Does God exist: A hopefully civil and fruitful debate

[DrRusty]

ummm... I think you should read that again. When they say "one" they don't mean religion is created in 1 way. They're saying that is one of the ways.

in my first post

Religion is just an end result of people's ignorance, fear, or quest for power.

[Leaves]

The catch-22 of this thread (and all religious vs. non-religious debates) is that the non-religious side seeks to prove by disproving with the means of logic.

This form of proof is often enough for many things in life; particularly topics in the fields of mathematics or science, where concrete answers are often achievable within the realms of the "rules" we place ourselves in.

When discussing religion, which is a belief, it is simply not enough to prove by disproving. As you stated in the OP - the bible on which said religion is based on is a logical contradiction in and of itself. If this fact were universally accepted to "disprove" said religion / the existence of said God, then we wouldn't have religious people.

The issue arises with the fact that said religious people don't base their beliefs off the logical system with which you attempt to tackle this issue. This is in no way meant to be offensive to believers - it is the simple truth. A belief is really just a theory, which is usually rooted in some sort of logical argument. But for this particular topic, said belief is irrational in terms of pure logic. But there are other factors at play - mainly emotions, and again, the belief that humans are not all-knowing, and our accepted logic system can't be used to solve some very complex questions (such as, Is there a God?).

[Kalovale]

ummm... I think you should read that again. When they say "one" they don't mean religion is created in 1 way. They're saying that is one of the ways.

in my first post

It seems we're misunderstanding something.

Religion is just an end result of people's ignorance, fear, or quest for power.

means that religion is ONE end result, among others, e.g. massacre, doubt, jealousy, etc...

while:

it seems apparent that one thing religion or belief helps us do is deal with problems of human life that are significant, persistent, and intolerable. One important way in which religious beliefs accomplish this is by providing a set of ideas about how and why the world is put together that allows people to accommodate anxieties and deal with misfortune.

means that religion helps us do many things, one of which is [deal with problems of human life that are significant, persistent, and intolerable], and religion accomplishes this in many ways, one of which being [providing a set of ideas about how and why the world is put together that allows people to accommodate anxieties and deal with misfortune].

I don't see the relevance here.

@Leaves As mentioned in the OP, I don't much care for the Bible, the teachings, or what the religion claims. This thread is not intended to discuss religion (but I do open up to anyone with an interest in the topic, so long as I can manage it), rather, it hinges upon one single question: Is there an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving being?

Knowledge is, defined in a sketchy manner, true justified belief (commonly known as TFB). That is to say, all knowledge is belief. The transcendence happens when we satisfy the 'justified' part of that definition.
As an example, one can 'believe' that it is raining outside, but he can't say he 'knows' it is raining outside unless:

1. It actually is raining outside, and
2. He provides some (acceptable) justification for his belief. In this case, hearing the sound of the rain should suffice.

[DrRusty]

fear of misfortune, fear of problems in life, and anxiety is very similar to fear although not exactly the same.

[Leaves]

@Leaves As mentioned in the OP, I don't much care for the Bible, the teachings, or what the religion claims. This thread is not intended to discuss religion (but I do open up to anyone with an interest in the topic, so long as I can manage it), rather, it hinges upon one single question: Is there an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving being?

In principle, that is a discussion of religion, as that is entirely what most religions are based upon. So my point still stands - you will get two different answers. One based on logic, and another based on pure emotional belief (that, as you pointed out, cannot be logical). Neither side can discuss further, because neither side agrees to the same rules of argument.

There's not too much else to say here, IMO.

[DrRusty]

The people who I've had this conversation before pretty much said the same thing Leaves is saying. My aunt said something along the lines of "We're just humans, we can't comprehend how god works", and I had to tell her "well, logically god can't exist, but if he's outside our realm of logic then there's no point in discussing it at all".

[Kalovale]

In principle, that is a discussion of religion, as that is entirely what most religions are based upon. So my point still stands - you will get two different answers. One based on logic, and another based on pure emotional belief (that, as you pointed out, cannot be logical). Neither side can discuss further, because neither side agrees to the same rules of argument.

There's not too much else to say here, IMO.

The people who I've had this conversation before pretty much said the same thing Leaves is saying. My aunt said something along the lines of "We're just humans, we can't comprehend how god works", and I had to tell her "well, logically god can't exist, but if he's outside our realm of logic then there's no point in discussing it at all".

I would greatly appreciate it if we could refrain from labeling things instead of digesting them for what they are. No, theism and religion are related only as much as Marxism is related to Communism. One does not have to be religious if he argues and believes that God exists. Arguments for God's existence can be rational, should be rational, and are expected to be rational here. I'll try a classic one, open to attack from various angles, just as an example:

Cosmological argument for an independent being's existence:

- All things that come into being are caused.
- There must be a start to the world as it is, as a causal loop is impossible.
- Therefore a god must exist as the root of all things. God here is also named the uncaused cause, the first Mover, the independent being, the First Cause, etc... and defined simply as 'the start of everything'.

Yes, Big Bang would count as a god in this sense. But from our understanding of the world, it is not. Big Bang is caused by quantum fluctuation of empty space, so 'everything being born from nothing' is not really accurate, as within that nothing, there is still something. And then there is something else that caused that something, so on and so forth until a god.

I admit to being sketchy here by arguing for a god that doesn't fit the description of the thread. This argument is not meant to be taken seriously as the topic of our discussion, but rather as an example of God's discussion being rational. I don't much like the Intelligent Design argument, so I chose this instead.

[DrRusty]

alright then, I'll use the classic omnipotence paradox. Can God create a rock so heavy that even he can not lift it?

If he can, he can't lift it, therefore he is not all powerful
If he can't, then he's not all powerful

sweet!! now that that's over, I'm going to drink some green tea to celebrate

- All things that come into being are caused.

and God is the exception to this ?

[Kalovale]

alright then, I'll use the classic omnipotence paradox. Can God create a rock so heavy that even he can not lift it?

If he can, he can't lift it, therefore he is not all powerful
If he can't, then he's not all powerful

sweet!! now that that's over, I'm going to drink some green tea to celebrate

I anticipated as much. I don't expect you to accept that that argument is bogus, but consider this:

- How much force do you have to exert to lift a rock of weight A (Newton)? F > A, evidently.
- How much force do you have to exert to lift a rock of infinite weight, which we take for granted to be produced by God? F > infinity, evidently.

When you can get back to me how to make sense of a quantity larger than infinity, I'll accept the argument as sensible.

The contradiction here does not lay with God's all-powerfulness, but with the idea in the argument itself. In so far as we still use reason to comprehend God, we cannot go beyond the bound of what actually makes sense to us. A quantity larger than infinity is nonsense.

and God is the exception to this ?

Yes. The term 'god' here is defined as whatever is excepted from the causal chain, a cause that is not itself an effect.

[DrRusty]

who said the rock's weight was infinity? The argument is making a rock so heavy that not even god can lift it. You implied infinity

[Kalovale]

who said the rock's weight was infinity? The argument is making a rock so heavy that not even god can lift it. You implied infinity

Okay, then how heavy is the limit of a rock that God can lift, if not infinity?

By defining the object as "so heavy it cannot be lifted", the argument is already loaded inside it a condition that the defender has no choice but to accept. Can such a thing exist in as much as reason can make sense of it? Can I ask then "Can God make purple run fast?" and expect it to make sense? Purple does not run, let alone fast. A "rock that cannot be lifted with infinite strength" is an inherently flawed definition.

[DrRusty]

YOU SIR ARE CORRECT! That is exactly why being omnipotent is not a logical possibility

that was fun

[Eos]

- Omni-benevolence requires the being to always do the most known good.

This is the single most flawed concept in this discussion. It's completely out of place to what you claim to be trying to discuss.

What is "good"? Why would an omnipotent and/or omniscient entity be constrained by a completely human concept that's in many ways severely subjective?

If you want to argue over whether or not god(s) exists, you should resolve that question before you try to argue God's sense of morality rather than assuming the morality is somehow directly related to the existence.

[Kalovale]

YOU SIR ARE CORRECT! That is exactly why being omnipotent is not a logical possibility

that was fun

Are you implying that a flawed argument is somehow succeeding?

This is the single most flawed concept in this discussion. It's completely out of place to what you claim to be trying to discuss.

What is "good"? Why would an omnipotent and/or omniscient entity be constrained by a completely human concept that's in many ways severely subjective?

If you want to argue over whether or not god(s) exists, you should resolve that question before you try to argue God's sense of morality rather than assuming the morality is somehow directly related to the existence.

I'm aware of as much. I'm not too familiar with morality, so I don't expect to be able to defend it once people get into that realm. I haven't read much about people entertaining the omni-benevolence bit and there doesn't seem to be a lot of refutation in that area either. Do help me if you know of a better definition. Personally, if I were talking about God's kind of goodness, I would have to buy into the universal stance of objective moral values. What we perceive to be good may or may not be actually good. It could be begging the question to claim that God himself created those values of good, but I don't think it is, as him acting in such a way that he already does is a tautology and not a contradiction.

[DrRusty]

well, if a religious person claims that god is all-powerful, and being all-powerful is flawed, then sure. The omnipotence paradox basically just puts "infinite" power against itself. The whole, immovable object vs the unstoppable force kind of deal.

[Kalovale]

well, if a religious person claims that god is all-powerful, and being all-powerful is flawed, then sure. The omnipotence paradox basically just puts "infinite" power against itself. The whole, immovable object vs the unstoppable force kind of deal.

And you were just told that an immovable object vs an unstoppable force is a bogus idea. Humans don't easily entertain the concept of infinity, so each of those itself being existent is already stretching the limit of logic (as is God), comparing them just doesn't make any sense.

@GreatOrator2 I'm not interested in beings perceived as all-knowing, all-powerful and all-benevolent. I'm interested in being(s) that is/are all-knowing, all-powerful and all-benevolent.

[GreatOrator2]

Is there an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving being?

Here's the kicker for this...

First, lets take a step back several thousand years to the dawn of religion as we have come to accept it...
-a "being" comes to earth, many times more intelligent than what we are back then
-immediately any human that interacts with said "being" will be in awe of his intelligence
-"being" appears to those on earth as all-knowing, all-seeing, all-loving because of what it appears "being" can do

Now, fast forward to present and look at our definition of God through that lens. At this current state what actually was and what we now perceive as are completely different nowadays.

The issue with any debate over this topic, is that outside of belief, there is no way to prove or disprove without any physical evidence the existence, or lack thereof , of God.

Given the fact that the Bible was written by a man who supposedly was being told what to write by God, there is no way to know for sure if this is true.

Scientifically they have shown that the milky way galaxy is one of the youngest in the known universe. Therefore it lends to think that there are solar systems and galaxies many magnitudes older than earth and therefore could easily have beings same magnitudes smarter/more advanced that we are and to even modern day humans would appear as gods based on what their inconceivable technology would allow them to do.

@Kalovale But isn't the very discussion of God's existence dependent on how we came to interpret who/what God is? By stating "I'm interested in being(s) that is/are all-knowing, all-powerful and all-benevolent." is on it's own merit now saying that you know they exist and this is a discussion of whether or not they do, therefore my case still stands as this whole discussion ultimately stems from the perceptions we have as humans about what does or does not exist.

[DrRusty]

And you were just told that an immovable object vs an unstoppable force is a bogus idea. Humans don't easily entertain the concept of infinity, so each of those itself being existent is already stretching the limit of logic (as is God), comparing them just doesn't make any sense.

and that brings us back to the point that if god exists outside the realm of logic then there's no point in discussing it.



Leaves already said, in the realm of logic, god is a logical impossibility.

[Eos]

I'm aware of as much. I'm not too familiar with morality, so I don't expect to be able to defend it once people get into that realm. I haven't read much about people entertaining the omni-benevolence bit and there doesn't seem to be a lot of refutation in that area either. Do help me if you know of a better definition.

Revise your definition of God.

The most basic definition of God is:

An entity or entities responsible for creating and/or maintaining the physical laws of the universe as we know them.

Argue the existence of that before you try to apply specific attributes to said entity or entities.

One would not necessarily have to be all knowing or all powerful to have created such, only to exist outside the boundaries thereof, or exist within a superset thereof.

[Kalovale]

and that brings us back to the point that if god exists outside the realm of logic then there's no point in discussing it.

God does not (at least not because of that argument) exist outside of the realm of logic, that object you defined as "a rock heavier than can be lifted" is, however, outside of the realm of logic. You are insisting on attributing to God what was apparently a fault of the argument.

Revise your definition of God

Ninja edit here, don't know if it resolves any tension.

Personally, if I were talking about God's kind of goodness, I would have to buy into the universal stance of objective moral values. What we perceive to be good may or may not be actually good. It could be begging the question to claim that God himself created those values of good, but I don't think it is, as him acting in such a way that he already does is a tautology and not a contradiction.