Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)
Options
Comments
-
RikuoAmero wrote: »So...your reason for not defending your beliefs...is simply because this thread is in the christian section? I understand that that is in the christian section's charter, but still...that is not how a debate works (where one side is allowed to present unsubstantiated claims, but the other side has to).
I'm not offering any unsubstantiated claims. I'm highlighting where you misunderstand and misrepresent Christian beliefs, and pointing out where your arguments are deficient. That is a perfectly legitimate role in a debate.I'll admit that I did heavily butcher the cosmological argument up above, but my point still stands (just re-read it and mentally delete the title I gave it).
Your point doesn't stand, because you accused me of trying to use God as proof for God. I did no such thing. I've not presented any proof for God.0 -
Your point doesn't stand, because you accused me of trying to use God as proof for God. I did no such thing. I've not presented any proof for God.
Very well, I was leaping ahead and trying to pre-rebut what I thought you were about to say. I'll stop doing that in the future.
Again though, this is a debate thread. You've presented claims about God, mainly about him somehow being outside of time, in addition to a critique of my argumentative skills. If all you want to do is critique my arguments, fine, go right ahead. Don't insert claims about God though, otherwise you have to back them up (with reasoning, logic, data or evidence). If you're not willing to provide anything like that, then don't mention him.
As for using God as proof for God...what else can I call your "outside time" argument? Can you give me evidence of a realm outside space-time? Given that you define God as being outside space-time, and given that you define outside space-time as where/what God is, the two become functionally identical to each other. One positive step you could take to proving God would be providing to me proof/evidence of a realm outside space-time, but since it is functionally identical to God, and you've said you won't provide proof for God...well, we're stuck.0 -
Brian Shanahan wrote: »Nick, you're wrong. The setting where you make a claim imparts no difference on whether you have to substantiate it. The nature of the claim is what demands whether you prove it.
I think you are wrong. But I won't labour the point as this could easily turn into backseat modding (on either side).
If the forum mods think that I should not be allowed to critique someone's post unless I also offer full proof for my beliefs then I'm sure they'll tell me.If you make a claim that if true would materially change our understanding of the universe, then you have to prove the claim. Claiming god exists is one such claim, another example would be to claim the universe contains a luminiferous aether through which all celestial bodies move. You have to prove your claim whether you make it here, in A&A or when you're stuck in a deep cave on mars.
Now, conversely a claim such as me saying the "Earth orbits the sun" or "Evolution occurs" do not need proof, because both are so well evidenced that conclusive proof of their truth is already well established. However, if I made a well proven claim that was not well known (or well known hereabouts), like for example "peppered moths have been shown to evolve" it would be polite of me (if not necessarily necessary) to show the evidence.
This is all part of the common procedure of debating. It is frankly shocking that on a website which is set up to debate topics that you wish to recuse yourself from the same procedures that others have to use.
I've not made any claims, demanded that anyone share my beliefs, or tried to convince anyone of the truth of Christianity.
I have simply pointed out the inadequacies of arguments and, where they have mis-stated Christian beliefs, I have explained what those beliefs are.
And, since such participation happens in threads on boards.ie all the time in multiple fora, I hardly think I am recusing myself from following the same procedures as other posters.0 -
RikuoAmero wrote: »Very well, I was leaping ahead and trying to pre-rebut what I thought you were about to say. I'll stop doing that in the future.
Again though, this is a debate thread. You've presented claims about God, mainly about him somehow being outside of time, in addition to a critique of my argumentative skills. If all you want to do is critique my arguments, fine, go right ahead. Don't insert claims about God though, otherwise you have to back them up (with reasoning, logic, data or evidence). If you're not willing to provide anything like that, then don't mention him.
So, let's get this clear. You, as an atheist, are telling a Christian that he shouldn't mention God in the Christianity Forum unless he's prepared to meet your demands for proof?
If you present what you feel is an argument that exposes an inherent contradiction in Christian belief, then I am perfectly free to show that no such contradiction exists by correcting your misconceptions about what Christians believe. There is no obligation for me to prove such beliefs.
For example, imagine that I posted in the Islam forum that there is an inherent contradiction in Islam in that Mohammed's revelation contradicts the Hindu Vedas. All that is necessary to refute my argument is for someone to point out that no such contradiction exists since Muslims don't believe the Vedas anyway. It is not necessary for them to prove that the Vedas are false.0 -
Not in the christianity forum as a whole, but rather in this thread. This is a debate thread - again, I have to explain that in a debate thread, if you bring forth propositions, you have to back them up. You have brought forth certain claims, such as an earlier comment where you said God sees all as an eternal present. If all you're going to do is make these claims, but then reject the burden of proof, then don't bother making those claims at all. I'm not interested in reading "God is X, God does Y", if that's all there is. I'm interested in the justifications for these claims.So, let's get this clear. You, as an atheist, are telling a Christian that he shouldn't mention God in the Christianity Forum unless he's prepared to meet your demands for proof?
You do when you posit these beliefs as being true (such as you did earlier). Perhaps you should be more careful in your wording.If you present what you feel is an argument that exposes an inherent contradiction in Christian belief, then I am perfectly free to show that no such contradiction exists by correcting your misconceptions about what Christians believe. There is no obligation for me to prove such beliefs.For example, imagine that I posted in the Islam forum that there is an inherent contradiction in Islam in that Mohammed's revelation contradicts the Hindu Vedas. All that is necessary to refute my argument is for someone to point out that no such contradiction exists since Muslims don't believe the Vedas anyway. It is not necessary for them to prove that the Vedas are false.
Or rather, there is an inherent contradiction in christianity because what is written in the bible and later christian works does not jell with reality, especially with later discoveries.
Now, I won't be responding again tonight. I will be tomorrow. See ya.0 -
Advertisement
-
The thread title says the thread is for debates about God's existence. I'm open to correction by the mods, but my understanding is that on boards.ie you are free to expose errors and poor arguments in the posts of others without being required to prove all of one's beliefs. So, as I see it, I am participating in a discussion and remaining on topic.
Makes the thread somewhat pointless then I would have thought, you can reply to any and all arguments ' no we don't believe that' or 'we believe this' and that statement is enough to preclude any further discussion.
I understand that in the main forum , but I thought this thread was a sort of hallway house .0 -
Makes the thread somewhat pointless then I would have thought, you can reply to any and all arguments ' no we don't believe that' or 'we believe this' and that statement is enough to preclude any further discussion.
I understand that in the main forum , but I thought this thread was a sort of hallway house .
If someone presents an argument which depends for its validity on a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of Christian beliefs, then surely a 'no we don't believe that' is a perfectly reasonable and sufficient response? Equally, it would seem reasonable to explain a bit more and rather than just saying 'no we don't believe that' to correct the error by saying 'actually we believe this.'
The only people I can envisage objecting to that would be those who actually want to present arguments containing misrepresentations, and who object to untruths being corrected.0 -
If someone presents an argument which depends for its validity on a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of Christian beliefs, then surely a 'no we don't believe that' is a perfectly reasonable and sufficient response? Equally, it would seem reasonable to explain a bit more and rather than just saying 'no we don't believe that' to correct the error by saying 'actually we believe this.'
The only people I can envisage objecting to that would be those who actually want to present arguments containing misrepresentations, and who object to untruths being corrected.
No it is not reasonable at all, the thread title is atheism/existence of God debates, which implies a two-sided discussion without caveat .
Otherwise it is not really a debate .0 -
No it is not reasonable at all, the thread title is atheism/existence of God debates, which implies a two-sided discussion without caveat .
Otherwise it is not really a debate .
The only person presenting a caveat here is you guys. You are saying, "Unless you provide proof for your beliefs then we should be allowed to make any argument, no matter how many untruths or misrepresentations it may contain, and you should not be allowed to point out such untruths nor even to mention God unless you meet our demands."
That is a quite ridiculous caveat.
As with any debate on boards.ie, posters can address whatever relevant issues they choose and respond to whatever posts they like. It's boards.ie not boards.nk0 -
No it is not reasonable at all, the thread title is atheism/existence of God debates, which implies a two-sided discussion without caveat .
Otherwise it is not really a debate .
Well it is reasonable in as much as theirs no point debating stuff which nither side believes. If someone said 'god said not to have sex' (I not exaggerating, believe it or not someone has said this on a thread here), their wouldn't be much point using the obvious contradiction in this claim as evidence of the non existence of God as it's not actual evidence of anything other than someones misunderstanding of what God said.
OTOH as I'v said before their is no evidence outside of the personal experience of believers, so what are we to debate? I don't buy the 'the bible tell us' or 'how else can we explain it' arguments, I'm as frustrated as you by a lot of the claims made by believers, I'm also frustrated by the straw-men and parodies of faith offered by non believers. If I hear the term "sky fairy" one more time...
You either believe or you don't, your reasons for believing may not be mine, your reasons for not believing may not be mine but until God turns up and confirms His existence we are going to be stuck with this lack of evidence. It doesn't bother me, I'm not looking for a physical God who can influence the outcome of Stoke v Wolverhampton or secure a job for my daughter. Others might have need of a God who takes care of thees things. I cant understand why someone would reject the concept of God until they have firm empirical proof, I cant understand why someone would accept the concept of God without at the same time holding the possibility of their being no God.
But that's me, this debate has run for a long time and every time come back to the same tired straw-men and week assertions, I don't see any sign of change anytime soon.0 -
Advertisement
-
Nick has a point. It was Rikuo who made the claim that he was discussing what Christians generally believed. To refute that claim it;s enough to point out that Christians generally believe something else, something inconsistent. It's not necessary to show that Christians are justified in holding that other belief. If they hold it all all, whether justified or unjustified, then Rik's argument is basically a straw man. This weakness isn't resolved by arguing that the other belief is unjustified, or is not shown to be justified. That is actually irrelevan to the soundness or validity of Rik's original argument, and to the soundness or validit of Nick's challenge to it.0
-
Peregrinus wrote: »Nick has a point. It was Rikuo who made the claim that he was discussing what Christians generally believed. To refute that claim it;s enough to point out that Christians generally believe something else, something inconsistent. It's not necessary to show that Christians are justified in holding that other belief. If they hold it all all, whether justified or unjustified, then Rik's argument is basically a straw man. This weakness isn't resolved by arguing that the other belief is unjustified, or is not shown to be justified. That is actually irrelevan to the soundness or validity of Rik's original argument, and to the soundness or validit of Nick's challenge to it.
If that was all Nick had done, yes, he would be correct. Thing is, he didn't. He also made claims about a god that he didn't back up at allto Him there is no past, present or future. To Him all is present as He sees it all at once.I was, of course, referring to God's moral nature
He said this not just in context of what is taught by general christianity, but also as what he believes and accepts to be true (notice the usage of a capital H in He. A non-believer in that god wouldn't capitalise that word) He made claims about an entity he calls god, and this entity exists outside of space-time and has a moral nature that forbids certain actions, but doesn't elaborate or justify.
Also, can you please identify to me where I made a straw-man...also how would it be a straw-man if they actually do hold that belief? I'm interested in critiquing my argumentative skills, so I promise I won't get offended.0 -
The only person presenting a caveat here is you guys. You are saying, "Unless you provide proof for your beliefs then we should be allowed to make any argument, no matter how many untruths or misrepresentations it may contain, and you should not be allowed to point out such untruths nor even to mention God unless you meet our demands."
That is a quite ridiculous caveat.
As with any debate on boards.ie, posters can address whatever relevant issues they choose and respond to whatever posts they like. It's boards.ie not boards.nk
that is not quite correct though - for example you can say 'God is outside space time' or 'God is not constrained by science as we know it' - and offer nothing is support other than 'I believe'0 -
Well it is reasonable in as much as theirs no point debating stuff which nither side believes. If someone said 'god said not to have sex' (I not exaggerating, believe it or not someone has said this on a thread here), their wouldn't be much point using the obvious contradiction in this claim as evidence of the non existence of God as it's not actual evidence of anything other than someones misunderstanding of what God said.
OTOH as I'v said before their is no evidence outside of the personal experience of believers, so what are we to debate? I don't buy the 'the bible tell us' or 'how else can we explain it' arguments, I'm as frustrated as you by a lot of the claims made by believers, I'm also frustrated by the straw-men and parodies of faith offered by non believers. If I hear the term "sky fairy" one more time...
You either believe or you don't, your reasons for believing may not be mine, your reasons for not believing may not be mine but until God turns up and confirms His existence we are going to be stuck with this lack of evidence. It doesn't bother me, I'm not looking for a physical God who can influence the outcome of Stoke v Wolverhampton or secure a job for my daughter. Others might have need of a God who takes care of thees things. I cant understand why someone would reject the concept of God until they have firm empirical proof, I cant understand why someone would accept the concept of God without at the same time holding the possibility of their being no God.
But that's me, this debate has run for a long time and every time come back to the same tired straw-men and week assertions, I don't see any sign of change anytime soon.
This is my whole point, just better expressed . If you have faith why do you need proof ?0 -
that is not quite correct though - for example you can say 'God is outside space time' or 'God is not constrained by science as we know it' - and offer nothing is support other than 'I believe'
How interesting of a conversation is that? If all that's being said is "X is Y, and my justification for that is I believe it"...why bother mentioning it at all? Why do you believe X is Y...that's the conversation I want to have.
As for faith...Terry Goodkind said it best in my opinion“Faith and feelings are the warm marrow of evil. Unlike reason, faith and feelings provide no boundary to limit any delusion, any whim. They are virulent poison, giving the numbing illusion of moral sanction to every depravity ever hatched.
Faith and feelings are the darkness to reason’s light.
Reason is the very substance of truth itself. The glory that is life is wholly embraced through reason. In rejecting it, in rejecting reason, one embraces death.”
I disagree with him when he mentions feelings (we're not Vulcans), but statement I agree with. If you have a thing you believe in and all you have for it is faith, then there is no limit to what you will do in support of that thing.
Simple. It's because I can only believe in a limited number of things at any one time, things that are not mutually exclusive (for example, you can't believe both that Allah is the one true god, Muhammed is his messenger and Jesus was merely a prophet, while at the same time believing that Jesus was the Son of God, God in the flesh). What does the word God even mean? I can only accept those things that are defined and substantiated. How else am I supposed to believe in something? If I didn't wait until I had proof or evidence, then what's to stop me from believing any random concept or claim? What would I use as a filter?tommy2bad wrote:I cant understand why someone would reject the concept of God until they have firm empirical proof,0 -
RikuoAmero wrote: »He said this not just in context of what is taught by general christianity, but also as what he believes and accepts to be true (notice the usage of a capital H in He.
So, let's get this straight. You're complaining that a Christian, posting in the Christianity forum, dared to capitalise the initial letter of a pronoun when referring to God?
Are you for real?0 -
So, let's get this straight. You're complaining that a Christian, posting in the Christianity forum, dared to capitalise the initial letter of a pronoun when referring to God?
Are you for real?
I'm not complaining. You can do it as much as you want, I don't mind or care. I'm merely noting when you started positing claims, separate to what you were saying were the general beliefs of christians, and saying that these are what you as an individual belief in and posit, given your usage of the capital H (since a non-believer in the christian god would have no reason to capitalise it).0 -
RikuoAmero wrote: »
Simple. It's because I can only believe in a limited number of things at any one time, things that are not mutually exclusive (for example, you can't believe both that Allah is the one true god, Muhammed is his messenger and Jesus was merely a prophet, while at the same time believing that Jesus was the Son of God, God in the flesh). What does the word God even mean? I can only accept those things that are defined and substantiated. How else am I supposed to believe in something? If I didn't wait until I had proof or evidence, then what's to stop me from believing any random concept or claim? What would I use as a filter?
I have no problem believing several contradictory things, I just don't need to believe them all at the same time, I know, it sounds counter-intuitive.
The problem with waiting for things to be substantiated and defined is it cuts you off from anything new or different, what proof had anyone for the concept of democracy before it was put into practice? They had ample proof of monarchy working but no example of a democratic republic, in fact after the first few attempts, I'm surprised anyone keep trying, it mostly resulted in bloody revolution and death and destruction. It failed for the first couple of thousand years before it took hold. Not everything is testable with out taking a leap of faith.0 -
that is not quite correct though - for example you can say 'God is outside space time' or 'God is not constrained by science as we know it' - and offer nothing is support other than 'I believe'
Is that not a total contradiction in terms?
God created the universe and all laws of nature therein (known and those presently unknown). Because of this he has now surrendered his will to this creation?
If that was the case God would not really be God! How could the creative work be greater than its creator?
Obviously not so.0 -
Is that not a total contradiction in terms?
God created the universe and all laws of nature therein (known and those presently unknown). Because of this he has now surrendered his will to this creation?
If that was the case God would not really be God! How could the creative work be greater than its creator?
Obviously not so.
I don't follow you vis-à-vis my point ?0 -
Advertisement
-
I have no problem believing several contradictory things, I just don't need to believe them all at the same time, I know, it sounds counter-intuitive.
The problem with waiting for things to be substantiated and defined is it cuts you off from anything new or different, what proof had anyone for the concept of democracy before it was put into practice? They had ample proof of monarchy working but no example of a democratic republic, in fact after the first few attempts, I'm surprised anyone keep trying, it mostly resulted in bloody revolution and death and destruction. It failed for the first couple of thousand years before it took hold. Not everything is testable with out taking a leap of faith.
People can try and experiment with things like democracy in the real world, even if it's something that has never been done before. Here's the difference between trying democracy and trying God: one shows results that can be examined and verified, the other doesn't. The god claim I can only verify after I'm dead (and that's if I still have a consciousness once I kick the bucket).
Another difference between democracy and your God claim is that democracy is an action, something one can do. The god claim is a belief, nothing more nothing less. How do you 'do' a belief? Try a belief? A belief is something you either accept or don't accept. I can't try a God belief for 30 days, or get my money back. I can't experiment believing in something I haven't been convinced is true. (How many times do I have to point that out?)0 -
Ah ... I see your error ... you are confusing omniscience with changing ones mind ... You are correct that God is capable of changing His mind (in response to fervent prayer or repentance, for example) ... but He already knows that He will do so ... so this doesn't affect either His omnipotence i.e. His infinite capacity to do as He wishes ... nor His omniscience i.e. His knowledge of all things past present and future.RikuoAmero wrote: »A being that is omniscient who makes all of its choices throughout all of eternity, those choices become locked in. He knows 100% that two days from now, he will do X. That becomes a fact to him, something that is without question.
If you bring in omnipotence, (in other words, give him the ability to change his mind) this then renders his knowledge that two days from now, he will do X, false. He does Y instead. This negates omniscience.
It's one or the other, J C.
The only lacuna in your argument is that God knows both His initial/general position on a particular issue as well as the fact that that He will change His mind, if that is what He will do.RikuoAmero wrote: »Remember, this isn't from the human point of view, where the future is forever unknown to us (I can intend to do something two days from now, but I don't know perfectly whether I actually will do it). The christian god claim I've heard plenty of times says that God knows the future perfectly. He is supposed to know it as perfectly as I know my own name.
If he knows the future, he knows what actions he will take. He cannot then have the ability to change his mind, otherwise that negates his knowledge of the future.0 -
-
Ah ... I see your error ... you are confusing omniscience with changing ones mind ... You are correct that God is capable of changing His mind (in response to fervent prayer or repentance) ... but He already knows that He will do so ... so this doesn't affect either His omnipotence i.e. His infinite capacity to do as He wishes ... nor His omniscience i.e. His knowledge of all things past present and future.
The only lacuna in your argument is that God knows both His initial position on a particular issue as well as the fact that that He will change His mind, if that is what He will do.
Do I really need to point out to you the utter absurdity of the concept of prayer? I'll toss in the obvious example of fervent christians with lost limbs who pray to be healed, which has yet to happen. I fully expect you to respond with something along the lines of "God works in mysterious ways, he doesn't always answer prayer".
As for everything else you wrote there, it's all a contradiction. It violates the law of non-contradiction: A = A, Not A = Not A, A =/= Not A. Again, I have to point out to you that if God changes his mind, even knowing in advance that he will, this then renders his knowledge that he will do Action X on December 29th false, thus negating his omniscience. Again, you can't have both. Either God has the ability to change his mind (an ability he must have if he is to claim the attribute of omnipotent), thus rendering his knowledge of what actions he will do false...or he has knowledge of what actions he will do, but cannot change them. Knowledge that on December 29th, God will do action X, cannot be the same as knowledge that on December 29th, he will do action Z (where X and Z cannot both be accomplished at the same time).0 -
RikuoAmero wrote: »People can try and experiment with things like democracy in the real world, even if it's something that has never been done before. Here's the difference between trying democracy and trying God: one shows results that can be examined and verified, the other doesn't. The god claim I can only verify after I'm dead (and that's if I still have a consciousness once I kick the bucket).
Another difference between democracy and your God claim is that democracy is an action, something one can do. The god claim is a belief, nothing more nothing less. How do you 'do' a belief? Try a belief? A belief is something you either accept or don't accept. I can't try a God belief for 30 days, or get my money back. I can't experiment believing in something I haven't been convinced is true. (How many times do I have to point that out?)
Again your mixing up believing with knowing. Yes you can try believing in god as if it were true, it called faking it, you might not ahem...believe, but it's what most believers do a lot of the time. You cant get your money back for the simple reason it costs nothing money wise, time commitment and stuff like that yes but belife is foc. BTW it's not about what happens after you die, pie in the sky when you die is the worst reason to believe anything, and I include democracy, nationalism and everything else people have died for in that. Any fool can find a cause to die for, what we need are reasons to live for or at least reasons we can live with.0 -
Amoral/immoral Reason has been responsible for some of the greatest atrocities committed by Humanity ... one only has to think of the French Revolution, which prided itself on the appliance of reason ... only to have the Seine run red with the blood of those sacrificed to 'reason' on 'Madame Guillotine'!!!“Faith and feelings are the warm marrow of evil. Unlike reason, faith and feelings provide no boundary to limit any delusion, any whim. They are virulent poison, giving the numbing illusion of moral sanction to every depravity ever hatched.
Faith and feelings are the darkness to reason’s light.
Reason is the very substance of truth itself. The glory that is life is wholly embraced through reason. In rejecting it, in rejecting reason, one embraces death.”
... or the horrific experiments conducted by a 'monster of reason', like Josef Mengele, for example.
I also agree that blind faith based on immoral premises is equally dangerous ... and has proven so in the past, as well.
... but the contention that reason is always a good thing ... and faith a necessary pre-cursor to evil, is dangerously incorrect.0 -
Again your mixing up believing with knowing. Yes you can try believing in god as if it were true, it called faking it, you might not ahem...believe, but it's what most believers do a lot of the time. You cant get your money back for the simple reason it costs nothing money wise, time commitment and stuff like that yes but belife is foc. BTW it's not about what happens after you die, pie in the sky when you die is the worst reason to believe anything, and I include democracy, nationalism and everything else people have died for in that. Any fool can find a cause to die for, what we need are reasons to live for or at least reasons we can live with.
Fake it till you make it. Wow...is that the best you can do? So instead of giving me cogent arguments backed up by logic, data, or evidence, your advice is to just pretend that I believe it (is your god really that shallow? Wouldn't he see right through me?) until somehow I can muddle my thinking up and convince myself that...well, I have been convinced of this god claim.
As for the belief not costing me anything...yes it would. If I were a believer, that would entail me believing not just that there is a god, but this one specific claim out of the myriad of claims throughout history. I'd probably then have to mix in other claims with it, such as that marriage is reserved for heterosexuals only. Your god claim isn't just one simple thing: it's a whole mess of claims.
No, I'm not mixing up belief with knowing. Belief is a subset of knowledge. I cannot have a belief in something I have no knowledge of. I define knowledge as justified true belief.0 -
Amoral/immoral Reason has been responsible for some of the greatest atrocities committed by Humanity ... one only has to think of the French Revolution, which prided itself on the appliance of reason ... only to have the Seine run red with the blood of those sacrificed to 'reason' on 'Madame Guillotine'!!!
... or the horrific experiments conducted by a 'monster of reason', like Josef Mengele, for example.
I also agree that blind faith based on immoral premises is equally dangerous ... and has proven so in the past, as well.
... but the contention that reason is always a good thing ... and faith a necessary pre-cursor to evil, is dangerously incorrect.
Here's the question - how do you differentiate between a faith that Person A has, that happens to be built on true/moral premises, and faith that Person B has, that happens to be built on false/immoral premises? The only thing that A and B have is faith that this thing is true - they're not applying reason or logic to it.0 -
I'll not be diverted by your argument over prayer, other than to say that it does sometimes work.RikuoAmero wrote: »Do I really need to point out to you the utter absurdity of the concept of prayer? I'll toss in the obvious example of fervent christians with lost limbs who pray to be healed, which has yet to happen. I fully expect you to respond with something along the lines of "God works in mysterious ways, he doesn't always answer prayer".
As for everything else you wrote there, it's all a contradiction. It violates the law of non-contradiction: A = A, Not A = Not A, A =/= Not A. Again, I have to point out to you that if God changes his mind, even knowing in advance that he will, this then renders his knowledge that he will do Action X on December 29th false, thus negating his omniscience. Again, you can't have both. Either God has the ability to change his mind (an ability he must have if he is to claim the attribute of omnipotent), thus rendering his knowledge of what actions he will do false...or he has knowledge of what actions he will do, but cannot change them. .
In relation to the omnipotent argument ... it is of course totally possible for God to change His mind and to know that He will do so.
This isn't how omniscience works ... God knows (from before time and space was established by Him) that He would have done action X on December 29th but because of repentance, He will do action Z.RikuoAmero wrote: »Knowledge that on December 29th, God will do action X, cannot be the same as knowledge that on December 29th, he will do action Z (where X and Z cannot both be accomplished at the same time)0 -
Advertisement
-
I'll not be diverted by your argument over prayer, other than to say that it does sometimes work.
Then show me someone with a lost limb who prayed to your god specifically and had it re-grow. This is an extraordinary claim to make and thus it requires extraordinary evidence. How about something like the person praying while surrounded by a team of doctors, who then sign a document promising to resign if ever it's shown that this regrowing limb was faked?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement