• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Flaw in Assertion of God's Existence

kmkemp

Active Member
Becaue interaction is required for experience.

In ever case that you have personally experienced, a far cry from all experiences that anyone has experienced across all of time

If that was the case, then every time god wanted them to experience him, he would not be outside of them. If they are interacting with god, god is not separate from them.

Here you are bounding a creator to the same laws that you yourself seem to be bound to. I have tried to explain the hangup with this, but you seem to insist.

If the christian maintains that god can interact with us, then no problem. But god would not be outside the universe, and thus would be able to be detected by science. There is nothing wrong with this.

Ummm, quite to the contrary, you are supposing that an omnipotent being could not possibly do something (ie create a place with beings that have less sensory capabilities than himself).

I am simply pointing out the flaw of saying that god is outside the universe, but that he is also omnipotent. If god is apart from you, he can not affect you. That's the logical principle in effect here. I am only pointing out that the christian accepts the first half, but rejects the second.

And for good reasons.
 

Cacafire

Member
<<This assertion relies upon the scientific observation that an object separated from a system, can not be accessed from within the system.>>

An object in your case is a material substance. God is not composed of a physical or material substance. He did create material substance/mass and energy. He can function within his own creation at will without any scientific observation since science is limited to the physical/material plane of existence. You're still trying to bring the Creator down to the level of man's science. It will not work, He stands outside and above all scientific principles.

An object is not a material substance. It is anything that can interact with anything else. The logic applies to interaction, and therefore it applies to all objects, which, if you claim that god can interact with us, you claim that god is an object.
 

Cacafire

Member
In ever case that you have personally experienced, a far cry from all experiences that anyone has experienced across all of time

I don't quite understand you.

Here you are bounding a creator to the same laws that you yourself seem to be bound to. I have tried to explain the hangup with this, but you seem to insist.
Yes. I do insist. There is no reason to suppose that a "creator" is bound by completely different rules. Strange, nowhere is this said in the bible, catechumen, protestant literature, or father's of the church literature. You insist on saying that god is bound by different laws because it allows you justify whatever you want to about god and not be restricted by simple things such as common sense.

Ummm, quite to the contrary, you are supposing that an omnipotent being could not possibly do something (ie create a place with beings that have less sensory capabilities than himself).
If he interacts with something, then he's not separate from it. The fact that what he's interacting with has less sensory capabilities is irrelevant.
And for good reasons.

List the reasons or be discounted for putting garbage in this thread.
 

Cacafire

Member
P.S.

If you don't think some forms of Christianity aren't panentheistic, go here.

I am only pointing out the flaws in this particular argument advanced by christians. If a certain christian cult does not advance this argument, then they need not worry. This is not a "disprove god" thread. It's a "point out flaw in this argument" thread.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
I am only pointing out the flaws in this particular argument advanced by christians. If a certain christian cult does not advance this argument, then they need not worry. This is not a "disprove god" thread. It's a "point out flaw in this argument" thread.
That's one point --it's not advanced "by Christians."
 

Cacafire

Member
"then they need not worry." -Cacafire
The term christians is shorthand and timesaving. I can't replace christians with, *insert really long list of people who have advanced this argument here.* Do you understand?
 

kmkemp

Active Member
I don't quite understand you.

I'm pointing out that your own experience may or may not be representative of what is possible

Yes. I do insist. There is no reason to suppose that a "creator" is bound by completely different rules. Strange, nowhere is this said in the bible, catechumen, protestant literature, or father's of the church literature.

No one is supposing that a creator is bound by any rules at all, much less "completely different rules". You are the only one supposing to know something that you couldn't possibly know.

You insist on saying that god is bound by different laws because it allows you justify whatever you want to about god and not be restricted by simple things such as common sense.

On the contrary, common sense dictates the argument that I've already presented. Perhaps the convenience of common sense supporting my argument should point out the fallacy in your own position.

If he interacts with something, then he's not separate from it. The fact that what he's interacting with has less sensory capabilities is irrelevant.

Alrighty then.

List the reasons or be discounted for putting garbage in this thread.

I know you are but what am I?
 

Charity

Let's go racing boys !
Maybe" Some" Christians would be more specific instead of a generalization....It's short and to the point..............;)
 
Last edited:

Cacafire

Member
I'm pointing out that your own experience may or may not be representative of what is possible
I am not arguing from my own experience.
No one is supposing that a creator is bound by any rules at all, much less "completely different rules". You are the only one supposing to know something that you couldn't possibly know.
In you're previous post you advanced the idea that God is bound by rules completely different from logic or science. You advanced this because you wanted to justify whatever you wanted to say, and not have anyone attack you. Unfortunately, your opinion, or perhaps your "experience" is not representative of what is possible.l

On the contrary, common sense dictates the argument that I've already presented. Perhaps the convenience of common sense supporting my argument should point out the fallacy in your own position.


I know you are but what am I?

Well, since common sense dicatates the argument that you've presented, you should be able to list those "good reasons" with quite the ease. Please, elaborate using common sense:

If you are arguing that god is outside the universe, and thus can not be detected by science, then you are using a logical principle which would also uphold that god is impotent. Might not be common sense, but it IS logic. And since the first argument relies on logic to say that science can say nothing about god, it must also rely on the same logic that says god cannot access that which he is apart from.
 

kmkemp

Active Member
I am not arguing from my own experience.

What are you arguing from then?

Becaue interaction is required for experience.

In you're previous post you advanced the idea that God is bound by rules completely different from logic or science.

I'm confused. I could have sworn that I said

Me said:
Here you are bounding a creator to the same laws that you yourself seem to be bound to.

You advanced this because you wanted to justify whatever you wanted to say, and not have anyone attack you.

Interesting hypothesis. I already offered you the alternative. I'm guessing (like so much else in this thread), you just ignored it. I'll repost it just in the hopes that you might consider it, though!

Me said:
On the contrary, common sense dictates the argument that I've already presented. Perhaps the convenience of common sense supporting my argument should point out the fallacy in your own position.

Well, since common sense dicatates the argument that you've presented, you should be able to list those "good reasons" with quite the ease.

Just for your entertainment, I'll do it once again, sir!

Please, elaborate using common sense:

If you are arguing that god is outside the universe,

No.

and thus can not be detected by science, then you are using a logical principle which would also uphold that god is impotent.

I think that it has been pointed out to you at least 5 different times in this very thread that this is just flat out wrong. I'll quote someone else for support here, because they said it much better than I:

Jayhawker Soule[URL="http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/members/jayhawker-soule-264.html" said:
[/URL]]Saying does not make it true. Repeating it does not make it true. Fabricating "scientific principles" does not make it true. And, finally, wanting it to be true does not make it true.

Might not be common sense, but it IS logic.
And since the first argument relies on logic to say that science can say nothing about god, it must also rely on the same logic that says god cannot access that which he is apart from.

*sigh*
 

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
"then they need not worry." -Cacafire
The term christians is shorthand and timesaving. I can't replace christians with, *insert really long list of people who have advanced this argument here.* Do you understand?
I can't help but notice that critics of religion in RF are becoming more and more selective as to what kind of theism they challenge, probably because "supernatural theism," being more the product of secularism and atheism than Christianity, is vulnerable to their criticism.

Just a thought.
 
Top