Disproving the Existence of God

[six45ive]

Then why not title this thread "disproving the existence of an omnipotent god"?

Or even more appropriate: "Why the God worshipped by Christians cannot exist."

As is, the thread is open to discussion about anything that one might reasonably define as "god".

If you want to keep the discussion unadulterated, then you should label it properly.

 

Because the god described in the OP is the one that most people who have a faith in this country recognise.

 

No, it is about logical argument.

 

Which, in itself, is evidence when applied to problem solving. If this wasn't the case a portion of the prison population wouldn't have been found guilty if logical argument can't be applied when forensic or anecdotal testimonial evidence doesn't quite provide an overwhelming guilty verdict.

 

Which you are yet to cite.

 

See post 473

 

I take it that you do not mean the actual definition here, but the "especially" bit: "Belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world."

Again that does not say "omnipotent".

 

Except for the 'especially' bit is the 'actual' bit that's important. You really must learn what words mean before you try and make an argument.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/especially (I'm sure it's not beyond your ability to click on the link).

I actually take my understanding of the term theist from the whole of the link and not just the soundbite bit at the top combined with the clear understanding of god's almightiness from the numerous examples in the bible.

[Hairyloon]

Was it really too much to expect you to read the OP before posting, where it was well clarified what was meant?

Shall we look at it again:

Although atheism is simply a disbelief/nonbelief in a god/gods and doesn't make any other claims regarding knowledge of the existence of god/gods, if you're a strong agnostic atheist and anti theist like myself who understands the mountain of evidence against the likelihood of there being a god, then it's always good to see a well thought out argument that clearly shows the stupidity of the idea of an omniscient, benevolent, omnipotent (and some might say omnipresent) all powerful being.

{and then quotes the scriptures by the Dawkins.}

 

To me, that appears to be an invitation to debate the existence or otherwise of god/gods.

The argument against an omnipotent god is fairly sound, but in no way addresses the possibility that a god that is less than omnipotent may exist, except by saying that anything less than omnipotence cannot be god.

 

I simply refute that definition.

Because the god described in the OP is the one that most people who have a faith in this country recognise.

Recognise, yes. But I do not believe most of them believe what you claim they believe: in the omnipotence of God.

Powerful? Yes. Omnipotent? No.

 

Yes, you have referenced a number of examples of brown-nosing to him, where people call him "almighty", but there are plenty of examples throughout history where the ruler is referred to as "almighty": even the book in question mentions "almighty Caesar".

Why not start a thread titled "Disproving the existence of Caesar"? It would be equally valid.

 

Except for the 'especially' bit is the 'actual' bit that's important. You really must learn what words mean before you try and make an argument.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/especially (I'm sure it's not beyond your ability to click on the link).

Just to make you happy:

es·pe·cial·ly (-spsh-l, -spsh-)

adv.

To an extent or degree deserving of special emphasis; particularly.

i.e. leaving room for the definition to be used without the emphasis.

 

Since you are fervent in your belief in the non-existence of god/gods, how is it that you claim to be agnostic?

[six45ive]

To me, that appears to be an invitation to debate the existence or otherwise of god/gods.

 

If you wish to ignore the fact that I made it clear that the article I linked to was regarding a god that is described as such; ''then it's always good to see a well thought out argument that clearly shows the stupidity of the idea of an omniscient, benevolent, omnipotent (and some might say omnipresent) all powerful being", (ignoring the obvious seems to be something that you're good at) then that would seem to fit in with the kind of delusional mindset that would argue the case for an ''undefined, not understood entity that's called god."

 

The argument against an omnipotent god is fairly sound, but in no way addresses the possibility that a god that is less than omnipotent may exist, except by saying that anything less than omnipotence cannot be god.

Because, as I said previously, (which is something you seem to have a problem in understanding and accepting) this thread is about debating the article in the link on the OP.

 

Recognise, yes. But I do not believe most of them believe what you claim they believe: in the omnipotence of God.

Powerful? Yes. Omnipotent? No.

 

I don't believe that the majority actually believe in the god of the bible at all hence me linking to the article which (as you've already agreed with) proves this monotheistic god to be an impossibility.

 

Yes, you have referenced a number of examples of brown-nosing to him, where people call him "almighty", but there are plenty of examples throughout history where the ruler is referred to as "almighty": even the book in question mentions "almighty Caesar".

 

They describe him as a lot more than simply almighty as in the context it's used to describe Caesar as I'm sure you're aware if you go back and check the links on post 473.

On top of that here's how the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia defines theism;

 

"View that all observable phenomena are dependent on but distinct from one supreme being. The view usually entails the idea that God is beyond human comprehension, perfect and self-sustained, but also peculiarly involved in the world and its events. Theists seek support for their view in rational argument and appeals to experience. Arguments for God's existence are of four principal types: cosmological, ontological, teleological, or moral. A central issue for theism is reconciling God, usually understood as omnipotent and perfect, with the existence of evil."

 

i.e. leaving room for the definition to be used without the emphasis.

 

Now I'm not sure if you really are stupid or you're just trolling but this; "To an extent or degree deserving of special emphasis; particularly" is not the same as this; "To an extent or degree; deserving of special emphasis; particularly". You're being extremely disingenuous to say the least and looking more like a troll the more you continue to argue from a completely baseless position and try and twist clear, unambiguous definitions to try and back up your non arguments.

 

Since you are fervent in your belief in the non-existence of god/gods, how is it that you claim to be agnostic?

 

I am fervent in my belief in the non existence of god and believe that the evidence against there being a god is overwhelming but that's not the same as saying I know for absolute certainty which means I have to remain agnostic although I'm probably as close to gnosticism as I can be right now.

This may help you understand.

[Hairyloon]

If you wish to ignore the fact that I made it clear that the article I linked to was regarding a god that is described as such...

 

Because, as I said previously, ([/color]which is something you seem to have a problem in understanding and accepting) this thread is about debating the article in the link on the OP.

Oh, I see.

How foolish of me to suppose that a thread titled "Disproving the Existence of God" might be anything other than slavish supplication to the mighty Dawkins.

 

Clearly he has not equipped his followers with the facility to debate anything other than the narrowly defined mindset that he preaches.

Therefore there does not seem much point in continuing.

I don't believe that the majority actually believe in the god of the bible at all hence me linking to the article which (as you've already agreed with) proves this monotheistic god to be an impossibility.

No, it proves an omnipotent god to be an impossibility

They describe him as a lot more than simply almighty as in the context it's used to describe Caesar as I'm sure you're aware if you go back and check the links on post 473.

None of which, as I said, amount to any more than brown-nosing.

[Wildcat]

Exactly, which is further evidence showing how ridiculous it is to believe in an all powerful god (which is the fundamental principle of having just one god) that has limited power, which is the main gist of the OP.

 

Yes, but my point is that no religion actually believes in an all powerful God. Both Free Will and the Crucifixion are fundamental principles acknowledging a limitation on God's powers. Your argument is a strawman, an argument against a philosophical conception of God that doesn't exist outside in the real world or beliefs of religious people.

[six45ive]

There does not seem much point in continuing.

 

I wondered when the penny might drop.

 

No, it proves an omnipotent god to be an impossibility

 

Yes of course but as the definition of theism (in this case monotheism) includes the idea of omnipotence (as I alluded to in my last post) then it was unnecessary for me to have included it. It would have been a tautology. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tautology

 

None of which, as I said, amount to any more than brown-nosing.

 

Which is what you'd expect from people who are fearful of an omnipotent being.

[redwhine]

Yes, but my point is that no religion actually believes in an all powerful God.

Really? You've checked them all out? There are over 38,000 different christian sects alone, then there are sunnis, shiites, wasabis, wiccans, jews (not even the jews?), etc., ad nauseum.

 

Both Free Will and the Crucifixion are fundamental principles acknowledging a limitation on God's powers.

Curiouser and curiouser.

 

Your argument is a strawman, an argument against a philosophical conception of God that doesn't exist outside in the real world or beliefs of religious people.

When did they all make you their spokesperson?

[six45ive]

Yes, but my point is that no religion actually believes in an all powerful God.

 

Your point is is that I don't recall you adding a great deal, if anything at all, to this thread (unless of course you've been using a different username).

 

Both Free Will and the Crucifixion are fundamental principles acknowledging a limitation on God's powers.

 

Absolutely, which the article I linked to in my OP addresses perfectly.

 

Your argument is a strawman, an argument against a philosophical conception of God that doesn't exist outside in the real world or in the beliefs of religious people.

 

My argument is a strawman erected by who exactly?

[Wildcat]

Really? You've checked them all out? There are over 38,000 different christian sects alone, then there are sunnis, shiites, wasabis, wiccans, jews (not even the jews?), etc., ad nauseum.

 

 

Why do I need to speak with a representative of every religion to form a view contrary to your own?

 

 

When did they all make you their spokesperson?

 

I am not a spokesperson and am not sure why you should leap to that conclusion?

 

Curiouser and curiouser.

 

Indeed

[Wildcat]

Your point is is that I don't recall you adding a great deal, if anything at all, to this thread (unless of course you've been using a different username).

 

That is a bad start to a post, although perhaps intended to be a joke?

 

Is quoting me and in response denying my presence on the thread, some sort of metaphor for the way you conceptualise yourself?

 

Absolutely, which the article I linked to in my OP addresses perfectly.

 

The Freewill argument? Yes, it disproves Omnipotence... the point it misses is that it is not God that falls it is the attribution of Omnipotence.

 

My argument is a strawman erected by who exactly?

 

Epicurus.