Do Internet Atheists Have Anything New To Say?

Post Reply New Topic

It is a common and seemingly basic component of all these elite superbeings that their presence is absolutely unverifiable, much as the wacky theory that all governments are subject to alien emissaries that zip through interstellar space in flying saucers and secretly direct government policies. Of course the minuscule possibility exists but do you really consider it worthy of sane consideration?

Primarily the notion of omnipotence and omniscience are oxymorons and therefore totally deny their possibility. I doubt enough adherents to the ancient gods still exist in quantities outside of medical facilities to make their acceptance worthy of discussion.

Last edited by Sand on 03 May 2009, 2:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

AG - attack the issue, not the person. What Ancalagon said was that "If God is omnipotent, then the phrase "a stone so big that he cannot move it" is meaningless." - verbatim from your quoted text. However, omnipotence is the ability to do anything - so what is your reduction, your solution, when there are two diametrically opposed options that cancel each other out? By the very definitions of the terms used, they are mutually incompatible with each other. If you want to waltz away dismissively, that is your right - but I cannot take you seriously when you seem to deign to spend your time on a pedestal gazing disdainfully at the 'intellectual peasantry' with insult instead of forming a more complete and direct argument to issues being discussed. Up to you - but lose the insults.

And Fuzzy - you're right on the same wavelength. Taking omniscience and omnipotence out of the equation, what about the various deities of various other cultures? If we remove these barriers, do the ideas of godheads become more or less debatable?

Lastly, for Sand - we are constantly finding new species, in environments once thought inhospitable. While the legends would at best be the accrued details and exaggerations of centuries, I do not rule out the possibility that there are other forms of existence out there which are not observable at this time, much as the inside of the living human body remained unable to be seen until the advent of x-ray devices. As for adherents to such faiths, there are surprising numbers... and once, the Christians were a minor sect expected to fall like so many other groups. Time changes all, so I do not find their congregations to be relevant to their introduction to the discussion.


M.

Sorry about the quote screwup on my last post. I think it's OK now.

I do not deny the possibility of interstellar superbeings but it seems extremely peculiar that they should behave like undisciplined immature humans as described in the myths wildly fornicating and blasting in all directions. They seem more like the dreams of naive humans with delusions of absolute power. And their anthropomorphic characterization of natural (but then unexplainable) phenomena seems to me to be primitive attempts to make sense of nature in human terms.

It becomes more debatable, because some logic oxymoron would disappear - A powerful, but not almighty, god like Zeus is less difficult to explain.

But: We still have not hind of the existence of such entities. We can explain the world quite well without introducing the concept "Zeus". So there is no need for such a concept.

---

Even I had for this guy always some kind of sympathy - he is so ... "human":

Sand - I do not disagree with your assessment... only that the razor isn't quite sharp enough for me to lop of the possibility for consideration. It took me a second, but I figured out where your content was readily enough - thank you, though, for being concerned about it. My skepticism extends to myself; I don't have all the answers... and given that such 'beings' avoid some of the standard arguments against the existence of deities, provided we avoid relying on Occam and examine them in the same fashion of dissection that more "supreme" beings are evaluated.


M.

Ah, but Dussel... one could make the argument that the world has no need for an orchid - another flower would do - yet they persevere and remain. If I had to choose a sort of pantheon, I think I would borrow most from Heinlein's "Book of Job" of existential strata as each tier has it's own deities extending onward and upward. No absolute powers, no divinity per se save inspiration, but representational of another existence. When young (5-7) I read every volume on mythology at the local high school, town library, and onto the college's before I switched over to another fixation. While the likeliest of answers is that they are natural phenomena subjected to an anthropomorphic interpretation, it is still an interesting concept to ponder for me.


M.

The existence of orchids is not a matter of faith, but of observation. Those kind of flowers exist and can be proven to exist. Therefore the question if they exist or there is a "need" does not exist as an open question, but the existence of orchids is matter of fact, not of interpretation.

An different question would be how they came into existence, but this not a matter of faith, but of the scientific method.



In my option the Greek myths have more to say about moral and how we shall live than the bible - even I do regard both as fiction. The story of Orest, for example, is one of the best teachings how revenge will lead to more-and-more bloodshed and how human institutions, the establishment of court of justice and the acceptance of the rule of law, can stop senseless slaughter. The story of Antigone contains a very serious discussion regarding the power of the state and when not to follow the orders of rulers and how to bear the consequences. etc. etc. pp.

I our modern societies, in which Christianity is not any longer the common dominator, the old Greek have more useful to say to us than the bible.

God can do anything so he can make the statement meaningful.

Once again the contradiction shows omnipotence is illogical.

Omnipotence contradicts the law of non-contradiction.

ruveyn

Making the statement meaningful means changing the meaning of the words. Anyone can change the meaning of the words.

Let me clarify -- I don't mean by omnipotence the ability to make any set of words "true" regardless of whether that set of words makes logical sense. God can do anything that can be done, and illogical things, such as making colorless green ideas sleep furiously, are not things that can be done.

Why do you think you can define an omnipotent God's powers? What may not make sense to you might be quite sensible to a superbeing.

The supergod idea is self-contradictory in the same way as the big rock question is.

If you believe in free will, then God has done exactly that with human beings. On the determinism side, you could say that "an entity God is unable to control" is another oxymoron. I'm more partial to the free will side myself, and I think God could do that -- by deciding permanently not to do something.

I can make any definition I want. That definition may or may not be correct.

If you make the argument that we can't understand that sort of thing completely, then that argument cuts both ways -- you can't argue against omnipotence if it's not comprehensible by human minds.

Aside from the fact that free will is totally useless nonsense, capability has noting to do with the decision of whether or not to use that capability. Either he has that ability or he doesn't. Decision as to utilization is irrelevant.

So if God is omnipotent then he very well COULD create a SuperGod that he could not control......

I have destroyed your argument.

There is a lot of evidence against the notion that humans have free will. So what you're saying is that despite God's omnipotence there IS something that he cannot do because it would be contradictory. So essential God is BOUND by the principles of logic and isnt truly omnipotent after all.