The arguments of God's nonexistence

Do you know what the meaning of the word theory is, Implicator? And this thread is called "The Arguments of God's non-existence." I'm giving you the information about how we human beings can believe into ilogical things because of psychological, social, and emotional reasons. By giving you this information, I'm giving you logical prove about this argument. That's why I included this here.

Again, we must use the logic that applies to all humanity. Not like the example you gave me previously about the pepper being hot and not hot at the same time and same sense. And how can we apply this logic to all humanity. Better yet, how do I apply this to the word "hot" in Spanish if "hot" doesn't mean spicy? So, we can't use the same logical sense of this word to that language then. That's why I didn't continue trying to answer your debunking comments. it is just too tiresome.
I'm not trying to prove that God doesn't exist. I've never suggested that. Í'm just highlighting the arguments tries to make us understand (at leat gives me to understand) why God can't exist. Do I know that God exist? No. Do I beleive in the existence of God? Heck, no!!. Why do I believe that God can't exist? Simple. You probably know by the arguments I have provided to this thead thus far.

0 Replies

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Implicator wrote:
Hey Jason, I saw another post of yours and felt the need to reply. So here goes ...

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
But why do we need to pay the price because "we're not perfect"? Well, this argument has to be traced back to the story of Adam and Eve, since God did not succeed in granting them perfection.

Why do you think it was God's "plan" to grant them perfection? Specifically (which I think you imply) why do you think that God's plan was for them to stay perfect? Many people would say that this was not God's plan at all, and they would say this based on other parts of the Bible."

Give me proof of your claims. But why wasn't "perfection" in God's plan? He wanted us to be perfect, didn't He?

Um, I didn't make any claims, Jason. I asked you to support your contention that it was God's plan to make man perfect. This seems very much to me like an attempt by you to shift the burden of proof to me, which isn't going to happen. You claimed it was God's plan to make man perfect, and I am asking you to support that claim. So have at it

No, it isn't any "attempt to shift the burnden of proof" to you. I just wanted to see if you gave me a concrete example of this argument.

Forgive me, but when someone makes an assertion which I challenge, and then asks me to answer the opposing question (without answering the question I have asked), it seems logical to me that they are attempting to divert from their responsibility. Regardless, you have now answered my question, which I appreciate.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them (Gen 6:7).
Can you tell me what this possibly means? Mind you, this is one example. Why is He sorry for creating man? HMMM, interesting.

Sure, I think it means God was upset at man's sin, and so decided he would destroy (most of) them. It doesn't necessitate that God's original plan was perfection and that he failed at it, although that is certainly one possible interpretation. Isn't it interesting that both you and I can interpret the same passage differently? This is empirical evidence of subjective opinions, that I referenced elsewhere in this thread.

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Implicator wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
But why God condemned them to a life of misery and denied them paradise?

Because they sinned, no?

But why a just God condemned Adam and Eve to a life of despair for one mistake? Why didn't He give them a second chance? Isn't God forgiving? This seems to be another contradiction of His nature.

Why did a just God condemn Adam and Even? Because he is a just God, that's why. Consider this if this one mistake (that maybe seems minor to you) was in fact the worst thing that Adam and Eve could do (disobedience of a holy and righteous God), then would it not be remiss if God were to just let it slide? Remember, God (the creator and sustainer of the universe) is not only forgiving, he is also just. How he chooses to dole out punishment would be entirely up to him, no? In fact, that's just what the Bible says about him he has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy on.

Any thoughts on this part of my previous response?

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Implicator wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
What kind of God would do this to His children?

Wouldn't a "just" God exact judgment when someone did something wrong?

Define Just (I will come to this definition later. Just hold on).

- Honorable and fair in one's dealings and actions: a just ruler.
- Consistent with what is morally right; righteous: a just cause.
- Properly due or merited: just deserts.
- Law. Valid within the law; lawful: just claims.
- Suitable or proper in nature; fitting: a just touch of solemnity.
- Based on fact or sound reason; well-founded: a just appraisal.

I can see the word "reason," "law," "proper in nature". Well, I have explained this by stating that God nature doesn't fit into all this because of the contradictions I have mentioned previously.

You have claimed that God's nature doesn't fit this, but you have not shown it to be true. In order to show your position is true, you would need to show that God's actions (the outworking of his nature) were inconsistent with the definitions provided above. Can you do that?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Implicator wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Adam and Eve were given the choice of free will.

This is a far reaching statement, depending on what you mean by the phrase "free will". I will assume you are using the most commonly used definition, and because of that I will ask you why you think God granted Adam and Eve (or any of us) free will?"

What other "commonly used definition" of the concept of "free will" is out there?

I will clarify what I said to read "I will assume you are using the commonly used definition." Now, please answer my question - why do you think God granted Adam and Eve (or any of us) free will?

I have no idea why God granted them free will. Do you know?

Forgive the ambiguity in my question. What I am asking you is this - what is it that makes you think that God granted Adam and Eve free will? I'm not agreeing that he actually did this - I am challenging your comment above that he did.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Implicator wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
They were given each other a partner, abundance of food and beauty, but they were also given a limitation or a rule. God asked them to eat from the fruits of every tree but the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil lest they should die. They ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and they were banned from Paradise and were punished, even the serpent that seduced them into eating the fruit was punished. For the first time Adam and Eve became aware of their nakedness. But don't you think small children do that? Don't you think small children disobey their parents? The whole Adam and Eve story seems like a metaphor, children who disobey their parents and get punished about it.

Some people perceive it as an analogy, others perceive it to be descriptive of literal events that provide the reason as to why small children (and big adults for that matter) do the wrong thing.

But why does God talk in riddles? Why not deliver His message plane and simple? Don't you think He has the power over logic? Isn't He the God who can do it all?

I believe God has made his message plain and simple, yet man has the ability to muck up even the simplest of messages. God is a rational being by nature, and so is bound by his nature to be logical.

"PLAIN AND SIMPLE"? What is "plain and simple" to you. God is logical when you fit it into your definition of "logic." When you say that God is rational, I must be missing something else here, because I don't see how can something illogical can become something logical. And "bound by His nature"?

Jason, you have yet to actually prove that anything God does is illogical. What you have shown is that according to the perception (maybe the better term is "assumptions") you have about how the Bible should be interpreted, there are contradictions. But if your interpretation of the Bible is wrong, then God is not necessarily illogical. Like I said before in a different part of this thread, you are stuck inside your particular beliefs, just like the rest of us - unless you can show objectivity in your view, then you have not provided proof that God is illogical.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Implicator wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Nevertheless, why did God lie to them about eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, telling them that they would die if they ate from it? Adam and Eve ate from the tree and didn't die, but they were thrown out of Paradise.

Are you telling me Adam and Eve are still alive today, Jason?

But more to the point, isn't there more than one way to perceive the term "die"? Do you realize many believe this refers to a spiritual death, and not an (immediate) physical one? And if this *is* what it refers to, then you have not shown that God lied?

God specifically said that they (Adam and Eve) "should die if they ate from the fruit of the forbidden tree; He never said anything about taking away their immortality. Don't you think if He meant that He would take away their immortality, He should've said it and not "you should die"? That's a lie, to me.

Genesis 2:17 does not state that God said that if they ate of the tree, then they "should" die. It states that they "will" (or "shall") die. Furthermore, the account does not explicitly state in what sense the term "die" is being used (remember the importance of "sense" from our earlier discussion as it relates to contradictions?) One needs to look outside of the immediate account to see what sense God was using the term "die" in - it wasn't physical. So no, God didn't lie.

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. But it seems clear to me that shalt means will..."will die." How if you eat a fruit and God told you that you "will die" means that your immortality will be taken? How is that the same as "I will take away your immortality"? Tell me, please. And He said "in the day that thou eatest therereof you will die." What does this mean to you?

I'm not following your argument. I am saying that I believe God was speaking about a spiritual death, based on what scripture in its entirety says. I'm not talking about man losing his immortality.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Implicator wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
The story depicts God as a selfish parent who didn't want to see His children grow up; He wanted them to remain children forever, innocent. It seems like they were part of some sort of celestial experimentation, in which God failed to obtain a much desired result.

Once again, realize that though the Bible "seems" to present something a certain way to you, it won't seem the same to someone else.

But the experimentation observation seems logical if you know what the definition of experimentation is.

It may seem logical to you, but like I said, it does not seem that way to others. This does not serve to make logic subjective, rather it accounts for the fact that conclusions (e.g. God was experimenting) are reached based not only on the use of logic, but on interpretation of evidence used to arrive at that conclusion. If your interpretation differs from someone else's, then don't be surprised that you come to different conclusions.

It will seem logical to me if I follow the definition of "logic" that is applied to explain the mysteries of the universe, the one that makes sense to humanity. yes, tt would make sense to me. But if I diverge from that, then I will most likely create confusions and contradictions. You seem to apply your own logic to every word in the Bible without any actual proof of its validity.

I am applying logic to my particular interpretation of the Bible. You are applying logic to your particular interpretation of the Bible. Neither of us is necessarily being illogical, just because we come to different conclusions. The mere fact that we are working with a different interpretation of scripture is enough for us to come to different conclusions.

Do you understand what I am saying here about subjectivity verses objectivity, because it is a crucial cog in the wheel of understanding why people come to different and contradictory conclusions while both of them are being logical in their thought processes?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Implicator wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
But you might say that we shouldn't take the words of the Bible literally. But how should we interpret the words of the bible if not literally?

How does one go about determining whether to take any book literally? Or better yet, what parts of any book should be taken literally? Do we not look at the claims in the book, the context provided, the history of the writers, who it was written to, etc? Don't you think we can use these same tools in evaluating the Bible?"

Don't you think laws are supposed to be taken literally? If the Bible is the book of all the laws that we must follow in order to live our lives in total rejoice (in accordance to God), then these laws are not clearly written.

I think that many statements of law are to be take literally, if they are worded such. I think laws can be expressed in non-literal ways, however (e.g. stories that have a "moral" to them, parables, etc.) Why do you say that the laws are not clearly written?

I have explained this. Have you been reading what I posted here previously?

I have read and re-read everything you have posted, yet you have not explained why we cannot treat the Bible as any other work of literature, and use things such as audience relevance, context, history of the authors, etc in order to evaluate whether a particular Biblical statement is to be taken as literal, allegorical, apocalyptic, anthropomorphic, etc. All you have stated is that you find the Bible confusing.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Implicator wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Wasn't Jesus son to Mary? Didn't Moses free his people? Didn't Satan betray God? Didn't Kane kill Abel?

The Bible certainly seems to say all of these things, yes.

Do you give me credit here? These ideas are literally articulated.

I agree with your statements, Jason - that's all. I agree that your statements are true, based on my reading of the Bible. However, the fact that you can find some examples of truths in scripture that are presented in a literal manner does not necessitate that all truths in scripture are presented that way.

How are "all truths in the scripture are presented"?

In a variety of ways some literal, some allegorical, some apocalyptically, some anthropomorphically, etc.

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
But don't you think that if God had the ability to create good in this world also created evil, since He created every thing in the physical world?

I think the Bible presents a God who is ultimately responsible (not necessarily morally, but certainly creatively) for everything that exists. So yes, it is fair to say that evil only exists because God (in some sense) desires that it exist.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
About the example I gave previously about the little girl who died in the fire, if she is an innocent girl and is free of sin (she's is innocent because the Bible says that a child under seven years of age is innocent. It's at seven when he or she begins to know what's good and evil) why God allowed her to die such a brutal death?

Where does the Bible say this again - the part about being seven, that is?

I thought you knew this all alone.

What? Please answer the question with a quote from the Bible, Jason. Don't dismiss such an important question by claiming that I supposedly know this to be true. I am directly challenging your statement - calling your bluff. You claimed the Bible says children under the age of seven are innocent, so prove to me that your claim is true!

I did; look up.

No, you didn't. You claimed that children are innocent, yet the scripture you provided (in another part of this thread) never mentions the word innocent. And you never provided any sort of proof (scriptural or otherwise) that children don't know the difference between good and evil until they are seven - all you did was make a proclamation that this is the case. I am looking for proof, Jason, not proclamations by you that something is true just because you claim it is so.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Implicator wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
If God lives outside time, differently than we live here in the physical world, then He would be wise enough to make us understand what he truly wants- articulate his purpose which includes us, without any contradictions:

Wise enough, or certainly powerful enough, no? So if we posit a God that is powerful enough to make us understand what he wants, and yet we do not all understand what he wants, then maybe this God's ultimate desire is not that everyone truly understand (i.e. and accept) what he wants.

"Wise enough," since the word of the Bible (His words) contradict the premises which they all stand for, of His objectives toward humanity.

Could you please be kind enough to support at least some of your claims about what the Bible says by sharing verses from the Bible? What part of the Bible contradicts "the premises which they all stand for"? Be specific.

Haven't I given you enough examples already? You have agreed with me about many of them in the past. But why do you need verses from the Bible? Is this a defense mechanism from you to defend yourself against my arguments?

Be certain of one thing - any time you claim that the Bible says something I am going to ask you to not only quote that passage of the Bible; I am also going to ask you to provide justification that your interpretation of the scripture you present is correct. Get used to it - that's what is involved in carrying a logical argument to its conclusion.

And no, it is not a defense mechanism, as I am not really defending anything here. I am spending most of my time encouraging you to defend your point of view, since you are the one making most of the assertions.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Implicator wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil. Evil exists. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

More to the point ... therefore, it is logically contradictory for a God to exist who fits your definition and understanding of the attributes being discussed. Don't sell other definitions/understandings short.

Again, this isn't my definition; it's logic. How am I supposed to determine the existence of God and understand it? Just by feeling Him in me?

It is indeed your definition, by nature of the fact that it is a definition proceeding from you. What "logic" leads you to say that if God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil? What possible logical argument do you have to support this assumption of yours?

Don't you think that it is Hume's argument and those who have followed it. It isn't my opinion; it has been studied logically for long, long years. What is "morally" according to God? Is it an exception when God does something immoral to call it something else? Because that's a way into confusing the heck out of me. And it does nothing to you. Concerning God's contradiction about being perfectly moral: Well, I have the example of Job, the example of Adam and Eve, the Example of suffering in this world, the existence of evil (should I keep going? I guess not.)

1) If you present an argument to me, even if it is one that someone else came up with, then it is still your argument as it pertains to our discussion. I am not debating Hume here, as he isn't even here to debate. I am debating you, Jason

2) The fact that an argument has been studied for many years by other people (even intelligent ones) does not necessitate that the argument is sound, or even valid, for that matter. There are many arguments for the existence of God which fall into the category of things studied for many years, yet I am rather certain that you would not simply acquiesce to their soundness by virtue of how many years they have been around.

3) The Bible presents God as the very definition of good. God is sinless/morally perfect/righteous. However, his moral revelation to mankind (how we should act) is by no means necessarily binding on God. If you think it should be, then please explain why.

4) Your examples of Job, Adam and Eve, and evil in this world have all been challenged by me to the point where you have no provided any objective proof that God has dealt immorally with any of them.

5) Feel free to keep going in your example giving or not. It is entirely up to you. Just realize that all you have done at this point is give opinions about God's dealing with humanity, you haven't made any arguments that have held up to scrutiny.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Implicator wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
About the Ten Commandments, how can it be that if a man lusted for a woman (thought about having her) is the same as raping her, which leads to burning in Hell for all eternity? Don't you think that's too extreme? Just by thinking about wanting a woman carnally, the punishment is the same as if he raped her.

My perception is that the Bible is saying that such an act as this makes one "worthy" of spending an eternity in Hell, but that it doesn't necessitate that you do.

"Your perception"? Why does it have to be your perception? Weren't the Ten Commandments intended for all humanity?

The intended audience has nothing to do with the fact that my personal reading of the Bible leads me to come to this conclusion, and that your personal reading leads you to a different conclusion. Can you show me objectively that your conclusion is correct?
I

Why is it that you don't apply logic to any of God's contradictions? Like I said before, is it ok for God to do immoral things (what we call immoral) and call them something else? Huh?

I will ask it again, since you apparently didn't "hear" my question, or you chose to ignore it.

Jason - can you show me objectively that your conclusion is correct? When you answer this question, then I will proceed to answer the question you just asked of me.

I

0 Replies

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Do you know what the meaning of the word theory is, Implicator?

Yes.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

And this thread is called "The Arguments of God's non-existence." I'm giving you the information about how we human beings can believe into illogical things because of psychological, social, and emotional reasons.

I realize that people can believe in illogical things, but can't you see why your selected title for this thread might actually lead me to believe that you are presenting arguments that you think prove that God does not exist?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

By giving you this information, I'm giving you logical prove about this argument. That's why I included this here.

For instance, this very comment "I'm giving you logical pro[of] about this argument." What does this mean? To me it means that you think you have proven these arguments are sound, and by extension that God does not exist. Did you mean something else?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Again, we must use the logic that applies to all humanity. Not like the example you gave me previously about the pepper being hot and not hot at the same time and same sense.

See, I don't think you are reading what I write. The pepper is hot and not hot at the same time, yes. But I did not claim it was hot and not hot in the same sense. In fact, I said just the opposite. My point was that we must understand the "sense" in which words are used before we jump to the conclusion that there is a contradiction. The example I gave is that it is not a contradiction to say the pepper is hot and not hot, if we are using the term "hot" in a different sense within the same statement.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

And how can we apply this logic to all humanity. Better yet, how do I apply this to the word "hot" in Spanish if "hot" doesn't mean spicy?

I gave an example using the English language of a truth that applies to all humanity, regardless of language. I could probably find an example of the same truth in using Spanish, just as long as Spanish lends itself to the same ambiguity that English does.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

So, we can't use the same logical sense of this word to that language then.

Correct, we cannot use this particular example given in English if we are going to speak Spanish. However, since the truth of what I am saying about contradictions is conceptual (and not tied to any language), that really doesn't matter.

Here is a quote from wikipedia.com on the topic of "contradiction"

Quote:

In logic, contradiction is defined much more specifically, usually as the simultaneous assertion of a statement and its negation ("denial" can be used instead of "negation"). This, of course, assumes that "negation" has a non-problematic definition. This idea is based on Aristotle's law of non-contradiction which states that "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time."

Wikipedia uses the term "respect", I use the term "sense" - same thing. So the pepper is spicy hot (the term "hot" is being used in the sense of spiciness), and the pepper is NOT hot (here the term "hot" is being used in the sense of temperature), at the same time.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

That's why I didn't continue trying to answer your debunking comments. it is just too tiresome.

Sometimes it is tiring just for two people to communicate well enough so that they understand what the other is saying. It seems to me there has been some miscommunication from both sides in our discussions, and that probably accounts for a good portion of the amount of time it takes to respond. But as I said before, there is no clock running here, take a day or two off and come back when you have more time, if you have more time.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

I'm not trying to prove that God doesn't exist. I've never suggested that. I'm just highlighting the arguments tries to make us understand (at least gives me to understand) why God can't exist.

I'm sorry, but I see no practical difference between proving that God doesn't exist, and highlighting arguments that make us understand why God can't exist.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Do I know that God exist? No. Do I believe in the existence of God? Heck, no!!. Why do I believe that God can't exist? Simple. You probably know by the arguments I have provided to this thead thus far.

Yes, and I have been trying my best to show you why the arguments you have provided do not logically lead to the conclusion that God does not exist. That's what I have been doing.

I

0 Replies

Help!
Word avalanche!
Help!
Word ava . .

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Help!
Word avalanche!
Help!
Word ava . .

I can see why Jason embeds his responses directly in the quotes. Half of my response time is spent formatting!

Smile

I

0 Replies

If I believed in God, this thread would've never existed; our meaning of life would've been fulfilled. There wouldn't have been any reason to try to find it, and when found, we wouldn't have had lost it (meaning that our happiness would never end). There wouldn't be any suffering in the world. Since He is suppose to be a perfect being, we would've been perfect as well (if he can do it all). There wouldn't be any limitations for God, no time nor space to accomplish His will. No contradictions wouldn've existed regarding His nature (in any language, since He create them all). We wouldn've had to rely so much on science to survive in this world (consider medicine, technology, information, etc). Everybody would understand His will clearly, everybody(I mean everybody).

The term God means to me: the tool to control the masses, a political device to implement order. (People can do lots of things with political and religious authority by their side.) The words of God mean to me: a collection of interesting, very beautiful, mythological stories with some good messages in the Biblical context as well as bad.

I may have left more information unmentioned here, but I think that's pretty much what I think of it.

0 Replies

Implicator, you seem to not understand when I say that logic has to be applied to all humanity. If you said that the pepper is hot and isn't hot at the same time, you mean that the pepper is spicy but not hot in temperature. But that only applies to the English language. What you are doing is playing with words by adding different meanings using the same word. If I said that the pepper is "picante"and isn't "picante"at the same time and the same sense, then there is a contradiction. Why? because the word "picante" means spicy, and the word "caliente" means hot (as temperature). See why your logic can't be applied to all humanity? You're just playing with words here, not using the logic that applies to all humanity that would lead to a contradiction (or not lead to a contradiction). If you don't understand something simple as this, then I don't know what to do. Someone else should explain it to you.

0 Replies

Implicator, I won't continue explaining the previous arguments (the avalange of words) with you if you don't understand the logic that applies to all humanity. If you don't or won't understand that, then I won't be able to explain anything to you, and we will be here for all eternity. And another thing, it gives me a headache when I see so many questions that I have to answer at the same time. If you want me to continue this, you will have to choose one argument, discuss it, and choose another one until every argument is solved or explain (if it is possible to solve them). Thank you. And sorry.

0 Replies

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If I believed in God, this thread would've never existed; our meaning of life would've been fulfilled. There wouldn't have been any reason to try to find it, and when found, we wouldn't have had lost it (meaning that our happiness would never end).

Would you not agree that this conclusion of yours is based on a specific understanding of who God is? For instance, what if there was a god, but he decided to fill your life with meaninglessness and sorrow? Obviously your conclusions as to what the existence of God meant would be wrong, no?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

There wouldn't be any suffering in the world. Since He is supposed to be a perfect being, we would've been perfect as well (if he can do it all).

Only if he wanted you to be perfect as well. There is no logical necessity that if God is perfect then his creation must also be perfect.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

There wouldn't be any limitations for God, no time nor space to accomplish His will.

It is logically impossible to have a God with absolutely no limitations whatsoever.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

No contradictions would've existed regarding His nature (in any language, since He create them all).

I never claimed that contradictions actually exist, only that we can make statements that are contradictory.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

We wouldn've had to rely so much on science to survive in this world (consider medicine, technology, information, etc).

Why not?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Everybody would understand His will clearly, everybody(I mean everybody).

Why? Is this a logical conclusion you have arrived at, or an assumption?

I

0 Replies

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator, you seem to not understand when I say that logic has to be applied to all humanity.

You seem not to understand the difference between expressing a logical concept and giving an example of it in a specific language.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If you said that the pepper is hot and isn't hot at the same time, you mean that the pepper is spicy but not hot in temperature. But that only applies to the English language.

I already said that my analogy only applies in English (or dialects therefore that share the multiple meanings of the word "hot".) But the underlying concept that my analogy represents is universal, not tied to any one language. Remember the definition of a logical contradiction that I gave you from wikipedia? Did you read it? Do you understand it? Do you see why my analogy is an example of it?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

What you are doing is playing with words by adding different meanings using the same word.

The different meanings already exist within the language we are using - I am taking advantage of that ambiguity to give an example that supports the definition of a logical contradiction.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If I said that the pepper is "picante" and isn't "picante" at the same time and the same sense, then there is a contradiction.

Sure, because you have changed the words you are using, Jason. If I stuck to English and said "It is 10:00 AM EST at this moment and it is not the case that it is 10:00 AM EST at this moment" then there is also a contradiction. Changing the words in the sentence changes the meaning and therefore impacts whether or not there is a contradiction.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Why? because the word "picante" means spicy, and the word "caliente" means hot (as temperature).

Yes, I know.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

See why your logic can't be applied to all humanity?

The logic of which I speak (specifically as it relates to logical contradictions) is in fact applied to all humanity, regardless of language.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

You're just playing with words here, not using the logic that applies to all humanity that would lead to a contradiction (or not lead to a contradiction).

I am giving an example of how a person might make a statement that appears to be a contradiction, but is not.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If you don't understand something simple as this, then I don't know what to do. Someone else should explain it to you.

I can tell you what to do - go and take an introductory course in logic.

I

0 Replies

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator, I won't continue explaining the previous arguments (the avalange of words) with you if you don't understand the logic that applies to all humanity.

I think you misunderstand the point that I am trying to make with the example of the pepper, Jason. I don't know whether this is intentional or not - maybe you just don't want to deal with my responses to you, or maybe you really think I am saying something utterly ridiculous. Regardless, it is entirely up to you to decide whether you would like to work through this or not.

My perception (and this is by no means judgmental) is that you are having a difficult time understanding something fairly basic about logic. Have you taken any courses in logic? Have you been introduced to the definition of what a logical contradiction is? Maybe you could give me your definition, and we can work together to get past this impasse.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If you don't or won't understand that, then I won't be able to explain anything to you, and we will be here for all eternity. And another thing, it gives me a headache when I see so many questions that I have to answer at the same time. If you want me to continue this, you will have to choose one argument, discuss it, and choose another one until every argument is solved or explain (if it is possible to solve them). Thank you. And sorry.

Then let's stick to the problem of evil, since that's the first argument you brought up. We can proceed one question at a time, if you wish. Here is my first question:

Why would God not be all-good if he allowed evil to exist?

I

0 Replies

Well, if God exists, why would He make my life meaningless? And "sorrow"? Who said that I'm in sorrow?
But didn't God expect perfection from us? Why not create us perfect and avoid getting furious at us and threatening us to destroy us and the poor animals? why is this so ilogical?

If God can do it all, would there be any limitations for Him?

We can make "statements that are contradictory."God knows this, and why didn't He think of it before He invented logic and languages and everything before the physical universe?

If we rely so much on science, why don't you believe in it. Science has explain so many misteries of the cosmos, and has contributed to technology, the technology that you use to type this message and see, add, discuss my arguments onto this thread.
If you think that God can cure you from an fatal illness, why do you go to the doctor for?

0 Replies

If you don't want responses to turn into multiple questions requiring multiple answers, then don't ask multiple questions Smile

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Well, if God exists, why would He make my life meaningless? And "sorrow"? Who said that I'm in sorrow?

I didn't say you were in sorry, Jason. I also didn't say that your life had no meaning. I posed a hypothetical scenario, that if God had decided to fill your life with meaningless and sorrow, then your conclusion that he couldn't exist would be wrong.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

But didn't God expect perfection from us? Why not create us perfect and avoid getting furious at us and threatening us to destroy us and the poor animals? why is this so illogical?

Why create us perfect? Why not create us so that we could fall into sin, so that he could rescue us, ultimately bringing all glory to him? Why is that so illogical?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If God can do it all, would there be any limitations for Him?

Like I said before, such a God cannot logically exist.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

We can make "statements that are contradictory." God knows this, and why didn't He think of it before He invented logic and languages and everything before the physical universe?

Perhaps he did think of it. Perhaps he gave us the ability to express the contradictory so that we could be able to determine what it and is not true.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If we rely so much on science, why don't you believe in it.

I believe science has value - I also believe it has limitations. So no, I don't "believe in it" as if it were a god.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Science has explain[ed] so many mysteries of the cosmos, and has contributed to technology, the technology that you use to type this message and see, add, discuss my arguments onto this thread.

Indeed it has, which is one of the many reasons I believe science has value.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If you think that God can cure you from a fatal illness, why do you go to the doctor for?

The fact that a person believes God can heal them does not necessitate that they don't go to the doctor, especially if they believe that God works through a variety of means to accomplish all that he does.

I

0 Replies

Implicator, do you understand when I say that the logic that I'm talking about has to apply to all humanity?

example:

Today is monday. If today is monday, then today can't be Saturday. This is the logic that applies to all humanity. The pepper is spicy. The pepper is spicy but not hot in temperature. If the pepper is spicy and not hot in temperature, then the pepper isn't hot in temperature. Understand?

If you think that I need to take a course in logic, then the logic that I've been taught exists no more, and therefore, I would have to need a course in logic.
If you don't understand my examples I just gave you about logic that must apply to all humanity, Implicator, I'm afraid I can't continue with this. I hope you understand why.

0 Replies

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If God can do it all, would there be any limitations for Him?

Like I said before, such a God cannot logically exist.

Why can't this God exist (a God with no limitations? You seem to be speaking for the Bible, Implicator, changing its words and meaning. The Bible states that God can do it all. You're just assuming that God can't do it all. Doesn't this read like a contradiction to you? God can do it all, or can't He? Which one is it?

0 Replies

This is really getting rather frustrating.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator, do you understand when I say that the logic that I'm talking about has to apply to all humanity?

Yes.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

example:

Today is monday. If today is monday, then today can't be Saturday.

Agreed, because we would be saying "It is the case that it is Monday, and it is not the case that it is Monday (as Saturday != Monday) at the same time and in the same sense." If we said that it were Monday and Saturday, then we would indeed be making a contradictory statement.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

This is the logic that applies to all humanity.

Agreed

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

The pepper is spicy. The pepper is spicy but not hot in temperature. If the pepper is spicy and not hot in temperature, then the pepper isn't hot in temperature. Understand?

I have demonstrated the fact that I understand the difference between saying something is hot (spicy) and hot (temperature), Jason. I contintually point this out, yet for some reason you continue to think I don't know the difference. This is why I am getting frustrated - it is as if you are not comprehending what it is I am writing.

But tell me this ... do you feel it is a contradiction for me to state "the pepper is hot (spicy) but the pepper is not hot (temperature)"? Is this a contradictory statement? If not, then remove my parenthesis where I clarify what I mean by "hot" and then tell me if statement is now a contradiction.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If you think that I need to take a course in logic, then the logic that I've been taught exists no more, and therefore, I would have to need a course in logic.

My comment about your need to take a course in logic was based on what you had shared with me up until that point regarding the definition of a logical contradiction. Although your comments in this post seem to indicate you understand the difference, the fact that you cannot see you and I are saying the same thing makes me wonder whether you are really reading what I am typing.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If you don't understand my examples I just gave you about logic that must apply to all humanity, Implicator, I'm afraid I can't continue with this. I hope you understand why.

Your call, Jason. I understand that you think I am speaking of some type of foreign logic here, but I just don't understand why you think that is the case.

I

0 Replies

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
If God can do it all, would there be any limitations for Him?

Like I said before, such a God cannot logically exist.

Why can't this God exist (a God with no limitations)?

A God with no limitations could cause a rock to be black and red all over, no? Is that possible? A God with no limitations could cause himself to be God and not-God all over, at the same time, and in the same sense. Is that possible? A God with no limitations could create a rock so large he couldn't lift it, thus instantiating a logically contradictory state of affairs. Is that possible? I submit not.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

You seem to be speaking for the Bible, Implicator, changing its words and meaning.

Well, I certainly share my own perception of what the Bible is saying, just as you do.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

The Bible states that God can do it all.

I disagree. I do not believe that the Bible, when viewed in its entirety, presents a God who can do it all, specifically because of passages such as this:

Num 23:19 (NIV) "God is not a man, that he should lie,
nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?"

If God cannot lie, then he is not a God who can do it all.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

You're just assuming that God can't do it all.

I would submit that it is you who is assuming here, not me.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Doesn't this read like a contradiction to you? God can do it all, or can't He? Which one is it?

He can't, and no, it doesn't read like a contradiction to me.

I

0 Replies

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
The pepper is spicy. The pepper is spicy but not hot in temperature. If the pepper is spicy and not hot in temperature, then the pepper isn't hot in temperature. Understand?

I have demonstrated the fact that I understand the difference between saying something is hot (spicy) and hot (temperature), Jason. I contintually point this out, yet for some reason you continue to think I don't know the difference. This is why I am getting frustrated - it is as if you are not comprehending what it is I am writing.

But tell me this ... do you feel it is a contradiction for me to state "the pepper is hot (spicy) but the pepper is not hot (temperature)"? Is this a contradictory statement? If not, then remove my parenthesis where I clarify what I mean by "hot" and then tell me if statement is now a contradiction.

I'm glad that you understand this. But why would you include this example if it doesn't apply to all humanity? I was wondering about that. That's why I was so confused, and I thought you didn't understand this logic. Even if I took away the parenthesis from your example, it would not contradict your premise. But the flaw that this logic has is that it doesn't apply to all humanity; it only applies to the English language. That's what I was trying to tell you all alone. But if you meant this, I must've misunderstood you. I apologize for that, if that's the case.

0 Replies

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Implicator wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
If God can do it all, would there be any limitations for Him?

Like I said before, such a God cannot logically exist.

Why can't this God exist (a God with no limitations)?

A God with no limitations could cause a rock to be black and red all over, no? Is that possible? A God with no limitations could cause himself to be God and not-God all over, at the same time, and in the same sense. Is that possible? A God with no limitations could create a rock so large he couldn't lift it, thus instantiating a logically contradictory state of affairs. Is that possible? I submit not.

We'll that is the definition of a God who can do it all.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
You seem to be speaking for the Bible, Implicator, changing its words and meaning.

Well, I certainly share my own perception of what the Bible is saying, just as you do.

I thought so.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
The Bible states that God can do it all.

I disagree. I do not believe that the Bible, when viewed in its entirety, presents a God who can do it all, specifically because of passages such as this:

Num 23:19 (NIV) "God is not a man, that he should lie,
nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?"
What is your point here? Then if God can't lie, then He is limited, controlled by a higher power that constitute to not lying. He has limitations, therefore, He can't be God. An entity that can't do anything He wants, can't be God. God can do it all. How do you want me to take these words from His own, from the Bible, the guide for humanity salvation.

If God cannot lie, then he is not a God who can do it all.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
You're just assuming that God can't do it all.

I would submit that it is you who is assuming here, not me.

You know that this argument has been studied, not just by me but by many, many phylosophers and teologies. It isn't my opinion.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Doesn't this read like a contradiction to you? God can do it all, or can't He? Which one is it?

He can't, and no, it doesn't read like a contradiction to me.

Well, God can do it all.

I have another question for you, Implicator. Would you become a muslim?

I

0 Replies

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
The pepper is spicy. The pepper is spicy but not hot in temperature. If the pepper is spicy and not hot in temperature, then the pepper isn't hot in temperature. Understand?

I have demonstrated the fact that I understand the difference between saying something is hot (spicy) and hot (temperature), Jason. I contintually point this out, yet for some reason you continue to think I don't know the difference. This is why I am getting frustrated - it is as if you are not comprehending what it is I am writing.

But tell me this ... do you feel it is a contradiction for me to state "the pepper is hot (spicy) but the pepper is not hot (temperature)"? Is this a contradictory statement? If not, then remove my parenthesis where I clarify what I mean by "hot" and then tell me if statement is now a contradiction.

I'm glad that you understand this. But why would you include this example if it doesn't apply to all humanity?

It is an analogy that is representative of a concept that applies to all humanity. That the analogy itself is language-specific doesn't impact the fact that the concept it represents is universal.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

I was wondering about that. That's why I was so confused, and I thought you didn't understand this logic. Even if I took away the parenthesis from your example, it would not contradict your premise.

Exactly ... because you know what I mean by each of the instances of the word "hot", only because I have already clarified it for you. However, if someone came across this sentence (say in a book where I included it as an example), and did not have the benefit of the clarification, then would you agree that they just might take this to be a contradictory statement?

Isn't it possible if someone read "The pepper is hot and it is not the case that the pepper is hot" without the benefit of additional statements clarifying the usage of the words "hot", that they would see this as a contradiction?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

But the flaw that this logic has is that it doesn't apply to all humanity; it only applies to the English language. That's what I was trying to tell you all alone. But if you meant this, I must've misunderstood you. I apologize for that, if that's the case.

Jason ... I am not stating that the idea of a pepper being hot and not hot is universal. I never said that, I don't believe that. The concept of a pepper being hot and not hot is language specific. However, the concept I represented with this analogy (which happens to be written in English) is that it is important to understand the sense that words are used it, because one may read a sentence that appears to be contradictory when it really isn't.

I

0 Replies

The arguments of God's nonexistence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know