hamashiachagape #fundie

hamashiachagape #fundie christianforums.com

[Can we philosophically “prove” that God must be good?]

The argument I love most against Atheism is this. If Atheism is true, then all Atheists have absolute knowledge and can know everything (we know that this isn't true because of disagreement so this hinders Atheism, but for the sake of argument..). If Atheists can know everything, then they are just as knowledgeable as what we define to be God. This makes Atheists God. Therefore God is an Atheist. YIKES! shoddy logic.

96 comments

old comment by Alencon

Err, actually, with respect to a so-called "Strong Atheist," he's correct.

A "Strong Atheist" is defined as one who makes the definitive statement "There is no God" and claims to be absolutely certain there is no God. It would require absolute knowledge to justify this position.

Personally I've never met a "Strong Atheist." Every atheist I've ever met is a so-called "Weak Atheist." A "Weak Atheist" simply sees inadequate reason to accept the assertion that some God exists. They realize that one cannot prove the negative assertion "No God Exists."

However, every fundie I've ever met thinks every atheist is a "Strong Atheist." They seem incapable of understanding the concept of a "Weak Atheist" who simply sees no justification for accepting the concept of God.

old comment by Horsefeathers

"The argument I love most against Atheism is this. If Atheism is true, then all Atheists have absolute knowledge and can know everything (we know that this isn't true because of disagreement so this hinders Atheism, but for the sake of argument..)."

Go back to Philosophy 101 and pay attention this time. One of the founding axioms of philosophy is A =/= B. In other words, inherently contradictory concepts cannot be true. Your god concept for instance where he is both omnibenevolent and willing to throw people into a place of eternal torment, created specifically for such a purpose by your god, or the idea that your god is omniscient yet wasn't aware that Eve would eat the apple and thus had no option but to punish everyone for the "sin" (despite the fact that your Wholly Babble says sins of the father wont be visited upon the son). Or the part where your god is supposedly omnipotent yet can't defend his followers from iron chariots or, as a more modern example, can't prevent humans from partaking in things he supposedly doesn't like (abortion; homosexuality, etc.).

"If Atheists can know everything, then they are just as knowledgeable as what we define to be God."

I don't need to know everything. I just need to know that your god, as you people describe him, cannot exist any more than a square circle or dry water. Either you are wrong about your god, the Bible is wrong in its description, you're both wrong or your god doesn't exist.

"This makes Atheists God. Therefore God is an Atheist. YIKES! shoddy logic."

Yes. Yes, it is.

old comment by dionysus

If Atheism is true, then all Atheists have absolute knowledge and can know everything

What? Listen, I know this may be a foreign idea to you, but things can be true regardless of our beliefs. For atheism to be true, all that's required is for gods to not exist regardless of whether or not we believe in them. our beliefs/knowledge is irrelevant; even if 100% of all people are theists, if god doesn't exist, then atheism is correct.

If Atheists can know everything, then they are just as knowledgeable as what we define to be God. This makes Atheists God.

No, it doesn't. Even if we knew everything, that wouldn't make us gods, merely omniscient human beings. Hypothetically, it's possible to know everything and yet be completely powerless to act on that knowledge, let's say this hypothetical omniscient person is a vegetable. This person could also be unable to communicate in any way and once s/he dies, the knowledge goes away with him/her. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone that would define such a being as a god.

old comment by David B.

This isn't even an argument against strong atheism. I don't need to know everything to reach a decision, I can do so on the preponderence of evidence alone, the important thing to to be willing to alter my view in the light of new evidence.

I am a strong atheist, I believe and assert that there is no god.

That's not because I have some magical proof that gods don't exist, but I have mountains of evidence that the universe operates by means of naturalistic laws that are blind, undirected and automatic. Nothing discovered to date requires that any sort of supernatural being exist in order for it to be so, hence the concept of god is without any supporting evidence, it can be rejected with a high degree of confidence.

This is no different to saying the Earth goes round the Sun, or that evolution is a fact. I do not need omniscience to rationally assert these things, but without it how can I claim that there is no other possible explanation for all the evidence that leads to an alternative interpretation? In the real world, nothing is known with 100% certainty, yet we all confidently state and act upon things as though they are factually so.

A fact is something "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent" (Gould 1981), and I consider the naturalistic, materialistic universe to be one.

When someone comes up with evidence for supernatural beings I will rivise my position. Until then I decline to believe in the existence of that which is in contradiction to the preponderence of evidence. I don't know there is no god with anymore certainty than I know there isn't a troop of winged monkeys primed and waiting to fly out of my butt; but I refuse to be 'agnostic' on either issue.

old comment by Big Jilm

Study English.

Atheism is the lack of belief in deities -that is all.

Why does one have to have absolute knowledge to say "I don't buy the bullshit you're selling"

Does one have to have absolute knowledge to tell Burger King "I'm not buyin' it!"

Sorry, but it's your fault your position is unconvincing.

Also, since you can't define just what the hell you're talking about (God), it's rather easy to reject it.

Do you believe in fuvm? I define fuvm as a square circle (it has contradictory properties). If you don't believe in fuvm then you are saying you know absolutely everything.

Atheists don't necessarily say God does not exist (but I do); they just don't buy it.

But, one doesn't have to know everything to demonstrate your "God" doesn't exist. The definition implodes upon itself as it contains contradictory properties.

old comment by Pule Thamex

This largely garbled and incoherent drivel seems to suggest, for the sake of forming an argument, of course, that if atheists can know everything, then atheists are God. But atheists, apart from realizing that hamashiachagape is a dolt whose first language might not be English, have little chance of knowing what the fuck the drooling numpty is on about. Therefore, atheists can't know everything, therefore they can't be God. Yes, we know the quote represents some sort of brain fart that was inspired by his faith in odd beliefs, and yes, we know he has conducted extensive surveys of his own back passage in his struggle for the truth. But other than that, he's a common-or-garden clod with mystical aspirations.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

I know how God can't build a wheel using the Biblical basis that Pi = exactly 3. Thus God isn't omnipotent, therefore he's an inferior being, ergo 'God' doesn't exist. QED.

I also know that God is an inferior being: It was the Mayans who invented & used '0' (Zero) in their numerical system. Thus, going by the classic Cosmological Argument, God did have a creator. If God is the 'First Cause', then by Mayan mathematics (and thus modern maths; computing as we know it today is based on the binary system: '1's & '0's), there was a Zero Cause beforehand - which must have been the creator of said 'First Cause'. And as the ancient Chinese invented negative numbers, then, by definition, there must be a 'Negative First Cause', and thus a 'Negative Second Cause', 'Negative Third Cause' etc etc, ad infinitum.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

(Part the Deux):

Thus a chain of infinite causes going on & on. All of whom are superior to the Abrahamic 'God', the so-called 'First Cause' (with emphasis on 'so-called'). Therefore 'God' is an inferior being, unworthy of belief, 'faith', and even respect. And if this being called 'God', the so-called 'First Cause' is inferior, he's not omnipotent, omnipresent etc. Ergo 'God' doesn't exist QED.

And if 'God' doesn't exist, then by definition, we humans - by the extremely simple act of just existing - prove our superiority to God.

"This makes Atheists God. Therefore God is an Atheist. YIKES! shoddy logic."

'"Oh, I hadn't thought of that", says God, and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.'

And for my next trick, making the sound of one hand clapping, by hitting the palm with the fingers of that hand. Also, solving Schrodingers Cat Paradox by using a tiny wireless camera & light source - or making the box out of transparent Perspex.

[/smartarse]

Then proving black is white, via the use of this Zebra crossing...

(*sound of car approaching*)

[/Douglas Adams]

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"absolute knowledge"

And if 'God' has absolute knowledge about everything, then why does the Bible state that Pi = exactly 3? When not even 'God' himself could never build a wheel using that Biblical basis? And why is there no mention, in the Bible, of the concept of the Mono-monostatic Object - a.k.a. the 'Gömböc', only realised in recent years by the Hungarian mathematicians Gabor Domokos and Peter Varkonyi:

http://www.rexresearch.com/gomboc/gomboc.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6mb%C3%B6c

I'm afraid that if the Bible doesn't impart all of 'God's own 'absolute knowledge', then 'God' himself doesn't know everything, thus he's not omnipotent, therefore he's not 'God', ergo 'God' doesn't exist. QED.

And scientists - certainly the likes of messrs. Domokos & Varkonyi - are superior to 'God'.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@#1160642

"Also, @Anon-e-moose:
THat wouldn't solve the Schrodinger's Cat Paradox, as it depends on the cat being unobserved. A camera or clear box nullifies the experiment."

Ah, but what is the basis, nay the raison d'etre of experiments?

Observation.

[/pedantic]

Thus the need to observe said cat - either via a wireless video camera & light source in the box - or said box made of transparent materials. Schrodinger should've taken future developments in mind, before he conceived of what is purely a philosophical notion (and philosophy only deals in concepts, not hard science, which requires observation of the experiment to obtain the result).

[/smartarse]

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm just off to a forest to find a tree that's old & rotting, just about to collapse, then place near it a digital audio recorder (powered by a lithium battery) with auto-record facility; then leave the area. Then later, after said tree has fallen over, retrieve the recorder and thus have the sound of a tree falling over without anyone there to hear it.

[/smartarse II]

;)

old comment by hamashiachagape

Thanks. Its good to be noticed :). I pray God will bless your knowledge with truth. Come let us reason together Isaiah 1:18 :). Argument from Emotion has been your strongest argument so far, so maybe I can help you along here grasping the material before you. Your are missing an obvious truth to the argument by trying to insert a definition into the argument that is not there. You're trying to apply Agnosticism, but that is another argument for another time. Follow along here. If Atheism is true, the only standard for absolute knowledge becomes what humans know. But that means, all atheists have absolute knowledge since every atheist is a human. The argument is predicated on the fact that Atheists do not have a standard for absolute knowledge, if any, themselves, making them the standard for absolute knowledge meaning that its already been attained. If there is a standard for absolute knowledge, where does absolute knowledge come from? A higher being than humans put it forth. What to say about the definition of absolute knowledge itself? That being is what we call God by definition. Mind you, I stand in stark contrast to fundamentalism. Though I am not a Christian (I am Messianic Jew, a bit of a difference), it is not necessary for Christians to have absolute knowledge to have knowledge of God. Most people misunderstand this.

old comment by Angua

Well, I would call myself an agnostic atheist. I don't know that there no God(s) exist. Just given the evidence I've been presented with so far I don't believe that any any God(s) exist. I think that the existence of a God or gods is unlikely given what I know about the universe, but I'd certainly agree that I don't know everything. Being an atheist doesn't mean you have absolute certainty that no gods exist anywhere. You just don't believe in them.
There isn't much I can say with absolute certainty -- but there are degrees of probability as well, and that is important.

I'll give this to hamashiachagape, although he/she seems to misunderstand what atheists claim and what atheism means, hamashiachagape
is at least polite and seems to be a decent person.

old comment by hamashiachagape

Shalom,

Amadaun, the latter part of your claim believes that one does not believe in God, and the former believes in a God. You can't have it both ways here. One either believes, or does not believe. Belief is centered around knowledge or being rational. The centerfold that needs to be realized is there is a hole in the epistemological area of Atheism that falls when evaluated on a logical basis. The definition of belief has become skewed because of Soren Kierkgaardian philosophy being applied to some 21st century American churches, so that now many people believe in a misapplied and misdefined ideology of belief (blind faith), which is not recognized in the Jewish connotation of the word utilized in the Bible. What you see from the outside looking in is an incorrect perspective. The dictionary defines belief as - any cognitive content held as true. So it being cognitive content is centered around knowledge even according to the proper definition.

Angua, I believe the proper categorization that you would be put in is Agnostic.

The point of the argument is to reach an RAA (reductio ad absurdum), not to actually claim that God is an Atheist. The argument was not presented in a formal manner in the first place, but was actually put forth in a manner to be simplistic in nature. If I had put it forth in a manner of being formal or informal logically based I would have utilized premises and conclusion. I think when I restate this argument later in the future, I will be mindful of clarifying this so as to avoid confusion (tho I took it for granted this was obvious).

old comment by Anon-e-moose

[Can we philosophically “prove” that God must be good?]

"The argument"

No philosophical 'argument' required. Just the facts, ma'am:

"If Atheism is true"

No 'If' about it. We who don't acknowledge the existence of a 'God(s)' - because there's no proof to our satisfaction that such exists - exist. Objective facts (such as we Atheists exist, and your 'God' doesn't) are superior to subjective 'Truth'. Deal with it.

"then all Atheists have absolute knowledge and can know everything (we know that this isn't true because of disagreement so this hinders Atheism, but for the sake of argument..)."

We Atheists, by definition, know infinitely more than you fundies. Knowing more. As a result of receiving a proper state, accredited, education. Results in one thinking for themselves. As opposed to fundie 'hoemskuling'. Ergo, our more than infinite superiority to you fundies. QED.

"If Atheists can know everything, then they are just as knowledgeable as what we define to be God."

We exist. Your 'God' doesn't. One word: science. PROTIP: According to your 'Word of God', Pi = exactly 3:

image

The more scientifically-minded ancient Greeks (as in BCE) knew otherwise before said 'Word of God' even existed.

"This makes Atheists God."

Well, we are infinitely superior to him after all, so thanks for the compliment. I've never killed anyone in my life, nor do I want to, ever:

image

"Therefore God is an Atheist."

He made me an Atheist. Who are you to question his will, hamashiachagape?

"YIKES! shoddy logic."

From the point of view of we Atheists, not really. But from your point of view, it is. You yourself have proven that we Atheists are infinitely superior to your 'God', after all.

I love the smell of annihilated arguments in the morning. Smells like... victory.

“The argument I love most against Atheism is this. If Atheism is true,”
Atheism is a statement that i do not believe in any gods.
I do not believe in any gods.
Atheism is true. Next?
What you mean is, if atheism is CORRECT….

“then all Atheists have absolute knowledge”
That doesn’t follow.
I don’t have to have absolute knowledge of the universe to not believe in any gods. Maybe i flipped a coin.
This is a sucky argument.

"and can know everything (we know that this isn't true because of disagreement so this hinders Atheism,”
this doesn’t even impact on actual atheism, dork.

“but for the sake of argument..). If Atheists can know everything,”
False premise.

“then they are just as knowledgeable as what we define to be God.”
But athesits are real.

"This makes Atheists God.”
Nope.
God is defined as all-knowing.
Nothing suggests that all-knowing is only available to gods.

"Therefore God is an Atheist. YIKES! shoddy logic.”
It’s not even logic. Just poor facts lined up in sequence.

If Autists can know everything, then they are just as knowledgeable as what we define to be God. This makes Autists God. Therefore God is an Autist. YIKES! shoddy logic.

hamashiachagape #fundie christianforums.com

96 comments

Confused?