Poll: The best argument against God, capital G.

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

And the beauty of this is, that when you do need Him, you need only seek and He will be there.

Unless He doesn’t.

 

[dybmh]

But if He becomes just regular potent, then He cannot have the power to return to omnipotent.

Sure, it's just a lapse.

"Hear-yea Hear-yea, I the omnipotent, will thus limit myself for a moment to disprove those silly rock-to-heavy buritto-too-hot contradictions. Here I go.... Dang that's HOT. Dang that's heavy. OK. I'm back to my original status. Any questions?"

 

[Revoltingest]

It’s often what doctors say when it’s time to circumcise.

A convenient unverified assumption, eh.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

A convenient unverified assumption, eh.

Well, I follow a group on FB about genital autonomy. Doctors SHOULD know by now that babies and POC can feel pain, but there are many who skipped that class.

 

[Heyo]

It’s often what doctors say when it’s time to circumcise.

That's been debunked a long time ago. In fact, Doctors never believed that. They just had the hypothesis that infants don't remember pain and it therefore doesn't have any long lasting effects.

 

[Heyo]

So, why do you fear your god and why do you think other people should live in fear of it?

@dybmh : Well?

 

[Heyo]

Your position is so easily defeated. Just to clarify the paradox, I'll reword it slightly:
"Can an entity create a stone that it can never lift it?"
Where's your temporal impotence now?

@dybmh : You didn't answer this one either.

 

[dybmh]

@dybmh : Well?

Sorry, sorry.

So, why do you fear your god and why do you think other people should live in fear of it?

Fear is the beginning. That's the verse. I'm not saying I live in fear. And I don't think others should live in fear.

I fear God, because there is no other power. And God can be dreadful. It's a combo of respect, awe, fear, excitement, etc...

If you don't want to fear God, that's up to you. But a lot of people enjoy being afraid under the right circumstances. Fear of God is kinda fun.

 

[dybmh]

@dybmh : You didn't answer this one either.

Sorry...

Your position is so easily defeated. Just to clarify the paradox, I'll reword it slightly:
"Can an entity create a stone that it can never lift it?"
Where's your temporal impotence now?

No. Because then it's not omnipotent. Is that supposed to be some sort of big gotcha?

It can always create a stone that it can always lift. That's omnipotence.

It can't create a stone that it cannot lift is also omnipotence. Double-negative...

 

[Heyo]

Sorry, sorry.



Fear is the beginning. That's the verse. I'm not saying I live in fear. And I don't think others should live in fear.

I fear God, because there is no other power. And God can be dreadful. It's a combo of respect, awe, fear, excitement, etc...

If you don't want to fear God, that's up to you. But a lot of people enjoy being afraid under the right circumstances. Fear of God is kinda fun.

OK, I can respect that. I don't really understand how people like to be afraid but to each their own.
As long as they don't want to scare other people or claim that fear is wise, because it isn't. It may be fun for some but it isn't wise.

 

[Heyo]

It can't create a stone that it cannot lift is also omnipotence. Double-negative...

So, not being able to do something is omnipotence?
I can create a stone that I can't lift. Am I omnipotent? (That's a rhetorical question.)

 

[dybmh]

So, not being able to do something is omnipotence?
I can create a stone that I can't lift. Am I omnipotent? (That's a rhetorical question.)

not being able to not do something... is omnipotence

can't create a rock that can't be lifted... is omnipotence

Or, using the words you used:

"Can an entity create a stone that it can never lift it"

You're asking if God "can never" do something. No. "can never" = impotent.

Anyway, these little theoretical (non)contradictions have to be among the worst arguments against God. And this thread is supposed to be about the best arguments.

 

[Heyo]

Anyway, these little theoretical (non)contradictions have to be among the worst arguments against God. And this thread is supposed to be about the best arguments.

These "little" contradictions are solid proof that a certain god, namely an omnipotent one, can't exist - at least for those proficient in logic.

But that was a tangent. The best argument, according to the poll, is the lack of evidence.
My personal favorite is that those who believe in gods (and atheists alike) don't even know what a god is.

 

[dybmh]

These "little" contradictions are solid proof that a certain god, namely an omnipotent one, can't exist - at least for those proficient in logic.

No.... I just showed you, the god described is always omnipotent. The god that cannot create something that cannot be lifted is also omnipotent. That's the definition of omnipotent.

Youre saying God is not omnipotent because God is not impotent. Now that's a contradiction.

But that was a tangent. The best argument, according to the poll, is the lack of evidence.

That's an argument from ignorance.

My personal favorite is that those who believe in gods (and atheists alike) don't even know what a god is.

I do. Eternal, solitary before creation, tri-omni.

I'd never try to prove that it exists. Faith, pure faith, is a reliable method for communion. People who need to prove it to themselves or others are shooting themself in the foot.

 

[Copernicus]

A putative omnipotent being would not be able to cancel its own omnipotence. It would have to remain invulnerable to all weaknesses by definition. So this is all just a thought exercise to try to preserve the idea of omnipotence. Combine that property with omniscience, and the imagined being would not be able to do anything at all other than what it knew it would do--another strange restriction on the being's power. So it is difficult to imagine how it would have the freedom to actually choose to do anything at all. It would, in effect, be a super automaton. If it knew it was going to create a hell to torture people for eternity because of their lack of obedience which it knew they would have before their creation, it would have no choice but to create that hell.

Round and round we go with this nonsensical idea of an all-powerful being that never actually has any decision-making power but comes equipped with many paradoxical properties. This is when we play the "ineffability" card and claim that God is impossible for the human mind to comprehend, so we shouldn't be bothered by all of the cognitive dissonance.

 

[Heyo]

No.... I just showed you, the god described is always omnipotent. The god that cannot create something that cannot be lifted is also omnipotent. That's the definition of omnipotent.

Your definition - which you invented so you can still call your god "omnipotent" even though you have been shown that that is an impossibility.

That's an argument from ignorance.

That's applying the correct burden of proof.

I do. Eternal, solitary before creation, tri-omni.

You don't. True knowledge is transferable. If you can't teach it to others, you don't have knowledge. You have faith.

When I listen to a number of pretend god-knowers and everyone describes god different and no-one can prove their version or show evidence for it, I don't learn anything. I still don't know what a god is. And everyone able to think critically is in the same situation.
The next time I have to seriously look into the claims of believers is when there is only one religion on earth with only one denomination and all the believers have a consensus about the nature of god. That will happen when the last-but-one believer dies or de-converts.

I'd never try to prove that it exists. Faith, pure faith, is a reliable method for communion. People who need to prove it to themselves or others are shooting themself in the foot.

And that is the reason why god will not be known for a very long time. Each believer worships their own version of god and never tries to harmonize their view with other believers.

 

[dybmh]

Your definition - which you invented so you can still call your god "omnipotent" even though you have been shown that that is an impossibility.

Nonsense.

You're claiming that God is not omnipotent because it's not impotent.

That's applying the correct burden of proof.

Not unless someone claims that there's evidence.

You don't. True knowledge is transferable. If you can't teach it to others, you don't have knowledge. You have faith.

I can teach you what those words mean. Here they are again, which one do you need me to explain:

Eternal
Solitary before creation
Infinite
Omnipotent
Omnibenevolent
Omniscient

When I listen to a number of pretend god-knowers and everyone describes god different and no-one can prove their version or show evidence for it, I don't learn anything. I still don't know what a god is. And everyone able to think critically is in the same situation.
The next time I have to seriously look into the claims of believers is when there is only one religion on earth with only one denomination and all the believers have a consensus about the nature of god. That will happen when the last-but-one believer dies or de-converts.

OK.

And that is the reason why god will not be known for a very long time. Each believer worships their own version of god and never tries to harmonize their view with other believers.

If God is infinite, it's impossible to know God. So, yeah, knowing God isn't going to happen.

 

[Heyo]

OK.

I'm glad that I could explain my position.

If God is infinite, it's impossible to know God. So, yeah, knowing God isn't going to happen.

We even agree on the fact even though we don't come to the same conclusion.

 

[shunyadragon]

And the beauty of this is, that when you do need Him, you need only seek and He will be there.

Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

Many 'claim' God (most likely not He) is there, but far to many are disappointed when God was not here, there or anywhere, and everyone is likely all experience natural circumstances,

 

[Copernicus]

If God is infinite, it's impossible to know God. So, yeah, knowing God isn't going to happen.

This is what I call playing the "ineffability card". When you reach a point with a god-explainer that the explanations become incomprehensible, this is the final play in that game. Of course, if theists claim that God is unknowable, then we can rest assured that they don't know what they are talking about.