The arguments of God's nonexistence

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator, Implicator, why do you require physical evidence from me whenever I establish a strong argument about God existence?

Probably because no such thing exists.



What is this "no such thing" that doesn't exists? Is it the evidence, or is it God?






Sorry, couldn't help it.

Implicator, Implicator, why do you require physical evidence from me whenever I establish a strong argument about God existence?

Don't I make any sense when I give you logical examples about those contradictions without presenting you an exact verse from the Bible?

And by the way, don't you think you should do the same thing with the Bible, try to find the physical and logical evidence of its contradictions (that only will happy if you are a rational man)?

But let hit the problem at its core. With all do respect, it seems that you don't understand the concept of logic that I have explained to you previously.

If you don't understand that the Bible describes God as all powerful, a being that can do it all, then I have to take such definition into consideration and prove that He is what the Bible says. But if His words lack such quality, then they have no validy.

You seem to understand the logic here, but sometime you give the impression that you don't.

Let's try something for the sake of this argument (and the rest). Get the definition of "rational," read it, and then apply it to your own persona. You then tell me if you are a rational person or not. If you are a rational person, then you will understand this logic that I'm talking about, if not, you won't be able to understand it. Therefore, this whole thing will be pointless. Do you understand me? Please, look up the definition of "rational"and apply it to yourself. Then, post your answer.

Implicator, we don't just call Him "omnipotent"; God calls Himself "omnipotent." Don't you think (if He exists) that He knows better than you about His own nature, because He expresses it in His own words. You are assuming that He doesn't call Himself.

What is this "no such thing" that doesn't exists? Is it the evidence, or is it God?

Questioner wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator, Implicator, why do you require physical evidence from me whenever I establish a strong argument about God existence?

Probably because no such thing exists.



What is this "no such thing" that doesn't exists? Is it the evidence, or is it God?






Sorry, couldn't help it.

Implicator, we don't just call Him "omnipotent"; God calls Himself "omnipotent." Don't you think (if He exists) that He knows better than you about His own nature, because He expresses it in His own words. You are assuming that He doesn't call Himself.

Interesting art form: burying your response in the quote.

But confusing.

Jason, would you care to describe the god you don't believe in?

If you think it is too far off for this topic, you could go here: http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1707217#1707217

Implicator, it is no use in trying to explain something ( that many people understand in this forum) you don't understand. I think that you live in another world that doesn't constitute to the logic of this world. And I can tell you that many religious people have understood this logic Í'm talking about. If you want to continue with this, why don't YOU provide the verses stating that God can't do it all? And then, we'll have a head start?

Can you tell me what these are?

Psalms 115:3 "But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases."

Luke 1:37 "For with God nothing will be impossible."

Jeremiah 32:17 "'Ah, Lord GOD! Behold, You have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power and outstretched arm. There is nothing too hard for You."

neologist wrote:

Interesting art form: burying your response in the quote.

But confusing.

Jason, would you care to describe the god you don't believe in?

If you think it is too far off for this topic, you could go here: http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1707217#1707217

Sorry Jason. I didn't realize you had already been on the topic and had made interesting posts. I tend to remember folks by their avatars and you did not have your current one at the time.

Carry on.

Implicator, there is no way for reconciliation here. The way these words define the nature of God contradict themselves when sometimes He's seen as impotent.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator, there is no way for reconciliation here. The way these words define the nature of God contradict themselves when sometimes He's seen as impotent.

I am dressed up as Santa Claus and am sitting in a room of children. I make the claim "I am Santa Claus, and will give everyone a present today ... Ho, Ho, Ho!" And so I proceed to distribute presents to everyone in the room.

At the end of the present-giving frenzy, when I am all out of gifts, a rather intelligent child by the name of Harry comes up to me and says "but Santa, you did not give yourself a gift." I reply "I am not giving myself a gift today, only you children."

Harry responds "And Santa, you didn't give gifts to all the rest of the people in the world who didn't come today."

I raise my eyebrow.

"Are you not a member of the set 'everyone', Santa? Are not all other peoople outside this room also a member of this set as well? And did you not say you were giving 'everyone' a gift?"

To this I respond "Dear Harry, you are correct if you take my statement as hyper-literal, with disregard for common euphamisms present in the language I am speaking to you with. But as language is only a tool to express concepts, one should be most interested in the concept being expressed by the lanauge, no? Now stop being such a pain, or I will take back your present."


This is a second example of how apparent contradictions can (and should) be reconciled, and is appropriate to the scripture you have quoted.


BTW, there is yet another way to reconcile these two sets of passages. One could say that God does what he wants, and that God can do anything at all. One can then logically infer that God is able to do anything at all, but he only ever actually does what he wants to do.

So you see, there are at least three ways to reconcile apparently contradictory passages, none of which require too much of a stretch - not unless you are a Hyper-Liiteral Harry, that is.


And so now we come to the next step ... please show to me why it is that we should take these passages as hyper-literal, to the point where we find contradictions? Is there something about the Bible that demands this mode of interpretation? Is there something about language that demands it? What is you reason for doing so?

I

Implicator wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Implicator, there is no way for reconciliation here. The way these words define the nature of God contradict themselves when sometimes He's seen as impotent.

I am dressed up as Santa Claus and am sitting in a room of children. I make the claim "I am Santa Claus, and will give everyone a present today ... Ho, Ho, Ho!" And so I proceed to distribute presents to everyone in the room.

At the end of the present-giving frenzy, when I am all out of gifts, a rather intelligent child by the name of Harry comes up to me and says "but Santa, you did not give yourself a gift." I reply "I am not giving myself a gift today, only you children."

Harry responds "And Santa, you didn't give gifts to all the rest of the people in the world who didn't come today."

I raise my eyebrow.

"Are you not a member of the set 'everyone', Santa? Are not all other peoople outside this room also a member of this set as well? And did you not say you were giving 'everyone' a gift?"

To this I respond "Dear Harry, you are correct if you take my statement as hyper-literal, with disregard for common euphamisms present in the language I am speaking to you with. But as language is only a tool to express concepts, one should be most interested in the concept being expressed by the lanauge, no? Now stop being such a pain, or I will take back your present."


This is a second example of how apparent contradictions can (and should) be reconciled, and is appropriate to the scripture you have quoted.


BTW, there is yet another way to reconcile these two sets of passages. One could say that God does what he wants, and that God can do anything at all. One can then logically infer that God is able to do anything at all, but he only ever actually does what he wants to do.

So you see, there are at least three ways to reconcile apparently contradictory passages, none of which require too much of a stretch - not unless you are a Hyper-Liiteral Harry, that is.


And so now we come to the next step ... please show to me why it is that we should take these passages as hyper-literal, to the point where we find contradictions? Is there something about the Bible that demands this mode of interpretation? Is there something about language that demands it? What is you reason for doing so?

I

I understand your eagerness to prove that God does exist, Implicator.

Do you think that I wouldn't like for God to exist? Of course I would like God to exist.

But the logical evidence has provided the opposite.

I don't like the idea that when I die I would become nothing. I would like to live forever. But we must be rational about finding the truth about historical accounts.

And concerning your example about Santa Claus above, I would have to tell you that the logic that you present is wrong. Why do I say that it is wrong? Simple, because the action of "giving" can only take place between two or more entities ( in this case people). It is impossible for you to "give" something to yourself. You can take something, buy yourself something (a gift), but "give yourself something" isn't logical. You would be talking in methaphors ..."

if you always talk like this (technical writing also teaches how to avoid these contradictions). Just like the example about "communicating with myself". How can I communicate with myself when the definition of "communicating" is between two or more entities (if you know what I mean). If you spoke in this way, it means that a contradiction is taking place. This is the logic that must be applied to all humanity.

Implicator, I don't think that "hyper-literal" is the word, just "literal", not in metaphors. You are asking me if there is something that "the Bible [...] demands this mode of interpretation." I got an answer to that: Most of us are reasonable people. We function with the reasonable mind. Why doesn't everybody have this reasonable mind. It's simple: (1) people usually think with empirical knowledge. (2) We think with empirical knowledge because we aren't educated properly ( I'm not talking about the basic school eductation here); we aren't taught to think rationally. (3) Why do we have this empirical knowledge? for numerous reasons: for emotional, phychologica, and social reasons. (4) How do we get rid of this empirical knowledge? Try to see the world with "the eye of reason."