CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Do you beleive in God?
It's not really a question, it's an invite, an invite to convert me if you will. I am an athiest and more sure in my 'beleif' if you will then most, however I'd like to invite any intelligent man or woman who genuinly beleive in a omnipitent and omnipresent God or gods in a literal sense to try and convert me. Now to do this all you have to do for me is answer a few questions, some questions that have in my mind convinced me of my personal beleif in the lack of a God. They are questions of pure logic and if you can give me a satisfactory answer to any one of them without resorting to the usual genralisations and leaps of blind faith backed by no evidence.
As I said they are questions of logic and mathamatics, truth in it's purest form, answer a single one with logic and you will have achieved what no other has, however if you can't answer a single on based on facts or truth, then, just for me, really question your beleifs, just for a minute.
If God is not ruled by the laws of nature then he is a being of pure chaos, something totally unlike any common interpretation of a God, something so other that it is beyond the scale of human thought to even think about. If however he is bound by the laws of nature then he is not omnipotent, he is not able to break the laws of nature and therefore the laws of nature are god.
Any omnipotent omnipresent being, by the very definition, cannot exist. If something is all knowing and has existed forever then it cannot know how it came into existence, if it did know then it wouldn't have existed forever and wouldnt be a very impressive god. Also for a being whom everything is possible 2 + 2 = 5, so does 2+3 = 5, so does 10,000,000,000 + 999,999,999 = 5. Meaning that anything that is possible, and remember for our god everything is, is possible in an infinite number of ways.
For a simple end to my argument, if god knows everything, then he can never know that he knows everything, meaning ofcourse the he doesnt and therefore isn't god.
Just using simple logic the existence of anything that exist for infinity and knows everything is impossible, by the very means we define the world and the laws that control everything, god cannot exist.
I believe in the world, I believe in people and in living.. I believe in the earth and the sun.. The earth holds the essential tools we need to live and grow and the sun feeds them. People spend too much time in their life "praising" something that is supposedly beyond us to make themselves feel safe and happy, when I spend my day appreciating nature and the warmth of the sun, and the goodness in people hearts and I feel just as safe and happy.. Not to mention the fact that evolution is proven 100% I mean, it's even in science books nowadays! It's a fact. Then the argument of well how did evolution begin starts, and that's just as simple.. energy.. we are all composed of energy, and I believe it stays when you die.. positive energy and negative energy, depending on the person you were.. which l also believe effects people in negative and positive ways who are still living.
Surly, what I believe in probably sounds as crazy as I think religion sounds..but.. religion is an endless debate anyway, might as well enable that..
People are in such denial.. Evolution is just as much a fact as gravity. We are constantly evolving, every single day. Just a few months ago we discovered a plant that is also an animal.. we see evolution right before our eyes everyday and yet people still don't believe it, and I'm going to go ahead and throw out there, that most of what is put in science books... is true..science are made up by facts, because a fact is fact, you can't deny a fact, that's why it's a fact.
Evolution has been proven to a point more reliable than E=mc^2.
It is only the religious who wish it not to be true, who continually attempt to discredit it.
What makes you think evolution is proven? Evolution, like I said before, is far from proven. It is only the people who wish to push out any ideas of a intelligent designer who attempt to credit it.
To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. (Darwin 1872)
Ugh, and what is to be gained by "pushing out the ideas of an intelligeng designer"?
Nothing, that is what. Only the religious have something to gain by muddying this debate. There are mounds of evidence from fossils, to witnessing evolution on a microscopic level in labs. The amount of proof for Evolution could fill libraries literally. Meanwhile there is 0 proof of any intelligent design - none at all. Not a shred of evidence.
So you choose to believe those with something to gain and 0 proof, over those with nothing to gain and mountains of proof. It is a silly stance to take.
And as to Darwin's comment on eyes, when taken in context he was simply admiting the incredible scope of evolution, not that it is not correct. The evolution of eyes of all types has been studied extensively and documented and there is absolutely nothing magical about it. link
There are mounds of evidence from fossils, to witnessing evolution on a microscopic level in labs.
Examples?
And as to Darwin's comment on eyes, when taken in context he was simply admiting the incredible scope of evolution, not that it is not correct.
Darwin was stating that to think the eye has developed over time through evolution, is absurd. In other words "inconsistent with reason or logic or common sense" He was in no way "admitting the incredible scope of evolution"
... I cannot argue with someone who gets their facts from Christian websites.
Not even most Christians claim there is not mountains of proof. In fact, most Christians are aware that Evolution is quite real. Go to that Google site, and type in "Evidence of Evolution." And skip the sites with "Jesus, Church, God, Intelligent Design," etc in the url, and you'll see thousands upon thousands of pages of solid empirical evidence.
And as to what Darwin was claiming. I actually read it, and I have no alterior motives. Darwin was not espousing creationism in any way.
Darwin was stating that to think the eye has developed over time through evolution, is absurd. In other words "inconsistent with reason or logic or common sense".
No he wasn't. this is a common creationist quote mine that I have refuted NUMEROUS time. I guarantee you didn't even read the full quote did you?
full quote...
DARWIN:
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case"
that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case"
I'm sorry can you please explain this part of the quote? I just can't seem to get it.
It means that if we can find examples of eyes more primitive than our own, and there is a clear gradual process the appears to lead to our eye, it means that we have evidence of how the eye evolved.
Darwin couldn't imagine how an eye could have evolved, but he knew that we just needed to find the evidence and we would understand. Turns out we do have this evidence.
If a lot of different steps from a very simple eye to a very complex eye, where each step is useful, can be shown, then it must have happened through evolution.
...and that's just a few. I could give you more that include fruit flys and a multitude of microorganisms.
As far as your thing about Darwin and eyes, you are completely missing half the quote which Iamdavid supplied in his response. Creationists like to take parts of what people say out of context and use them to try and prove a point. This is known as quote mining, and is akin to lying. Next time actually do some research. Darwin definitely thought it was possible for an eye to evolve, and we actually already know how the eye evolved.
If we define evolution as a change in allele frequency then consider it proven. If we define evolution as the gradual phenotypical or genotypical changes in species, then consider it proven. We know species are not immutable, we know species change over time, we have seen it happen, and sometimes we have even caused it to happen (consider animal breeding).
If God is not ruled by the laws of nature then he is a being of pure chaos, something totally unlike any common interpretation of a God, something so other that it is beyond the scale of human thought to even think about.
False dichotomy. It is possible that he transcends the laws of nature, but still acts according to some system or set of rules that prevent him from being a being of pure chaos. I imagine many theists would say that he will not act contrary to his own nature, and would say that the dictates of his character are what direct him and keep him from being chaotic.
Note: I said “will not” rather than “can not.” The only thing restraining him in this situation is his own will, nothing external, which preserves his omnipotence.
Any omnipotent omnipresent being, by the very definition, cannot exist. If something is all knowing and has existed forever then it cannot know how it came into existence, if it did know then it wouldn't have existed forever and wouldnt be a very impressive god.
An omniscient being only has to know all of the facts. If God has existed forever, then he never came into existence, and thus would not need to know how he came into existence since that is not a fact.
Also for a being whom everything is possible 2 + 2 = 5, so does 2+3 = 5, so does 10,000,000,000 + 999,999,999 = 5. Meaning that anything that is possible, and remember for our god everything is, is possible in an infinite number of ways.
If God transcends logic and is the one who created logic, then, yes.
For a simple end to my argument, if god knows everything, then he can never know that he knows everything, meaning ofcourse the he doesnt and therefore isn't god.
Why couldn't a God who knows everything know that he knows everything? If he knows everything, then he would know that he knows everything because the fact that he knows everything is a fact included under 'everything.'
Unless there's a part to this argument that I'm not getting....
____
By the way, I'm an agnostic, and could not care less if you believe in God. I don't.
Science has only shown us that everything hitherto studied does not transcend the laws of physics. We enter the realm of faith when we say that nothing transcends the laws of physics because we have not yet studied everything. It is, actually, a safe induction when discussing things in the universe, but since the being discussed in the original argument is one that would transcend the universe, the induction would not apply to him.
Therefore knowing all facts means that one knows everything.
So what's the problem? My original claim was "an omniscient being only has to know all of the facts," since we're agree that the only thing one can know is facts, does that mean we're agreed here?
I am not refuting you, but Christian arguments, which you seem to be supporting.
Eh, it's a bad argument (not yours, the one you're addressing). I don't consider it necessary for theism, so I won't bother taking it up.
No, mathematically based claim.
See physics response.
We know that everything we've seen and discovered up until now does not transcend mathematics. We could even make the fairly safe induction that this applies to everything in the universe. But the type of being discussed in the original argument is one that would transcend the universe, and therefore our data would be useless in discussing him.
It'd be like a fish saying humans must live in water because nothing transcends water. It applies the rules of the known world to something outside of it.
So you do not believe in God but at the same time say that you are uncertain as to His existence? Sounds a bit self-contradictory to me.
I am uncertain as to his existence, and therefore have a lack of a belief. I cannot be called a theist because I don't have a positive belief in god, and everything outside of theism is without-theism.
I don't make the claim that there is no god, I only say that I lack belief in one.
Science has only shown us that everything hitherto studied does not transcend the laws of physics.
Then it is logical to assume that nothing does.
We enter the realm of faith when we say that nothing transcends the laws of physics because we have not yet studied everything.
Faith is belief without evidence. The evidence suggests that nothing transcends the laws of physics. It is therefore impossible to label my conjecture as "faith".
the being discussed in the original argument is one that would transcend the universe
You cannot, by definition, transcend the universe. The universe is all.
and therefore our data would be useless in discussing him.
And yet you continue to use the singular noun. If He transcends mathematics then he cannot have a numerical value. Therefore he is 0, non-existent. Either He does not transcend mathematics or he does not exist.
It'd be like a fish saying humans must live in water because nothing transcends water.
So why do fish fear land predators such as bears? Regardless, it is an inappropriate metaphor. Merely existing gives your probability a value of 1. If something exists it has to have such a probability. Probability being a branch of mathematics, everything that exists must comply with mathematical laws, even God.
I am uncertain as to his existence, and therefore have a lack of a belief....I don't make the claim that there is no god, I only say that I lack belief in one.
Your definition of agnostic is wrong then. An agnostic believes that it is not possible to know whether God exists or not. An atheist is a person who believes that there is no God. If you do not have a personal belief in God then you are an atheist, regardless of whether you make such a claim verbally.
False. The reasonable thing to do would be to take the evidence as it is: which is that there is currently no reason to believe that there is anything transcends the laws of physics. It is not any more logical to make a premature judgment on everything we have yet to discover and study.
Faith is belief without evidence. The evidence suggests that nothing transcends the laws of physics. It is therefore impossible to label my conjecture as "faith".
Evidence comes in shades. If you say that "nothing we have found thus far transcends the laws of physics," you are speaking well within the evidence we have. When you say "nothing transcends the laws of physics" you are making a universal claim based upon our current body particular evidence. The evidence is far weaker for such a claim, and therefore more faith-based.
Properly speaking, you were speaking beyond the evidence, not completely without it. I still think the faith-based claim label is appropriate for that reason.
You cannot, by definition, transcend the universe. The universe is all.
The universe, as I am using it, means the totality of physical existence, matter and energy, and the physical laws and constants that govern them. That is what I am saying this being transcends.
And yet you continue to use the singular noun. If He transcends mathematics then he cannot have a numerical value. Therefore he is 0, non-existent. Either He does not transcend mathematics or he does not exist.
False dichotomy created from trying to impose the rules of the known upon the unknown. The fact that I use the singular noun in discussing him only reveals the limits of language, not the nature of the being under discussion.
So why do fish fear land predators such as bears? Regardless, it is an inappropriate metaphor.
I was using it to illustrate a point, not to accurately portray the relationship between fish and land-dwelling creatures.
Merely existing gives your probability a value of 1. If something exists it has to have such a probability. Probability being a branch of mathematics, everything that exists must comply with mathematical laws, even God.
This does not show that God must comply with mathematical laws. This does not show that he could not alter the laws of mathematics to create all sorts of absurd equations that would nevertheless be true because his omnipotence gave Him power over them.
All this shows is that we can, at least in form, apply the human measurement of probability to God. Not that probability has some sort of power over him, or even that God is an appropriate subject for probability. Especially since probability is the measure of random events, and would hardly be appropriate for discussing something that is said to have always been and never occurred as the result of a particular event.
Your definition of agnostic is wrong then. An agnostic believes that it is not possible to know whether God exists or not. An atheist is a person who believes that there is no God. If you do not have a personal belief in God then you are an atheist, regardless of whether you make such a claim verbally.
Is an atheist “a person who believes that there is no God,” or is an atheist anyone who lacks a personal belief in God? You seem to be disagreeing with yourself here.
And yes, you are right when you defined agnostic, that's what I said. I wrote two posts ago: “agnosticism is an epistemological position that denies knowledge is possible. In this case, in the area of the existence or non-existence of God.”
Surely you understand that there's a different between knowledge and belief.
False. The reasonable thing to do would be to take the evidence as it is: which is that there is currently no reason to believe that there is anything transcends the laws of physics.
Which is what I said.
Evidence comes in shades. If you say that "nothing we have found thus far transcends the laws of physics," you are speaking well within the evidence we have. When you say "nothing transcends the laws of physics" you are making a universal claim based upon our current body particular evidence. The evidence is far weaker for such a claim, and therefore more faith-based.
Damn you and your false definitions. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. How do we know this, without having seen every moving force in the universe? We do not, but yet the claim is made. That is exactly what I did.
Properly speaking, you were speaking beyond the evidence, not completely without it. I still think the faith-based claim label is appropriate for that reason.
Faith is belief without evidence. I was "not completely without it". And yet you still call it faith? That's perverse.
The universe, as I am using it, means the totality of physical existence, matter and energy, and the physical laws and constants that govern them. That is what I am saying this being transcends.
Whereas I say nothing can transcend it. Neither view can be verified, but mine has more supporting evidence. Therefore mine should be favoured.
False dichotomy created from trying to impose the rules of the known upon the unknown.
Scientific conjecture.
The fact that I use the singular noun in discussing him only reveals the limits of language, not the nature of the being under discussion.
I disagree. If there are any Gods, then there are a number of them, correct? If there is one then that number is 1. If this is true then the rest of mathematics must also be adhered to.
I was using it to illustrate a point
Poorly.
not to accurately portray the relationship between fish and land-dwelling creatures.
That is not why it is inappropriate.
This does not show that God must comply with mathematical laws.
If you follow one, you follow all.
This does not show that he could not alter the laws of mathematics to create all sorts of absurd equations that would nevertheless be true because his omnipotence gave Him power over them.
Of course it doesn't.
Especially since probability is the measure of random events, and would hardly be appropriate for discussing something that is said to have always been and never occurred as the result of a particular event.
In that event, probability would be 1.
Is an atheist “a person who believes that there is no God,” or is an atheist anyone who lacks a personal belief in God? You seem to be disagreeing with yourself here.
Lacking belief and not believing are the same thing. I made no distinction between the two.
Surely you understand that there's a different between knowledge and belief.
You cannot be both agnostic and atheistic. You do not believe in God, which makes you an atheist. An agnostic would not have an opinion either way.
False. You said that we should assume that nothing transcends the laws of physics because nothing we have currently observed transcends the laws of physics. Whereas I said simply that there is currently no reason to believe that anything transcends the laws of physics.
My statement works only with the evidence we currently have and makes no assumptions about the rest of the universe or beyond.
Damn you and your false definitions. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. How do we know this, without having seen every moving force in the universe? We do not, but yet the claim is made. That is exactly what I did.
You're right. We don't know that nothing travels faster than the speed of light. The truest claim to make here is that nothing we have found thus far travels faster than the speed of light. Disregarding the possibility of this theory being falsified speaks beyond the evidence.
All we can say is that it is our theory that nothing travels faster than the speed of light, and that thus far nothing has falsified this theory. This speaks well within the evidence.
Faith is belief without evidence. I was "not completely without it". And yet you still call it faith? That's perverse.
Theists have personal psychological experiences. That's weak evidence, but still evidence. Does that mean that theism is not faith? Of course not.
Evidence comes in shades. It's not evidence vs. not-evidence; it's much evidence vs. little evidence. When the evidence is little, the faith is much. When the evidence is much, the faith is little. When you spoke beyond the evidence, your statement became more faith-based.
Whereas I say nothing can transcend it. Neither view can be verified, but mine has more supporting evidence. Therefore mine should be favoured.
There's currently no reason at all to believe that there exists a transcendent being(s). My only goal was to work within possibility, not likelihood.
Working within likelihood, yours is clearly the stronger scenario. However, due to our lack of omniscience, we cannot say with certainly that there are no beings that transcend the universe, and therefore the possibility exists regardless of how unlikely it is. All I need is the possibility so that I can talk about a hypothetical entity that does transcend the universe.
Scientific conjecture.
Scientific conjecture in an area where scientific conjecture holds no weight. Science only applies to the universe (the way I defined it earlier).
I disagree. If there are any Gods, then there are a number of them, correct? If there is one then that number is 1. If this is true then the rest of mathematics must also be adhered to.
No. That is continuing to apply the logic of the universe to the being said to be it's creator.
And even if it were the case that God was 1, why does it follow that the rest of mathematics must also be adhered to? Even if our logic and mathematics applies to him, why does it follow that it applies in it's entirety. If he were omnipotent, perhaps he just chooses what mathematics apply to him.
Poorly.
I don't know, I thought it was pretty good.
That is not why it is inappropriate.
How many metaphors don't break down when examined thoroughly enough? As long as it illustrated the point of an entity living in one world making a false conjecture on another world based on applying the situation of their world to the other world, then it served it's purpose.
If you follow one, you follow all.
Please elaborate as to why this is so.
Of course it doesn't.
Which was the original point. That he has power over mathematics and logic. That for god, "2 + 2 = 5, so does 2 + 3 = 5, so does 10,000,000,000 + 999,999,999 = 5." That he is not bound to them, he transcends them.
In that event, probability would be 1.
Probability works with occurrences. This god is not said to have occurred.
Lacking belief and not believing are the same thing. I made no distinction between the two.
This is true. However in your last post you wrote "an atheist is a person who believes that there is no God." That is neither lacking belief nor not believing. That's an actual belief, a claim that there is no God.
There's a difference between "I don't believe in a god," and "there is no god." One is the lack of the believe, the second is itself a belief. These are, however, both atheism.
You cannot be both agnostic and atheistic. You do not believe in God, which makes you an atheist. An agnostic would not have an opinion either way.
If one does not have an opinion either way, then one must necessarily lack a belief in god. Since anything that lacks a belief in god falls under atheism, that makes one both an agnostic and an atheist.
An agnostic is making an epistemological claim whereas the atheist is either making a claim about existence or declining to make a claim about existence. These two are not mutually exclusive.
You said that we should assume that nothing transcends the laws of physics because nothing we have currently observed transcends the laws of physics. Whereas I said simply that there is currently no reason to believe that anything transcends the laws of physics.
If they could be transcended then they would not be laws.
All we can say is that it is our theory that nothing travels faster than the speed of light, and that thus far nothing has falsified this theory. This speaks well within the evidence.
The majority of the scientific community disagrees with you. Einsteinian physics disproves the notion. If you want to refute that then you will have to refute mathematics, which, as I have said, is futile.
Theists have personal psychological experiences. That's weak evidence, but still evidence. Does that mean that theism is not faith? Of course not.
Personal psychological experiences cannot be defined as evidence.
Evidence comes in shades. It's not evidence vs. not-evidence; it's much evidence vs. little evidence. When the evidence is little, the faith is much. When the evidence is much, the faith is little. When you spoke beyond the evidence, your statement became more faith-based.
I will not say it a third time.
There's currently no reason at all to believe that there exists a transcendent being(s). My only goal was to work within possibility, not likelihood.
Anything can be construed as possible if you disregard physics, which is why I take issue with your argument, it can be summarised as "If the impossible were possible, then the impossible would be possible".
we cannot say with certainly that there are no beings that transcend the universe, and therefore the possibility exists regardless of how unlikely it is.
My response above.
Scientific conjecture in an area where scientific conjecture holds no weight. Science only applies to the universe (the way I defined it earlier).
If God transcends the universe then how could he interact with it?
No. That is continuing to apply the logic of the universe to the being said to be it's creator.
And even if it were the case that God was 1, why does it follow that the rest of mathematics must also be adhered to? Even if our logic and mathematics applies to him, why does it follow that it applies in it's entirety. If he were omnipotent, perhaps he just chooses what mathematics apply to him.
You cannot pick and choose with mathematics. I present science, you respond "magic". God is a paradox, correct? If your answer is a paradox then either your information is wrong or you are.
I don't know, I thought it was pretty good.
I disagree.
How many metaphors don't break down when examined thoroughly enough? As long as it illustrated the point of an entity living in one world making a false conjecture on another world based on applying the situation of their world to the other world, then it served it's purpose.
My argument is more comprehensive. I did not say it was impossible to operate outside limits that apply only to humans, but the limits that apply to everything. Regardless, this is irrelevant to the debate.
Please elaborate as to why this is so.
The interconnected nature of mathematics makes it impossible for one to follow some rules and not others. For example, 2 = 1+1. This implies that 2x = x+x. As x is a variable, the equation applies to all numbers. Hence, it is impossible to say that 30 =15+15, but 40 (=) 20+20, where brackets indicate falseness.
You said that we should assume that nothing transcends the laws of physics because nothing we have currently observed transcends the laws of physics. Whereas I said simply that there is currently no reason to believe that anything transcends the laws of physics.
If they could be transcended then they would not be laws.
All we can say is that it is our theory that nothing travels faster than the speed of light, and that thus far nothing has falsified this theory. This speaks well within the evidence.
The majority of the scientific community disagrees with you. Einsteinian physics disproves the notion. If you want to refute that then you will have to refute mathematics, which, as I have said, is futile.
Theists have personal psychological experiences. That's weak evidence, but still evidence. Does that mean that theism is not faith? Of course not.
Personal psychological experiences cannot be defined as evidence.
Evidence comes in shades. It's not evidence vs. not-evidence; it's much evidence vs. little evidence. When the evidence is little, the faith is much. When the evidence is much, the faith is little. When you spoke beyond the evidence, your statement became more faith-based.
I will not say it a third time.
There's currently no reason at all to believe that there exists a transcendent being(s). My only goal was to work within possibility, not likelihood.
Anything can be construed as possible if you disregard physics, which is why I take issue with your argument, it can be summarised as "If the impossible were possible, then the impossible would be possible".
we cannot say with certainly that there are no beings that transcend the universe, and therefore the possibility exists regardless of how unlikely it is.
My response above.
Scientific conjecture in an area where scientific conjecture holds no weight. Science only applies to the universe (the way I defined it earlier).
If God transcends the universe then how could he interact with it?
No. That is continuing to apply the logic of the universe to the being said to be it's creator.
And even if it were the case that God was 1, why does it follow that the rest of mathematics must also be adhered to? Even if our logic and mathematics applies to him, why does it follow that it applies in it's entirety. If he were omnipotent, perhaps he just chooses what mathematics apply to him.
You cannot pick and choose with mathematics. I present science, you respond "magic". God is a paradox, correct? If your answer is a paradox then either your information is wrong or you are.
I don't know, I thought it was pretty good.
I disagree.
How many metaphors don't break down when examined thoroughly enough? As long as it illustrated the point of an entity living in one world making a false conjecture on another world based on applying the situation of their world to the other world, then it served it's purpose.
My argument is more comprehensive. I did not say it was impossible to operate outside limits that apply only to humans, but the limits that apply to everything. Regardless, this is irrelevant to the debate.
Please elaborate as to why this is so.
The interconnected nature of mathematics makes it impossible for one to follow some rules and not others. For example, 2 = 1+1. This implies that 2x = x+x. As x is a variable, the equation applies to all numbers. Hence, it is impossible to say that 30 =15+15, but 40 (=) 20+20, where brackets indicate falseness.
Which was the original point. That he has power over mathematics and logic. That for god, "2 + 2 = 5, so does 2 + 3 = 5, so does 10,000,000,000 + 999,999,999 = 5." That he is not bound to them, he transcends them.
But omnipotence is impossible for just that reason: it defies mathematics. 2 can never equal 3. Bending a ruler does not change the length of an inch.
Probability works with occurrences. This god is not said to have occurred.
More "magic".
That is neither lacking belief nor not believing.
"believes that there is no God" can be written as "Does not believe that there is a God". Every positive belief has a negative belief attached to it. For example, "Apples are Green or red" means that "Apples are not purple".
If one does not have an opinion either way, then one must necessarily lack a belief in god.
No, one simply professes not to know. You have stated that you do not believe in God, presumably because of the lack of evidence. Agnostics cannot believe that there is or is not a God. They must simply say "maybe" to either claim.
If they could be transcended then they would not be laws.
Laws of physics only apply to physical objects. Anything that is not physical would be free to transcend them, while the laws would retain their status as laws.
The majority of the scientific community disagrees with you. Einsteinian physics disproves the notion. If you want to refute that then you will have to refute mathematics, which, as I have said, is futile.
I'm sure that the majority of the scientific community understands that theories exist to be falsified and are to be held only so long as evidence is not found to contradict them. And Einsteinian physics don't disprove anything, it is a model that is itself to be tested, falsified, improved, and developed.
That's why experiments are conducted that try to move something faster than the speed of light. To falsify it. Because we don't know that nothing moves faster than the speed of light, it's only the best theory we currently have.
Personal psychological experiences cannot be defined as evidence.
Why not? Weak evidence is still evidence. We accept eyewitness testimony as evidence, which is a personal experience.
Anything can be construed as possible if you disregard physics, which is why I take issue with your argument, it can be summarised as "If the impossible were possible, then the impossible would be possible".
My claim is that what you're calling “impossible” is not impossible. It may be incredibly unlikely, but that's not the same thing as an impossibility.
If God transcends the universe then how could he interact with it?
Why would transcending the universe mean that he could not interact with it? Especially if he were in a position where he could manipulate the universe. The universe's laws would not apply to him (therefore making him transcendent), but I don't see why that would prevent him from interacting with it.
You cannot pick and choose with mathematics. I present science, you respond "magic". God is a paradox, correct? If your answer is a paradox then either your information is wrong or you are.
We're discussing a being said to be omnipotent. Of course most of these answers are going to basically amount to magic.
My argument is more comprehensive. I did not say it was impossible to operate outside limits that apply only to humans, but the limits that apply to everything. Regardless, this is irrelevant to the debate.
Alright, and I'm saying that the limits you say apply to everything do not. They apply to matter and energy of the universe, but not to that which transcends the universe. Which is really where our key disagreement is, I'm saying that it's possible for transcendent beings to exist, and you say that no such being can exist. You point to science and mathematics, and I point out that they don't help us here since the very being under discussion is said to be beyond the realm of science and mathematics. You say that because we've not yet found a transcendent being that we should assume such things are impossible, I say that such an assumption goes beyond the actual evidence we have.
The interconnected nature of mathematics makes it impossible for one to follow some rules and not others. For example, 2 = 1+1. This implies that 2x = x+x. As x is a variable, the equation applies to all numbers. Hence, it is impossible to say that 30 =15+15, but 40 (=) 20+20, where brackets indicate falseness.
I see. Thank you for the explanation.
But omnipotence is impossible for just that reason: it defies mathematics. 2 can never equal 3. Bending a ruler does not change the length of an inch.
And I'm saying that a transcendent being is free to defy mathematics.
More "magic".
If you want to discuss the likelihood of God, that's another debate altogether. One that I would probably agree with you on. This is about the possibility of God. Since the very being that is being discussed is said to be omnipotent, magic is a perfectly appropriate answer when discussing whether or not such a being is possible.
"believes that there is no God" can be written as "Does not believe that there is a God". Every positive belief has a negative belief attached to it. For example, "Apples are Green or red" means that "Apples are not purple".
False. “Does not believe that there is a god” is a distinct statement from “does not believe that there is a God.” The first one indicates a belief, the second the absence of a belief.
No, one simply professes not to know. You have stated that you do not believe in God, presumably because of the lack of evidence. Agnostics cannot believe that there is or is not a God. They must simply say "maybe" to either claim.
How is it possible to not have an opinion on the existence of God while not simultaneously lacking a belief in the existence of God?
Even a “maybe” claim puts them in the atheist camp because they would still lack a belief in God if they said “maybe.”
And Einsteinian physics don't disprove anything, it is a model that is itself to be tested, falsified, improved, and developed.
Wrong.
Why not?
Because they cannot be verified.
My claim is that what you're calling “impossible” is not impossible. It may be incredibly unlikely, but that's not the same thing as an impossibility.
You are using an unverifiable scenario in which to expand your theory. By you logic "theories exist to be falsified and are to be held only so long as evidence is not found to contradict them", you are wrong. Current evidence disproves the notion that anything can transcend the laws of physics.
Why would transcending the universe mean that he could not interact with it? Especially if he were in a position where he could manipulate the universe. The universe's laws would not apply to him (therefore making him transcendent), but I don't see why that would prevent him from interacting with it.
If he is neither physical or energetic then he cannot exert force. When interacting with the universe, you have to follow these rules, regardless as to whether they apply on your native plain of existence. It is like trying to fit a circle into a triangular hole.
We're discussing a being said to be omnipotent. Of course most of these answers are going to basically amount to magic.
Magic has no place in debate. It is merely a superstitious label for things we cannot currently explain.
Alright, and I'm saying that the limits you say apply to everything do not.
That argument has less evidence supporting it than mine does.
I say that such an assumption goes beyond the actual evidence we have.
Whereas yours completely disregards it.
I see. Thank you for the explanation.
You are welcome.
And I'm saying that a transcendent being is free to defy mathematics.
Mathematics cannot be defied. If, hypothetically, a being did transcend it, then it would not be able to create any form of equation at all. Ruler and Inch again. If God says 1=2, He is wrong. Hence omnipotence is impossible.
magic is a perfectly appropriate answer when discussing whether or not such a being is possible.
And yet your argument pretends to be scientific.
False. “Does not believe that there is a god” is a distinct statement from “does not believe that there is a God.” The first one indicates a belief, the second the absence of a belief.
I suggest you re-read that.
How is it possible to not have an opinion on the existence of God while not simultaneously lacking a belief in the existence of God?
Did you read my argument? Lacking one belief means you hold another.
Even a “maybe” claim puts them in the atheist camp because they would still lack a belief in God if they said “maybe.”
But that "maybe" also puts them into the theist camp, resulting in a paradox. The only solution to that paradox is to make a third, separate camp: Agnostic.
If God is not ruled by the laws of nature then he is a being of pure chaos, something totally unlike any common interpretation of a God, something so other that it is beyond the scale of human thought to even think about. If however he is bound by the laws of nature then he is not omnipotent, he is not able to break the laws of nature and therefore the laws of nature are god.
There is nothing about not being ruled by the laws of nature which would make it necessarily pure chaos. In fact, I would say that chaos is a law of nature, and therefore would not hold this pretend being to it. Therefore it can both be beyond the laws of nature, yet not be pure chaos, and still be omnipotent.
Any omnipotent omnipresent being, by the very definition, cannot exist. If something is all knowing and has existed forever then it cannot know how it came into existence, if it did know then it wouldn't have existed forever and wouldn't be a very impressive god. Also for a being whom everything is possible 2 + 2 = 5, so does 2+3 = 5, so does 10,000,000,000 + 999,999,999 = 5. Meaning that anything that is possible, and remember for our god everything is, is possible in an infinite number of ways.
We define numbers which fit in our observed universe, and sure, 1+1 in our observed universe is always 2. Cause always precedes effect one way or another... except on a quantum level. Since we can observe on a quantum level that cause does not necessarily = effect, we can also logically assume that on some level even our self-defined numbers do not have to equal what we observe - or even what we define them to be.
For a simple end to my argument, if god knows everything, then he can never know that he knows everything, meaning of course the he doesn't and therefore isn't god.
Unless there were nothing to know to begin with... which would be the argument, that there is nothing but that one thing, in this case god. As such, it is not a problem with "knowing what you don't know" it is a problem with our own definition of knowledge. We define knowledge based on the unknown. Without the unknown, we never would have made up that word in other words. A god would have no such conundrum to deal with, the logic puzzle would not apply when you redefine knowledge.
Just using simple logic the existence of anything that exist for infinity and knows everything is impossible, by the very means we define the world and the laws that control everything, god cannot exist.
This part I'm not just doing for fun, because in fact, things had to have existed forever to have existed at all.
Of course they would not have to have had "knowledge". I would argue matter just always was and through billions of years of chemical reactions leading to cells leading to evolution leading to brains, some of this matter could eventually come up with the question, "Do you believe in God?"
As far as the first question goes, I haven't totally been able to understand it yet. I'll try to get back to you once it clicks. For the second question: Think of it this way, within our bodies are us. Our personalities or selves if you will... our consciousness. There is something different from the physical you and the conscious you. You can be knocked out and have part of your memory swiped, and never be able to remember the things you forgot. Your not a different person, are you? You can look within someone for ever and never find their ego, or their "self". Published by the journal, Resuscitation, and presented to scientists at the California Institute of Technology in 2001: the year long British study provides evidence that consciousness continues after a person's brain has stopped functioning, and he or she has been declared clinically dead. With that in mind. We have you, and then we have your non-physical self. Our non-physical self is contained in a shell known as our bodies. God is not held into a shell. He (being his "self) is not strapped down to physical properties or laws of nature. Something non-Physical cannot be subjected to physical laws. I hope you can see where I'm coming from. My answer to the third question would be this... If you know something, lets say that your car us blue, then you know you know your car is blue. God knows everything yes. That doesn't mean He can't know He knows everything. I hope I made sense, and was able to answer your questions.
You can be knocked out and have part of your memory swiped, and never be able to remember the things you forgot. Your not a different person, are you?
Sure you are. I would argue we are only what is in our minds. We are different people every moment as a matter of fact, and our "individuality" is only as unique as our predictability.
British study provides evidence that consciousness continues after a person's brain has stopped functioning, and he or she has been declared clinically dead.
This does not mean the brain keeps working indefinitely. That a few synapsis continue firing for a moment or so in no way changes the fact that they will eventually stop. It does not prove infinite life, only that the brain tries to keep living as long as possible. There is no argument which can be made from this which would prove one way or another there is an afterlife or god.
That doesn't mean He can't know He knows everything.
The debate creator's last sentence was poorly worded. The point (I think) is simply that knowing one knows everything is impossible. This could be better put maybe "One would have to know what they don't know in order to know they know everything." - This is quite confusing, however there are many other ways to disprove infinity concerning god, the most popular "Is god powerful enough to create a rock he himself cannot move", easier to understand, but the same thing just replacing power with intelligence. If he can create the rock, then cannot move it, he is not all powerful. If he cannot create it to start with, he is not all powerful. Because "all" must by its definition encompass both what is, and what could possibly be, we know that all powerful is impossible.
Your arguments seem wishful, and lacking in perspective. I suspect you have never really considered any other point of view and so have no real way of arguing various view points.
Exactly. Our "selves" are in our minds not brains or bodies.
That a few synapsis continue firing for a moment or so in no way changes the fact that they will eventually stop.
Evidence that consciousness continues after a person's brain has stopped functioning, also comes from near death experiences. The brain is not functioning, while the consciousness is. I said there is evidence that consciousness continues after a person's brain has stopped functioning Not while it is still fighting to stay alive. There is a difference. With that in mind there is no way to say that the conscious stops, and there is no way to say that it keeps living. We can't know, and their is no way to find out scientifically, as the consciousness is unphysical.
"Is god powerful enough to create a rock he himself cannot move"
There is nothing God cannot create, and there is nothing God cannot move.
God dons't go by our laws of physics and laws of nature. Its like people in a 2d world trying to apply 2d physics to a 3d God. It won't work.
The religious have an odd habit of only reading what they want to hear. All the more reason I believe it is quite destructive.
1. The mind and the brain are the same thing is what I'm saying, so no, not "exactly" at all.
2. Yes there is a way to say that the conscious stops, because there is no way for something to be conscious if its brain is not working. That you do not want to believe this to be the case, does not make any magical proof to the contrary apparent. There is no reason to believe one remains conscious outside of death other than that some really really really want it to be so.
3. Oh, so then he can create a rock that he cannot move? Oh, wait, he can then move it? Oh wait, then he never created a rock he cannot move...
It's a simple logic puzzle. And it has nothing to do with dimensions. Either this being can create it and not move it, or not create it to start with. That's all. There are no trick here, just a logical fact.
No, you are misconstruing the results of a study to support your conclusion. Scientists idea of the "consciousness" and your idea of the "consciousness" are two very different things. For the sake of a scientific experiment, the "consciousness" is a set of bio-chemical reactions, that they showed still occurred momentarily after brain death.
Your idea of the consciousness is un-measurable and thus, unscientific. Your idea of the consciousness is beyond the capability of scientific examination. So no, the study to which you refer in no way supports your idea of an afterlife.
The afterlife is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.
1. No we don't, because we have no silly belief system to maintain we take things as they are generally.
2. Yes they are the same thing. You have no proof the mind and the brain are not one in the same, with lack of evidence I need to assume that they are the same.
3. That scientific study proved only that the brain stays active a couple of moments after what we generally call time of death. It did not prove in any way that the brain remains active indefinitely.
4. No, humans made up logic, Socrates or something was one of the first to start it. You have not proven the existance of this god, so I have to assume he does not exist.
Yes they are the same thing. You have no proof the mind and the brain are not one in the same, with lack of evidence I need to assume that they are the same.
And you have yet to prove that they aren't the same, so I will assume that they are not the same...
No, humans made up logic, Socrates or something was one of the first to start it. You have not proven the existance of this god, so I have to assume he does not exist.
I believe everything has been made, we are just discovering them.
That scientific study proved only that the brain stays active a couple of moments after what we generally call time of death. It did not prove in any way that the brain remains active indefinitely.
Do you have evidence of that statement? not saying your wrong, just wondering ;)
1. You have yet to prove they are. You are asking me to prove a negative. You might as well say, "I believe in Unicorns, you can't prove they don't exist, so they must exist."
2. What you believe is irrelevant to proof. Dressing your religion in pseudo logic only impresses those who want desperately to not ever ever ever die.
3. Do you have evidence to the contrary? I have observation, and I have yet to see anything to impress upon me that more than what I can observe in this instance exists.
The religious do this all of the time, take a snippet from an actual scientific study, then redefine the study to fit in their ideal while in reality the actual study says nothing of the sort. Jt or Megga or someone just did this in a debate about dinosaurs and carbon dating. It only makes the assertions look even sillier when approached in this manner to all but the most deliriously religious.
Evidence that consciousness continues after a person's brain has stopped functioning, also comes from near death experiences. The brain is not functioning, while the consciousness is.
Near-death experiences (NDEs) have absolutely nothing to do with the afterlife. NDEs can be created under non-fatal conditions. Haven't you ever heard of the GOD HELMET? It is simply a lack of blood flow to the pre-frontal lobe of the brain. When someone says that their "life flashed before their eyes" this is caused by the brain re-jogging it's memories after some physical trauma. People just attribute mystical and divine properties behind entirely natural phenomena, because they truly don't understand them.
The consciousness is not some "spirit energy" or "metaphysical entity" residing in your body, the consciousness is merely the name we give to a specific set of bio-chemical reactions in the brain. There is no reason to postulate gods or spirits to explain these things.
For a simple end to my argument, if god knows everything, then he can never know that he knows everything, meaning ofcourse the he doesnt and therefore isn't god.
I don't follow....... If God knows everything, wouldn't he know that he knows everything? Just saying.....
but in order for one to know they know everything, they must somehow know what they don't know as a point of reference to understand this.
In this case there either exists things one does not know and so they never really knew everything, or there is nothing for them to not know, in which case they would have no way of knowing whether they knew everthing, in which case, again, they never really knew everything.
It is a logic puzzle, like "can god make a universe so large he cannot get to the end of it."
It is used to point out that infinity of any sort is impossible. Which it is consequently.
With God there is no logic.we have been taught that we came into existence as apes:the 1st stage being the australopitecus africanus which might be true but who or what created the australopitecus africanus?we were taught that the universe came into being by the big bang:bolts of light travelling faster than the speed of light but who if we may ask ourselves created those bolts of lights.the answer is a higher power,a supreme being.that supreme being is what we refer to as God.
but who if we may ask ourselves created those bolts of lights.the answer is a higher power,a supreme being.that supreme being is what we refer to as God.
I've argued this many times, and I imagine it will be no different when I try to explain it to you, but I'll go ahead and try.
Replacing a bang that is believed to have been caused by an imbalance in the singularity with an all powerful and infinitely complex being, is basically replacing something simple, with something hard.
That is, if there is a god for whom infinite existance is possible, it seems infinite existance would be even more possible for relatively simple matter concentrated in a single point.
why replace a simple answer with a more complex one?
we were taught that the universe came into being by the big bang:bolts of light travelling faster than the speed of light but who if we may ask ourselves created those bolts
I have to say that Geisler addressed this infinate being thing very well in my opinion. He basically said that the entire concept of science is the study of 'Cause and Effect.' Science searches for causes to effects. It is impossible to have something that came from nothing, an effect must have a cause and if you argue that something can ever come from nothing then you have stopped doing science and you are the one being illogical, you are the one being non-scientific. Philosophically that leaves 2 and only 2 possibilities, nothing exists or something has always existed. There is no other logical (scientific) option. For anything to exist at all it means that something had to be without a cause. If you do not believe that then you believe that at some random time in the past 'something' popped into existance from 'nothing'. This is scientifically impossible (science is the study of cause & effect). Obviously for us to even have a mind to think of this question then something does exists (our thought), so the first possibility that nothing exists has to be false just by the fact that we are thinking about it. That means that something always had to exist. Some chain of events was the cause to our thoughts (the effect). Since something can never come from nothing, and something clearly does exist then 'something' has to be eternally uncaused. To say "Oh God created everything, well what created God?" is a word game. Don't get wraped up in the word "God", when people say "God" they are just referring to the entity that has always existed (whatever it may be). They are referring to that thing that is uncaused. So to say "What created God?" is an illogical question because what you are really asking is "What caused that which is uncaused?"
The laws of nature are at work throughout the entire universe this is true. But if something outside the universe created and set up those laws of nature why can't that creator tweak the laws of nature that it set up to begin with?
will you die or not if yes.... then just blindly believe.... if you resolve the problem of aging and death then you shall ask the question of 10,000,000, 000 mathematics but now you are just a dead man speaking so in case there is a god since you're not sure die as you are told to die. quran 3:102 O you who have believed, fear Allah as He should be feared and do not die except as Muslims [in submission to Him].
