1. Joined
    06 Jun '08
    Moves
    63
    10 Apr '09 14:46
    One of the slippery tactics employed by believers in a creator God is not to give any exact definition of what God is. This is because it is easy to refute the existense of God once we know what God is supposed to be - so they dont give any definitions other than unverifiable woolly mumbo-jumbo.

    Another fault is failure to respond to refutations such as this one by Epicurus.

    Is God willing to prevent evil but not able, then he is not omnipotent. Is He able but not willing, then he is malevolent. Is God both able and willing then whence commeth evil? If He is neither able nor willing, then why call him God? “

    I challenge the God bashers to answer this refutation. Be warned that the tedious circular argument that 'God exists because the bible says so and the bible is the word of god' will not be accepted as proof for god's existense but will be considered as proof of a lack of critical awareness.
  2. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3081
    10 Apr '09 14:53
    What's this doing in the science forum?
  3. Standard memberThequ1ck
    Fast above
    Slow Below
    Joined
    29 Sep '03
    Moves
    25914
    10 Apr '09 15:20
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    What's this doing in the science forum?
    Challenging sciences shortcomings.
  4. Standard memberpatauro
    Patricia
    Joined
    25 Sep '06
    Moves
    14447
    10 Apr '09 17:27
    Here come the trolls, there is blood in the water. But they don't
    stand a chance against Clearlight!
  5. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    10 Apr '09 19:262 edits
    Originally posted by clearlight
    [
    Is God willing to prevent evil but not able, then he is not omnipotent. Is He able but not willing, then he is malevolent. Is God both able and willing then whence commeth evil? If He is neither able nor willing, then why call him God? “
    There are other possibilites. If God is all powerful he can CHOOSE to relinquish part of his control over your will. Free will is the key. The Christian God is said to be a God of love. So what is required within a mutual loving relationship? Is it not free will? You see, you can't have a mutually loving relationship without free will and the only way to go about this is to relinquish ones own power over the others will. So as a result of this free will, human beings can CHOOSE to resist the will of their Creator hince sin is born into the world.

    BTW: I have no idea what this has to do with "proving" the existence of God.
  6. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    10 Apr '09 19:281 edit
    Originally posted by clearlight
    [b]One of the slippery tactics employed by believers in a creator God is not to give any exact definition of what God is. This is because it is easy to refute the existense of God once we know what God is supposed to be - so they dont give any definitions other than unverifiable woolly mumbo-jumbo.
    So how is one to describe a supposide infinite being? One Biblical method was to refer to God as the "I am that I am".
  7. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3081
    10 Apr '09 19:42
    Originally posted by whodey
    There are other possibilites. If God is all powerful he can CHOOSE to relinquish part of his control over your will. Free will is the key. The Christian God is said to be a God of love. So what is required within a mutual loving relationship? Is it not free will? You see, you can't have a mutually loving relationship without free will and the only way t ...[text shortened]... o the world.

    BTW: I have no idea what this has to do with "proving" the existence of God.
    This is the possibility "god is not omnipotent".
  8. Joined
    06 May '05
    Moves
    9174
    10 Apr '09 20:39
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    What's this doing in the science forum?
    Being out of place.
  9. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    11 Apr '09 14:561 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    This is the possibility "god is not omnipotent".
    But if one CHOOSES to relinquish power, should they still be considered "omnipotent"? After all, it is God's power to do with as he wills. It's not like he does not have the power to take it back or not to give it in the first place.
  10. Standard memberThequ1ck
    Fast above
    Slow Below
    Joined
    29 Sep '03
    Moves
    25914
    11 Apr '09 15:07
    Originally posted by clearlight
    One of the slippery tactics employed by believers in a creator God is not to give any exact definition of what God is. This is because it is easy to refute the existense of God once we know what God is supposed to be - so they dont give any definitions other than unverifiable woolly mumbo-jumbo.

    Another fault is failure to respond to refutations such a ...[text shortened]... as proof for god's existense but will be considered as proof of a lack of critical awareness.
    God by his definition is both immutable and transversable which
    makes it only possible to argue against the hypocrisy.
  11. Joined
    12 May '07
    Moves
    4650
    11 Apr '09 16:14
    Maybe God is just a being with a lot of power that likes helping people in need.

    Maybe, just maybe (and metaphorically speaking, of course) we are God. Not just one person, but society. We have the power to help anyone, anywhere, anytime. We can make or break a person, if the mass decides to do so.

    So maybe whoever wrote the Bible was thinking "hey, if we all put our minds to it, and weren't such selfish bastards, we could wipe out hunger and hate and all that other crap that only lead to bad things happening".
  12. Subscriberjoe shmo
    Strange Egg
    podunk, PA
    Joined
    10 Dec '06
    Moves
    7733
    11 Apr '09 17:191 edit
    God = Area under f(x) = 4/x^3 evaluated from -1 to 1

    = infinite ( i.e. just an idea, not physically meaningful)
  13. Joined
    12 May '07
    Moves
    4650
    11 Apr '09 20:43
    Originally posted by joe shmo
    God = Area under f(x) = 4/x^3 evaluated from -1 to 1

    = infinite ( i.e. just an idea, not physically meaningful)
    You know,some of the smartest people in the world have tried to find/explain God through numbers.

    You might be onto something, my friend.
  14. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148552
    12 Apr '09 09:24
    Originally posted by clearlight
    One of the slippery tactics employed by believers in a creator God is not to give any exact definition of what God is. This is because it is easy to refute the existense of God once we know what God is supposed to be - so they dont give any definitions other than unverifiable woolly mumbo-jumbo.

    Another fault is failure to respond to refutations such a ...[text shortened]... as proof for god's existense but will be considered as proof of a lack of critical awareness.
    You'll get your chance to explain it to Him when you see Him, no
    worries.
    Kelly
  15. Standard memberThequ1ck
    Fast above
    Slow Below
    Joined
    29 Sep '03
    Moves
    25914
    12 Apr '09 10:00
    God is both a noun and a verb

    13Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” 14God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

    This means that language is inadequete to describe him. ergo. 'God' is meaningless.
Back to Top