Support NeoGAF

[ClovingWestbrook]

I am not disproving God's existence with this argument, in the video the guy says that everything that is finite and limited must have a creator, and according to this paradox and his reasoning God is limited and thus is a creation and must have a creator.

A paradox that is such a useless argument that it really doesn't deserve to be brought up at all?

 

[ZephyrFate]

Video in OP brings up a paradoxical statement that makes as little sense as the religion to which he believes in.

 

[Anaxagoras]

However, the very argument is flawed. Just because there is something infinite doesn't mean something had to create it. The distinction between something finite and something infinite is completely meaningless. This "logic" that is being peddled relies on entirely too many assumptions that are never actually proved.

Also, I'm a hard agnostic. I don't care if god exists or not. So whether or not there is some original mover has no real bearing on how I live my life.

This is something separate from the videos argument, I am not connecting any dots here, I am just wondering what you would think of such a possibility, that a creator created the universe, and another created the creator and it continues on to infinity, would you accept this as a possibility or as something possible? although it might be meaningless to you.

I am agnostic too, but I don't really know what a hard agnostic really is. ^^

 

[StoOgE]

A paradox that is such a useless argument that it really doesn't deserve to be brought up at all?

It is called Reductio Ad Absurdum.

It is a logical tool that is used to show that a line of reasoning is completely worthless. In this case the very idea of an all powerful being is illogical because he can't create something he can't move. Thus limiting his power relative to himself.

However, the good news for the abrahamic relgions is god wouldn't really need to adhere to our idea of logic. So it still can't disprove his existence.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I never got the impression that you were a blind follower -- if I did I wouldn't have asked the question. I would have simply labeled you as such.

As for the bolded portion: your belief doesn't seem to affect your daily operations -- what kind of value do you place on God?

Do you mean, does believing in God make me a better person? I believe so, however that would assume that not believing in God would make me a worse person in my day to day life which I don't believe. I know many atheists that are more godly than those who claim to be religion.

The value I place in my own life for believing in God is having a how to this what. A how this universe came to be. Not to mention that looking at the example of Jesus, carrying for the poor, carrying for those who were treated as lepers, literally and figuratively, gives a fantastic example. Being angry at injustice in the world and trying to rectify that. Those are values that I place on my faith.

My faith in God is also valuable in my life in that it does supply me with hope. Hope that there is a reason for all of this. Hope that those who are suffering will experience joy. That those who today hunger will ultimately be fed, here and tomorrow. Etc... That the beatitudes will be experienced by the very individuals in whom Jesus had in mind when he made the proclamation. However, on the flip side, does one need to believe in God to have this hope? No. But I find my hope stemming through my faith in God.

 

[Kimosabae]

Not really. There isn't any evidence either way that god exists.

There is plenty of evidence that a literal interpretation of any of the major religions creations stories are BS.. but nothing that actually speaks to the existence of god.

There is no good reason to believe he does exist. But there isn't really good reason to believe he doesn't. It boils down to whether you have faith in something without proof or not.

Thus the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There is as much proof that he exists as there is proof that god exists. For some people this makes believing in god seem completely absurd. For religious people it isn't a problem as they see it as a matter of faith in their religion.

What's our conception of "God", at this point?

You've formidably argued against the Biblical form, you've argued against an abstract, infinite entity and (Plato's?) a "Prime Mover". So where do we currently stand? What God is this that you presume to be free from criticisms?


Nizer:

Don't worry about it man. If you do feel like PMing those versus I'd love to see them, but if it's a hassle, no pressure.

 

[Anaxagoras]

A paradox that is such a useless argument that it really doesn't deserve to be brought up at all?

Why is it useless?

 

[Zaptruder]

It is called Reductio Ad Absurdum.

It is a logical tool that is used to show that a line of reasoning is completely worthless. In this case the very idea of an all powerful being is illogical because he can't create something he can't move. Thus limiting his power relative to himself.

However, the good news for the abrahamic relgions is god wouldn't really need to adhere to our idea of logic. So it still can't disprove his existence.

Speaking seriously though, logic like maths is simply a consistent universal method of observation that provides predictable and accurate outcomes when done right.

We don't make it up, so much as we stumble upon or discover it, much like we don't make up the effects of gravity, we discover them when we fall off a cliff (or through many trillions of mundane actions).

 

[StoOgE]

This is something separate from the videos argument, I am not connecting any dots here, I am just wondering what you would think of such a possibility, that a creator created the universe, and another created the creator and it continues on to infinity, would you accept this as a possibility or as something possible? although it might be meaningless to you.

I am agnostic too, but I don't really know what a hard agnostic really is. ^^

As to part one, the problem is someone always had to create something else. So who created the first thing? It's like a logical hall of mirrors. It just keeps going on forever. So I don't really see the point in the argument because you can never really point to a "first mover".

Weak Agnostic = I don't know if god exists.
Strong Agnostic = I don't know if god exists and neither does anyone else.

Weak agnostics allow that someone else might know god exists. Strong Agnostics hold that it's impossible to know whether god exists or not.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Why is it useless?

Simple. It is based upon a false idea, i.e. that God can do EVERYTHING and ANYTHING. Even the Bible states that there are things God cannot do. When one says God is almighty, it doesn't mean that God can perform a paradoxical action.

 

[StoOgE]

Speaking seriously though, logic like maths is simply a consistent universal method of observation that provides predictable and accurate outcomes when done right.

We don't make it up, so much as we stumble upon or discover it, much like we don't make up the effects of gravity, we discover them when we fall off a cliff (or through many trillions of mundane actions).

While I personally believe things like Math, Physics, logic, etc are ontilogical the abrahamic definition of god is that he is all powerfull. Therefore even universal truths don't apply to him.

I can't say that god doesn't exist in the same way I can't say the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. I don't think either one is real, but I don't know.

 

[Anaxagoras]

However, the good news for the abrahamic relgions is god wouldn't really need to adhere to our idea of logic. So it still can't disprove his existence.

How did you reach that conclusion?

 

[StoOgE]

What's our conception of "God", at this point?

You've formidably argued against the Biblical form, you've argued against an abstract, infinite entity and (Plato's?) a "Prime Mover". So where do we currently stand? What God is this that you presume to be free from criticisms?.

I am talking about a hypothetical being that exists outside of the world and created it that is so powerful that absolutely nothing can disprove it's existence. It is essentially a "cheat" in that the definition of the thing is that it can't be disproved.

I'm reasonably sure that nothing like that exists, but I can't prove it doesn't... again because the definition precludes it from being disproved or proved.

 

[StoOgE]

How did you reach that conclusion?

Omnipotence

 

[ZAK]

He also claims that God is unlimited, in power for example, All-Capable, this allows you to ask the question whether or not God is capable of creating a rock so heavy that he himself can't lift it. There are two answers to this question:

A) No, God can not create a rock so heavy that himself can't lift it.
Conclusion: God is limited.

B) Yes, God can create a rock so heavy that he himself can't lift it.
In this case God can not lift that rock.
Conclusion: God is limited.

Now according to his reasoning, everything that is limited is a creation and must have a creator, this means that God is a creation and not worthy of praising.

This question is actually not at all hard to answer. If God is omnipotent, then by definition, he certainly can create a rock so heavy he can't lift it. Of course, after he has created said rock, he is no longer omnipotent, since there is something he can't do. Okay? That's not a contradiction.

The question is essentially, "Can God make himself stop being omnipotent?" and the answer is "yes" by the definition of omnipotence. Ta-da.

 

[wayward archer]

A) The universe came into being via a method we do not understand (before the big bang)
B) One of the many methods could possibly be an omnipotent and eternal being that exists outside of space and time.

Therefore

C) My particular favorite God created the universe and you must live by the code He transmitted through various humans throughout history who claim to be His chosen ones or else.

 

[Anaxagoras]

As to part one, the problem is someone always had to create something else. So who created the first thing? It's like a logical hall of mirrors. It just keeps going on forever. So I don't really see the point in the argument because you can never really point to a "first mover".

There is no first mover, its infinite, its like the digits in the Pi only mirrored, never ending, there is no last digit in Pi.

There doesn't have to be a first mover since it continues on to infinity, and you seem to accept infinity so I don't really see what the problem here is.

Personally I find no problem with accepting that possibility although it is as infinitely small as the existence of a very similar universe just like ours except that everybody living in it is taking a fart just about now.

Weak Agnostic = I don't know if god exists.
Strong Agnostic = I don't know if god exists and neither does anyone else.

Weak agnostics allow that someone else might know god exists. Strong Agnostics hold that it's impossible to know whether god exists or not.

I see, thanks.

 

[Kimosabae]

Do you mean, does believing in God make me a better person? I believe so, however that would assume that not believing in God would make me a worse person in my day to day life which I don't believe. I know many atheists that are more godly than those who claim to be religion.

The value I place in my own life for believing in God is having a how to this what. A how this universe came to be. Not to mention that looking at the example of Jesus, carrying for the poor, carrying for those who were treated as lepers, literally and figuratively, gives a fantastic example. Being angry at injustice in the world and trying to rectify that. Those are values that I place on my faith.

My faith in God is also valuable in my life in that it does supply me with hope. Hope that there is a reason for all of this. Hope that those who are suffering will experience joy. That those who today hunger will ultimately be fed, here and tomorrow. Etc... That the beatitudes will be experienced by the very individuals in whom Jesus had in mind when he made the proclamation. However, on the flip side, does one need to believe in God to have this hope? No. But I find my hope stemming through my faith in God.

Heh. Thanks for indulging me.

To be honest, you already sound like an atheist to me. As soon as you find a source of hope that isn't divine, you're set.

 

[D3RANG3D]

Why is atheism considered a faith?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Heh. Thanks for indulging me.

To be honest, you already sound like an atheist to me. As soon as you find a source of hope that isn't divine, you're set.

Maybe one day. If anything, I would just become agnostic. Just as I am not comfortable saying I know for 100% fact that God exists, I would be equally uneasy saying I know 100% he doesn't.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Simple. It is based upon a false idea, i.e. that God can do EVERYTHING and ANYTHING. Even the Bible states that there are things God cannot do. When one says God is almighty, it doesn't mean that God can perform a paradoxical action.

Well, in the Quran allah describes himself as All-Capable, he doesn't mention anything about him not being able to perform a paradoxical action, but he is still All-Capable so he should be able to do that.

 

[Anaxagoras]

This question is actually not at all hard to answer. If God is omnipotent, then by definition, he certainly can create a rock so heavy he can't lift it. Of course, after he has created said rock, he is no longer omnipotent, since there is something he can't do. Okay? That's not a contradiction.

The question is essentially, "Can God make himself stop being omnipotent?" and the answer is "yes" by the definition of omnipotence. Ta-da.

Your question was better, no slipping in between the words, but about my question, if he created that rock then he is no longer all capable since there is a rock that he can not lift.

 

[Kimosabae]

I am talking about a hypothetical being that exists outside of the world and created it that is so powerful that absolutely nothing can disprove it's existence. It is essentially a "cheat" in that the definition of the thing is that it can't be disproved.

I'm reasonably sure that nothing like that exists, but I can't prove it doesn't... again because the definition precludes it from being disproved or proved.

Right, but as you alluded to, that appendage seems like arbitrary rhetoric. I've never heard anyone toss in such a rhetorical stipulation in their conception of God.

Frank the Great is that your personal definition of God?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Well, in the Quran allah describes himself as All-Capable, he doesn't mention anything about him not being able to perform a paradoxical action, but he is still All-Capable so he should be able to do that.

Perhaps in the Qu`ran, but in the Tanak and New Testament this isn't the case which is what I am more familiar with. In the Tanak God cannot lie since it is against his very nature (cue the "but God did lie"). So yes, according to the Bible God is all powerful as long as said power doesn't go against his nature.

 

[crazy monkey]

Why is atheism considered a faith?

It is in human mentality. Humans group people who have similar thinking or logic in to one big group so it is easy to identify and pick upon even though it is quite possible even within that group people don't agree with each other and are possibly quite different.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Omnipotence

You are somewhat cornering me here with this, so he is capable of defying logic or he doesn't need to adhere to our idea of logic because he is Omnipotent but at the same time he is not capable of creating a paradoxical action yet he can because is Omnipotent.

 

[ascii42]

Why is atheism considered a faith?

Just as it is impossible to prove that god exists, it is impossible to disprove that god exists. Atheists take it on faith that there is no god.

 

[Kimosabae]

Just as it is impossible to prove that god exists, it is impossible to disprove that god exists. Atheists take it on faith that there is no god.

So, an atheist that comes to the conclusion that God does not exist through genuine, worldly interpretations, is operating on pure faith because he hasn't come across a rhetorical definition of God that states: "he cannot be disproved"?

 

[D3RANG3D]

Just as it is impossible to prove that god exists, it is impossible to disprove that god exists. Atheists take it on faith that there is no god.

it's not really that cut and dry though, I mean some people are not sure there is a god as in agnostics I'm sure they disagree on things within that mindset, my take on it is I don't care if there is one or not I bow to nobody! My take on god if I had one would be he created everything but he/she/it? isn't concerned with insignificant creatures the likes of us.

 

[Furcas]

Just as it is impossible to prove that dragons exist, it is impossible to disprove that dragons exist. A-dragonists take it on faith that there are no dragons.

Fixed to show how stupid this statement is.

 

[ascii42]

So, an atheist that comes to the conclusion that God does not exist through genuine, worldly interpretations, is operating on pure faith because he hasn't come across a rhetorical definition of God?

Yes.

You even handed me a better answer, you don't know for certain that you will never "come across a rhetorical definition of God." You probably won't though, so you take it on faith that you won't.

This isn't to discourage you though. You also don't know that you will live to see tomorrow, but the odds are good, so you have faith that you will, and so you act and plan accordingly. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. You don't have to know everything.

Fixed to show how stupid this statement is.

Huh? Sounds reasonable to me. I take it on faith that dragons don't exist. What about you?

Faith, and believing don't have to be about something irrational or illogical. I believe that I will wake up in the morning. I don't know it though.

 

[Frank the Great]

Right, but as you alluded to, that appendage seems like arbitrary rhetoric. I've never heard anyone toss in such a rhetorical stipulation in their conception of God.

Frank the Great is that your personal definition of God?

I don't have a personal definition of God. I think it's silly for someone who believes in him to seek one. But, since I am human I am imperfect and do find myself pondering upon it sometimes. Some ideas I have pondered include that God is the universe, and that God exists in some higher dimension from which our dimension appears very accessible indeed.

But really, I don't really care. I believe He exists and believing that he exists presupposes that I have no idea what the fuck I'm talking about when trying to describe him.

Also, as far as Jesus goes, I'm a Christian in the sense that I read the Gospels and actually try my best to do what Jesus said. I think he was an awesome guy and if everybody actually followed what he said the world would be a better place. I don't really care if he was the "Son of God" or not, I don't think it matters in the long run.

 

[vooglie]

yeah, that is a somewhat similar question, and what is the answer to that? I don't really see a problem in the question you just posted, if the answer is yes, then what?

It's an irrational question. If you don't see the problem in it then I'm sorry.

Just as it is impossible to prove that god exists, it is impossible to disprove that god exists. Atheists take it on faith that there is no god.

Christ, this is such a stupid line of reasoning.

 

[Frank the Great]

Christ, this is such a stupid line of reasoning.

To be fair, there is a lot of philosophical work on epistemology that says most of what we "know" is just faith anyway But that's a whole other fucking can of worms.

 

[vooglie]

To be fair, there is a lot of philosophical work on epistemology that says most of what we "know" is just faith anyway But that's a whole other fucking can of worms.

I'm aware, not that I agree with it.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Seems to me that the thiests here are more open to The possibilities of being wrong ITT than the atheists.

 

[Zaptruder]

While I personally believe things like Math, Physics, logic, etc are ontilogical the abrahamic definition of god is that he is all powerfull. Therefore even universal truths don't apply to him.

I can't say that god doesn't exist in the same way I can't say the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. I don't think either one is real, but I don't know.

Point is we can apply logic to the definition of All Powerful.

It is an illogical concept.

Of course you can correct/qualify the idea easily enough*, but the point is, we can logically prove many of the gods impossible through analysis of their attributes and evidence.

*Also if you're pointing out these flaws to a believer, and he's correcting every single instance in which the stuff is illogical and not supported such that it doesn't contradict the existing body of information, pretty soon you no longer have something resembling what you started with.

You might not be able to rule out the concept of god in its entirety, but you can certainly rule out all the illogical and evidentiarily unsupported versions of it.

 

[vooglie]

Seems to me that the thiests here are more open to The possibilities of being wrong ITT than the atheists.

I'm open to being wrong about a fuck load of things, invisible awesome man in the sky however is not one of them though.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I'm open to being wrong about a fuck load of things, invisible awesome man in the sky however is not one of them though.

Just proved my point, thanks.

 

[D3RANG3D]

Just proved my point, thanks.

But who started the thread?

 

[Furcas]

Huh? Sounds reasonable to me. I take it on faith that dragons don't exist. What about you?

Faith, and believing don't have to be about something irrational or illogical. I believe that I will wake up in the morning. I don't know it though.

Seems like by "faith" you mean "believing that something is true with less than 100% certainty". By that definition, we take everything we believe on faith, except mathematical truths.


What I mean when I say I believe something is that I assign a high probability to the proposition that a possible state of reality is really real. And what I mean by "faith" is assigning a probability to a belief that is different from what we know (on some level) the correct probability is, e.g. "I know there's no evidence for God, but I have faith in Him!" In other words, faith is willful self-deception.

So no, I don't take it on faith that dragons and gods don't exist.

 

[Zaptruder]

Seems to me that the thiests here are more open to The possibilities of being wrong ITT than the atheists.

Gee? Why do you think that is?

Maybe because most of the atheists in this thread don't arrive at this position through faith?

Don't equivocate theism and atheism. The functional definition of atheism for most intents and purposes are people that are practically certain even if not technically 100% certain of the non-existence of god (certainly of most any iteration that mankind has come up with).

If you paint atheists as people that arrive at their position on faith, then you frankly don't understand what atheism is about.

 

[Monocle]

Great title. :lol

 

[vooglie]

Just proved my point, thanks.

Please. A non-sequitur is not a point.

Not believing in an all powerful being that created the universe does not make you 'close minded' in the least, just makes you reasonable.

See also Fucas' post.

 

[ascii42]

Seems like by "faith" you mean "believing that something is true with less than 100% certainty". By that definition, we take everything we believe on faith, except mathematical truths.

Yes, that is exactly what I mean. I believe that a belief is a belief, regardless of the rationality behind it.

What I mean when I say I believe something is that I assign a high probability to this belief. And what I mean by "faith" is assigning a probability to a belief that is different from what we know (on some level) the correct probability is, e.g. "I know there's no evidence for God, but I have faith in Him!" In other words, faith is willful self-deception.

So no, I don't take it on faith that dragons and gods don't exist.

So you don't assign a high probability to the fact that dragons and god don't exist? What is the other option, that you know know it for a fact? That sounds as self-deceiving as those who know for a fact that there is a god.
We don't even know all of the species on our own planet, let alone all others.

 

[vooglie]

Yes, that is exactly what I mean. I believe that a belief is a belief, regardless of the rationality behind it.

So you don't assign a high probability to the fact that dragons and god don't exist? What is the other option, that you know know it for a fact? That sounds as self-deceiving as those who know for a fact that there is a god.
We don't even know all of the species on our own planet, let alone all others.

What if we're like, all living in a dream, man?!

 

[Furcas]

It doesn't mean anything to say that "God is beyond logic". The very words that make up that sentence only have meaning as a consequence of formal patterns of logic. If the law of contradiction doesn't hold... heh, it doesn't even make sense to say those words, or think those thoughts.

 

[ckohler]

Seems to me that the thiests here are more open to The possibilities of being wrong ITT than the atheists.

That's because theists have something to be wrong about... burden of proof and all that. Most everyone in the world agrees that disbelief in mysterious unknowable stuff is, not surprisingly, the rational default position to take. Only a rube would go around believing every bit of made up nonsence he is told at face value.

However, when it comes to "god", "ufo's", "Bigfoot" and other such lore it seems large groups of people decide to forego the default reasonable stance for reasons such as comfort, belonging, peer pressure, guilt and such... none of which have any bearing what-so-ever on the truth of the matter.

 

[Kimosabae]

Yes.

You even handed me a better answer, you don't know for certain that you will never "come across a rhetorical definition of God." You probably won't though, so you take it on faith that you won't.

This isn't to discourage you though. You also don't know that you will live to see tomorrow, but the odds are good, so you have faith that you will, and so you act and plan accordingly. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. You don't have to know everything.

I can have faith in something that doesn't register in my consciousness?

Okay, so you're implying there are degrees of faith. Are you implying that faith is involved in all forms of "knowledge"? Regardless of probability, a degree of faith must reside in moving from every process to conclusion? When performing arithmetic, one must have "faith" throughout the process until the conclusion is reached?

Frank The Great:

Maybe I'm just dense... what is your conception of this "He" that you believe exists? What is your definition of God?

 

[Furcas]

Yes, that is exactly what I mean.

Then your definition of faith doesn't correspond to the concept that most people think of when they use the word.

So you don't assign a high probability to the fact that dragons and god don't exist?

Um, yeah I do.

What is the other option, that you know it for a fact?

That's right.

That sounds as self-deceiving as those who know for a fact that there is a god.
We don't even know all of the species on our own planet, let alone all others.

Obviously, by "dragon" I mean the kind of creature that's described in mythology and fantasy fiction, which implies it lives on Earth. It's fairly probable that a creature that kind of looks like what we think of as a dragon has evolved somewhere in the universe.