Does God Exist?

[Hairyloon]

Hey, it is not an 'atheist definition', it is the official teaching of the catholic church.

Then they are officially wrong.

[RootsBooster]

Atheism is entirely based off logical fallacies or false assumptions.

 

argument from ignorance:

"There's no evidence God exists, so God doesn't exist"

"You can't prove God exists, so God cannot exist"

"Lack of evidence that God exists indicates that the existence of God is unlikely"

"Only what the current evidence at the present time indicates is the truth"

 

argument from personal incredulity:

"Do you really believe there's an invisible man, sky-daddy, etc...?"

"It sounds like religion is a fantasy, fictional, a myth, made up"

 

non-sequitur:

"Well I don't believe in Zeus, an Invisible Pink Unicorn, Santa Claus, etc...so God must not exist"

"I see no reason to believe in Thor, Zeus, Santa Claus, etc...so I see no reason to believe in God"

"I don't believe in Zeus, Thor, Santa Claus, etc...so I don't believe in God"

"There's no evidence Zeus, Santa Claus, the tooth-fairy, etc.., exists and there's also no evidence that God exists, so God must not exist"

"If God really existed, then there would be no more suffering in the world, only good things would happen"

 

 

The big weaknes with the atheist point of view is that it states a negative and negatives can be disproved very easily by finding just one positive bit of contradictory vidence. Of course these things depend on what meanings are attached to the words used, like I said in my first post. So since nobody can offer a definition of what they mean by this God that doesn't exist, I think the discussion is void and without meaning. My bit of positive evidence is in my head. QED

 

The usual atheist definition is that God is omniscient, omnipotent and all loving.

They then argue that it is logically impossible to be both omniscient and omnipotent;

and that an all loving, omnipotent being could not allow all the suffering that goes on.

Therefore God cannot exist.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

The logic cannot be faulted: an omniscient, omnipotent, all loving god does not exist.

But what of a being that falls short of omnipotent? Could they not qualify as God... or a god?

I believe Odin has been mentioned here already. He's a chap with an impressive set of abilities, but a long way off omnipotent.

If he exists, is he not a god?

I'm not going to tell him otherwise.

There seem to be a lot of assumptions and generalisations being made about atheists on this thread

[janie48]

I would not disagree with one single point which you make.

All of what the New Testament teaches us is about the good which God bestows upon us and in return , how we should follow that teaching as an inspiration .

The Old Testament , in contrast tells us about the terror and pain which he subjects his people to. How can any reasonable person equate the two conflicting texts with the same God .

In the olden days the vast majority of people could hardly read or write ,let alone understand the parables in which that text was written . I do not have any doubts that religions , and I do not exclude my own from my comments , used the "fear of God " in order to control and subjugate the masses . Even to the extent of inflicting " yes" physical and sexual abuse upon the vulnerable of their flock.

Having said all that , they were human beings , and all to often , we human beings continue to inflict physical , sexual and psychological pressure upon people for our own advantages . But that is not God .

There are publications which help to give some understanding between the parables of the Old Testament and the books of the New Testament . One that comes to mind is "The Bible explained " , published by the Catholic Truth Society . And , before anyone comments that it will be a book of indoctrination , it gives a very broad comparison for people to understand .

I have made a note of that book, because I take a dim view of some of those "wrath of god" passages in the OT and it would be nice to be enlightened a little more.

What I did find quite interesting when listening to an amiable discussion between Rabbi Jonathan Sacks and Richard Dawkins (post the God Delusion) is that when critical references were made about certain events in the OT the rabbi presented an interesting interpretation with his clearer knowledge of Jewish history.

[woolyhead]

Okay, I'm an atheist, what is the negative that my position states?

 

You state that there is no God. That's negative.

 

---------- Post added 01-05-2013 at 20:30 ----------

 

Then they are officially wrong.

 

Maybe, but you said it's the atheist's definition.

 

---------- Post added 01-05-2013 at 20:34 ----------

 

The usual atheist definition is that God is omniscient, omnipotent and all loving.

They then argue that it is logically impossible to be both omniscient and omnipotent;

and that an all loving, omnipotent being could not allow all the suffering that goes on.

Therefore God cannot exist.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

The logic cannot be faulted: an omniscient, omnipotent, all loving god does not exist.

But what of a being that falls short of omnipotent? Could they not qualify as God... or a god?

I believe Odin has been mentioned here already. He's a chap with an impressive set of abilities, but a long way off omnipotent.

If he exists, is he not a god?

I'm not going to tell him otherwise.

 

If an alien from another world came here and was so advanced and had amazing technology, could you tell the difference between him and God?

[flamingjimmy]

Then they are officially wrong.

 

Well yeah, obviously.

 

However to be fair to them they do have rather a lot of scriptural backing:

 

But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. -Matthew 19:26

 

For nothing will be impossible with God - Luke 1:37

 

Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh. Is anything too hard for me? - Jeremiah 32:27

 

I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. - Job 42:2

 

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse - Romans 1:20

 

Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God - Mark 10:27

 

Oh, and look at that, all from different books, and 4/6 from the New Testament.

 

So, as you can see, when atheists argue against the existence of an omnipotent god, they are not arguing against a made up strawman. They are not only arguing against the official teachings of the catholic church, the beliefs of plenty of other theists too I'm sure, but against the god as described in the bible.

[woolyhead]

Not is does not, it is refutation of a positive assertion, not a statement of a negative one.

Anything can be disproved by finding contradictory evidence.

 

Yes, but negative statements can be disproved by only one example to the contrary, whereas positive statements usually cannot, unless you dream up some clever positive statements such as all swans are white, which is equivalent to saying there are no swans of a different colour, which is negative.

[flamingjimmy]

Maybe, but you said it's the atheist's definition.

 

He was wrong.

[RootsBooster]

You state that there is no God. That's negative.

 

No I don't. Once again, I'm an atheist, what negative does my position state?

[woolyhead]

I have made a note of that book, because I take a dim view of some of those "wrath of god" passages in the OT and it would be nice to be enlightened a little more.

What I did find quite interesting when listening to an amiable discussion between Rabbi Jonathan Sacks and Richard Dawkins (post the God Delusion) is that when critical references were made about certain events in the OT the rabbi presented an interesting interpretation with his clearer knowledge of Jewish history.

 

Can I just add that my God isn't necessarily the same one that the Catholic church worships.

[flamingjimmy]

Yes, but negative statements can be disproved by only one example to the contrary, whereas positive statements usually cannot, unless you dream up some clever positive statements such as all swans are white, which is equivalent to saying there are no swans of a different colour, which is negative.

Sorry but that's not right, if you state that all swans are white, I need only find one black swan to prove you wrong.

 

Just like if I say that no swans are white, you need only find one white swan to prove me wrong.

 

So we have two statements:

 

All swans are white

 

No swans are white

 

Both are easily falsifiable by finding a single counter example.

 

---------- Post added 01-05-2013 at 20:48 ----------

 

Can I just add that my God isn't necessarily the same one that the Catholic church worships.

 

Clearly.