Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[Kiraken]

And for some reason the atheist thinks they have the upper hand when that has never been the case since pre-eternity bar perhaps the time of Bertrand Russel and the rise of Verificationist philosophy (which has remnants foolishly used today)

The vast majority of philosophers and scientists, believed in some sort of Supreme Being

to be fair though, you can't really use the majority of philosophers believing that to be a point just because most philosophers are a) proved wrong by the philosophers immediately after them and b) because recent developments in astrophysics etc. gives this age old debate a new dimension

what you're essentially seeing nowadays is a shift from this debate being a purely metaphysical/theoretical one to one that has more elements of science involved and where the role of metaphysics is itslef questioned rather than considered a starting point

 

[Sy123]

The onus is on you to then prove that a "maximally great" being is required

That is the very purpose of the argument, and you respond by saying 'well, show me why its required'

I think the other point he was trying to make is that how do you know this God is in fact the God you believe in and has those exact properties?

This has been elaborated inside the entire article, on premise 5, why we call this particularizing agent God.

What for example, dictates that the God that hypothetically created the universe in that scenario has the qualities of Allah?

This is the exact same critique that Richard Dawkins gave to the Kalam Cosmological Argument in his 'The God Delusion', he simply said 'but why does it have to be the Christian God'

The purpose of this argument is not to directly show that the God in this argument is the Author of the Qur'an, rather it is to show that there is One Being who has All-Power, Knowledge and Will who Created the Universe, its a pretty bizarre type of atheism to believe in this yet still reject what we call God

The case for the truth of Islam is given in a cumulative case, once we establish the truth of God, Exalted is He, then we can investigate the different attributes that different religions ascribe to God.

Particularly taking into account that Allah has other qualities such as benevolence etc. by definition, how do we know that the God that created the universe possesses these qualities?

We can know through reflection on the various religions of mankind, with further argument (that I perhaps will detail in later posts), we can show the incoherence of a Christian God, the patheisms and panentheisms of the Dharmic religions, and establish some key concepts that allow to us break down the claims to the claims of Judaism and Islam (and if you want, Bahaism as well).

I myself have thought of a sort of Pascal's Wager type argument to distinguish between Judaism and Islam. Showing the incoherence of Bahaism is easy.

We can also give different evidences, that although do not amount to a formal logical case for Islam, but rather an evidentiary one

 

[Sy123]

to be fair though, you can't really use the majority of philosophers believing that to be a point just because most philosophers are a) proved wrong by the philosophers immediately after them

Well I think (a) is a pretty hefty assumption, although this is the case with some ancient philosophers, to bring it to a 'most' I do not think is quite coherent, especially as we enter an age of modernism and post-modernism where down is up and God knows what else

and b) because recent developments in astrophysics etc. gives this age old debate a new dimension

From a cosmological standpoint most definitely, but the Cosmological Arguments (with their many forms) are only a small amount of the total accounts for the existence of God. Also, recent developments in astrophysics moreso support the Cosmological Arguments then reject them

what you're essentially seeing nowadays is a shift from this debate being a purely metaphysical/theoretical one to one that has more elements of science involved and where the role of metaphysics is itslef questioned rather than considered a starting point

Oh definitely, but even then what science has shown us has given us more evidence for the existence of God, from the teleological Fine Tuning, to the Beginning of the Universe that gives credence to the arguments from Causal Beginning, and ones from Particularization

 

[Sy123]

I am very familiar and do comprehend the argument of contingency.

I'm happy for you, its a shame this isn't the argument from contingency, further proof you did not read my post

Your argument cannot explain how the universe is contingent on that substance you call God.

My claim is that the universe is contingent due to its temporality

Further, there is no evidence to suggest that the universe is inherently contingent. Yes, everything in the universe is contingent. Does it logically follow that the universe is therefore contingent? That is a fallacy of composition. Your whole argument is based on this fallacy of composition and rendered invalid.

Ok so here is what is happening right now

You are claiming that my argument is that the universe is contingent because everything in it is contingent, I have never claimed this, this is a very weak strawman
Also this is further evidence that you did not read my post

Assume that the universe is contingent nonetheless. This leaves us with the problem that God needed a reason to act. If God necessarily existed, and then necessarily created the universe, then the universe must necessarily exist (hint: it does).

This is entirely false as well, it is perfectly conceivable for God not to create the universe, i.e. it is a possible existent, thus it is contingent.
For example the universe could have been created with another set of laws, but God chose with his Will, i.e. his particularising power, to give preponderance to this universe's existence



"

Please show me this 'insurmountable' amount of evidence, even better - get it peer reviewed, published and collect a noble prize. Evidence is empirical in nature. I think you do not know what evidence is.

Can you prove empirically that 'evidence is empirical in nature'?
Scientism is a laughable philosophy

The idea that innate knowledge exists within humans is absolutely contradictory of every thing we know about the physicality of humans. You can philosophize as much as you want, but at the end of the day you will produce no empirical, real-world evidence.

In fact there are many innate truths we know, for example, we know that murder is wrong innately

In fact the claim can be made that the existence of God is known innately by humans, which is why we know that Children are born believing in God: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm

. Yes it does. Evidence is empirical by nature. Please show me real world verifiable results for the existence of God. I do not think you know what constitutes evidence.

1) Prove empirically that you need empirical evidence
2) Temporality of the universe can be easily shown through science, clearly this speaks of a Cause of the Universe, or according to my argument, a Particularising Agent

If you claim that God is inferred and not empirically verified, then I claim that most species known to scientists as part of evolution cannot be empirically verified, we can find bones, but we cannot find the actual animals.

Unnecessary.

What is unecessary is you trying to shoot blanks without having actually read my post

I am open to anything that can change my view, that is based upon empirical evidence. I will have you know that I am a Christian turned Atheist. That can only attest to my open mindedness towards evidence and objectivity.

From my experience atheists are just as closed minded as a lot of believers.

Most people in reality do not follow rationality and evidence, they merely follow their desires (and I pray to God that I am of the former, and I pray to God that you become the former, because in that is the path to success)

Please note, I don't really much care about what you believe in, nor do I have a problem with it. But, it is willfully ignorant to go by fallacious arguments to appeal to your agenda. I do have a problem with that.

Yea I completely agree, which is a good thing I have not appealed to a fallacious argument

 

[Sy123]

the universe is contingent"

I am referring to this part of your posts when I say the argument of contingency.

Very good, now please look at the previous two premises that give the claim 'the universe is contingent' value:

1 - The Universe is temporally originated

2 - Whatever is temporally originated is a possible existent (contingent), that is, it can be conceived to exist, or not exist.

3 - Therefore, the Universe is contingent

More proof you have not even had a look at the argument and ran away with the word 'contingent'

His will? Out of what? Necessity OR contingency? How do you even know this? 0 evidence.

What on earth are you on about, this is the product of someone believing in scientism trying to engage in abstract metaphysics
God's Will is His Attribute that gives Him Life, Ability to Choose between similar things. That is, since the existence and the non-existence of the universe are equally conceivable (since the universe is contingent), then it requires a being with Will to give preponderance to the existence of the Universe over its non-existence.

By definition, murder is wrongful killing and thus calling murder wrong is a logical contradiction.
I am sure you are referring to killing, in which case, no evidence exists to suggests humans innately know murder is killing. Asserted, and dismissed, without evidence.

Yea you're right perhaps the phrase should of been 'killing innocent people'

It is very clear to me that the notion of killing innocent people is abhorrent and this is an innate belief.

However there are many other examples of innate truths that people hold, such as the fact that 1 + 1 = 2, or that P and not P can never both be true. It is inconceivable for these to be false, and we don't even need empirical evidence to verify this

"Known" is a very strong word to use. If you read the study, it goes on to show that the believe in higher power is just an expression of human nature.

They are suggesting a reason why this belief is there, it does not refute my point

To say that children are born BELIEVING in God is ridiculous, even to say that children are born Atheists is as equally ridiculous as assigning a religious system to a newborn. We are simply born with a desire to understand and learn, which we get from what those around us teach. Whether we turn out believers or non believers is merely an expression of what we have been taught, with a predisposition, as part of human nature (as your linked study says) to believe in a higher power. This does not mean that the existence of God is KNOWN by humans. Fallacious. If you really want to follow rationality as you "pray" that I do, then maybe you should stop confining to your own bias, because I am quite sure you know the study does not say what you claimed.

The study does show what I have claimed, namely that children have an innate belief in some sort of Supreme Being. It is certainly not ridiculous to say so since there are many other truths that we know innately.

I honestly don't know what you are trying to achieve here.. If you want your hypothesis, or belief, that God does exist to gain any credibility, you need empirical evidence to back it up. Yes, a feature of the universe is its past, present and future. That does not necessitate the existence of a creator. That is fallacious.

no evidence = no reason to believe in God

The point of the statement which you do not comprehend, is that you are unable to give me empirical evidence for the suggestion that things need empirical evidence to back it up. Clearly then it calls into the question the validity of that statement. In other words your position of scientism is self-refuting.

You keep using the word fallacious, yet you have completely ignored my argument

 

[jdennis]

Does God exist?

There are children in Africa starving to death under a loving God. Despite his hatred of homosexuality God created gay people so they could suffer and burn in hell. Natural disasters, global warming, pollution, war, disease, famine and infant death all occur under the watch of the good God. In order to create the chosen species of man, God had to first create, and then wipe out, over 90% of species that have ever existed on this Earth (which itself was placed right next to a giant ball of fire that will one day expand to destroy the Earth), through a slow and imperfect process of evolution. Despite man being created in God's image, people get sick and die from cancer, AIDS, strokes and millions of other horrible diseases. And we have an appendix - useful for nothing. God also created atheists, Muslims, Hindus etc. Presumably so they could all go to war with each other. God's first attempt at creation didn't work because Eve, being a stupid woman, chose to eat the apple that God placed there so he could tell her not to eat it. God then resorted to destroying his entire creation with a giant flood so that he could start again, entrusting a seemingly random man called Noah with the preservation of every species of life on the planet.

Despite being omnipotent and omniscient, God chose to only reveal himself to some first century peasants who despite being unable to write, were entrusted with the word of God that was later written down in a contradictory and morally disgusting book called the Bible. Despite relentless questioning from atheists for evidence, God chooses to hide away from the Earth he created and watch people who don't have enough faith be judged when they die.

Of course God exists!

* Note: Swap out the references to the Christian God with any other god(s) of your choosing and the argument works the same way.

 

[Sy123]

the argument works the same way.

1. That is not an argument

2. Most of the points you list are entirely irrelevant to whether God exists or not

3. You ignore the plentiful amount of arguments that I have given earlier

Christopher Hitchens might of been a great rhetorician and preacher for the atheist religion, but when you see this argument in writing, it is very hard not to laugh at it.

But given that you are perhaps trying to give an argument from evil, very simply the theist can say:

- God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil

And then the entire case has been closed right there, you shoulder the huge burden of proof in showing that it is impossible for God to have morally sufficient reasons for allowing some evil in this temporary finite world.

 

[iBibah]

Does God exist?

There are children in Africa starving to death under a loving God. Despite his hatred of homosexuality God created gay people so they could suffer and burn in hell. Natural disasters, global warming, pollution, war, disease, famine and infant death all occur under the watch of the good God. In order to create the chosen species of man, God had to first create, and then wipe out, over 90% of species that have ever existed on this Earth (which itself was placed right next to a giant ball of fire that will one day expand to destroy the Earth), through a slow and imperfect process of evolution. Despite man being created in God's image, people get sick and die from cancer, AIDS, strokes and millions of other horrible diseases. And we have an appendix - useful for nothing. God also created atheists, Muslims, Hindus etc. Presumably so they could all go to war with each other. God's first attempt at creation didn't work because Eve, being a stupid woman, chose to eat the apple that God placed there so he could tell her not to eat it. God then resorted to destroying his entire creation with a giant flood so that he could start again, entrusting a seemingly random man called Noah with the preservation of every species of life on the planet.

Despite being omnipotent and omniscient, God chose to only reveal himself to some first century peasants who despite being unable to write, were entrusted with the word of God that was later written down in a contradictory and morally disgusting book called the Bible. Despite relentless questioning from atheists for evidence, God chooses to hide away from the Earth he created and watch people who don't have enough faith be judged when they die.

Of course God exists!

* Note: Swap out the references to the Christian God with any other god(s) of your choosing and the argument works the same way.

oh my

you'd think almost 17000 posts

is enough for posts like this to be extinct

 

[jdennis]

1. That is not an argument

you are perhaps trying to give an argument from evil

Is it an argument, or is it not?

Christopher Hitchens might of been a great rhetorician and preacher for the atheist religion

I didn't mention Christopher Hitchens. And atheism is a religion in the same way that off is a TV channel. If you don't even understand the definition of atheism I'm afraid I can't take you very seriously.

2. Most of the points you list are entirely irrelevant to whether God exists or not

Perhaps they are irrelevant if you take a deistic position. But for those who argue the existence of a specific God (in the case of this argument the Christian God, which I chose as it is the most common belief), what I described shows that reality contradicts many of the claims made about such a God. That God is loving etc but allows all this to happen does not make sense. The Christian must answer this question adequately in order to allay doubts about the existence of the Christian God, and I have not seen this done. Therefore it is reasonable to doubt the existence of such a God.

you shoulder the huge burden of proof in showing that it is impossible for God to have morally sufficient reasons for allowing some evil in this temporary finite world.

Your understanding of burden of proof is strangely warped. You are the one who has just proposed that:

God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil

This to me looks like a claim, and claims require evidence. You are the one that must prove that God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil, not the other way around. And I am not aware of any valid argument that proves this. Therefore, again, it follows that the existence of the Christian God is in doubt.

3. You ignore the plentiful amount of arguments that I have given earlier

I'm sorry but I really don't have time to read all 677 pages of this thread. If you could direct me to the relevant arguments you refer to I may respond to them then.


***

oh my

you'd think almost 17000 posts

is enough for posts like this to be extinct

You'd think over 2000 years would be long enough for a religion to come up with a better answer than this. Then again, maybe not...

 

[Sy123]

Is it an argument, or is it not?

Its not really an argument but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and actually say what you are meaning to say

I didn't mention Christopher Hitchens.

Sounds like something Hitchens would say

And atheism is a religion in the same way that off is a TV channel. If you don't even understand the definition of atheism I'm afraid I can't take you very seriously.

Its called giving out bait and you took it

Perhaps they are irrelevant if you take a deistic position. But for those who argue the existence of a specific God (in the case of this argument the Christian God, which I chose as it is the most common belief), what I described shows that reality contradicts many of the claims made about such a God. That God is loving etc but allows all this to happen does not make sense. The Christian must answer this question adequately in order to allay doubts about the existence of the Christian God, and I have not seen this done. Therefore it is reasonable to doubt the existence of such a God.

No, Christians have answered this for a very long time, the "problem" of evil is very old and in fact is not a problem at all

Your understanding of burden of proof is strangely warped. You are the one who has just proposed that:

I have given the reason already, that God has morally sufficient reasons to allow evil, according to his infinite Divine wisdom, what you must show is that it is impossible for there to be a solution, but you cannot

This to me looks like a claim, and claims require evidence. You are the one that must prove that God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil, not the other way around. And I am not aware of any valid argument that proves this. Therefore, again, it follows that the existence of the Christian God is in doubt.

There are some problems with the Christian God, I as a Muslim will be the first one to say that

But your 'criticisms' are unsophisticated, and are already answered to numerous times in the history of Christian apologetics
If you really think such a 'glaring obvious contradiciton' has been unanswered for nearly 2000 years of sophisticated theology, then you really do underestimate the capacity of religious people

I'm sorry but I really don't have time to read all 677 pages of this thread. If you could direct me to the relevant arguments you refer to I may respond to them then.

Well there was on the page you initially posted on, the argument from particularisation

And a few pages beyond that I gave 6 arguments, 5 of them are perhaps the 'stock' arguments everyone and their dog uses nowadays, however I believe some of them are quite strong

 

[jdennis]

So I've skipped the patronising bit at the beginning, let's start here:

No, Christians have answered this for a very long time, the "problem" of evil is very old and in fact is not a problem at all

I have given the reason already, that God has morally sufficient reasons to allow evil, according to his infinite Divine wisdom, what you must show is that it is impossible for there to be a solution, but you cannot

It seems we have an issue with burden of proof here. What you seem to be doing is saying that God has "infinite Divine wisdom", and unless I can prove otherwise, it must be true. I cannot see this as anything but a logical fallacy. You must prove that God has "infinite Divine wisdom", which despite sounding to me like an elaborate version of "God works in mysterious ways", then would allow you to say that evil is justified. Can you do this? Feel free to link me to any site or video that does to save yourself time. It follows then that you would be able to explain how poverty, disease and famine are forms of God's love. But you cannot simply assert to "know" certain properties of God without providing any evidence for their existence.

But your 'criticisms' are unsophisticated, and are already answered to numerous times in the history of Christian apologetics
If you really think such a 'glaring obvious contradiciton' has been unanswered for nearly 2000 years of sophisticated theology, then you really do underestimate the capacity of religious people

This is not about the capacity of anyone, it is about the strength of the argument. And the fact that 2000 years has passed does not mean anything in relation to the existence of God. To me, this is a variation of an argument from majority/authority, that since Christianity has been around for so long it must be true.


I'll look over some of your other arguments when/if I've got time - I am keen to engage with everything you put forward it's just that I have to find the time. Sadly debating the existence of a higher power will have to come second to writing essays about belonging!

 

[obliviousninja]

Mad life is god

 

[Sy123]

So I've skipped the patronising bit at the beginning, let's start here:It seems we have an issue with burden of proof here. What you seem to be doing is saying that God has "infinite Divine wisdom", and unless I can prove otherwise, it must be true. I cannot see this as anything but a logical fallacy. You must prove that God has "infinite Divine wisdom", which despite sounding to me like an elaborate version of "God works in mysterious ways", then would allow you to say that evil is justified. Can you do this? Feel free to link me to any site or video that does to save yourself time. It follows then that you would be able to explain how poverty, disease and famine are forms of God's love. But you cannot simply assert to "know" certain properties of God without providing any evidence for their existence.

I really just don't understand why atheists are so reluctant to engage in anything

You make the claim that God is evil for allowing evil acts
I say that God may have morally sufficient reasons to allow evil
Now you must prove that my assertion is impossible, since it is perfectly conceivable for God to have morally sufficient reasons to allow some evil in the world

You do not seem to know what a logical fallacy actually is either.

Also I found this as evidence that you are unable to engage in argumentation:

But you cannot simply assert to "know" certain properties of God without providing any evidence for their existence.

We know the attributes of God by the commonly accepted definition of God, including his Knowledge, if one claims that God can be ignorant, then such a person is mentally deranged and is not worth talking to. Just as one would reasonably stop talking to one who thinks black is white and up is down.

So, I do not need to prove anything about the existence of certain attributes of God. After all, you are giving an affirmative proof for the non-existence of God, so you must show how the concept of God (i.e. a being with pre-defined attributes) does not fit well with reality.

This is not about the capacity of anyone, it is about the strength of the argument.

It is about the strength of the argument, but your argument is not strong at all since it presumes many things about the nature of God, i.e. how He 'should' create certain things. When how he 'should' create certain things is entirely arbitrary, and in the end since God is All-Knowing it makes very little sense to try and forward an argument on the basis that one can know how things 'should' truly be.

And the fact that 2000 years has passed does not mean anything in relation to the existence of God. To me, this is a variation of an argument from majority/authority that since Christianity has been around for so long it must be true

I do not claim this

 

[lilcutetricker]

My opinion doesn't directly correlate to the question because I have yet to read any of the comments made about the existence of God; half of the reason because i don't want to and the other half is that it's 3am and i can barely keep my eyes open.

Keep in mind, I am not a caucasian raised with Christian views nor Buddhist views and that all my beliefs up to this point were voluntarily. I am of Vietnamese background and believe in the existence of a number of deity and gods. In my opinion; the severe thinking of faith in God, that in his divine wisdom and major plan; he could assist every human being to a point where we couldn't have evolved till this point is ignorant. Conversely, having little faith in a God to a point where you'd doubt the chance of a God existing is equally stupid because he created other races, religions, etc.

There should be a balance in the amount of faith you have in life, without faith; ambitions wouldn't exist. That's what makes us a unique species, that without seeing physical proof; we are able to believe that we can achieve things that were normally physically impossible: e.g. space travel. Believing that a Man in a tale is always looking over me sometimes gives me the extra push I need to continue with whatever my goal is and really does make my life hella lot optimistic. Without faith in something we are nothing more than animals working without a passion.

I know a lot of you on both sides of this discussion would disagree but that's just how I perceive the existence of God, as well as a number of other religious figures.

 

[jdennis]

Believing that a Man in a tale is always looking over me sometimes gives me the extra push I need to continue with whatever my goal is and really does make my life hella lot optimistic. Without faith in something we are nothing more than animals working without a passion.

Firstly I think it's great that your beliefs give you motivation and happiness. I don't mind at all what you believe, and you're free to believe whatever you like, but it's not really the point of the thread.
Just because something makes us feel good or gives us motivation does not mean it is true. For example, I could simply believe that humanity will one day deal with the problem of climate change. This might make me worry about it less but it's got nothing to do with whether this would actually happen.

 

[jdennis]

You make the claim that God is evil for allowing evil acts

I did not make this claim. What I said was that the attributes given to God in the Bible (and other Holy Books) of love and kindness, contradict the reality of the world we live in. This is not a claim, it's simply an observation of a contradiction in the argument for a specific God.

I say that God may have morally sufficient reasons to allow evil
Now you must prove that my assertion is impossible, since it is perfectly conceivable for God to have morally sufficient reasons to allow some evil in the world

I've been through this already but I'll say it again. You are the one making the claim. You have to prove that God has "morally sufficient reasons".

We know the attributes of God by the commonly accepted definition of God, including his Knowledge

Once again, if you say God has divine "knowledge" you have to prove it, not just state that it's true. You cannot simply "define" God as being whatever you want him to be, in the same way that I cannot define the Flying Spaghetti Monster as being real and having "divine knowledge".

So, I do not need to prove anything about the existence of certain attributes of God.

If you claim something exists, in this case an "attribute", you have to prove it!

After all, you are giving an affirmative proof for the non-existence of God, so you must show how the concept of God (i.e. a being with pre-defined attributes) does not fit well with reality.

I am not giving a proof for the non-existence of God. I am pointing out that if we accept God as the Bible defines him, as loving etc, that reality does not match this description - unless you dispute that God is not as he is described in the Bible. I am pointing out a flaw in the argument for God, not proposing an argument for the his non-existence. There is a difference here.

When how he 'should' create certain things is entirely arbitrary, and in the end since God is All-Knowing it makes very little sense to try and forward an argument on the basis that one can know how things 'should' truly be.

Once again you've simply stated that God is "all-knowing" without providing any reason why.

 

[lilcutetricker]

Firstly I think it's great that your beliefs give you motivation and happiness. I don't mind at all what you believe, and you're free to believe whatever you like, but it's not really the point of the thread.
Just because something makes us feel good or gives us motivation does not mean it is true. For example, I could simply believe that humanity will one day deal with the problem of climate change. This might make me worry about it less but it's got nothing to do with whether this would actually happen.

My point is that I believe in the existence of God and that there is someone with a higher power than us. I did state that my opinion didnt correlate with the question but i don't have complete trust that there is a God, rather like to believe hes there but is skeptical of his divine power at times.

 

[Sy123]

I am trying to be patient

I did not make this claim. What I said was that the attributes given to God in the Bible (and other Holy Books) of love and kindness, contradict the reality of the world we live in. This is not a claim, it's simply an observation of a contradiction in the argument for a specific God.

Then you are forwarding an argument based on contradiction for the non-existence of God based on the evil in the world contradicting the 'Goodness' of God in scripture.

Firstly,

- On what basis do you have to say that what God commanded and allowed is evil? If you say it is objective, you must provide proof. If you say it is subjective, I say that subjectivity does not apply to God, since God is above all humanely constructed morals.

- God may have morally sufficient reasons to allow evil since it is perfectly conceivable for there to be morally sufficient reasons

I've been through this already but I'll say it again. You are the one making the claim. You have to prove that God has "morally sufficient reasons".

I already said that it is perfectly conceivable and possible for God to have morally sufficient reasons to allow evil

Just like its conceivable for myself to be late to a meeting in order to teach someone how to read, I have morally sufficient reasons to allow for some wrong.
Of course God is just a infinity above that, with his Will, and his power to create heaven and hell, He, as being all-Powerful and being all-Knowing (which is part of the definition of God), can have a morally justified reason to do such.

Again, you still need to show that what God did was 'wrong', objectively.

Once again, if you say God has divine "knowledge" you have to prove it, not just state that it's true. You cannot simply "define" God as being whatever you want him to be, in the same way that I cannot define the Flying Spaghetti Monster as being real and having "divine knowledge".

By definition, God is all-Knowing, this is based on the commonly accepted definition of God, and is part of God's attributes based in the Bible and pretty much every other scripture. So if you want to prove that God does not exist, you must deal with the definition at hand and show a contradiction. You must give a definition of a Flying Spaghetti Monster, if being all-Knowing is part of its attributes, so be it. It just makes the concept completely contradictory and incoherent.

If you claim something exists, in this case an "attribute", you have to prove it!

Of course, if I want to prove that God exists, I need to prove that this attribute is a part of the being that I want to show exists.

But this is a refutation against a claim of inconsistency in the attributes of God, so you must deal with the definition of God, in order to prove God does not exist. Just like I have to deal with what it means to be a married bachelor in order to prove that one of those does not exist.

I am not giving a proof for the non-existence of God. I am pointing out that if we accept God as the Bible defines him, as loving etc, that reality does not match this description - unless you dispute that God is not as he is described in the Bible. I am pointing out a flaw in the argument for God, not proposing an argument for the his non-existence. There is a difference here.

Once again you've simply stated that God is "all-knowing" without providing any reason why.

See above

------------

Since you are dealing with the Christian conception of God, let me help you out, since you evidently do not know how to engage in dialectics.

Here is a short proof I extracted from Muslim sources (that I modified a little bit), against the logical validity of the Trinity. I will write an article soon expounding upon each premise.

1. God as a Trinity consists of 3 Hypostatic unions, the number of hypostatic unions is not necessarily 3, it could be a 4, 5, or 'n'-unit Godhead.

2. Therefore the number of Hypostatic unions is an accidental property

3. Therefore God has an accidental property, namely the 3 Hypostatic unions

4. All accidental properties are determined by a particularizing agent, to give preponderance to that particular property over others (i.e. to give preponderance to the number 3)

5. Thus attributes of God are particularized

6. This entails that there is a being greater than the Maximally Great God, yielding a violation of the law of non-contradiction

7. Therefore, the conception of multiple hypostatic unions is inconceivable

8. Therefore, the Trinity is inconceivable

-----------
-----------

Here is what we know now as the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

2. The universe began to exist

3. Therefore the universe has a cause

Defenses (will expand if people wish to refute it)

Defense 1: Self-evident
Defense 2.1: Big-Bang Theory, BGV Theorem

Defense 2.2: The impossibility of an infinite regress of past events

Defense 2.3: The absurdity of an actual infinite

 

[jdennis]

you evidently do not know how to engage in dialectics

If I'm such a waste of your time I wonder why you keep replying.

Perhaps in the morning I'll think about your latest response more fully.

For now, let me say that we can have this debate without the personal attacks, all you're doing is making yourself look defensive through trying to portray me as the idiot who dares to stand up to your fundamentally flawed arguments.

 

[Sy123]

If I'm such a waste of your time I wonder why you keep replying.

So you and other people understand that the arguments you presented are garbage

Perhaps in the morning I'll think about your latest response more fully.

For now, let me say that we can have this debate without the personal attacks, all you're doing is making yourself look defensive through trying to portray me as the idiot who dares to stand up to your fundamentally flawed arguments.

If you want me to tone down the rhetoric, I can.

The thing is, you are not actually responding to anything and simply repeating your statements (prove that God is all-Knowing!) and ignoring my arguments for my statements