Theists, How do you know there is no being more powerful than God?

[james bond]

Gee, in ancient Greece there was a hierarchy of gods. Zeus being the top god with a bunch of lesser gods sitting below him. So the term "god" hardly signifies an ultimate divine being. In fact, considering the faults of the god of Abraham it's easy to conclude he was hardly an ultimate divine being, but rather a minor god, perhaps a god in training, with some greater, parental god over him.

.

.

@Earthtank is correct because @Hubert Farnsworth asks us how do we, as theists know, and then not only do we have to give him our answer, but it seems we have to give him some evidence so that he is convinced. One of the biggest flaws and irritations of atheists is wanting to have proof when we state one has to have faith first.

The way he poses his question shows a basic lack of understanding. We just know. Through faith, God has revealed himself to us. For me, it's also because of God telling me so in the Bible and then science backing up the Bible. Now, how I started believing in God was seeing the beauty and complexity in this world as a kid. I just knew something more powerful existed. If you or @Hubert Farnsworth (I didn't mean to insult him, but I guess the truth hurts). Moreover, it may mean that the theists were the chosen ones as per the Bible. Some may have been chosen, but they just could not have faith. So, instead of playing a game where @Hubert Farnsworth wants some convincing of something he can't believe in, it disingenous to us as the believers how do we know such things as God being the most powerful. It's in the Bible. It's in our creed we follow and our creed follows the Bible.

Sorry, I don't think you were chosen either; I just read that you're practically an atheist now. Maybe tomorrow is the day (j/k). I can understand this because I could not believe in a Norse God. It's mythology and was written as that. Just like Greek gods are mythology. We know because there wasn't any Mt. Olympus at the time. Face it, you just do not have the faith.

How would you know if you were not chosen? Or how can you prove it to yourself? You can watch the above video, and if you pray sincerely and God doesn't reveal himself to you, then you weren't chosen. It means that you cannot be sincere in prayer and that you do not have faith, i.e. you do not believe or can not believe such you can be sincere in prayer.

Hey, I understand. It's your worldview. However, don't ask us to give you proof when you won't accept it. It's annoying.

 

[Skwim]

@Earthtank is correct because @Hubert Farnsworth asks us how do we, as theists know, and then not only do we have to give him our answer, but it seems we have to give him some evidence so that he is convinced. One of the biggest flaws and irritations of atheists is wanting to have proof when we state one has to have faith first.

I believe most atheists would recognize this. And any request for "proof" would be in answer to the question, "Why don't you believe there's a god?". to which the atheist would commonly answer "The lack of evidence." So if you don't like the atheist's need of convincing evidence (proof), then don't ask them.

The way he poses his question shows a basic lack of understanding. We just know.

Which is no doubt quite satisfactory for you, but hardly convincing to any nonbeliever. Just saying.

Hey, I understand. It's your worldview. However, don't ask us to give you proof when you won't accept it. It's annoying.

Then I suggest that people stop asking the atheist why he doesn't believe in god. He can't help it that he doesn't find your evidence (proof) acceptable.

.

 

[james bond]

I believe most atheists would recognize this. And any request for "proof" would be in answer to the question, "Why don't you believe there's a god?". to which the atheist would commonly answer "The lack of evidence." So if you don't like the atheist's need of convincing evidence (proof), then don't ask them.

In this case, it's how do we know there isn't a more powerful God. I gave him the Bible or God said so, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, our faith, intuition, and God revealing himself to us, and more. The truth is, it was a silly question to ask, one from an ignoramus. Thus, he became angry because the truth hurts. Moreover, I tried to give you evidence of the Nicene Creed. It states succinctly what we believe in as the truth.

I read there is a similar irritation when theists ask evolutionists, if we are descendants of monkeys (chimps and apes), the why are there still chimps and apes? It's a valid question. Also, why do evos state they believe the present is the key to the past? However, how could they believe that apes in the past became bipedal when there are no apes today that are bipedal? Moreover, there are no transitional fossils. Shrug.

Furthermore, I've never asked an atheist why don't you believe there is a God? It's not lack of evidence, but he just can't accept your answer or the truth. Like I said, the truth hurts.

Finally, there is something in the Bible in Revelation and Daniel that all the atheists, past, present, and future will be convinced of Jesus and God. It means everything will be settled on Earth. I used to think pain and suffering was the only way to convince atheists, but it was already written in the Bible. Will this truth hurt?

Which is no doubt quite satisfactory for you, but hardly convincing to any nonbeliever. Just saying.

No. He just won't accept our answer. It's not magic or a fairy tale. We believe what God said because we find that real science backs up our beliefs, our experience, and God revealing himself to us all comes together to reveal the truth. Even the Bible is still the world's best selling non-fiction and history book each year and of all time. It's not magic, but there's a logical reason for it. If someone proves that there was a contradiction to God's word, then that would shake up our faith, but this has never happened. You may as well believe in aliens or abiogenesis if you do not believe in God and we find atheists do with absolutely no scientific evidence. We believe in natural selection or microevolution, as Alfred Russell Wallace discovered before Darwin, but we still use science to back it up. Otherwise, there is nothing to evolution as it is a magical fairy tale. Further evidence of creation and creation science. Actually, it's part of the Satan story, but you don't believe it either. So, all we can do is shake our heads. What kind of ignorant people are these atheists? They do not want to admit they believe in no God when they have no evidence against it. They do not want to admit they are wrong and their science is wrong.

Then I suggest that people stop asking the atheist why he doesn't believe in god. He can't help it that he doesn't find your evidence (proof) acceptable.

I've never heard anyone ask in this thread for evidence of no God and to show he does not exist. Can you point me to a post somewhere if not this thread? Us theists understand that atheism is a religion, but the atheists won't admit that either. The evidence shows that they believe there is no God when they do not have any evidence of no God. That's a type of faith and why atheism and evolution as a science are both religion.

What theists would like to do is present evidence for God in our public schools using creation science. Then our creation scientists may be able to get published in Nature and Science and other publications again and participate in scientific peer reviews. Today's science is biased and has gone way wrong.

 

[Skwim]

In this case, it's how do we know there isn't a more powerful God. I gave him the Bible or God said so, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, our faith, intuition, and God revealing himself to us, and more. The truth is, it was a silly question to ask, one from an ignoramus. Thus, he became angry because the truth hurts. Moreover, I tried to give you evidence of the Nicene Creed. It states succinctly what we believe in as the truth.

I read there is a similar irritation when theists ask evolutionists, if we are descendants of monkeys (chimps and apes), the why are there still chimps and apes? It's a valid question. Also, why do evos state they believe the present is the key to the past? However, how could they believe that apes in the past became bipedal when there are no apes today that are bipedal? Moreover, there are no transitional fossils. Shrug.

Furthermore, I've never asked an atheist why don't you believe there is a God? It's not lack of evidence, but he just can't accept your answer or the truth. Like I said, the truth hurts.

Finally, there is something in the Bible in Revelation and Daniel that all the atheists, past, present, and future will be convinced of Jesus and God. It means everything will be settled on Earth. I used to think pain and suffering was the only way to convince atheists, but it was already written in the Bible. Will this truth hurt?



No. He just won't accept our answer. It's not magic or a fairy tale. We believe what God said because we find that real science backs up our beliefs, our experience, and God revealing himself to us all comes together to reveal the truth. Even the Bible is still the world's best selling non-fiction and history book each year and of all time. It's not magic, but there's a logical reason for it. If someone proves that there was a contradiction to God's word, then that would shake up our faith, but this has never happened. You may as well believe in aliens or abiogenesis if you do not believe in God and we find atheists do with absolutely no scientific evidence. We believe in natural selection or microevolution, as Alfred Russell Wallace discovered before Darwin, but we still use science to back it up. Otherwise, there is nothing to evolution as it is a magical fairy tale. Further evidence of creation and creation science. Actually, it's part of the Satan story, but you don't believe it either. So, all we can do is shake our heads. What kind of ignorant people are these atheists? They do not want to admit they believe in no God when they have no evidence against it. They do not want to admit they are wrong and their science is wrong.



I've never heard anyone ask in this thread for evidence of no God and to show he does not exist. Can you point me to a post somewhere if not this thread? Us theists understand that atheism is a religion, but the atheists won't admit that either. The evidence shows that they believe there is no God when they do not have any evidence of no God. That's a type of faith and why atheism and evolution as a science are both religion.

What theists would like to do is present evidence for God in our public schools using creation science. Then our creation scientists may be able to get published in Nature and Science and other publications again and participate in scientific peer reviews. Today's science is biased and has gone way wrong.

Have a good day.

.

 

[Galateasdream]

I might be thinking about it a little simplistically, but to me the question 'How do you know there's not a more powerful being than God?' is easy to answer.

I define God as an omni-max being, thus possessing omnipotence. If the questioner has any other definition of 'God' then the answer is, 'You cannot know there isn't a more powerful being than X because there's always the possibility of an omni-max God existing.'

If we agree on an omni-max definition of God, then asking whether or not there could be a more powerful being becomes pointless. There cannot be anything more powerful than omnipotent, so that's that.

Then come the much more difficult questions:
A) Is a omnipotent being a coherent concept?
B) Does such a being exist?

 

[james bond]

Have a good day.

Before you run, what do you think of your new religion? Do you consider it a religion? Do you know atheism leads to communism? It's interesting that you held out so long.

 

[james bond]

I might be thinking about it a little simplistically, but to me the question 'How do you know there's not a more powerful being than God?' is easy to answer.

I define God as an omni-max being, thus possessing omnipotence. If the questioner has any other definition of 'God' then the answer is, 'You cannot know there isn't a more powerful being than X because there's always the possibility of an omni-max God existing.'

If we agree on an omni-max definition of God, then asking whether or not there could be a more powerful being becomes pointless. There cannot be anything more powerful than omnipotent, so that's that.

Then come the much more difficult questions:
A) Is a omnipotent being a coherent concept?
B) Does such a being exist?

How do you know you exist? You just know these things. If you want a logical answer, then it's we're here with the universe, Earth, and everything in it. Or the Kalam Cosmological Argument which is a formal argument for God's existence. Do you know of formal logical argument against God? Do you know of a regular logical argument against God?

As for your A and B arguments in the form of a question, A is strange to me because God existed before someone suggested that he was a concept. I'm afraid this is fallacious thinking and I point you to Kalam Cosmological Argument. Before that, we didn't and couldn't have had it because we assumed the universe was infinite and that it always existed. Thus, why not have this omni-max being who always existed. That does seem rational since we have this certain type of order and design in nature. Why do people think there are other beings out there when this omin-max being told us that we are like him and we are the ones he created and focused on?

 

[Galateasdream]

@james bond

How do I know I exist?
Leaving aside the vexed question of 'I', I can know (and only this I can know), that thoughts exist, since to doubt is to think, and it is therefore induitable that thoughts exist. Obviously, cogito ergo sum. But this, of course, side-steps exactly what 'I' is, but that is not necessary to know in order to know that thoughts exist.

I don't understand your contention regarding asking whether or not omnipotence is a coherent concept, you seem to be thinking of God in social/historical terms rather than in philosophical terms. A switch of langauge games, perhaps? Regardless, I think it an important part of the search for God, at least philosophically, to attend to the question, 'Is an omnipotent being a coherent idea?' Personally, I think it is, but it is something arguable.

Regarding the rest, I'm not sure what you're asking, tbh.

But in my defence, I did say I was likely being too simplistic

 

[SalixIncendium]

Sorry it came over that way. I noticed that but I didn't bother to go into details, but I will do that now...
Step 1
A study of the Bible reveals it is true.
Step 2
Since the Bible is true, then we can believe what it says.
Step 3
The Bible says there is no other God, but the almighty Jehovah, who cannot lie.
Step 4
Therefore, I know there is only one true God, alone - the almighty Jehovah.

I'm sorry, but this still reads, to me, a lot like...

 

[firedragon]

Suppose for the sake of argument that the god of classical theism (Jesus/Allah/Yahweh, etc.) exists and did in fact create the universe and perform supernatural feats. How do you know that this god is not just a creation or tool being used by another more powerful god? Perhaps the more powerful god decided to make the god of classical theism believe that it is the most powerful being in existence, when in fact, it is not. Perhaps Jesus' death and resurrection did occur, but they were part of a plan put into place by a greater god, who will one day take Jesus/Yahweh/Allah by surprise when he/she/it (the more powerful god) asserts her/his/its authority over the universe. Perhaps the Bible/Qur'an were inspired by your god, but only because the more powerful god allowed them to be inspired in order to trick humans into thinking that the god of classical theism is the most powerful being in existence.

The point of this thought experiment is to show that you cannot (at least, as far as I can determine) prove your god is the most powerful being in existence. Even if he revealed himself to you in a genuinely powerful experience, you have no way of knowing that he is not simply a tool used by a more powerful god.

Chicken or the egg.

 

[Skwim]

Before you run, what do you think of your new religion? Do you consider it a religion?

Agnosticism is not a religion. It's "the view that any ultimate reality (such as a deity) is unknown and probably unknowable : a philosophical or religious position characterized by uncertainty about the existence of a god or any gods "
Source: Merriam Webster.

Do you know atheism leads to communism?

Of course it does. Why else would anyone take it up.

.

 

[james bond]

@james bond

How do I know I exist?
Leaving aside the vexed question of 'I', I can know (and only this I can know), that thoughts exist, since to doubt is to think, and it is therefore induitable that thoughts exist. Obviously, cogito ergo sum. But this, of course, side-steps exactly what 'I' is, but that is not necessary to know in order to know that thoughts exist.

I don't understand your contention regarding asking whether or not omnipotence is a coherent concept, you seem to be thinking of God in social/historical terms rather than in philosophical terms. A switch of langauge games, perhaps? Regardless, I think it an important part of the search for God, at least philosophically, to attend to the question, 'Is an omnipotent being a coherent idea?' Personally, I think it is, but it is something arguable.

Regarding the rest, I'm not sure what you're asking, tbh.

But in my defence, I did say I was likely being too simplistic

Yes, what you said. I can use Rene Descartes and his rationalism.

My contention and argument to @Hubert Farnsworth still stands. We know that God wrote the Bible using people and the Holy Spirit. It explains via a witness how the universe and Earth and everything in it was created. In contrast, we had a fellow named Stephen Hawking who tried to find evidence of multiverses. He died without the evidence, so we say he was probably wrong. We can question the big bang hypothesis and Hawking empiricism.

Next, we have the formal argument of KCA because we discovered the CMB. That specifically states the cause and effect and in this case that God is beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, and even personal. He had people from different walks of life write his autobiography. Does the opposition have a formal argument against like anti-KCA? No.

If you don't like that, then there is more -- Jesus came back from the dead. The physical historical evidence cannot be refuted. Christianity still lives. If someone were to disprove Jesus' Resurrection, then that would be the end of Christianity and you'd be world famous. Probably, if you did it in a nice way. In a mean way, then you'd probably end up infamous.

 

[james bond]

Agnosticism is not a religion. It's "the view that any ultimate reality (such as a deity) is unknown and probably unknowable : a philosophical or religious position characterized by uncertainty about the existence of a god or any gods "
Source: Merriam Webster.

I was referring to atheism as a religion as I thought you had turned to the dark side. And that today or near future, you will celebrate becoming an atheist. To the believers, it was be a sad day.

Thank you for the definition, but I think agnostics may as well be placed with atheists unless they suddenly gain the faith in God and prove it to themselves that God exists as he reveals himself to them.

If someone cannot sincerely pray that God would reveal themselves to them like in the Ben Piershale video I posted, then I would think if they're agnostic, then they have to sincerely get over what negative beliefs and doubts they have. Negative beliefs can even be negative thinking. In this case, if one still wants to believe and have faith, then they have to repent. They have to change their minds about their negative belief. For example, in my case, I would have to change my mind that Norse Gods do not exist because they were written as mythology. I also would know that no amount of faith can change that. So, the next level of proof is you meet the Holy Spirit and that he resides in all of us.

Anyway, my thinking is not to convert you because for as I have known you, you have been agnostic. I just thought you turned atheist, but I don't really see much difference. Maybe the agnostic is like the lost lamb who just needs to find where to go. The video would've have brought that out if it were the case.

Of course it does. Why else would anyone take it up.

LOL . Good answer.

 

[Cooky]

Suppose for the sake of argument that the god of classical theism (Jesus/Allah/Yahweh, etc.) exists and did in fact create the universe and perform supernatural feats. How do you know that this god is not just a creation or tool being used by another more powerful god? Perhaps the more powerful god decided to make the god of classical theism believe that it is the most powerful being in existence, when in fact, it is not. Perhaps Jesus' death and resurrection did occur, but they were part of a plan put into place by a greater god, who will one day take Jesus/Yahweh/Allah by surprise when he/she/it (the more powerful god) asserts her/his/its authority over the universe. Perhaps the Bible/Qur'an were inspired by your god, but only because the more powerful god allowed them to be inspired in order to trick humans into thinking that the god of classical theism is the most powerful being in existence.

The point of this thought experiment is to show that you cannot (at least, as far as I can determine) prove your god is the most powerful being in existence. Even if he revealed himself to you in a genuinely powerful experience, you have no way of knowing that he is not simply a tool used by a more powerful god.

I don't focus on God's power. It just doesn't matter.

What matters is agape.

 

[nPeace]

I'm sorry, but this still reads, to me, a lot like...

I don't see how, so please explain.

 

[nPeace]

@SalixIncendium, please take note that I am waiting for you to explain the claim you made, that what I said has any similarity to the image below.

According to your reasoning...

A study of the evolutionary history of life (evolution), tells us evolution is true, must be circular as well, according to your logic.
Evolution is true because evolution tells us so.

A study of the specimen (a crab) tells us it is an ancient crab, must be circular as well.
This specimen is a crab, because the crab tells us so.

A study of this rock (limestone rock), tells us it is limestone, must be circular, as well.
This rock is limestone because the rock tells us so.

From what I see here, your logic is extremely faulty.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Suppose for the sake of argument that the god of classical theism (Jesus/Allah/Yahweh, etc.) exists and did in fact create the universe and perform supernatural feats. How do you know that this god is not just a creation or tool being used by another more powerful god? Perhaps the more powerful god decided to make the god of classical theism believe that it is the most powerful being in existence, when in fact, it is not. Perhaps Jesus' death and resurrection did occur, but they were part of a plan put into place by a greater god, who will one day take Jesus/Yahweh/Allah by surprise when he/she/it (the more powerful god) asserts her/his/its authority over the universe. Perhaps the Bible/Qur'an were inspired by your god, but only because the more powerful god allowed them to be inspired in order to trick humans into thinking that the god of classical theism is the most powerful being in existence.

The point of this thought experiment is to show that you cannot (at least, as far as I can determine) prove your god is the most powerful being in existence. Even if he revealed himself to you in a genuinely powerful experience, you have no way of knowing that he is not simply a tool used by a more powerful god.

God by definition is omnipotent, all powerful. Thus by definition there can be no god more powerful.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

God by definition is omnipotent, all powerful. Thus by definition there can be no god more powerful.

 

[SalixIncendium]

@SalixIncendium, please take note that I am waiting for you to explain the claim you made, that what I said has any similarity to the image below.

According to your reasoning...

A study of the evolutionary history of life (evolution), tells us evolution is true, must be circular as well, according to your logic.
Evolution is true because evolution tells us so.

A study of the specimen (a crab) tells us it is an ancient crab, must be circular as well.
This specimen is a crab, because the crab tells us so.

A study of this rock (limestone rock), tells us it is limestone, must be circular, as well.
This rock is limestone because the rock tells us so.

From what I see here, your logic is extremely faulty.

There is a distinct difference between physical evidence an speculative evidence.

________________________________________________

Santa Claus has a workshop at the North Pole where elves are employed to make toys. This is the truth.*



*This post is truth, because a study of it says it is truth.

____________________________________________________________

See the difference?

 

[nPeace]

There is a distinct difference between physical evidence an speculative evidence.

________________________________________________

Santa Claus has a workshop at the North Pole where elves are employed to make toys. This is the truth.*



*This post is truth, because a study of it says it is truth.

____________________________________________________________

See the difference?

That has nothing to do with circular.
Now you have created another uh... strawman, that you need to show how it relates to anything I said.
The first doesn't link, in any way, and this one is out the ball park.