Philosophical Vegan Forum

according to Christians god, etc. exist because we can't prove they don't exist.
i say they don't exist because you can't prove they do exist, logic amirite or amirite?

BUT wait, the flying spaghetti monster exist! why? because i say so and you can't prove otherwise

If you do that you'll just be using the same fallacy that the Christians use.

RedAppleGP wrote:If you do that you'll just be using the same fallacy that the Christians use.

this guy...

What?

Haterkid69 wrote:according to Christians god, etc. exist because we can't prove they don't exist.
i say they don't exist because you can't prove they do exist, logic amirite or amirite?

I'm not sure in how far you're joking, but you're not. The claim that a deity doesn't exist has just as much evidence as a claim that a deity does exist; none. The correct position is therefore to disbelief both claims, which makes you an atheist (in the soft sense).

If we're talking about the Christian god, compelling logical arguments can be made to prove they don't exist. All you have to do is to find logical contradictions between the traits of the Christian god. The most popular argument of this form is the problem of evil; if God is omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent, why is there evil in the world? The argument states that for there to be evil in the world, god has to either not care (not omnibenevolent), be incapable of dealing with it (not omnipotent), or be unaware of it (not omniscient).

Another popular argument is saying that the trait of omnipotence is inherently contradictory. It states that for a being to be omnipotent, it has to be able to limit its own power. The argument is often posed as the question "Can God create a stone so heavy he can't ever lift it"? Either way, there is something he cannot do, whether it be creating the stone or lifting it.

I'm pretty sure the OP was joking.

But good answer miniboes.

The problem of evil has extensive counter-arguments, so it's not necessarily very useful. The problem with omnipotence is more so, although not all theists believe their god to be omnipotent (some think their god is bound to certain rules and limited in power within them, a more reasonable position, but harder to call a "god").

miniboes wrote:Another popular argument is saying that the trait of omnipotence is inherently contradictory. It states that for a being to be omnipotent, it has to be able to limit its own power. The argument is often posed as the question "Can God create a stone so heavy he can't ever lift it"? Either way, there is something he cannot do, whether it be creating the stone or lifting it.

This argument has an improper definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence is not the power to do absolutely anything, but only the power to do what is logically possible. For instance, could God create a married bachelor? No. This is because a bachelor is a man who is unmarried. So a married bachelor would break the law of non-contradiction [that A cannot be both B and non-B at the same time and in the same sense.] In other words, a man can't be both married and unmarried at the same point in time.

The argument you give fails because if God is all-powerful there is no limit to his power, which means that there is no weight that would be too great for him lift. Thus the concept of a rock that is too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift cannot exist. This is not a limit to God's power in the same way that not being able to create a married bachelor is not a limit to his power.

Glaucon wrote: This argument has an improper definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence is not the power to do absolutely anything, but only the power to do what is logically possible.

The response to this is "I am omnipotent". I can not fly 'unassisted', but that's only because it's logically impossible for me to fly. Everything I can not do, I can not do because it is logically impossible for me to be able to do it.

As such, omnipotence becomes trivial. The ants on the ground are omnipotent, capable of doing everything that is it logically possible for them to be able to do.

Glaucon wrote:The argument you give fails because if God is all-powerful there is no limit to his power, which means that there is no weight that would be too great for him lift. Thus the concept of a rock that is too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift cannot exist. This is not a limit to God's power in the same way that not being able to create a married bachelor is not a limit to his power.

Sure it is. It limits God by logic.
It may not seem like much of a limit until you reflect on the argument that we are ALL only limited by logic. If you dig into the fundamental laws of physics, you'll find limit after limit derived from simple logic. For example: faster than light travel. To somebody ignorant of physics is might seem like there's nothing inherently stopping these things from being done, until you learn enough to understand the implications (like time travel) which would yield logical contradictions.

I can not walk through a "solid" wall because it's logically impossible.
Why? Because of repulsive forces between charges.
But there's tunneling, right? Right, but that's based on quantum physics (wave mechanics) which is inherently unpredictable and uncontrollable.
Why can't god control quantum physics? Because of Bell's Inequality, that's why; it all comes back to relativity, that would involve faster than light travel. Control of these forces is the ability to bend space and time to your will, and results in logical contradictions like reverse time travel.

By the way, "omnipotence" is actually a relatively modern contrivance. Ancient people never believed their gods were "omnipotent", they didn't even grasp the concept, they just viewed them as exceedingly powerful, and having substantial power over humans (with the exception of those with Iron chariots).
I'm not inclined to defend the Bible, but I've never seen it unambiguously stated in any verse that god has a power so described. And multiple times there are mentions of things that YHWH could not to. Floods and such, sure. Even creating worlds. But these are things we could imagine from a highly advanced alien species too. Certain strict interpretations which exclude impossible powers are not necessary incompatible with a scientific and logical world view (just unlikely).

Brimstonesalad, I think you misunderstand my argument, I'll take the blame for this because I wasn't as clear as I ought to have been. Let me clarify what I mean by omnipotence. This definition comes from William Rowe and is quoted in The Concept of God by Ronald Nash on page 50. Rowe asserts that omnipotence means that

William Rowe wrote:God can do anything that is an absolute possibility. (i.e. is logically possible) and not inconsistent with any of of his basic attributes.

Your inability to fly unassisted is not logically impossible in the sense that it breaks the law of non-contradiction. There is nothing inherently self-defeating about the statement, "I cannot fly unassisted." Your inability to fly is a physical limitation rather than a logical absurdity. If God can do anything that is logically possible, this means that the only limit upon his power is that which breaks the law of non-contradiction (that A cannot be both B and non-B at the same time and in the same sense. If you were to say "I cannot fly unassisted when I jump from a high place" and "I can fly unassisted when I jump from a high place" this would be a contradictory set because you are claiming both that you can/cannot fly unassisted when you preform a certain action.

I think that this clarification also responds to your comments on physics, though this is something I'm not entirely certain of so please tell me if there was something I failed to respond to there.

As for the claim that the Bible never unambiguously states that God is omnipotent, I would tend to agree. However, I think that it is undeniable that the Bible asserts that God is extremely powerful and that God being all-powerful is not an unreasonable assumption. (Matthew 19:26 and Luke 1:37 are good examples where omnipotence can be inferred; see https://www.openbible.info/topics/omnipotence for more instances, the first 8 verse or so are the ones that I found to be the clearest.)

Glaucon wrote:Brimstonesalad, I think you misunderstand my argument, I'll take the blame for this because I wasn't as clear as I ought to have been. Let me clarify what I mean by omnipotence. This definition comes from William Rowe and is quoted in The Concept of God by Ronald Nash on page 50. Rowe asserts that omnipotence means that

William Rowe wrote:God can do anything that is an absolute possibility. (i.e. is logically possible) and not inconsistent with any of of his basic attributes.

I can do anything that is an absolute possibility, and not inconsistent with any of my basic attributes.

Now, all we have to do is define my "basic attributes". Like being bound by the laws of physics.
No, I didn't misunderstand. You misunderstand my argument; I'm being quite literal when I say logically impossible.

Glaucon wrote:Your inability to fly unassisted is not logically impossible in the sense that it breaks the law of non-contradiction.

Yes, it is. See my "walk through walls" example, and quantum tunneling. I went into some detail for how it violates the law of non-contradiction in my prior post. What's your background with physics? Do you have any university level study in the subject?
Once you take into account the attributes in question, it's clear that everything is omnipotent. It makes the term useless.

It's much more useful to talk about the actual attributes (omnipotence not being one of them, because that would be circular).
We're all omnipotent within the bounds of our attributes, once defined.

Glaucon wrote:There is nothing inherently self-defeating about the statement, "I cannot fly unassisted." Your inability to fly is a physical limitation rather than a logical absurdity.

It's logically absurd once you fully understand my basic attributes.

Glaucon wrote:I think that this clarification also responds to your comments on physics, though this is something I'm not entirely certain of so please tell me if there was something I failed to respond to there.

It does not, you misunderstand my argument.
Do you understand how moving faster than light is logically impossible? If not, you need to start with that understanding.
It relates to the logical impossibility of reverse time travel (into our own past). Do you understand why that is logically impossible?
Once you understand the absolute limits of relativity and quantum physics -- and understand they're founded on logic and non-contradiction -- then you can begin to understand how other physics are based on those and how physical laws very much exist for a solid reason.

Glaucon wrote:However, I think that it is undeniable that the Bible asserts that God is extremely powerful

It does that. But this is a matter of degree. Extremely powerful and all-powerful are fundamentally different. An infinite difference. I'm fine with a very powerful 'god', just not an all-powerful one (which violates logic, or is a meaningless claim as I explained because it means I'm all powerful too).

Glaucon wrote:and that God being all-powerful is not an unreasonable assumption.

I think that's a very unreasonable assumption, given that the claim is either logically contradictory, or meaningless. Although there are numerous contradictions in the Bible, so it would not surprise me if both claims were made at various points (even in very meticulous translations and the original Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew).

Judges 1:19 wrote: And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.