tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post8778996869579060560..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: Is God Impossible or Kind of Impossible?Matt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-54886683262420434362017-09-02T00:14:25.084-07:002017-09-02T00:14:25.084-07:00ATHEIST? AIN’ T NO SUCH ANIMAL!
(An excerpt from T...ATHEIST? AIN’ T NO SUCH ANIMAL!<br />(An excerpt from Things That Make You Go Hmm…! Series – Roger Koch)<br /><br /><br />This is by no means a case for the existence of God. As Blaise Pascall argued, there is no proof of the existence or non-existence of God - such existence may actually be irrelevant.<br />The primary issue when addressing the concept of God is simply that – whose concept are we talking about? As much as believers have some concept of God, so do atheists! So what don’t atheists believe in? Obviously their own concept of God – whatever shape or form or otherwise that may be! Hence to be an atheist, one must not believe in a concept of one’s own creation! So, a true atheist can only be some primitive islander perhaps, who has never speculated or heard of the concept both atheists and believers call ‘God’. <br />Nearly all ‘enlightened’ versions of God describe It as an entity that is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent – hence IT not He or She. In that sense, the concept is a paradox, the parameters of which no human can intellectually comprehend. So to have a concept of God, one is already limiting Its attributes. In such limiting, one can no longer be describing anything with the above ‘Omni’ attributes.<br />Thus, while religionists act on Faith in a concept called God, it is an equal act of Faith Not to believe in God – given as Pascall pointed out, there is no empirical proof of either condition – existence or not – ever being met.<br /><br />God’s Irrelevance<br /><br />Given that a God might just exist as an actual entity – It can only be described by its superlative attributes - Prime Mover, Universal Intelligence, Love, All, That, etc., It nevertheless must possess at least the three Omni’s described above, which are attributes of perfection.<br />Now, a perfect being cannot possibly have needs or wants. Hence, our belief/faith in IT would be utterly irrelevant to such an entity. So at best, faith can only serve the Believer – who could gain confidence, courage or strength by their self-induced belief. As for Praise and/or Worship, again what could a perfect entity possibly gain from such irrelevancies?<br />So, even if God existed, It cannot have any demands, requirements or expectations. If IT did, it would be an imperfect entity – a Super man at best. Hence both Faith and Atheism do not serve any purpose and are both irrelevant.<br /><br />A Final Thought<br /><br />Yet, as mentioned, the Believer and also the Spiritualist seems to gain advantage – material, psychological and emotional - from their faith. I have yet to hear from Atheists of any benefits from their dogmatic faith in Its non-existence…Things that make you go hmmm...! <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13892058524066193923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-21828583737726016232016-02-22T19:14:44.554-08:002016-02-22T19:14:44.554-08:00What about the recent medical evidence that there ...What about the recent medical evidence that there is life after death?<br /><br />There's no question that religions were created out of a psychological need to establish a justification for our existence in an intimidatingly infinite universe. Christianity definitely got out of control... as Thomas Jefferson said, the church “perverted the purest religion ever preached to mankind for the purpose of gaining wealth and power.” But I've got a question that you still need to reconcile.<br /><br />You have to concede there are many occurrences that can't be explained by either religion or science. Just watch a few episodes of "Long Island Medium." There are many like her. She can tell you things about your deceased parents, friends and relatives that no one can know but you.<br /><br />Watch this YouTube on the new "post death experience" phenomenon. Google: “Look at profound evidence” (long video; jump ahead to mid-video)<br /><br />Near Death Experiences (Raymond Moody, 1975) did not prove life after death because frontal lobe stimulation can simulate the experience. But recently “post” death experiences have proved life after death. “Post” death experiences are reported in patients who've been clinically dead for 1,2 or even 3 hours!<br /><br />These “corpses” have gone hours without heart or brainwave function. They are absolutely dead, but after unexplainable resuscitations, doctors are witnessing, respecting and documenting these patients' accurate accounts of things that happened during their “brain dead” hours in the ER or morgue. Understand...there's a substantially escalating curve on these scientific investigations now.<br /><br />They note that long after death, patients recall verbatim conversations and activities of the doctors, nurses and even family members in and outside the hospital. It's like angry Scrooge seeing his valuables being sold after he died. Consistent with NDE's, patients still say it's better on the other side and they'll never fear dying again.<br /><br />Notably, many of the ER doctors witnessing “post death experiences” have been atheists whom now concede that life absolutely goes on after death. These scientific atheists are accepting the irrefutable evidence that patients experience life hours after they die...<br /><br />And by extension...if there is life experience beyond death, there has to be a god... How do you square this burgeoning life after death phenomenon with your atheism? What if you were in a morgue, and a corpse sat up and commented on your recent conversations? Don't be afraid to check this out. Surf it up! Don't dig in and defend atheism just because you've centered your life around it... Be honest! And please... don't say this is a bio-chemical, nervous reaction! <br /><br />Brad O'Donnell; Author, "Where to Now Saint Paul?"<br />video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQVyZ74HmiAAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06486002419881453847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-1991162691104408232016-02-22T19:07:44.934-08:002016-02-22T19:07:44.934-08:00What about the recent medical evidence that there ...What about the recent medical evidence that there is life after death?<br /><br />There's no question that religions were created out of a psychological need to establish a justification for our existence in an intimidatingly infinite universe. Christianity definitely got out of control... as Thomas Jefferson said, the church “perverted the purest religion ever preached to mankind for the purpose of gaining wealth and power.” But I've got a question that you still need to reconcile.<br /><br />You have to concede there are many occurrences that can't be explained by either religion or science. Just watch a few episodes of "Long Island Medium." There are many like her. She can tell you things about your deceased parents, friends and relatives that no one can know but you.<br /><br />Watch this YouTube on the new "post death experience" phenomenon. Google: “Look at profound evidence” (long video; jump ahead to mid-video)<br /><br />Near Death Experiences (Raymond Moody, 1975) did not prove life after death because frontal lobe stimulation can simulate the experience. But recently “post” death experiences have proved life after death. “Post” death experiences are reported in patients who've been clinically dead for 1,2 or even 3 hours!<br /><br />These “corpses” have gone hours without heart or brainwave function. They are absolutely dead, but after unexplainable resuscitations, doctors are witnessing, respecting and documenting these patients' accurate accounts of things that happened during their “brain dead” hours in the ER or morgue. Understand...there's a substantially escalating curve on these scientific investigations now.<br /><br />They note that long after death, patients recall verbatim conversations and activities of the doctors, nurses and even family members in and outside the hospital. It's like angry Scrooge seeing his valuables being sold after he died. Consistent with NDE's, patients still say it's better on the other side and they'll never fear dying again.<br /><br />Notably, many of the ER doctors witnessing “post death experiences” have been atheists whom now concede that life absolutely goes on after death. These scientific atheists are accepting the irrefutable evidence that patients experience life hours after they die...<br /><br />And by extension...if there is life experience beyond death, there has to be a god... How do you square this burgeoning life after death phenomenon with your atheism? What if you were in a morgue, and a corpse sat up and commented on your recent conversations? Don't be afraid to check this out. Surf it up! Don't dig in and defend atheism just because you've centered your life around it... Be honest! And please... don't say this is a bio-chemical, nervous reaction! <br /><br />Brad O'Donnell; Author, "Where to Now Saint Paul?"<br />video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQVyZ74HmiAAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06486002419881453847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-84371888135543461872013-06-22T21:09:48.701-07:002013-06-22T21:09:48.701-07:00The only true proof for the existence of God can b...The only true proof for the existence of God can be made by pointing an extended middle finger at the atheist. There can be no naturalistic explanation of what that gesture means (or any gesture for that matter).Starchild646https://www.blogger.com/profile/04987950606213772938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-21326154981179453922013-05-16T16:19:09.789-07:002013-05-16T16:19:09.789-07:00How could any one actually tell what the original ...How could any one actually tell what the original post is saying?<br /><br />Jumping to the last paragraph helped a bit. There, the author makes it clear that he thinks anyone thinking in terms of "God" is a fool.<br /><br />I, however do not accept that definition. It lacks merit, by my standards.<br /><br />For me, conceiving of "God" as the emergent characteristic arising from infinite potential, works pretty good. Might even be "A priori" Though, I had to look the term up and I'm sure this guy will quibble with it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-52514036729848221082013-01-05T11:19:13.262-08:002013-01-05T11:19:13.262-08:00Sorry Matt, Just testing.
This code works on Blogg...Sorry Matt, Just testing.<br />This code works on Blogger: Atheism proving the negative:<br /><b>This is BOLD</b><br /><i>This is ITALICS</i><br /><a href="yahoo.com" rel="nofollow"> Yahoo </a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182479498274235902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-80391337994942098052012-08-21T04:15:58.032-07:002012-08-21T04:15:58.032-07:00If God transcends this universe then we have probl...If God transcends this universe then we have problems. Sure, the Biblical God may well be fictitious ... but there is nothing to suggest, apart from a sceptical urge to disbelieve, that we aren't stuck inside a 'simulation'.<br /><br />On one reading of the Bible it really does make sense to accept that 'God' exists and that the nature of his existence is external to our universe ... that 'our' universe is in fact nothing more than a advanced game of 'minecraft'.<br /><br />The conflict comes in trying to square the 'originator' with the lists of outrageous demands and actions as seen in the Bible ... that's fine though because it's perfectly normal to expect self interest etc to distort, embellish or even create the work that we know as the Bible. The problem is not the Bible, but the central idea that a creator is responsible for this universe. <br /><br />Interestingly using this idea we can escape the problem of evil. Sure you and I may not like to think of ourselves merely as bits of information and we'd like to think that pain and suffering are 'real'. Though how many people refuse to play fps computer games on the basis that they don't want to hurt pixels.<br /><br />Which of course leads to another issue.<br /><br />In the none too distant future computers will undoubtedly manage at least a minimal form of self awareness - at least on the grounds that certain humans manage it. Considering the range of what society considers human, I've always found the Turing test to be somewhat bizarre as a significant number of real people would fail.<br /><br />So what will be the situation when we can create advanced simulations filled with AI's?<br /><br />Will we have to take care not to allow 'evil' to befall them, or will we simply accept that it's part of the whole process?Asno Mudohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12538890836251895986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-220485443055691292012-08-19T09:09:31.293-07:002012-08-19T09:09:31.293-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Asno Mudohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12538890836251895986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-63475925344533315302011-11-04T09:57:49.492-07:002011-11-04T09:57:49.492-07:00In light of what you've just said, What do you...In light of what you've just said, What do you know and how do you know it?Miss E. Rawrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17617960670659913563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-63916093447646620762011-11-04T09:57:37.629-07:002011-11-04T09:57:37.629-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Miss E. Rawrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17617960670659913563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-27670546668682690792010-10-08T14:27:32.128-07:002010-10-08T14:27:32.128-07:00Three words. Electromagnetism.Three words. Electromagnetism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-4643547759656862662009-10-08T19:55:59.382-07:002009-10-08T19:55:59.382-07:00Christianity is the reasonable choice.
Seekers o...Christianity is the reasonable choice.<br /><br /> Seekers of Truth: Using the logic of science, we check phenomena to see if they are explained by theory. If many phenomena can be explained, we then hold that theory to be true.<br /><br />Edwin Abbott, writing his book 'Flatland' to humorously explain contiguous dimensional worlds, shows us a logical explanation for worlds superior to ours. 'Techie Worlds' uses the Flatland Concept to examine far-out Christian teachings such as Trinity, soul, Resurrection, Judgment, etc. While quite ridiculous from a 'material world only' view, these teachings make rational good sense in the Flatland context.<br /><br /> Mankind has long been plagued with reports of the spirit world: miracles, ghosts, possession, pagan gods, witchcraft, occult, devil worship, black masses. Materialists classify all such as superstition and overactive imaginings. Christians shy from such, holding them unnatural as Jesus taught. But the materialist position involves an act of faith that 'the material world is all that there is'. Their act of faith cannot be proved. Certainly, science cannot possibly experiment with the spirit world. Techie Worlds' (available from www.amazon.com) shows the belief in higher worlds, also an act of faith, is logical and considered, and shows these strange Christian concepts to be logically possible.<br /><br /> Pascal's Wager points out that the Christian act of faith urges us to a better life in this world and can result in great rewards in the next. The unbelieving view permits selfish misanthropic behavior now and denies all future eternal rewards. Clearly, rational self-interest makes belief in a logical, rational, rewarding Christianity to be the wise and intelligent choice.<br /><br />GeorgeRicGeorgeRichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13617472632756484543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-91285694758562602482009-09-14T20:15:31.835-07:002009-09-14T20:15:31.835-07:00"Of course a response to the red herring you ..."Of course a response to the red herring you made is seen in Liebeniz 'the best of all worlds' notion... "<br /><br />Well, the "best of all worlds" argument is one that I would enjoy having, however, it is well beyond the scope of the original post.<br /><br />Maybe Matt will make a post concerning that philosophical position.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-1641215914018582092009-09-14T20:10:26.740-07:002009-09-14T20:10:26.740-07:00"tully you completely missed the boat..."..."tully you completely missed the boat..."<br /><br />Anon, rereading the comments, I must agree with you. You were not arguing that a deity could violate those things that we in humanity have found to be absolutely mutually exclusive (although, by definition, that makes the deity less than omnipotent). My black-white argument is, most certainly, a failure.<br /><br />However, going back to the original post, I can conceive of a universe where absolute justice and absolute mercy were compatible. It is a universe where every sentient being's greatest desire was for perfectly consistent justice. Or, alternately, every sentient being's greatest desire is for perfectly magnanimous forgiveness.<br /><br />I seem to inhabit a world where neither one of those two conditions exist. Yet, either one of those two worlds could have been created.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-23592585823015313552009-09-02T18:51:02.076-07:002009-09-02T18:51:02.076-07:00attacking God's imperfection doesnt get you an...attacking God's imperfection doesnt get you anywhere tully since it is a red herring to the arg at hand<br /><br />Of course a response to the red herring you made is seen in Liebeniz "the best of all worlds" notion...but this is a digress and another topicAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-2818589515711562042009-09-02T18:48:09.516-07:002009-09-02T18:48:09.516-07:00tully you completely missed the boat. Maybe your l...tully you completely missed the boat. Maybe your lack of logic is due to this but you cannot attribute God the property of "All things" and then still believe in black and white - since black and white, mercy and justice are a part of the all<br /><br />My arg was in a reductio form and this somehow confused you into thinking I agree with the attribute arg...<br /><br />But I am resating the arg to show how unreasonable it is since it must deny opposites, which are needed to define each other...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-36658086831670612722009-08-31T20:54:30.886-07:002009-08-31T20:54:30.886-07:00"If we consider that God cannot be ALL just a..."If we consider that God cannot be ALL just and ALL merciful at the same time then we also must deny that both attributes can coexits or that one or the other is nonexistant"<br /><br />Consider for a moment black, white and gray.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-16847034216842323972009-08-31T20:51:07.542-07:002009-08-31T20:51:07.542-07:00"A rebuttal to why weighing the ALL just vers..."A rebuttal to why weighing the ALL just verses ALL merciful in regards to God is itself an impossible task."<br /><br />I think you're catching on. That thing you're probably feeling is called cognitive dissonance. It's not a bad thing. Once you understand why it arises, it leads to some pretty incredible stuff.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-31902917808313601312009-08-31T20:44:11.587-07:002009-08-31T20:44:11.587-07:00"Essentially tully if a human can be deemed a..."Essentially tully if a human can be deemed a good person and have conducted deviating attributes, whether throughout his life or even in a day, then why is this so difficult for God?"<br /><br />A human, an all natural, evolved in the Pleistocene human, can certainly be both social and selfish in different circumstances. Heck, he or she could be inconsistent in the same circumstances at different times. Our inconsistencies are a part of our humanity, our less than perfect humanity. As for an omnigod, well the common definitions of that entity call for perfection. It is an entity above, beyond and deserving the worship of humanity. That entity has never been demonstrated. Now if you want to define god as an entity with the same human imperfection of inconsistency as you or I, you're welcome to (of course there are still other omni-properties that don't add up that you're going to eventually have to deal with). But, to quote (purportedly) Epicurius, "Then why call him god?"M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-69792658346584525942009-08-30T22:52:23.805-07:002009-08-30T22:52:23.805-07:00A rebuttal to why weighing the ALL just verses ALL...A rebuttal to why weighing the ALL just verses ALL merciful in regards to God is itself an impossible task.<br /><br />If we consider that God cannot be ALL just and ALL merciful at the same time then we also must deny that both attributes can coexits or that one or the other is nonexistant).<br /><br />Why?<br /><br />Because to consider the If-then operation of such a dauntful task we must assign the essence of God as the ALL to even consider such. In other words, we must assign God an attribute of ALL things, regardless if you believe in God or his powers. <br /><br />So an argument against an ALL God is also an argument against there being both the attribute of mercy and just - since God as the all must encompass such things. <br /><br />Does anybody really believe that mercy or justice does not exists?<br /><br />Profesor, what is your take on this?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-43975861170006687232009-08-30T22:43:19.299-07:002009-08-30T22:43:19.299-07:00re: tully
comment 1
You cannot apply nor conside...re: tully<br /><br />comment 1<br /><br />You cannot apply nor consider the all v all context of an attribute - it isn't within our scope. we can only judge that an attribute is applied to a certain case. Why?Becasue we are cognitively limted. <br /><br />Essentially tully if a human can be deemed a good person and have conducted deviating attributes, whether throughout his life or even in a day, then why is this so difficult for God? Why is he inconsistent and john doe not?<br /><br />I dont know its kind of hard to articulate what I am saying but it shouldnt be hard to plug in scenerios where God is consistent despite conducting different attributes given a context. If this is even possible then every attribute argument for the impossibility of God fails.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-20506104071394047172009-08-28T19:09:08.811-07:002009-08-28T19:09:08.811-07:00"Dont you think we could conjure up countless..."Dont you think we could conjure up countless defeaters for these attribute arguments against God?"<br /><br />Well, if what I have seen here is indicative of the class, I would really suggest you guys go back to the drawing room and start over (although I did appreciate the use of the word "conjure").M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-74686154244473950082009-08-28T19:05:22.256-07:002009-08-28T19:05:22.256-07:00"Think for example the analogy between man an..."Think for example the analogy between man and his organs or shall we say his cells."<br /><br />I'll go with organs. What about a man's brain? Can a man be culpable for actions his brain causes? As a naturalist, I say absolutely.<br /><br />Anyone care to absolve mankind for all actions caused by their brains?M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-22577558199869935062009-08-28T19:00:16.001-07:002009-08-28T19:00:16.001-07:00"For example God could have come down via his..."For example God could have come down via his angel and have been the judge in the lesser crimes courtroom showing mercy yet in the afternoon sat as a judge on the felony court being harsh"<br /><br />Seems to me - and full disclosure, I'm not in anyway philosophically inclined - that the above example shows consistent justice, but no mercy (punishments fitting the crimes).<br /><br />But the real question isn't, as I understand it, can some being be just in one instant and merciful in another. Any human can do that. But, rather can any being be simultaneously ALL just and at the same time ALL merciful? I think the courtroom analogy fails miserably at demonstrating this.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-26812306332833695502009-08-27T00:27:52.067-07:002009-08-27T00:27:52.067-07:00Professor,
I cannot see how you would know whethe...Professor,<br /><br />I cannot see how you would know whether I have thought about the aformentioed arguments or not. Perhaps you assumed this? That I have no formal philosophy training? I am quite familiar with the attribute arguments against God. They are very simplistic and borderline ridicule, leaving out any context or shall we say scope to honestly qualify the inconsistency in question.<br /><br />So do you really think it is logically impossible that God can be both a merciful and just judge? Dont you think we could conjure up countless defeaters for these attribute arguments against God? Yes, in logical possibly worlds angels can come down and represent God's will - you cannot deny the antecedent there...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com