1. 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

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Cacafire, Jul 17, 2008.

  1. Willamena

    Willamena Just me
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    39,211
    Ratings:
    +6,377
    Religion:
    Mystics
    heehee!
     
  2. Rolling_Stone

    Rolling_Stone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,231
    Ratings:
    +255
    That really depends on the denomination. Some of Paul's comments are clearly panentheistic.
     
  3. Willamena

    Willamena Just me
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    39,211
    Ratings:
    +6,377
    Religion:
    Mystics
    So two things that are not separate can interact? Like 'God' and the universe?
     
  4. kmkemp

    kmkemp Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    Messages:
    811
    Ratings:
    +29
    In ever case that you have personally experienced, a far cry from all experiences that anyone has experienced across all of time

    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.

    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).

    And for good reasons.
     
  5. Cacafire

    Cacafire Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    Messages:
    162
    Ratings:
    +14
    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.
     
  6. Rolling_Stone

    Rolling_Stone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,231
    Ratings:
    +255
    P.S.

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

    Willamena Just me
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    39,211
    Ratings:
    +6,377
    Religion:
    Mystics
    Now we're getting somewhere.
     
  8. Cacafire

    Cacafire Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    Messages:
    162
    Ratings:
    +14
    If two things are not separate, then they are interacting.
     
  9. Willamena

    Willamena Just me
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    39,211
    Ratings:
    +6,377
    Religion:
    Mystics
    Like fire and water.
     
  10. Cacafire

    Cacafire Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    Messages:
    162
    Ratings:
    +14
    I don't quite understand you.

    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.

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

    Cacafire Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    Messages:
    162
    Ratings:
    +14
    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.
     
  12. Willamena

    Willamena Just me
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    39,211
    Ratings:
    +6,377
    Religion:
    Mystics
    That's one point --it's not advanced "by Christians."
     
  13. Cacafire

    Cacafire Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    Messages:
    162
    Ratings:
    +14
    "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?
     
  14. kmkemp

    kmkemp Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    Messages:
    811
    Ratings:
    +29
    I'm pointing out that your own experience may or may not be representative of what is possible

    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.

    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.

    Alrighty then.

    I know you are but what am I?
     
  15. Willamena

    Willamena Just me
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    39,211
    Ratings:
    +6,377
    Religion:
    Mystics
    ...and stereotyping. :D
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Charity

    Charity Let's go racing boys !

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    5,532
    Ratings:
    +742
    Maybe" Some" Christians would be more specific instead of a generalization....It's short and to the point..............;)
     
    #76 Charity, Jul 17, 2008
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2008
  17. Cacafire

    Cacafire Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    Messages:
    162
    Ratings:
    +14
    I am not arguing from my own experience.
    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

    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.
     
  18. Cacafire

    Cacafire Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    Messages:
    162
    Ratings:
    +14
    If you can recognize that it is stereotyping, then surely you can recognize that it doesn't apply to all christians...?
     
  19. kmkemp

    kmkemp Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    Messages:
    811
    Ratings:
    +29
    What are you arguing from then?

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

    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!

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

    No.

    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:

    *sigh*
     
  20. Rolling_Stone

    Rolling_Stone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,231
    Ratings:
    +255
    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.
     
Loading...