I'm a Gnostic Atheist, however with all due respects to my fellow counterpart atheists, I find that under their reasoning, they have omitted or dismissed apriori reasoning outright. I'll give an example to bring light to my position:
I know that all bachelors are unmarried and that a square circle is nonexistent. I don't need to go in search for all bachelors in the universe to interview to make that claim, nor must I go beyond a greater sense data to know this. I also don't need to search the entire universe - or outside thereof - to confirm the non-existence of a square circle. Those 'negatives' as is often said, that in them of themselves are falsifiable.
These concepts in it of themselves are fallacious and thus cannot exist, because existence requires consistency. Through apriori reasoning, we can shed light on the validity of concepts or the lack thereof, without actually acquiring empirical sense-data. In the same light, I know God does not exist because the very concept in its essence is illogical. And thus, likewise, cannot exist because illogical 'things' cannot exist in reality.
Many atheists are very keen on saying that God is illogical and irrational, however many that do say that, so often have a "might" that the illogical "may" exist, implicit to their lack of belief. I find this cowardice because it is not asserting oneself to acknowledge illogical things cannot exist in reality, since that which exists requires consistency. Also, agnostic atheists have a problem with 100% certainty claims, however the epistimological claim that " You cannot know for sure if God exists or does not exist " is in it of itself a 100% certainty claim. They should have no problem with Gnostic atheists making 100% certainty claims on the basis of logic, if they themselves make 100% certainty claims on, to what is them, the basis of logic. It is hypocritical.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Your bachelor and circle arguments are arguments by definition, which are always deductive reasoning. Similarly, the ability to disprove a deity's existence depends entirely upon the definition of that deity.
I can prove that an omnipotent, benevolent deity who interferes with human affairs does not exist. That doesn't take much effort at all.
This is the difficulty, as well, because getting a theist to define a deity prior to discussion is damned near impossible. It eliminates a favored method of "debate" where the definition of the deity changes in response to anything you say.
exactly, these are definitional, and most people are smart enough not to define their favorite deity.
If you argue against something with which has no definition, you are just throwing around nonsensical words that just translate into verbal cues. You might as well say God is a "flipideodopdidiedoppiediepoo *more unintelligible sound* " However, when a theist postulates the existence of a God based on illogical properties - much like a square circle (omnipotence and omniscience, timeless, spaceless, transcendent of the logical consistency of the universe, etc.) then we can rule out for certain those Gods do not exist. If someone objects to that proposition, then they are using logic to justify the existence of an illogical 'thing' and as such, this cannot stand; as it posits insurmountable contradictions.
Atheism is a statement about belief. Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge. They are not two points on the same continuum.
Atheism is a statement of nonbelief. Agnosticism is a statement of lack of knowledge.
An agnostic is an atheist without the courage of their convictions, IMHO.
I bet 20 cool points that the original poster was Kenny.
Who's this "Kenny" you speak of?
Stick around.
Well it is true that some atheists do not really address the definition of atheism so this leads to some of your so called "under their reasoning".
Let us make some clear points here shall we:
Atheist is the lack of belief in a Theistic god. Not just any god, but only a theistic god.
Agnostic/Gnostic is a claim to knowledge about a subject.
An Agnostic Atheist is a person that DOES NOT claim to KNOW that his LACK OF BELIEF in "ANY"(repeat ANY) theistic god is absolutely 100% correct.
So the Agnostic/Gnostic is addressed on what the person knows about his belief/lack of belief.
It has nothing to do with the non existence of god per se.
It is about the level of knowledge the person has which might be wrong too.
Basically a Gnostic Atheist/Theist is a guy that is also claiming to know everything there is to know.
Which is a very arrogant position to have given how much we do not know about reality.
In my opinion anybody that thinks to know everything regarding a belief is just stupid.
About a square circle, that is an example of something which is not a belief but a fact that can be verified and tested.
Now about Matter, that can be repeatedly tested, there is a very high degree of confidence that reality seems always to obey.
The non existence of a square circle, the mathematical certainties, are all part of the logic that reality seems to obey.
They are totally different from Beliefs which are mostly opinions depending on current knowledge at the time.
You CANNOT mix the two, you cannot mix a Belief/lack of belief in something with a fact and then make the argument based on it.
Eg:
1)A belief:
If I put 1 ball in a bag and a day after I put an other ball in the same bag without looking.
I Believe that there are now 2 balls in the bag.
)A fact:
1 ball +1 ball makes 2 balls.
1) This is a claim to knowledge which can be wrong in this reality.
2) This is a claim to logic which can never be wrong in this reality.(always the assumptions are wrong)
A square circle falls under 2
A belief falls under 1
Knowledge about a belief still falls under 1
A Gnostic Atheist can also be wrong unless he knows everything there is to know about reality.
Just to be clear, as others have pointed out, it depends on which Theistic god are you talking about.
As ANTIGONERISEN so nicely put it:
"Similarly, the ability to disprove a deity's existence depends entirely upon the definition of that deity."
So without knowing the deity you cannot generalize that all possible Theistic gods are impossible without looking stupid.
Now when a Particular Theistic god is defined like Christianity, one can use logic to see if THIS Theistic god conforms to logic or not.
If it doesn't, then THAT Theistic god truly is impossible for this reality.
I quoted one of this forum's host post on the right: -->
"Atheism vs Agnosticism: What is the difference?"
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/blog/arminnavabi/atheism-vs-agnosticism-w...
"Take, for example, the Abrahamic God worshiped variously by Jews, Christians and Muslims. Supposedly, the Abrahamic God is simultaneously all-knowing, all-powerful and benevolent. These three traits cannot coexist with the world that we can perceive. When a major catastrophe occurs and wipes out thousands of people, it's impossible to assert that a benevolent and all-powerful God could be responsible.
Either God is impotent with no power to stop such a disaster, or he simply does not care about the suffering of humans. So while it may not be possible to disprove the existence of every definition of God, it is certainly possible to refute gods defined with contradicting attributes."
Also a lot of Atheists mix up the concept of Atheist and ADeist and just put them in the same bag.
Atheist= the lack of belief in a theistic god.
ADeist= the lack of belief in any type god including money, power, consciousness, prime mover, etc....
Hey! So I am new to online forums (just being honest), so if responding to a particular part of your response (that may not have anything to do with the original post) shouldn't be done, just let me know.
Anyways, you say "Either God is impotent with no power to stop such a disaster, or he simply does not care about the suffering of humans". Couldn't this be an example of the either-or fallacy? What if there is a third option?
What if He does care (therefore is loving) and COULD do something about it (therefore is powerful), but decides not to for a particular reason? As a Christian, I've heard/read that God allows destructive things to happen to show us the answers to life's questions aren't in us (we can't bring world peace on our own, we can't do X or Y on our own, etc.).
What do you think? Would that god still have contradicting attributes? Thanks!
"What if He does care (therefore is loving) and COULD do something about it (therefore is powerful), but decides not to for a particular reason?"
Does the "particular reason" justify the disaster? Could this god have accomplished the exact same goal *without* causing the destruction? An all-powerful deity could have, so any suffering under an all-powerful deity undermines claims of omni-benevolence.
On the "power" side of things: But doesn't being all-powerful mean he can choose when to use that power? I thought it was only when you had limited power that you would find yourself in situations where you were forced to act.
On the "loving" side of things: Don't you discipline those you love? A naughty child occasionally needs a timeout. Does the fact that you punished that child make you unloving?
Does god allowing destruction to occur to his once perfect world that we messed up (according to the Bible, just go along with me hypothetically cuz I know you don't believe it) to punish us make him unloving? Even though we messed things up? He also is just; he can't just let things slide because he would be ignoring that side of his character.
What do you think?
"But doesn't being all-powerful mean he can choose when to use that power? I thought it was only when you had limited power that you would find yourself in situations where you were forced to act."
Sure, let's stipulate an all-powerful being would have free will. This works against your case rather than for it.
If such a being is all-powerful, then any choice to *not* use power to reduce suffering carries with it the implication that you could have used your power to achieve exactly the same end without suffering. Suffering, in that scenario, is purely optional at the whim of the all-powerful being.
If you had an alternative (or an infinite number of alternatives for an all-powerful being) that could have reduced suffering, but you chose not to use any of those alternatives, then you imposed unnecessary suffering when you were not forced to.
You allowed suffering precisely when you were NOT forced to act, and you could have prevented it. You are, in fact, immoral in that case.
Hi, ilovequestions. OP here, I'm new to online forums as well, so consider yourself one of the first to post on my first forum thread - whatever that may mean to you haha. Its great you're a Christian and came here for some inquire. Moreover, I don't know the rules of the road entirely, however I will go out on a limb and say, please try to stay consistent with the topic discussion. Your question involves the contradicting properties of God - which ultimately decides the validity of his existence in a nutshell - (since illogical things cannot exist in reality) so I am fine with your post!
In regards to your question, God being omnibenevolent and omnipotent is not what makes him contradicting. If you place omnibenevolence and omnipotence on a continuum, there is no threshold at the extent to which one logically contradicts the other. What makes God logically contradicting would be his omnipotence in conjunction to his omniscience. Such a God, indeed, has illogical properties - much like the square circle example I gave - and indeed, therefore cannot exist.
Furthermore, there are more paradoxical properties God is oftentimes ascribed; for example, immaterial, and transcendent from reality. This is synonymous with just saying God does not exist. "existing outside reality" is the same as "doesn't exist." The reason for this, is that we must first define existence. Existence is that which is in reality. If something is outside reality, is therefore follows, it is... non-existent. If you define existence as anything else, then by your own logic should have no problem believing me if I told you there was a square circle looming over the horizon. You would call me mad! This is how I view God..
Thanks for the feedback :) I've often wondered that too (referring to your last paragraph). What if the words "outside of the physical (space, matter, time, etc.) world" were used instead of "reality"?
So it would go "God transcends, or exists outside of, the physical world we live in." Would atheists have less of a problem with it? Or does that have its own host of problems?
I think that is a dishonest euphemism that reiterates how I defined it initially. So in other words, just paraphrasing, but trying to give it a seemingly more attractive pretense - which is of course, is something you do not want to do in objective arguments and the analysis therein. By physical world, I assume you mean our natural realm which is composed of matter and energy. If something is not composed of matter nor energy, this is again, synonymous to saying it is non-existent; since existence is that which is composed of matter and energy (aka reality).
I think that is a dishonest euphemism that reiterates how I defined it initially. So in other words, just paraphrasing, but trying to give it a seemingly more attractive pretense - which is of course, is something you do not want to do in objective arguments and the analysis therein. By physical world, I assume you mean our natural realm which is composed of matter and energy. If something is not composed of matter nor energy, this is again, synonymous to saying it is non-existent; since existence is that which is composed of matter and energy (aka reality).
What if He does care (therefore is loving) and COULD do something about it (therefore is powerful), but decides not to for a particular reason?
What kind of BS reasoning is this?
If he decided to do nothing when a child is drowning then he DOES NOT CARE thus failing your first premise in that sentence.
Are you seriously suggesting that an omnipotent god that can do anything, can't find better ways of loving people then the slaughter of innocent children?
Grow up please, this kind of reasoning really shames you.
Set of contradicting postulates:
A) God is omni-benevolence
B) God is all powerful
C) Bad things happen
While I'm not convinced of A or B, I'm pretty certain about C. So at least one of them must be wrong (A or B), if not both.
Important for everyone to understand, under Occamz Razor, the latter (C) is by default the most rational position to take on. The others - A and B - require extraordinary evidence.
These are only contradictory given that you know with certainty that God does not have morally good reason for permitting suffering. Well, you do not know that with certainty, thus, this argument of yours falls apart. These attributes, thereby, are not contradictory.
How do you know that Anarkhos doesn't know with certainty that God does not have a morally good reason for permitting suffering?
Because that would require him to be omniscient. He is not omniscient. He does not know that God does not have morally good reasons for permitting suffering.
How do you know he is not omniscient? He could be an omniscient deity choosing to involve himself in this forum. God works in mysterious ways.
You're a gnostic atheist? Wonderful! So you positively assert that God does not exist, alright. That begs me to ask this question: What evidence do you have that God does not exist?
Did you read my forum post description like, at all?
I don't need to. You said you were a gnostic atheist. A gnostic atheist is somebody who claims to know that God does not exist. So, please substantiate that claim.
I did in the forum post description you little twat.
@ Jeff Vella Leone - "When a major catastrophe occurs and wipes out thousands of people, it's impossible to assert that a benevolent and all-powerful God could be responsible."
This assumes we define benevolent in the dearest sense, leaving all-powerful aside for now. On the face of it we conventionally attempt to conclude that benevolent means a god will lean towards protecting humanity and continue this trend until someone alters the story somewhere along the time line, not like that will ever happen (again). It does not assume that such natural catastrophe is a god's premeditated handiwork and executed to remove a possible future calamity of a much higher order. Remember, "God's love works in strange ways." will be the hip pocket response if not already a bumper sticker reminder. That one always wins the argument, hands down.
I think there's a lot of elevated language begging the flow of labored discussions to speak more towards the elevated discussions themselves than to simply lay down the simplest pro/anti positions on a god. Is this necessary to that purpose or are we providing ourselves with a chance and a medium to engage in bloviated discourse on cue? I think the latter.
One thing I've learned is black and white translate very well at the least savvy levels. That's your audience. Coincidence?
Pages