Don’t be fooled by the simple question, i’m going to make this a very serious thread.
I’m an atheist. I’m not an atheist by my own free will because i’m forced to be one by the people who are theists. The fact that they exist make me an atheist whether i like it or not.
Now i will be raising some very serious problems with religion (as i’ve promised SIATD i will a few weeks before - having now ended my exams i finnaly have the free time to create such a topic).
I ask of the theists here to provide coherent, logical and rational arguments in respons to my inqueries.
So, shall we begin ? Ok, i’ll go first.
1st question.
Is god above logic and rationality ?
Can god make 1+2=3573473473849846346 in N ? (i’ve used such a large number to clearly show the imposibility of such a task)
Could got make a 2D triangle in Euclidic geometry with the sum of its angles more than 180 degrees ?
As you’ve noticed those are very simple questions; reply to those and we can move on.
P.S. If you say god cannot do those things then god is not omnipotent; If he is not omnipotent… then why call him god ?
If you choose to say god is above logic and rationality we may move on.
Using energy and geometry, “God” “created” the quantu, which your body is made of. All matter and energy has its own behavior in and of itself, and it also has social behavior in that it interacts-with/reacts-to other forms of energy or matter.
The things made of quantu are structure, which is a form of information, stored upon a medium. Each structure is a behavioral “program” which has its own laws, and the “driver” for those laws is relative to the math.
Therefor “God” “created” “math”, and if the systemic algorythms/orders of the elemental structure were built in a drastically different way, they could behave according to your equations.
~
1 note of caution.
Creating the universe was a big job. Creating life on earth was a little job. The big thing doing the big jobs probably had a lower order of servitors, some of which created earthly life. These were called “the all-mighty”, though they were not “all-mighty”. But… They did create humans, thus are worshiped by humans. The “imperfections” of these prince-like gods can be seen throughout earthly history.
No one here (on this planet, I mean) could possibly answer this question. No one knows what it means. You might as well ask “Can God make a cat that is work that is heat that is a smile?”.
Whether god is bound by language is irrelevant, because, to this extent at least, we clearly are. Speaking gibberish only establishes that this god can create a person who can speak gibberish.
I realise that you do not in any way represent me, Carp, but as an atheist, it’s just embarassing to see this. There are posters here that are so far away from any understanding of that which they post about that they are not worth responding to. But you, Carp, show some ability. This that you present here is not philosophy, however. It’s not even common sense.
Also, to claim that you have been forced into atheism by theists is just rubbish, and is also antithetical to philosophy. You have been forced into the label - this I understand. But the label is not the thing.
Dan’s theology here actually makes much more sense than all of Aquinas, for instance. I think it’s crap, too - but it has that rare virtue of actually making sense. It avoids the inherent contradiction of anthropomorphic monotheism.
I thought it was common knowledge that no-one knows whether or not there’s a god, and the best anyone can do is make guesses. This is why believers talk about “faith” - they implicitly admit to having no proof.
I think that on balance it’s much more likely that there isn’t a god than that there is, but I wouldn’t have the confidence to assert that the nonexistence of god as a fact.
It’s not gibberish faust… it realy isnt
They’re all math and geometry which are based on axioms.
Now are you then saying god is above such axioms ? In that case we can move on to the next questions acknowledging that you say this without proof but nevertheless i will accept your claim.
I’m sorry faust i only point this out because atheism is rather an acusation than a conviction and i’m merely trying to become the victim here to add credulity to my arguments; please take it as such.
Carp - I’m not talking about god - I’m talking about you. You are asking the question. The question is quite literally gibberish.
I repeat - I am not making a statement about god, but about your ability to make sense.
I know what you are getting at - I’ve seen it hundreds of times. And I know you are most certainly capable of making sense. This question is not an example of that.
I certainly do not know why anyone would wish to become a victim. But maybe you will, at some juncture, get to your point.
Well its tricky because if he is there’s no reason to call him god.
The issue you raise has no simple answer and it would be mere speculation on my part if i was to give any answer.
The question here is if i am bound by those laws and cannot imagine another type of “triangle” or if those laws have always been there and humans merely discover them.
This goes back to a problem about math i was on the verge of discussing here whether mathematics is invented or discovered.
I have not yet concluded on the matter but this far it seems that we humans are only discovering mathematics; not inventing it. Its very thin ice though i clearly need more time and clear judgement.
Stop and read what faust is saying. You have no more means of proof that there is no god than does the most devout theist ‘proving’ there is a god.
As humans, (I use that term loosely) we are locked into the limits of mind/body. Any concept of God/not God is necessarily lesser than whatever created that mind/body.
You may build any construct of metaphysical knowing you wish, but it is never, not ever, “provable”.
Now clearly any religious person would easily claim that god is not bound by those things and that he created them. Such claims are again mere speculation on their part.
It’s not such an easy thing to think about… and some questions do come to mind; such as:
Why does logic work ?
Why are the laws of nature the way they are ?
And so on. While i cannot give answers to those questions i can still point out that before the laws of nature were discovered people thought that natural phenomena was due to gods.
And again we come to the “one step further argument” as the question goes deeper so does postulating god.
However people who thought that a thunder was the product of the “Thunder god” had no ideea that there was such a simple and coherent explanation for it and thats the value i give to these questions.
Knowledge is not something you achieve all at once and we don’t even yet know if knowledge can be achieved fully or that we would want to achieve supreme knowledge.
The only sure answer i can give is: Have patience and faith in our legacy.
You’re wrong; i’m not all for empiricism in philosophy.
And another thing; as i’ve said before on this forum; its not the duty of a non-believer to emprirically dispruve the existance of a god but the duty of a believer to empirically prove its existance.
If i say that lamps exist i make a claim and back it up by putting a lamp in front of you; but if i claim a fairy exists you don’t believe me… why ? If you don’t please prove to me that my claim is false.
Yeah, Carp - and this is all you are doing here. You’re just trying to bait some theist into making a positive claim about the existsence of god, so that you can let everyone know that god cannot be proved.
You are, in effect, playing the black pieces.
I’ll save you the trouble - well, tent already has.
Some issues can be taken as settled - on this site, that is a greater blasphemy than anything you could say about God.
Firstly, you haven’t listed ‘things’ that could be done or not done. You’ve just strung some words together that kinda sorta resemble descriptions of actions, but really aren’t. Second, ‘omnipotent’ is just a word, I don’t see why anyone should be married to it. So, you seem to insist that the word ‘Omnipotent’ needs to mean “Being able to do ‘anything’- even obviously impossible stuff that doesn’t make any sense.” OK, fine. So I agree to your definition and admit that God isn’t “omnipotent”. What now?
An analogy. Can your toaster give of radioactive beams that fry all organic matter within a quarter-mile radius? No? Well, then, it’s not really a toaster, now is it?
Not quite; i’m using logic and rationality to try and dispruve the existance of god.
But you are right; the chances of a theist here becoming an atheists because of my arguments are indeed very slim even if my arguments are rational.
The overall problem is they see religion as a fluffy happy kind of mass activity of loving and carring… where as i see it as a plague on the human intellect which stops it from acheiving what i got.
An empty, meaningless life, often contemplating suicide and feeling very lonely .
I’m only joking
-_-; I usually try to be funny like this when i’m getting tired of philosophy, which i am right now so i probably wont be posting anything untill tomorrow. Time to go to the gym.
. 
