments
Offline Does this argument, assuming it succeeds, have any implications for your worldview? I think so. Your premise is (implicitly) that if a statement cannot be rendered immune from Cartesian doubt, it cannot be considered knowledge, and its opposite must be taken seriously. For brevity, call this the "doubt premise". Now, if the doubt premise is true, then you do not know that God does not exist, and must seriously consider the possibility that he does. If the doubt premise is false, then I do not have to take seriously the possibility that a God B exists, and I can ignore your argument.
Which leaves you with atheism: A lack of active belief in the existence of any one or more deities. If I do not know that God does not exist, but do not know he does exist, then I have no belief in God. I also have no active disbelief in God, but disbelief is not necessary for atheism.
You may say 'what you're describing is Agnosticism, not Atheism', however, this is not actually correct. As has been stated in other places around this site and others, gnostic/agnostic and theist/atheist are not on a single axis, but rather form two different axes, which can be described thusly:
G=+1, T=+1: Gnostic Theist: Actively believes there is at least one deity, believes they have specific knowledge of the identity/identities and/or nature(s) of the deity/deities.
G=+1, T=-1: Gnostic Atheist: Does not actively believe in any deity, actively disbelieves in all of them (ie: believes specific knowledge that all are false).
G=-1, T=+1: Agnostic Theist: Actively believes there is one or more deities or 'higher beings', but does not believe they possess specific knowledge of the nature(s) and/or identity/identities of said 'higher being(s)'.
G=-1, T=-1: Agnostic Atheist: Does not actively believe in the existence of any deity, does not actively believe in the non-existence of any deity. Claims no specific knowledge one way or the other.
Thus, as you can see, if the "doubt premise" is true, you are left with agnostic atheism as your only logical and rational choice.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
- Login to post comments
Offline The concept of God is therefore "something other than we have an knowledge of". So we have the concept that "there can be no true accurate concept for God...no representation of God."
So we should become like you and worship something we can never understand? If god were omnipotent, he could have created us with minds that could understand. If he created us with minds that can not comprehend him, then it's his fault we can't believe in him right? But he will send us to hell and blame it on us for not believing. You'll believe his explanation, then worship him in heaven for ever and ever, while we live in eternal torture.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
- Login to post comments
Offline to that which is a fair question that I still wrestle with myself. But I will try.
We are not thrown in hell, for nonbelief. As todangst points out, faith is noncontingent. People might believe for the wrong reasons such as pascals argument. But true faith comes from God. If we manufacture our own faith, it is not a true faith, just the appearance of faith. We go to hell because that is where we want to go. That is where we go if we dont want be ruled over God. Actually noone does. We go to hell because we dont want to change. Technically no one wants to change but some want to want to change. So it is a "miracle" that anyone does not go to hell. As far as what heaven and hell will be like depends on what you did on earth. Hell has degrees of punishment. Heaven has degrees of reward. So I believe "eternal torture" to be a way to describe hell that is metaphorical. There is no good or bad at that point. In hell, there is no wishing you "made it" to heaven. People if asked thousands of times again would still not want to serve God. God could ask some again after death and people would still not want to go to heaven. So from our perspective it is a "bad" place. But after the choice is made there is no good or bad choice. It just is.
- Login to post comments
Offline to that which is a fair question that I still wrestle with myself. But I will try.
We are not thrown in hell, for nonbelief. As todangst points out, faith is noncontingent. People might believe for the wrong reasons such as pascals argument. But true faith comes from God. If we manufacture our own faith, it is not a true faith, just the appearance of faith. We go to hell because that is where we want to go. That is where we go if we dont want be ruled over God. Actually noone does. We go to hell because we dont want to change. Technically no one wants to change but some want to want to change. So it is a "miracle" that anyone does not go to hell. As far as what heaven and hell will be like depends on what you did on earth. Hell has degrees of punishment. Heaven has degrees of reward. So I believe "eternal torture" to be a way to describe hell that is metaphorical. There is no good or bad at that point. In hell, there is no wishing you "made it" to heaven. People if asked thousands of times again would still not want to serve God. God could ask some again after death and people would still not want to go to heaven. So from our perspective it is a "bad" place. But after the choice is made there is no good or bad choice. It just is.
And you are presumably one of those who "changed" ? If there were no heaven to look forward to, would you still serve God ?
- Login to post comments
Offline We go to hell because that is where we want to go.
Oh, that makes me feel a lot better, because I don't want to go to hell. It works out ok, because there's no evidence whatsoever that such a place exists, so it makes perfect sense for me not to believe in it.
Now, there are three choices. Either
1) I'm right, and there's no hell, and no need to go through all the religious bullshit, or
2) There is a hell, but I'm not going because I don't want to, and no need to go through the religious bullshit, or
3) There is a hell, and I'm going even though I don't want to.
Which is it?
Or, would you like to change the definition of "want" so that I actually want to go to hell even though I'm certain that I have no desire to, because want means something else when you're talking about wanting to go to hell because if it didn't then your story would be contradictory, but since your story can't be contradictory it isn't so there must be a different definition of want only you can't tell it to me because it's god and god doesn't make sense?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline This one is easy one, you WANT to go to hell because you WANT to actively disbelieve in the one true and only god, sheesh that's easy, you really WANT to go to hell, no matter what you say, because if you really didn't WANT to go to hell you would believe in god and have faith and god would give you that faith, but since god doesn't give you faith, you WANT to go to hell. I think that clears it up don't u?
- Login to post comments
Offline it is easy in a sense....I think the hard part is figuring out what you really want....everyone has a preconception of hell as something automatically they dont want....I think lots of people would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven if those were true options. There is really no definable reason this person chooses God and that one doesnt. God works on everyone. God would like everyone to choose him. God extends grace and mercy to all but a lot of people just dont want it. I dont think you even have to not actively disbelieve God. We all disbelieve God on things. If the right thing is to choose to serve God, and someone wants to do the right thing, then eventually they will choose to serve God. Its really not about pain compliance. IF there is no right and wrong, you dont have to worry about trying to do the right thing.
- Login to post comments
Offline everyone has a preconception of hell as something automatically they dont want....
No, they don't. The concept of hell is only about two to three thousand years old, and was essentially confined to the Fertile Crescent until the rise of Christianity less than two thousand years ago. Until several hundred years ago, the majority of people on earth had never heard of hell.
Among the major religions of the world at this time, two do not have hell.
It's been well documented that children raised in non-Christian homes in non-Christian cultures, with no exposure to any of the monotheist hell religions don't know what hell is. If they (through good luck) manage to become uninformed as adults, they still don't know about hell.
Or... are you going to assert that everybody wants to know about hell, but they just don't know what they want?
I think lots of people would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven if those were true options.
Are you insane? Check me if I'm wrong about this, but hell is where you're tortured forever with hot nastiness, worse than anything you can imagine, right? No, I think ruling there would suck big salty donkey balls.
Or, are you talking about the version of hell where it's just separation from god? I've never had sex with god, so in a biblical sense, we've never been together. Ok... sorry... I'm being flippant. In all seriousness, this is horseshit. Ninety-nine percent of the people who have ever lived on planet earth never even heard of your god. Buddhists have been happily believing in reincarnation for longer than your pansy little god started whipping up on Bedouin tribes in a tiny little corner of the desert. You're telling me that 99% of everybody who's ever lived is cavorting about in hell, separated from some god nobody on earth had even heard of yet?
There is really no definable reason this person chooses God and that one doesnt.
There's one really definable reason. Some people can think critically and others can't.
God works on everyone.
Let's get your prayer motor working, ok? I was a Christian for most of 20 years and God never did a damn thing to or for me. Oh, and if you accuse me of not being a real Christian, I'll have to call you an asshole. I'm telling you I believed. 100%. Not only did I ask Jesus into my heart as my personal lord and savior, I was baptised in three different churches, received the "holy ghost" in another, and went through at least a half a dozen other demoninational war dances to make sure I was saying the right magic words to be saved.
Anyway, if god works on everyone, why don't we do an experiment? I'd love for god to work on me. Why don't you pray that sometime this week (let's say, before the 28th of this month) that God performs a miracle for me. In fact, how about something real simple. I've got a bottle of scotch on my desk. I won't touch it for a week. I'll leave my webcam focused on it all week to document the miracle. If, by the end of the week, it's turned into gin, I'll believe that your god is real. That's pretty easy, right? I'll have documented proof of a miracle. I'll help you start a website, and we'll use science and rationality to prove that god exists. You have my word on it.
God would like everyone to choose him.
One little miracle. Scotch into gin. That's all it will take. Seems like someone who can make a universe could do one simple thing. I'm not going to believe unless there's some evidence. Why's he so short on evidence if he's so super-awesome powerful?
If the right thing is to choose to serve God, and someone wants to do the right thing, then eventually they will choose to serve God.
Ok... here's the really important question. You can ignore the rest of this post if you'll just give me a good answer on this one.
What the fuck does god want from me? Ask anybody I know. I'm an extremely moral person. I am very charitable, I love my neighbors. There are probably churches that haven't done as much for people in need than I have in my life. I could list awesome things about me for a long time. I'm a hell of a guy.
I know... I was a Christian... that's not enough, right? God wants me to worship him. He wants me to go to church and get on board with the program. Depending on which church I go to, he may want me to stop having sex with my girlfriend, or maybe he wants me to lay off the scotch. Maybe he wants me to stop masturbating, or something. I dunno. In any case, it's really important to god that even if I'm the most super-awesome person on the planet, that I kiss his ass.
Why?
It's apparently really fucking important. If I don't sing sorry ass songs on Sunday morning, and pray to god that he won't let me get food poisoning when I eat, he's going to send me to hell. What kind of a prick does he have to be to tell somebody that everything I do in life is meaningless, and the only thing that makes a hill of beans difference is whether I tell him regularly how super awesome he is.
Well, you know what? I didn't ask to be born, and I didn't ask for the chance to kiss his ass. What the fuck kind of gift is it to live life on earth, die, and then be punished eternally for not believing in something that makes no sense at all?
Seriously. Answer that question for me.
Its really not about pain compliance. IF there is no right and wrong, you dont have to worry about trying to do the right thing.
Let's do an experiment here, ok? I've been a Christian. I know Christianity at least as well as you. Probably better. I was an apologist. Now, let's see if you know science as well as me.
Please answer the following questions in a brief paragraph for each:
1) What is the name of the scientific field that studies the interaction of mathematical strategies of reproducing systems?
2) Briefly explain Tit for Tat
3) Briefly explain the primary reason that tit for tat fails as an evolutionary strategy
4) According to the evolutionary theory of moral development, what is the primary purpose of emotion?
Those are really easy questions about what morality is, and why it exists. Can you answer them? If you can't, are you prepared to admit that you have no idea what science says about morality, and that you're just blindly believing what other people have told you?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline Oh yeah... almost forgot...
Not only do I not want to live forever in hell, I don't want to live forever in heaven. That sounds horrible! Not even the heaven part, but the living forever part. I'm not even 40 yet, and I already get tired of this shit sometimes. Don't get me wrong, I like living, but the idea of living for ten trillion trillion years, kissing the ass of a god who sent billions of people to hell? Not my idea of a good time.
So, god's fabulous gift of eternal life is pretty shitty either way. I don't want either one. Tell me again: Why am I kissing his ass for not giving me any evidence of his existence?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline Anyway, if god works on everyone, why don't we do an experiment? I'd love for god to work on me. Why don't you pray that sometime this week (let's say, before the 28th of this month) that God performs a miracle for me. In fact, how about something real simple. I've got a bottle of scotch on my desk. I won't touch it for a week. I'll leave my webcam focused on it all week to document the miracle. If, by the end of the week, it's turned into gin, I'll believe that your god is real. That's pretty easy, right? I'll have documented proof of a miracle. I'll help you start a website, and we'll use science and rationality to prove that god exists. You have my word on it.
I can already see the No True Scotsman coming, Hamby:
'...Well, God will only do it if you TRULY wanted/needed it...'
Queue mental gymnastics ad nauseum (nevermind the long-term ramifications of you not wanting to burn forever in a Lake of Fire, since we all know God/salvation doesn't 'work that way'. 
)
Let me suggest a parallel experiment, then:
There are two things that are absent in my life right now, believer; one of these things I very genuinely and passionately long for, the other is something I very sincerely and desperately need by the beginning of next month (if I don't have it, there will be drastic consequences). While I won't share what either of these things are in public here, your God (being all-knowing and all that) already knows what they are.
Pray to him that I get both of the things I want/need. I insist. Tell him I require them by the end of the week.
My offer is the same as Hambys. If these two things should magically appear for me by the end of the week, in a way not involving my direct involvement, you'll make a believer out of me. I'll walk hand-in-hand with you and Jesus, and we'll go about magically ridding the world of it's every problem with magical words and our omniscient sugar-daddy.
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
- Login to post comments
Offline The concept of God is therefore "something other than we have an knowledge of". So we have the concept that "there can be no true accurate concept for God...no representation of God."
1. This is an amazingly miniscule god. We are witnessing God's disappearing act in front of our eyes.
2. How do you know this about god? Aren't you claiming to have knowledge of god, at least this little bit?
Invisible Pink Unicorn: that which can never be named.
Flying Spaghetti Monster: the totally unknown.
See the pattern?
3. Has there been ONE thing in, say, the last 2000 years that we have learned about a god? Just ONE new thing. And if so, how do we test the accuracy - especially if your definition is true about your god?
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
- Login to post comments
Offline In what we call thinking is in no way the same for God. Its so different, that to even call it thinking is probably not accurate.
Wow, this would be a perfect segue into Noncognitivism. The above sentence really highlights some of its issues.
What I would like to know if how can JAB know this about god when he has just established that we can't know anything about God?
Also, if he says "think" doesn't mean "think" they way we use it - then what is it? Define your terms!
Are there other terms we should be wary about? "Life" "Love" "Death" etc... You know, all those silly little things that make up our life on this planet.
Because now, how can anyone say that "god is love" when we don't know what god is, what kind of love god possesses, and whether this "unknowable" entity (god) can even express love.
More and more, this theism thing becomes absurd. It has no been reduced to "God created Good", which translated in "godspeak" means to us:
"Mrakne oknert Gluberfart" since, as it is clear now, that God is unknowable - so no reason to define what it is, he "created" something, but not in the way we understand creation, and "good" is something like our "good" but possibly completely different.....
Ouch... Thank Glubertfart I'm not a Theist!
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
- Login to post comments
Offline You are wrong--now let me tell you why.
1.You admitted that god is not all knowing are you a standard theist ?
No, I admitted that hypothetical God B was. We're not talking about Yahweh as far as I know, just your hypothetical framework.
2. You admitted that your god is finite.
Wrong again, for the same reason as above.
3. God B knowledge is wrong therefore he can be wrong in other areas.
Sure.
4. What is going to happen if God A decides to pull the plug from god B ? Or god B gets destroyed and he cant protect you from the only true powerful god A ?
You assume a lot. First, you assume that God A would pull the plug on God B, which is unlikely since it seems that A prefers us to worship B. If A wanted direct worship, he would have created us himself and cut out the middleman.
Second, you assume that we need protection from God A. Why is that necessary? If he set up this weird system where we only know and worship God B, that is the system he wants. He is truly omniscient, so he knows we can't know him unless he reveals himself. He chooses not to, so it is his will that we worship God B. We are doing his will by worshiping God B. I can't imagine God A smiting us for doing his will, however strange it might seem to us.
5. How can god B and you know that afterlife is real and not a deception of god A ? How can you prove that god B isn’t hallucinating ? After all you admitted that your god is wrong in one area. Heaven and hell don’t exist humans end in the grave and god B will end sometime in the future disprove this.
As stated above, God A desires us to worship by proxy of God B, or else he wouldn't have set up the system that he did. Why would he punish those who did his will with annihilation? Perhaps in the afterlife he reveals his true nature to those who followed God B. It's your turn to disprove that.
BTW Your arrogant ton interested me , do you realize you made a logical fallacy that I think is a variant of appeal to authority in your scenario its appeal to creator.
You admitted for your god to be wrong and you still are going to follow him lets make a funny scenario :Creator = you obey without question
Stalin creates from scrap life (genetic engineering , nanobot assembly , robotics you name it).
Stalin = creator for new life
Stalin = wrong decisions and not all knowing.
You in your mentality think Stalin is all knowing and follow him since he is your creator. Do you see your problem ? You admitted to be able to follow Stalin (I love the word “Stalin” if you replace the word “god” with the word “Stalin” and show theists their own arguments with this change they suddenly start being rational ).
That assumes that Stalin created me, which he didn't. But if he did, then I would owe fealty to him. Isn't it fortunate that he didn't create me?
Can a Christian answer this argument? I think so, and in fact, I think it falls apart without any real help from me. Your premise: "God A exists, truly omnipotent and omniscient." Since you are trying to prove that true omniscience is impossible, your conclusion contradicts this premise, and your argument fails.
I think you never heard of “Reductio ad absurdum” did you ? I have taken this scenario and shown it flows are you admitting that the concept of omission is impossible ? And god is wrong ?
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei
- Login to post comments
Or... while you're answering that scenario, see how you can do with this one...
Supposing God exists, and believes himself to be all knowing, but is actually wrong, how would he know? If there was a piece of information that he didn't know, he wouldn't know that he didn't know it, by default! In fact, there would be no way for a self referencing entity to prove to himself that he was all-knowing, for no matter how strongly he believed that there was nothing he didn't know, the existence of something he didn't know would, by definition, be unknown to him. Since we can postulate that such a piece of knowledge can exist, so could god. If god was honest, the best he could do would be to tell us that as far as he knows, he knows everything.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Ha ha! Awesome.
God is too arogant to admit he may not know everything.
God doesnt believe or know... that would involve change. We can have the concept of pure being which is unchanging by definition. Since it is unchanging it has always existed. Whatever that thing is that has always existed, we call God. Also, by the same definition, God does not need anyone to maintain his existence.
If there were two things (God A and B) that have always existed, I think we can show they are really the same thing. I'm not sure I can make a "proof" of that last statement but if you dont agree in the premise that something has always existed theres no point in arguing more. There is no proof that something has always existed.
The concept of God is therefore "something other than we have an knowledge of". So we have the concept that "there can be no true accurate concept for God...no representation of God."
So if something has always existed, we can call it one thing...God...or whatever you want. There is no name you can put on it because there is no concept to map God to. Thats why "I am who I am" is the best "name" for God that we could come up with.
Being incoherent can be fun. Unfortunately, I am terrible at playing that game so I can't join you. Did you want to, perhaps, try to make some kind of sense so that someone can actually respond what you've written?
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Red herring the question isn’t what is god ! The question is
How do you know that god(the Christian one or yours ) knows the truth ? If the Christian god is a robot created and not infinite via a infinite being how can you trust what he tells you if he himself or you cant be certain of his knowledge ?
However your definition of a immutable being is false ! Stalin in his dictatorship where immutable in his dogma according to your logic
Immutability = god
Stalin = immutable
Stalin = god
Congratulation you are going to worship a immutable dictator (evil). Please address the original questions about god being certain of his knowledge.
To make it more difficult for you to evade , answer this
The universe existed , after some time a powerful being assembled he named himself god.
God is arrogant and immutable , god stared to interfere with humans and demanded to be worshiped.
Question how do you know that god isn’t a limited dictator that demands power and doesn’t know or thinks he knows (and is wrong) about certain things.
Warning I’m not a native English speaker.
http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download
Then god could have never created the universe, since that is a change, he has to change to make something happen, since in this type of logic, nothing happens without change, if that is the Case, god cannot be unchanging. Your whole premises falls apart
you have stated..."God doesnt believe or know... that would involve change. We can have the concept of pure being which is unchanging by definition."
I submit to you that only the acquisition of belief or knowledge would represent a "change" in any being, whether a proposed god or a simpler life form.
A being that had no need to acquire any knowledge (already possessing all possible knowledge and in no need of ever learning anything) would NOT involve any change... either externally or internally.
So if a god does exist then it is most certain that he would "know". For you to state that, "knowing" is something god doesn't do, or even implicating that he somehow doesn't have to do it, is nonsensical.
This is bizarre if he is implying that god doesn’t know , is god than a idiot ? I mean we know cretin things if you don’t know then you need to be in a constant state of oblivion.
I asserted this for a typo , or are you " JustAnotherBeliever "
really telling us god doesn’t know anything O.O ?
I disagree a god doesn’t need to be omni-max ! Only a omnimax cant learn or try and it goes like this a OM doesn’t test , wont or need it knows , it is and it works.
A god doesn’t need to be a omnimax.
Warning I’m not a native English speaker.
http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download
I gotta admit. This is one of the more creative attempts I've seen.
Q: How do you account for the problem of complete knowledge being paradoxical?
A: God doesn't know anything.
Wow.
So, for those of you keeping score at home:
God is omniscient, which means he knows everything, except that he doesn't know anything, because "know" doesn't mean "know" for god. It's like "know" because he knows stuff, except that it's not like "know" because if it was then there would be a paradox but there isn't a paradox because there can't be because if there was then there wouldn't be god and since there is god then there isn't a paradox because I know there is because I'm right. So, god doesn't know anything.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Q: How do you account for the problem of complete knowledge being paradoxical?
I thought that question was the answer. I can't account for the paradox. I thought just knowing it would have to be paradoxical was enough.
God is omniscient, which means he knows everything, except that he doesn't know anything, because "know" doesn't mean "know" for god. It's like "know" because he knows stuff, except that it's not like "know" because if it was then there would be a paradox...
I agree with this part. When I say God doesnt know anything...I guess what I mean is God doesnt think. So to say God can or cannot know X is starting down a slippery slope. Obviously I think God is omniscient. But as far as explaining that further, it is impossible. I think its an anthropomorphism I subscribe to God, who doesnt think because that would involve change. I just dont know where to go from there since I cant really use the statement "what if God didnt know X". By definition, its a meaningless statement.
"When I say God doesnt know anything...I guess what I mean is God doesnt think. So to say God can or cannot know X is starting down a slippery slope...."
With the above statement in mind I must ask you to further clarify your position as to meaning with these two questions....
Do you mean your god doesn't think or that he doesn't have to think ?
Further, even if he didn't need to think, couldn't he do so anyway ?
If you answer that he could think if he wanted to, then how can you say definitively (that you know) that he doesn't think.
One last thing, believer, and I mean no offense by this... but saying "I guess" as you did is akin to taking an estimate. It doesn't constitute personal knowledge on your part.
I just mean what we call thinking is in no way the same for God. Its so different, that to even call it thinking is probably not accurate.
Now that goes into the paradox of how can God appear to perform actions since technically he doesnt change. But I dont know any other way to communicate it other than the anthropomorphic way that he does perform actions.
Yes. What I could call "personal knowledge" you would say cannot be knowledge as it is defined by science. But we both can agree that I have a high degree of belief. I tend to think that there is no such thing as knowledge. We can all communicate using degrees of belief as a practical matter. And we are free to update our degrees of belief at any time given new "evidence" which for me can include personal testimony. I'm not using evidence to mean only scientific/physical evidence. I saw this on another atheist post and I like it--in science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."
What we as humans call "thinking" is in no way the same for your god?
How can you know this beyond any reasonable doubt and do you have any evidence for your knowledge. Why would it be "so different" and do you have evidence for such?
Believer, your statements are often phrased as if you know certain things rather than as you are offering your faith-based (believer) opine.
Again, you are making statements as though you know your god doesn't change rather than making the statement as your own personal belief. What I am saying is that not only would your "knowledge" about god NOT meet the scientific definition of knowledge but that it also wouldn't meet the definition of knowledge virtually anywhere else on earth with perhaps the exceptions of churches, worship centers and the like, where fictional accounts (those that cannot be proven within reason) easily translate into "knowledge".
No thanks, no conversion for me. I'll pass.
I agree that you have a high degree of belief.