Some atheist arguments which I do not care for.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Doing no research for themselves? They don't deserve to vote then.LJS9502_basic

Don't you take my moment away from me or I'll mess your ass up. :x

For the record, you may be surprised as to who those people were. . . ;)

Now, about your ass. . .

I've read a fair few number of arguments from the atheists of OT, some excellent, others not so much. Here are a couple of common arguments for atheism which I don't think are so excellent.

Can God make a rock that he cannot lift?

Godly_Warrior

If we say "yes", then what's the problem?

None of the things you mentioned are logically impossible. Logical impossibility generally arises as the result of linguistic paradoxes like the four sided triangle. The definition of a triangle is a three sided two dimensional shape with a 180 degree sum of its internal angles. It is logically impossible, given that definition, to have a triangle with four sides.

The same kind of thing applies with the non existent greatest being imaginable scenario that comes from the ontological argument.

Godly_Warrior

Then kindly describe how something can logically exist with no beginning, or how something tangible comes from nothing in this universe. If you can't, it's because the concepts are illogical. Thus, if God created something from nothing, He acted illogically. And if God has an infinite past, His very existence is illogical. Now, if God CAN defy logic in creating something from nothing or existing infinitely in a finite system because He is outside of the universe, and thus outside of logic, then why can He not also defy logic in creating a rock so heavy that He can not lift it? You say this is because of a linguistic paradox... but the linguistic paradox that you can make something tangible from nothing is no more logical than the concept that an all-powerful being can create a rock so heavy it can not be lifted.

So again, this is selectively choosing which illogical acts God can complete. He can create something tangible from nothing... He can exist without a beginning... but He can't create a rock so heavy He can't lift it. It just doesn't add up.

[QUOTE="Godly_Warrior"]

I've read a fair few number of arguments from the atheists of OT, some excellent, others not so much. Here are a couple of common arguments for atheism which I don't think are so excellent.

Can God make a rock that he cannot lift?

MFaraz_Hayat

If we say "yes", then what's the problem?

If God can't lift the rock, He's not all-powerful. And if He can't create a rock so heavy it can't be lifted, He's not all-powerful. In both instances, there is a limit on God's power. That's the problem - if you argue that God is all-powerful.

[QUOTE="Godly_Warrior"]

None of the things you mentioned are logically impossible. Logical impossibility generally arises as the result of linguistic paradoxes like the four sided triangle. The definition of a triangle is a three sided two dimensional shape with a 180 degree sum of its internal angles. It is logically impossible, given that definition, to have a triangle with four sides.

The same kind of thing applies with the non existent greatest being imaginable scenario that comes from the ontological argument.

pianist

Then kindly describe how something can logically exist with no beginning, or how something tangible comes from nothing in this universe. If you can't, it's because the concepts are illogical. Thus, if God created something from nothing, He acted illogically. And if God has an infinite past, His very existence is illogical. Now, if God CAN defy logic in creating something from nothing or existing infinitely in a finite system because He is outside of the universe, and thus outside of logic, then why can He not also defy logic in creating a rock so heavy that He can not lift it? You say this is because of a linguistic paradox... but the linguistic paradox that you can make something tangible from nothing is no more logical than the concept that an all-powerful being can create a rock so heavy it can not be lifted.

So again, this is selectively choosing which illogical acts God can complete. He can create something tangible from nothing... He can exist without a beginning... but He can't create a rock so heavy He can't lift it. It just doesn't add up.

But if I say that God can create such rock, then how does this limit his power? He has not created it, he can but has not. Until and unless the rock is created (by God's action himself), no problem exists.........

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Doing no research for themselves? They don't deserve to vote then.Theokhoth

Don't you take my moment away from me or I'll mess your ass up. :x

For the record, you may be surprised as to who those people were. . . ;)

Now, about your ass. . .

Skipping the ass part, but really after 17 months of this if you don't have a clear idea who you want to vote for, you might as well skip it.

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="Godly_Warrior"]

I've read a fair few number of arguments from the atheists of OT, some excellent, others not so much. Here are a couple of common arguments for atheism which I don't think are so excellent.

Can God make a rock that he cannot lift?

pianist

If we say "yes", then what's the problem?

If God can't lift the rock, He's not all-powerful. And if He can't create a rock so heavy it can't be lifted, He's not all-powerful. In both instances, there is a limit on God's power. That's the problem - if you argue that God is all-powerful.

Check my answer above...

But if I say that God can create such rock, then how does this limit his power? He has not created it, he can but has not. Until and unless the rock is created (by God's action himself), no problem exists.........

MFaraz_Hayat

The problem here is that it is not logically possible for an all-powerful being to create a rock so heavy it can't be lifted, because if it can't be lifted, the being is not all-powerful, and if it can't be created, the being is not all-powerful. It's not like saying a young bird can't fly simply because it hasn't taken its first flight. You would have to explain how it is logically possible for a being of infinite power to create something which exceeds its power.

Infinity itself is an illogical concept, and so anything that deals with infinity will run into logical problems at some point or another. We can understand the notion of infinity, but can we imagine it? No. Just as we can't imagine the creation of a rock so heavy it can't be lifted by a being of infinite power, the creation of something tangible from nothing, or the existence of something with no beginning. Try to imagine these things. Rationalize how it would work. It can't be done, because it would demand that two opposites simultaneously exist - infinite and finite, nothing and something.

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="Godly_Warrior"]

I've read a fair few number of arguments from the atheists of OT, some excellent, others not so much. Here are a couple of common arguments for atheism which I don't think are so excellent.

Can God make a rock that he cannot lift?

pianist

If we say "yes", then what's the problem?

If God can't lift the rock, He's not all-powerful. And if He can't create a rock so heavy it can't be lifted, He's not all-powerful. In both instances, there is a limit on God's power. That's the problem - if you argue that God is all-powerful.

If God is all powerful, then He can make this logical paradox meaningless. So He could make a rock too heavy for Him to lift AND lift it, without breaking any rules of logic, since He's the one who defines logic in the first place.

At least, that's one way of looking at it.

If God is all powerful, then He can make this logical paradox meaningless. So He could make a rock too heavy for Him to lift AND lift it, without breaking any rules of logic, since He's the one who defines logic in the first place.

At least, that's one way of looking at it.

Theokhoth

But He doesn't define logic. No one does. Logic, like math, is simply discovered, not created. No one created 1+1=2. It just is. If I said 1+1 actually equals 3, would 1+1 equal 3? Would it really matter WHO said it? Again, we know this is illogical because we can not imagine how 1+1=3, unless we simply change the definition of the word 3 to mean 2. But even when you do that, you haven't changed anything. You still have two things which equal two things. You don't have 3 things... unless something pops into existence from nothing every time you count two things.

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

But if I say that God can create such rock, then how does this limit his power? He has not created it, he can but has not. Until and unless the rock is created (by God's action himself), no problem exists.........

pianist

The problem here is that it is not logically possible to an all-powerful being to create a rock so heavy it can't be lifted. It's not like saying a young bird can't fly simply because it hasn't taken its first flight. You would have to explain how it is logically possible for a being of infinite power to create something which exceeds its power.

Infinity itself is an illogical concept, and so anything that deals with infinity will run into logical problems at some point or another. We can understand the notion of infinity, but can we imagine it? No. Just as we can't imagine the creation of a rock so heavy it can't be lifted by a being of infinite power, the creation of something tangible from nothing, or the existence of something with no beginning. Try to imagine these things. Rationalize how it would work. It can't be done.

But doesn't the concept of God say that he cannot be fully understood by people???

Why must theists get caught up in these debates of logic?espoac

Last I checked, it required two sides to a debate. . .

Anyway, your definition of "faith" is little more than a pop culture reference. That is not the applied definition of the word "faith" in most religions; "faith" in the religious sense is more synonymous with trust in a person or idea than a position of knowledge or even belief, and trust can and often does stem from prior experience.

There is nothingillogical about this, or even faith in the usual stance; the only illogical kind of faith is blind faith.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

If God is all powerful, then He can make this logical paradox meaningless. So He could make a rock too heavy for Him to lift AND lift it, without breaking any rules of logic, since He's the one who defines logic in the first place.

At least, that's one way of looking at it.

pianist

But He doesn't define logic. No one does. Logic, like math, is simply discovered, not created. No one created 1+1=2. It just is. If I said 1+1 actually equals 3, would 1+1 equal 3? Would it really matter WHO said it? Again, we know this is illogical because we can not imagine how 1+1=3, unless we simply change the definition of the word 3 to mean 2. But even when you do that, you haven't changed anything. You still have two things which equal two things. You don't have 3 things... unless something pops into existence from nothing every time you count two things.

If God is all-powerful by the way as He was seen by Descartes, He can and does define logic and everything else.

God can make 1+1=3 without changing the definition of 3.

God can make a four-cornered triangle without changing the definition of a triangle.

God can lift a rock too heavy for Him to lift.

Because God is omnipotent and has power in every single area of existence, including logic, perception and reality itself.

I don't believe this, of course, but by the definitions you are using, this is how it would be.

[QUOTE="espoac"]Why must theists get caught up in these debates of logic?Theokhoth

Last I checked, it required two sides to a debate. . .

Anyway, your definition of "faith" is little more than a pop culture reference. That is not the applied definition of the word "faith" in most religions; "faith" in the religious sense is more synonymous with trust in a person or idea than a position of knowledge or even belief, and trust can and often does stem from prior experience.

There is nothingillogical about this, or even faith in the usual stance; the only illogical kind of faith is blind faith.

If a theist claims to have personal experiences with God, why take part in debates of logic when logic is completely irrelevant to the process by which the theist arrived at a belief in God?

And strictly speaking, faith in God is always "blind" from the perspective of others. Even if the particular theists claims to have had some personal experience with the deity.

You know, a lot of people think that I am a nerd, because I collect all sorts of fast fod toys from BK and Mcdonalds. I have old school classics such as the transformer food from Mcdonalds, but I also have some recent ones, such as the star wars and Simpsons collections from BK. I even own seven golden homers that I intend to sell someday. What these people don't know is that when I am alone at night sometimes, I rub peanut butter all over my body and stick these toys in my pants. superheromonkey

That was the single most random thing I have ever read.:|

You know, a lot of people think that I am a nerd, because I collect all sorts of fast fod toys from BK and Mcdonalds. I have old school classics such as the transformer food from Mcdonalds, but I also have some recent ones, such as the star wars and Simpsons collections from BK. I even own seven golden homers that I intend to sell someday. What these people don't know is that when I am alone at night sometimes, I rub peanut butter all over my body and stick these toys in my pants. superheromonkey

And what does this has to do with the topic in hand???????????????????????

And to for human knowledge things must be proven before they are accepted to exist.

Theokhoth

Ah, now you move the goalpost. Before, it was "things need to be proven in order to exist."

You know, a lot of people think that I am a nerd, because I collect all sorts of fast fod toys from BK and Mcdonalds. I have old school classics such as the transformer food from Mcdonalds, but I also have some recent ones, such as the star wars and Simpsons collections from BK. I even own seven golden homers that I intend to sell someday. What these people don't know is that when I am alone at night sometimes, I rub peanut butter all over my body and stick these toys in my pants. superheromonkey

WTF are you talking about??

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="espoac"]Why must theists get caught up in these debates of logic?espoac

Last I checked, it required two sides to a debate. . .

Anyway, your definition of "faith" is little more than a pop culture reference. That is not the applied definition of the word "faith" in most religions; "faith" in the religious sense is more synonymous with trust in a person or idea than a position of knowledge or even belief, and trust can and often does stem from prior experience.

There is nothingillogical about this, or even faith in the usual stance; the only illogical kind of faith is blind faith.

If a theist claims to have personal experiences with God, why take part in debates of logic when logic is completely irrelevant to the process by which the theist arrived at a belief in God?

And strictly speaking, faith in God is always "blind" from the perspective of others. Even if the particular theists claims to have had some personal experience with the deity.

Most theistic arguments are born of defense; as in, to oppose the crap said about us and our beliefs. When someone goes "lol your beliefs are stupid!" we go "no, and here's why." Logic irrelevant to the process by which they came to belief in God? How is going "okay, God exists" after a perceived personal experience with God not logical?

The perspective of others has no bearing on the reality of the situation. If people considered belief in gravity to be blind, they would be wrong.

sorry, I thought that this was the weird fetish board...

Seriously though, i feel like a lot of these debates get bogged down on minute details that cause an infinite regression of arguing. Kind of like a spiral of death. atheists have to accept the fact that they can't prove that God does not exist, and Theists the same,.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

And to for human knowledge things must be proven before they are accepted to exist.

ShuLordLiuPei

Ah, now you move the goalpost. Before, it was "things need to be proven in order to exist."

Read the whole topic before posting, please.

[QUOTE="pianist"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

If God is all powerful, then He can make this logical paradox meaningless. So He could make a rock too heavy for Him to lift AND lift it, without breaking any rules of logic, since He's the one who defines logic in the first place.

At least, that's one way of looking at it.

Theokhoth

But He doesn't define logic. No one does. Logic, like math, is simply discovered, not created. No one created 1+1=2. It just is. If I said 1+1 actually equals 3, would 1+1 equal 3? Would it really matter WHO said it? Again, we know this is illogical because we can not imagine how 1+1=3, unless we simply change the definition of the word 3 to mean 2. But even when you do that, you haven't changed anything. You still have two things which equal two things. You don't have 3 things... unless something pops into existence from nothing every time you count two things.

If God is all-powerful by the way as He was seen by Descartes, He can and does define logic and everything else.

God can make 1+1=3 without changing the definition of 3.

God can make a four-cornered triangle without changing the definition of a triangle.

God can lift a rock too heavy for Him to lift.

Because God is omnipotent and has power in every single area of existence, including logic, perception and reality itself.

I don't believe this, of course, but by the definitions you are using, this is how it would be.

Please don't assume all atheists are like that.

And your sig annoys me.

DrSponge

It annoys me too. But your sig DrSponge, now that I like. :) Just discovered Muse about 2 weeks ago. Good stuff.

Anyway TC, to point a flaw with what you're trying to say against the first argument, if god is god and is infinitely powerful, then he would obviously be able to make a rock which is even bigger than an infinitely powerful rock (remember, our human minds cannot comphrehend all of god's power :roll: ), and we would be back at the "well if he can lift it, he's not all-powerful" situation. So you fail. Gooday sir!

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="pianist"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

If God is all powerful, then He can make this logical paradox meaningless. So He could make a rock too heavy for Him to lift AND lift it, without breaking any rules of logic, since He's the one who defines logic in the first place.

At least, that's one way of looking at it.

espoac

But He doesn't define logic. No one does. Logic, like math, is simply discovered, not created. No one created 1+1=2. It just is. If I said 1+1 actually equals 3, would 1+1 equal 3? Would it really matter WHO said it? Again, we know this is illogical because we can not imagine how 1+1=3, unless we simply change the definition of the word 3 to mean 2. But even when you do that, you haven't changed anything. You still have two things which equal two things. You don't have 3 things... unless something pops into existence from nothing every time you count two things.

If God is all-powerful by the way as He was seen by Descartes, He can and does define logic and everything else.

God can make 1+1=3 without changing the definition of 3.

God can make a four-cornered triangle without changing the definition of a triangle.

God can lift a rock too heavy for Him to lift.

Because God is omnipotent and has power in every single area of existence, including logic, perception and reality itself.

I don't believe this, of course, but by the definitions you are using, this is how it would be.

I'm not the one who can change the rules of logic; God is.

In fact, the reason you gave is exactly why I don't take this stance: it puts us in a solipsist world where nothing can be known to exist, and even if it could, nothing about it could be truly known, including God Himself.

[QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

And to for human knowledge things must be proven before they are accepted to exist.

Theokhoth

Ah, now you move the goalpost. Before, it was "things need to be proven in order to exist."

Read the whole topic before posting, please.

I can point out how I disagree with your way of debating. Lingering on one's simple mistakes--especially when what the person meant is clear--is not a good way to argue.ShuLordLiuPei

Firstly: I am not the only person who said something, as his position was ludicrous.

Secondly: He never clarified his position, therefore I am not accountable for mistaking his motives.

Thirdly: He stated once again that the lack of proof for something means it does not exist, later in the topic, so no, what I perceived is exactly what he meant.

Fouthly: He was rude to me and others and kept switching his points around; a very bad debate styIe.

Once again: please read the whole topic before posting.

[QUOTE="superheromonkey"]You know, a lot of people think that I am a nerd, because I collect all sorts of fast fod toys from BK and Mcdonalds. I have old school classics such as the transformer food from Mcdonalds, but I also have some recent ones, such as the star wars and Simpsons collections from BK. I even own seven golden homers that I intend to sell someday. What these people don't know is that when I am alone at night sometimes, I rub peanut butter all over my body and stick these toys in my pants. Theokhoth

That was the single most random thing I have ever read.:|

Wow, that's interjecting something totally random, yet amusing, into a serious debate which is going nowhere. Theo & The Pianist, I won't post anything else in here, but you two should make for some great reading.

I'm an atheist myself, but I find that funny... now, can we get all this Atheist vs. "real" christians off of Gamespot? please?

I'm an atheist myself, but I find that funny... now, can we get all this Atheist vs. "real" christians off of Gamespot? please?

Deihjan

What do you mean by " 'real' christians"?

I'm an atheist myself, but I find that funny... now, can we get all this Atheist vs. "real" christians off of Gamespot? please?

Deihjan

I like this one more:

I'm an atheist myself, but I find that funny... now, can we get all this Atheist vs. "real" christians off of Gamespot? please?

Deihjan

I like this one more:

Forerunner-117

:lol: Yep, that's what I believe.

[QUOTE="espoac"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="espoac"]Why must theists get caught up in these debates of logic?Theokhoth

Last I checked, it required two sides to a debate. . .

Anyway, your definition of "faith" is little more than a pop culture reference. That is not the applied definition of the word "faith" in most religions; "faith" in the religious sense is more synonymous with trust in a person or idea than a position of knowledge or even belief, and trust can and often does stem from prior experience.

There is nothingillogical about this, or even faith in the usual stance; the only illogical kind of faith is blind faith.

If a theist claims to have personal experiences with God, why take part in debates of logic when logic is completely irrelevant to the process by which the theist arrived at a belief in God?

And strictly speaking, faith in God is always "blind" from the perspective of others. Even if the particular theists claims to have had some personal experience with the deity.

Most theistic arguments are born of defense; as in, to oppose the crap said about us and our beliefs. When someone goes "lol your beliefs are stupid!" we go "no, and here's why." Logic irrelevant to the process by which they came to belief in God? How is going "okay, God exists" after a perceived personal experience with God not logical?

The perspective of others has no bearing on the reality of the situation. If people considered belief in gravity to be blind, they would be wrong.

The only way you could possibly reply with any integrity is to say. " I personally know God, and no matter how illogical my belief may be, I can't be swayed. My faith exists regardless of what's logical." This may not convince anybody but it's at least logically consistent, as opposed to saying "I believe in God because it's the logical thing to do".

Lastly, by "perspective of others" I meant that a personal, perceived experience with God is only proof to yourself and not others. I say this because science has never recognized any events as undoubtedly supernatural. In other word, what might not be blind faith to you is blind faith to others.

Just responding to that picture, what is the christain "argument" for how god came into existence.htekemerald

Don't argue with something if you know nothing about it.

God always has been and always will be.

[QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"]I can point out how I disagree with your way of debating. Lingering on one's simple mistakes--especially when what the person meant is clear--is not a good way to argue.Theokhoth

Firstly: I am not the only person who said something, as his position was ludicrous.

Secondly: He never clarified his position, therefore I am not accountable for mistaking his motives.

Thirdly: He stated once again that the lack of proof for something means it does not exist, later in the topic, so no,what I percieved is exactly what he meant.

Fouthly: He was rude to me and others and kept switching his points around; a very bad debate styIe.

Once again: please read the whole topic before posting.

Two: Yes, he did correct himself. "And to for human knowledge things must be proven before they are accepted to exist." He is referring to the burden of proof, which says that he who makes the positive claim is he who had to provide proof.

Three: If that is true, then he would contradict what he said previously, because he corrected himself to exactly what I thought he meant.

Four: I did not claim that it wasn't a bad debate style. But attacking someone's petty mistakes as opposed to addressing their point is equally bad as being rude.

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]Just responding to that picture, what is the christain "argument" for how god came into existence.harashawn

Don't argue with something if you know nothing about it.

God always has been and always will be.

It is the difference between a necessary being and a contingent being

[QUOTE="Deihjan"]

I'm an atheist myself, but I find that funny... now, can we get all this Atheist vs. "real" christians off of Gamespot? please?

htekemerald

I don't know the religious "argument" about it. But I think, that if God was there before the universe was created, God is not limited to the "cause and effect" thing and hence can exist without a cause.

If God is all-powerful by the way as He was seen by Descartes, He can and does define logic and everything else.

God can make 1+1=3 without changing the definition of 3.

God can make a four-cornered triangle without changing the definition of a triangle.

God can lift a rock too heavy for Him to lift.

Because God is omnipotent and has power in every single area of existence, including logic, perception and reality itself.

I don't believe this, of course, but by the definitions you are using, this is how it would be.

Theokhoth

Yeah... the Descartes argument it a cop-out. If logic is meaningless, we can know nothing for certain. So like you, I don't put any stock in this at all.

I realize that at least as of recent, theological arguments are defensive, however, they simply haven't succeeded.

Based on what standards?

If I was to say "lol, your belief is stupid because you have blind faith and therefore you partially base your world-view on unproven ideas", how would you refute that?

I would first ask "how would you like me to prove my ideas?". Most people ask for proof completely blindly, expecting no answer, and thus have no rational standard of proof to actually apply in the first place.

If what they wanted was some way for me to prove to them that it was true, then his objection, that I believe in unproven ideas, is false, as my ideas are merely unproven to him, and his standards of proof could be flawed.

The only way you could possibly reply with any integrity is to say. " I personally know God, and no matter how illogical my belief may be, I can't be swayed. My faith exists regardless of what's logical." This may not convince anybody but it's at least logically consistent, as opposed to saying "I believe in God because it's the logical thing to do".

Denying logic and stubbornly admitting to being close-minded may be logical in the sense that is an honest self-analysis, but that's the extent of the logic being used, as the worldview itself is the antithesis to logic. "Logical" does not equal "objectively knowable"; therefore belief in God is, theoretically, just as logical as disbelief, especially if it involves personal experience with the supernatural.

Lastly, be "perspective of others" I meant that a personal, perceived experience with God is only proof to yourself and not others.

And that's perfectly rational. Just as if nobody believed me if I said I saw a crime being committed. They wouldn't believe me, but then, does that change the fact that I did see a crime be committed?

I say this because science has never recognized any events as undoubtedly supernatural.

Of course not. It can't. Science, in order to function properly, requires methodological naturalism, which presupposes the event in question to be natural. Science, by definition, can't recognise any event as supernatural. Science is not the governor of logic, either.

In other word, what might not be blind faith to you is blind faith to others.

Subjectively, yes, but just as the people who don't believe I saw a crime, they are wrong in the simple, objective fact that I did see an actual event occur.

espoac

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

If God is all-powerful by the way as He was seen by Descartes, He can and does define logic and everything else.

God can make 1+1=3 without changing the definition of 3.

God can make a four-cornered triangle without changing the definition of a triangle.

God can lift a rock too heavy for Him to lift.

Because God is omnipotent and has power in every single area of existence, including logic, perception and reality itself.

I don't believe this, of course, but by the definitions you are using, this is how it would be.

pianist

Yeah... the Descartes argument it a cop-out. If logic is meaningless, we can know nothing for certain. So like you, I don't put any stock in this at all.

But if God created universe from nothing, then didn't he just make 0=1? Doesn't that defy logic too?

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

If God is all-powerful by the way as He was seen by Descartes, He can and does define logic and everything else.

God can make 1+1=3 without changing the definition of 3.

God can make a four-cornered triangle without changing the definition of a triangle.

God can lift a rock too heavy for Him to lift.

Because God is omnipotent and has power in every single area of existence, including logic, perception and reality itself.

I don't believe this, of course, but by the definitions you are using, this is how it would be.

pianist

Yeah... the Descartes argument it a cop-out. If logic is meaningless, we can know nothing for certain. So like you, I don't put any stock in this at all.

It's hardly a cop-out; it's the conclusion we inevitably reach if we assume the definition of omnipotence to be "the ability to do absolutely anything."

I prefer Aquinas' definition.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"]I can point out how I disagree with your way of debating. Lingering on one's simple mistakes--especially when what the person meant is clear--is not a good way to argue.ShuLordLiuPei

Firstly: I am not the only person who said something, as his position was ludicrous.

Secondly: He never clarified his position, therefore I am not accountable for mistaking his motives.

Thirdly: He stated once again that the lack of proof for something means it does not exist, later in the topic, so no,what I percieved is exactly what he meant.

Fouthly: He was rude to me and others and kept switching his points around; a very bad debate styIe.

Once again: please read the whole topic before posting.

Two: Yes, he did correct himself. "And to for human knowledge things must be proven before they are accepted to exist." He is referring to the burden of proof, which says that he who makes the positive claim is he who had to provide proof.

Three: If that is true, then he would contradict what he said previously, because he corrected himself to exactly what I thought he meant.

Four: I did not claim that it wasn't a bad debate style. But attacking someone's petty mistakes as opposed to addressing their point is equally bad as being rude.

But if God created universe from nothing, then didn't he just make 0=1? Doesn't that defy logic too?

MFaraz_Hayat

Yes it does. I never argued it didn't. In fact, that's an important part of my counter-argument. ;)

One: You kept on about it, even after he corrected himself. You attacked him for changing the wording of his argument.

Two: Yes, he did correct himself. "And to for human knowledge things must be proven before they are accepted to exist." He is referring to the burden of proof, which says that he who makes the positive claim is he who had to provide proof.

Three: If that is true, then he would contradict what he said previously, because he corrected himself to exactly what I thought he meant.

Four: I did not claim that it wasn't a bad debate style. But attacking someone's petty mistakes as opposed to addressing their point is equally bad as being rude.

ShuLordLiuPei

One: He did not correct himself.

Two: That is not a correction; that is a contradiction to his first statement. He never said anything along the lines of "I stand corrected" or "Oops, I made a mistake" and the fact that he restated his first statement once again shows that this was more likely than not the mistake and not his first statement.

In addition to this, it is also a misrepresentation of the burden of proof.

Four: Mistakes in grammar or sentence structure can make the difference in the outcome of a debate, and are hardly petty. The way a statement is worded changes a person's interpretation of it, as you and I have clearly demonstrated, so one is supposed to be as clear as possible.

[QUOTE="htekemerald"][QUOTE="Deihjan"]

I'm an atheist myself, but I find that funny... now, can we get all this Atheist vs. "real" christians off of Gamespot? please?

MFaraz_Hayat

I don't know the religious "argument" about it. But I think, that if God was there before the universe was created, God is not limited to the "cause and effect" thing and hence can exist without a cause.

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

But if God created universe from nothing, then didn't he just make 0=1? Doesn't that defy logic too?

pianist

Yes it does. I never argued it didn't. In fact, that's an important part of my counter-argument. ;)

But then, doesn't this imply that God can easily accomplish that which human mind considers illogical and impossible?

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="htekemerald"][QUOTE="Deihjan"]

I'm an atheist myself, but I find that funny... now, can we get all this Atheist vs. "real" christians off of Gamespot? please?

htekemerald

I don't know the religious "argument" about it. But I think, that if God was there before the universe was created, God is not limited to the "cause and effect" thing and hence can exist without a cause.

I think the recent scientific developments state, that time had a beginning.