Two arguments against God I simply can't refute

[RyanS]

Apologia,



Brilliant logic: The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!



Again, brilliant logic: Use unsupported, undemonstrated premises from a book that is riddled with proven errors, mistakes and illogic, go on to develop arguments based on those unsupported premises, then parade around and insult people for not accepting your "metaphysics."

Simply astounding.



So let me see if I have got this right: God does not change. Why? Well, because the Bible says so! Therefore he is not material.

Do you notice any possible flaws in this type of reasoning?

Cheers,

Jimbo

Have you ever heard of the red herring fallacy Jimbo? http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html

To put it in terms you can understand:

1. The concept of one of God's attributes is under discussion.
2. The question of God's existence is introduced under the guise of being relevant to the concept of one of God's attributes (when the question of God's existence is actually not relevant to the concept of one of God's attributes).
3. The concept of one of God's attributes is abandoned.

Think of it this way.

Two biologists are having a discussion about whether evolution occurred through gradualism or punctuated equilibrium. All of a sudden, a creationist walks in, sees the discussion, and declares "Evolution is not true!" This is a red herring. It is irrelevant to the discussion. The biologists are discussing that IF evolution occurred, THEN it occurred either through gradualism or punctuated equilibrium. The concept of creationism is irrelevant to the discussion.

Here's another:

Al Gore and a scientist are discussing global warming, it's impact on society, how severe it is, etc. All of a sudden, Lee Raymond jumps out and declares "There is no global warming!" This is a red herring. It is irrelevant to the discussion. Al Gore and the scientist are discussing that IF global warming is occurring, THEN it is either very severe or moderately severe. The existence of global warming is irrelevant to the discussion.

Same thing with you:

ApologiaPhoenix and fm93 are discussing an attribute of God with seanD. All of a sudden, you barge in and declare "God doesn't exist!" This is a red herring! It is irrelevant to the discussion! ApologiaPhoenix and fm93 are discussing with seanD that IF God exists, THEN this is one of his attributes! The existence of God is irrelevant to the discussion!

Get it?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Have you ever heard of the red herring fallacy Jimbo? http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html

To put it in terms you can understand:

1. The concept of one of God's attributes is under discussion.
2. The question of God's existence is introduced under the guise of being relevant to the concept of one of God's attributes (when the question of God's existence is actually not relevant to the concept of one of God's attributes).
3. The concept of one of God's attributes is abandoned.

Think of it this way.

Two biologists are having a discussion about whether evolution occurred through gradualism or punctuated equilibrium. All of a sudden, a creationist walks in, sees the discussion, and declares "Evolution is not true!" This is a red herring. It is irrelevant to the discussion. The biologists are discussing that IF evolution occurred, THEN it occurred either through gradualism or punctuated equilibrium. The concept of creationism is irrelevant to the discussion.

Here's another:

Al Gore and a scientist are discussing global warming, it's impact on society, how severe it is, etc. All of a sudden, Lee Raymond jumps out and declares "There is no global warming!" This is a red herring. It is irrelevant to the discussion. Al Gore and the scientist are discussing that IF global warming is occurring, THEN it is either very severe or moderately severe. The existence of global warming is irrelevant to the discussion.

Same thing with you:

ApologiaPhoenix and fm93 are discussing an attribute of God with seanD. All of a sudden, you barge in and declare "God doesn't exist!" This is a red herring! It is irrelevant to the discussion! ApologiaPhoenix and fm93 are discussing with seanD that IF God exists, THEN this is one of his attributes! The existence of God is irrelevant to the discussion!

Get it?

Thanks Ryan. You'll soon learn however that dialoguing with Jimbo is a wasted effort. I suggest going to the mad libs thread in Tektonics to see how I tried it with him and he went on ranting about things he does not understand.

Jimbo's been dong this same song and dance ever since I came here. He has not changed one bit in his level of argumentation.

[jimbo]

Apologia,

So you agree that the premises which underlie your arguments for the Christian god's qualities are not established facts, correct?

Jimbo

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Apologia,

So you agree that the premises which underlie your arguments for the Christian god's qualities are not established facts, correct?

Jimbo

Jimbo. Time to get over your APOCD. I can refer you to some good counselors when you're ready.

[Joveia]

A lot of the arguments for divine hiddeness are answered by free will. But that can only go so far in my opinion. The concept of humans requiring proof should be a no-brainer to an omniscient God. Surely, He should provide some sort of proof. And no, I'm not arguing that God should physically appear to us or carve "Christianity is True" in the moon or anything like that. I'm talking about an internal awareness that God exists. Something that humans instinctively "know". Such a concept would not remove free will since there are many things humans instinctively "know", such as the fact that we need air to live or food to eat. It doesn't remove the fact that we can hold our breath or starve ourselves to death. But we cannot do so without a consequence, namely that of dying. Providing the knowledge that the Christian God exists and that to have a relationship with Him would get us to heaven would remove all doubt. However, it would not remove free will. We can choose to reject God but there is a consequence, namely going to hell. No apologetic I have seen has answered this question.

The option you're pondering seems to be a situation where we all reject/don't reject God 'face to face', as opposed to rejecting God from more of a distance, which is what happens now.

The Christian view seems to be that if God made everyone accept/reject Him 'face to face', in a completely upfront way, that it would not save as many people as the 'distant approach'.

Does this seem psychologically plausible/realistic?

I think it is psychologically realistic if we're all in a 'prodigal son' situation. That is, if the prodigal son was constantly being nagged by the father to come back to him, or wasn't allowed to try things out on his own, then he would be less likely to accept the authority of the father than if he got to experience life doing things his own way.

And we are in a prodigal son situation. I think that hell is actually living forever without God, and being able to do your own thing for an eternity (which God accurately warns us will become as painful as fire). And, secondly, God has no way of giving a real and lasting happiness to someone apart from that person becoming perfect (through the cross).

So if 'divine hiddenness' would help in the 'prodigal son' situation of the gospels (with the guy's father letting him run off and do his own thing), and our situation is a 'prodigal son situation', then divine hiddenness should be also the better option for God to use in this world.

And there is the problem of gratuitous suffering. Free will also can solve the PoE to an extent, but it can only go so far. But I'll ignore the problem of evil or suffering for now. I specifically want to focus on gratuitous suffering. It seems that the absolute only way to argue against gratuitous suffering is: 1. Deny that gratuitous suffering actually exists. 2. Deny that evil itself actually exists. 3. Take away one of God's "omni-" attributes (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent).

This is hard to deal with. I just wanted to throw out an approach that I've found helpful in dealing with suffering, which is a bit speculative.

I think that people are a little bit like someone standing with one foot in the sea, and one foot on land, in the sense that we seem to have a physical and mental component, which are very different. For example, the physical is spatially located and spread out, but the mental is not spatially located and is an indivisible unity.

We normally think that events happen purely through the physical realm. For example, the only way I can be in pain is if, in the physical realm, something happens like I trip up.

But I think it's possible events, in particular bad events, can happen purely through the mental realm.

I conjecture that the mental realm could have laws like laws in the physical realm. And since we're made in God's image, it's possible that one of these laws is that to be truly happy a mind has to be connected to God in the mental realm. So if we sin, then our mind is disconnected from God in the mental realm, and perhaps some degree of suffering is inevitable. Even God can't stop it apart from by solving the sin problem.

This might create a level of apparently 'gratuitous' suffering that is, in reality, not gratuitous, but is an unavoidable result of this 'system'.

[robertb]

Then don't agree with what you don't understand.

Seems more likely, based on your comments, that it is you that does not understand, AP.

No. Something not composed is something not composed. But it is still something so the question to ask is, "What is it?" God is pure being without limitations. He is pure actuality. That is the direct opposite of non-existence.

Sanata is pure actuality and exists in my imagination.

Your failure was to assume that since has no parts then he's not composed of things so he must be composed of nothing. No. He is just not composed. He is purely actual. I obviously do not believe God is composed of nothing seeing as I don't believe he's composed period. I also don't hold to the same definition of nothing you do. Nothing is simply non-existence.

Composed of nothing = not composed.

Santa is composed of nothing, he is not composed, yet he exists in my imagination.

No. God's being is entirely actual. You're still failing at the idea of composition. To say he's not composed is not to say he's nothing. In fact, if he's not composed, he cannot be composed of nothing, whatever that would mean. (Do you actually even think before you type?)

Again, composed of nothing can mean not composed and this has nothing to do with existence, unless you wish to specify literal versus conceptual. If literal, then of course not composed would mean not existing, but conceptually, an essence can exist without being composed., as all imaginary essences, in fact, do.

No. Your logic is terrible. Logic that says "Not composed" means "Composed of nothing" is atrocious.

I can say that Santa is not composed, while saying that Santa is composed of nothing. There is no logical contradiction here, AP.

False. Doing implies change if doing is temporal. God is not changing in that he is eternally doing all things.

Doing is only temporal, AP. Eternally doing, in the non-temporal sense you wish to imply is simply incoherent.

I'd tell you to take back your books on logic, but it's apparent you don't have any unless they're just paperweights.

Perhaps, though it seems that the logic books you use, actually would be better used as paperweights.

[Mountain Man]

The paper is legitimate...

A legitimate straw man perhaps, or at least the portion you quoted was for reasons that I have already explained and which you have failed address.

No difference, same thing. Create evil or created the potential of evil.

Sorry, dipsy doodle, but potential =/= actual. Every student has the potential to receive a passing grade in class, but whether or not they actually receive a passing grade is a direct result of the amount of effort they put into their studies. It's about choice. Similarly, when God created man with free will, he created in the man the potential to choose evil, but it's man's decision whether or not to produce actual evil. You can't blame that on God anymore than you could blame the manufacturer of your automobile for an accident that resulted when you decided to run a red light.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Seems more likely, based on your comments, that it is you that does not understand, AP.

No. It's not at all likely.

Sanata is pure actuality and exists in my imagination.

If something is pure actuality, it cannot exist only in the imagination. Pure actuality is that which is and that which is is not that which is only a concept.

Composed of nothing = not composed.

False. The first states that something is composed. The second states that something is not composed.

Santa is composed of nothing, he is not composed, yet he exists in my imagination.

You really think this touches the argument?

Again, composed of nothing can mean not composed and this has nothing to do with existence, unless you wish to specify literal versus conceptual. If literal, then of course not composed would mean not existing, but conceptually, an essence can exist without being composed., as all imaginary essences, in fact, do.

Um. Duh. Essences do not contain parts. The difference is that all other existing things have essence + existence. Angels are the simplest form of this. Each angel is his essence but each angel's existence is derived from another. When I say something is not composed, I mean just that. It is not composed. It does not have parts. However, for it to be an it, it must be something.

I can say that Santa is not composed, while saying that Santa is composed of nothing. There is no logical contradiction here, AP.

Yes there is. God is not composed of parts (existence + essence) and so he cannot be composed of nothing since that would involve a composition. He instead being itself.

Doing is only temporal, AP. Eternally doing, in the non-temporal sense you wish to imply is simply incoherent.

It's hard to understand but not coherent. Our doing goes from doing one thing to another. God's doing has him doing all things at once.

Perhaps, though it seems that the logic books you use, actually would be better used as paperweights.

No. Definitely in your case. I have never seen someone do such a hideous job of understanding divine simplicity.

[robertb]

If something is pure actuality, it cannot exist only in the imagination. Pure actuality is that which is and that which is is not that which is only a concept.

Santa is pure actuality. Prove that he is not...

False. The first states that something is composed. The second states that something is not composed.

The first states something is composed of nothing, so it is not composed, if it is something.

You really think this touches the argument?

Yes.

Um. Duh. Essences do not contain parts. The difference is that all other existing things have essence + existence. Angels are the simplest form of this. Each angel is his essence but each angel's existence is derived from another. When I say something is not composed, I mean just that. It is not composed. It does not have parts. However, for it to be an it, it must be something.

Yup and that something is imaginary. Exactly what I said.

Yes there is. God is not composed of parts (existence + essence) and so he cannot be composed of nothing since that would involve a composition. He instead being itself.

And, as such, God has the characteristics of an imaginary character.

It's hard to understand but not coherent. Our doing goes from doing one thing to another. God's doing has him doing all things at once.

Doing requires temporality. This is why your position is incoherent.

No. Definitely in your case. I have never seen someone do such a hideous job of understanding divine simplicity.

I understand it just fine. The problem is that you don't like the consequences of your own definition.

[Adrift]

Santa is pure actuality. Prove that he is not...

It doesn't sound like you know what "actuality" is.

The state or fact of being actual; reality

Compare with entelechy:

the state of something that is fully realized; actuality as opposed to potentiality

The first states something is composed of nothing, so it is not composed, if it is something.

I think you need to reread what AP wrote in previous posts. You're not getting this, and I'm thinking you may be the only one.

And, as such, God has the characteristics of an imaginary character.

This doesn't follow.

I understand it just fine.

I think its obvious to most readers here that you don't. Maybe AP can break it down so that you can, I don't know...

The problem is that you don't like the consequences of your own definition.

[robertb]

It doesn't sound like you know what "actuality" is.

The state or fact of being actual; reality

Compare with entelechy:

the state of something that is fully realized; actuality as opposed to potentiality

You missed it. I am quite aware of what the word actuality means. My response was specifically directed towards AP's assertion that God was actuality.

I think you need to reread what AP wrote in previous posts. You're not getting this, and I'm thinking you may be the only one.

Perhaps you should reread what I wrote.

This doesn't follow.

On the contrary, it really does follow.

I think its obvious to most readers here that you don't. Maybe AP can break it down so that you can, I don't know...

Umm, no. What is obvious is that I do not accept AP's definition of God as actually describing something that exists beyond his conception.

yes.

[Adrift]

You missed it. I am quite aware of what the word actuality means. My response was specifically directed towards AP's assertion that God was actuality.

AP's assertions are perfectly sound... yours, not so much.

Perhaps you should reread what I wrote.

I've reread both sides of the debate several times over. You're clearly not getting it, and the sad thing is, you appear to be too stubborn to even consider that you may have it wrong.

On the contrary, it really does follow.

You saying so doesn't make it so.

Umm, no. What is obvious is that I do not accept AP's definition of God as actually describing something that exists beyond his conception.

What's obvious is that you think you understand AP's argument, and that you don't.

yes.

You're making yourself look foolish.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Robert is confusing conceptual actuality with extra-mental actuality. I grant that, say, what I'm thinking about has actuality possibly only in my mind, but I could say that, for instance, Clark Kent has extra-mental actuality, but only in the sense that he's a piece of popular fiction much like an artwork.

I am saying God however has ontological actuality. That is how I am describing him. Robert's just wanting to say "He doesn't exist." Well that doesn't interact with my argument at all.

[Adrift]

Robert's just wanting to say "He doesn't exist." Well that doesn't interact with my argument at all.

Looks like the only way he can cope with the argument is not to interact with it at all. Very closed minded if you ask me.

[robertb]

Robert is confusing conceptual actuality with extra-mental actuality. I grant that, say, what I'm thinking about has actuality possibly only in my mind, but I could say that, for instance, Clark Kent has extra-mental actuality, but only in the sense that he's a piece of popular fiction much like an artwork.

I am saying God however has ontological actuality. That is how I am describing him. Robert's just wanting to say "He doesn't exist." Well that doesn't interact with my argument at all.

I know you are saying it, AP. I am simply not accepting it as coherent, thus my assertion that Santa is actuality.

To say something exists, actually, there are basically two possibilities.

Something exists measurably within time and space, or something exists conceptually.

I do make one exception and that is for the logical absolutes, which I believe necessarily exist. You could call them transcendent, I suppose.

So I would accept that, for a logical absolute, it's essence is it's existence.

However, to apply this to God is simply an assertion and unlike the logical absolutes, such an assertion can not be shown to be necessarily true.

If you believe that you can prove that the statement God is purely actuallity is be necessarily true, I am interested in your argument.