Greetings ,I'm back. Mythicism

[UnseenParticipant]

Davis wrote:

It is the first time i have heard an atheist with a line like a theist.

There is nothing admirable emulating theologians.

To say “A and not-A” is a contradiction and cannot be true is emulating a logician, not emulating a theologian. The properties asserted of God, omnipotence and omniscience cannot both adhere to the same individual. Simple as that. You know, I don’t really enjoy being right, but I’m pretty sure I’m right on this one or…prove me wrong!

[UnseenParticipant]

Davis wrote:

I don’t see the logical contradiction. If the future already exists, as a 4-d spacetime shape, then God would be free to mould it as He wishes, with His full knowledge.

Indeed Unseen is not batting well today. God could exist outside of time and space if he really had these miraculous qualities so I don’t see why he couldn’t conceive of everything in all of time and space at once and create it so. You need not go any further in critiquing the claim that God can do anything then quoting the classical retort: “could God create a rock so heavy he couldn’t lift it”. That is a fatal challenge. But that he would be unable to control the future…no.

God exists outside space and time? Would that be a separate space and time where there can be round squares and Donald Trump isn’t an asshole?

Okay, let’s go down this rabbit hole. If God, outside space and time, were to “conceive of everything in all of time and space at once and create it so,” is he free then to change it? It doesn’t sound to me from your construction here that he is. Or if he is free to change it, then then he didn’t really know the future (=not omniscient). It seems to me that the paradox I pointed out moves right in with him in his little outside space and time cubbyhole.

Also, when you are outside space and time, can you really do anything. Where does the time it takes to do it come from?

Anyway, your refutation suffers from an awful lot of unwarranted assuming.

[UnseenParticipant]

Davis wrote:

Yes unseen, if you are saying that a God could not have all the qualities Christians say that he does…I agree. It is impossible. He cannot be all Good and all powerful because pointless evil and pointless suffering wouldn’t exist if he had both those qualities. There are many examples. That doesn’t prove that there is no God, or even a similar God that lacks a few of those incompatible qualities. All of this is moot though. We need only go as far as say: “I have no reason to take any of this seriously”. We are under no obligation to make broad claims of certainly metaphysical claims or entities don’t exist. Not claiming with certainty there is no God is not being coy. It is recognizing the fact that are are not omniscient and we lack the tools and access to information to have that kind of certainty.

And yet, I know God (the one we are usually talking about, not Odin or Loki or Ahura Mazda or Krishna) doesn’t exist because the whole idea makes no sense. I can make God exist if I believe nonsense, I suppose. Maybe I’m eating spaghetti on the dark side of the Moon. But, I either know that God can’t exist or I’m crazy.

[Belle RoseParticipant]

I think God exists. And I think Jesus is God.

[DavisModerator]

No unseen we don’t have access to a complete list of the laws of the universe. We can make as many claims about what we know, we cannot make any claim (negative or positive) about what we don’t know. Doing otherwise is arrogance.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

If God, outside space and time, were to “conceive of everything in all of time and space at once and create it so,” is he free then to change it? It doesn’t sound to me from your construction here that he is. Or if he is free to change it, then then he didn’t really know the future (=not omniscient).

But we need to distinguish between God’s future, and our own.  God could play with our own future like a toy.  Here I am assuming that the universe is a 4-D shape, as seen from outside.

[UnseenParticipant]

Davis wrote:

No unseen we don’t have access to a complete list of the laws of the universe. We can make as many claims about what we know, we cannot make any claim (negative or positive) about what we don’t know. Doing otherwise is arrogance.

All rational claims of knowledge are based on what we know. My claim is basically mathematical in nature, that a contradiction is a false statement. I’ll go out on a limb and say that’s pretty airtight.

[UnseenParticipant]

“All knowing” is an impossible property on it’s own. It’s nonsensical, for if God is all-knowing he must know what he doesn’t know, but (you can fill in the rest). Also, no amount of power is sufficient to resolve that paradox.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by  Unseen.

[UnseenParticipant]

Ivy wrote:

I think God exists. And I think Jesus is God.

Which God? The one who appeared in the far Eastern Mediterranean? Why not the one who appeared in the Indian subcontinent (Krishna)? The ones who presented themselves to the Mayans? Lots to choose from.

[DavisModerator]

All rational claims of knowledge are based on what we know.

Then the most rational answer, Unseen, is “I don’t know”. It is an extreme intellectual flaw to not be able to saw “I don’t know” or “I cannot be completely certain” or  “God almost certainly doesn’t exist”. Some people are incapable of adding the proviso “almost certainly” because they feel their intuition is sufficient to override their lack of knowledge or simple pride. No one is obliging you to make an absolute negative claim nor should you even feel the desire to. Once the magical claim has been made and the evidence is lacking, all that needs be done is to laugh and dedicate your time to something more valuable. Trying to defend a negative claim that is currently untestable or unverifiable is a waste of time.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by  Davis.

[UnseenParticipant]

Davis, I have never heard a mathematician or logician say “I don’t know if a contradiction is false,” but if you can find one, please produce this person.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

I think a problem with conventional representations of “God” is that humans insist on framing the concept in human terms.  Who says that God can’t change the future?  That God can’t experiment with different futures, even for Himself?  These contradictions don’t have to be contradictions.

As for existing outside space and time – these exist only inside the universe.

I agree that a true contradiction suggests that premises are not valid.  But if God controls logic, maybe God can be illogical.

[jakelafortParticipant]

And i think that for any human who has not been mind-indoctrinated it is incredibly juvenile and narcissistic to posit gods. And what the fuck is up with the fetishism of Jesus? Jesus is my bf or gf and i have a personal relationship with Jesus. More childish tripe.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Jesus represents life and hope.  That’s a good thing to be married to.

[DavisModerator]

Ugh unseen I already covered the difference between The God as some Christians describe with Conflicting Qualities and God in general (or at least a similar God without the conflicting qualities). Pay attention to what people say. Details matter. Every word counts. Zheesh

[Author]

Posts