Atheism? Yay or Nay.

by **Romania Mare1** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:56 am

Hmmm I think through his omniscience, it's more of He knows which choices He can make, as opposed to will make because of the choice factor. And even if it is "will" make, why can't he change his future choices?
Sorry, I just really don't see the clash.

OMNISCIENCE = KNOWS EVERYTHING
And that means HE KNOWS WHAT HE WILL DO,not only his options BUT WHAT HE WILL CHOSE.So when i ask if he can change the future WHICH HE ALREADY KNOWS i ask if he can change the way he KNOWS things will be.If he does that then he DIDN'T KNOW IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
He can't have both attributes

(it's just illogical )

by **Ageleia** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:58 am

Samuraikoku wrote:
Leepaidamba wrote:If that's the case God is as much omniscient as you are an atheist. God knows almost everything but not one thing: what he himself will d; you do not believe in most gods, just one: God/Yahweh/Jehovah/The Trinity.

Besides, I explained it already.

Not to mention, if he's omniscient, he knew what was going to happen with Adam and Eve. He knew Satan would tempt Eve, and he knew she would eat the Forbidden Fruit, and he kicked them out of Eden anyway. And if truly omniscient, then God is evil.

You do have a point.
...Or did God also start out imperfectly and started learning from his...mistakes?

by **Samuraikoku** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:00 am

Ageleia wrote:
Samuraikoku wrote:
Not to mention, if he's omniscient, he knew what was going to happen with Adam and Eve. He knew Satan would tempt Eve, and he knew she would eat the Forbidden Fruit, and he kicked them out of Eden anyway. And if truly omniscient, then God is evil.

You do have a point.
...Or did God also start out imperfectly and started learning from his...mistakes?

On top of that I know I'm going to get the "free will" thingy argument in counter of that. Which makes God's given "free will" a form of victim blaming for his own evil.

by **Furious Grandmothers** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:00 am

Soxastan wrote:I don't mind people practicing religion, what I do hate is when people try to force it onto others (IE Crusades, Counter-Reformation, Inquisition). People live their own ways and we should respect that. However when science comes along and gives evidence saying stuff like,"Evolution is true and here is the evidence" or "The solar system is Heliocentric and here is the evidence" we should adopt these ideals because there is evidence (I know that kind of sounds hypocritical but that is what we all are at one point or another). But when there are things we cannot explain such as, life after death, then by all means use religion. I am Agnostic in this sense: that there is Karma, there is Reincarnation, there might be a deity of some sort, they do not control the Earth directly (See Deism).

TL; DR Why don't we just behave? That is what religion is all about.

Don't worry, it is not hypocritical because at least, evidence is reliable.

Also, if there are things we cannot explain, it is better to leave no explanation for it rather than come up with a near-definitely false explanation, which is what religion does.

by **Leepaidamba** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:02 am

Ageleia wrote:
Samuraikoku wrote:
Not to mention, if he's omniscient, he knew what was going to happen with Adam and Eve. He knew Satan would tempt Eve, and he knew she would eat the Forbidden Fruit, and he kicked them out of Eden anyway. And if truly omniscient, then God is evil.

You do have a point.
...Or did God also start out imperfectly and started learning from his...mistakes?

That would of course also be possible, that God's knowledge grew over time eventually encompassing all knowledge. Of course, at the moment he becomes omniscient, he must lose his omnipotence to remain omniscient and if he gains omnipotence, he must lose his omniscience to remain omnipotent.

by **Samuraikoku** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:08 am

Leepaidamba wrote:
Ageleia wrote:
You do have a point.
...Or did God also start out imperfectly and started learning from his...mistakes?

That would of course also be possible, that God's knowledge grew over time eventually encompassing all knowledge. Of course, at the moment he becomes omniscient, he must lose his omnipotence to remain omniscient and if he gains omnipotence, he must lose his omniscience to remain omnipotent.

Then if God started out imperfectly, he is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. If he was perfect and let all of this happen, he is evil. Therefore, a God that is almighty, omniscient, and all-benevolent, isn't possible. In conclusion, God doesn't exist.

Xanatos Gambit number 2.

Damn, let's call this "The Samurai Challenge of the Xanatos Gambits that disprove God"!

by **Leepaidamba** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:18 am

Samuraikoku wrote:
Leepaidamba wrote:That would of course also be possible, that God's knowledge grew over time eventually encompassing all knowledge. Of course, at the moment he becomes omniscient, he must lose his omnipotence to remain omniscient and if he gains omnipotence, he must lose his omniscience to remain omnipotent.

Then if God started out imperfectly, he is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. If he was perfect and let all of this happen, he is evil. Therefore, a God that is almighty, omniscient, and all-benevolent, isn't possible. In conclusion, God doesn't exist.

Xanatos Gambit number 2.

Damn, let's call this "The Samurai Challenge of the Xanatos Gambits that disprove God"!

"Devil's advocate": Although God could then not be omnipotent ever, it is still possible that he was and always has been omni-benevolent and became omniscient.

by **Ageleia** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:32 am

Leepaidamba wrote:
Samuraikoku wrote:
Then if God started out imperfectly, he is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. If he was perfect and let all of this happen, he is evil. Therefore, a God that is almighty, omniscient, and all-benevolent, isn't possible. In conclusion, God doesn't exist.

Xanatos Gambit number 2.

Damn, let's call this "The Samurai Challenge of the Xanatos Gambits that disprove God"!

"Devil's advocate": Although God could then not be omnipotent ever, it is still possible that he was and always has been omni-benevolent and became omniscient.

Oh dear, are you people STILL defining God?

by **Norstal** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:34 am

Ageleia wrote:
Leepaidamba wrote:"Devil's advocate": Although God could then not be omnipotent ever, it is still possible that he was and always has been omni-benevolent and became omniscient.

Oh dear, are you people STILL defining God?

More like, proving the concept of god wrong.

by **The Daughters of Semiramis** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:43 am

Norstal wrote:
Ageleia wrote:
Oh dear, are you people STILL defining God?

More like, proving the concept of god wrong.

lol I just looked up omniscient in wikipedia and I found out that my idea of omniscient wasn't really omniscient ==" sorry
so it's possible that God isn't omniscient.
Other than that, so what?

by **Romania Mare1** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:45 am

lol I just looked up omniscient in wikipedia and I found out that my idea of omniscient wasn't really omniscient ==" sorry
so it's possible that God isn't omniscient.
Other than that, so what?

Omnipotence is bull too

After i finish with omnipotence i will go for the benevolence (this one i truly enjoy )
So can God create a rock he cannot lift ?
And without omniscience how can God be sure he is omnipotent ? INDEED,without that attribute he can guess at his very best

How am i doin till now ?

by **The Daughters of Semiramis** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:46 am

Samuraikoku wrote:
Leepaidamba wrote:That would of course also be possible, that God's knowledge grew over time eventually encompassing all knowledge. Of course, at the moment he becomes omniscient, he must lose his omnipotence to remain omniscient and if he gains omnipotence, he must lose his omniscience to remain omnipotent.

If he was perfect and let all of this happen, he is evil.

Why would God be evil if he let things happen?

by **The Daughters of Semiramis** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:52 am

Romania Mare1 wrote:Omnipotence is bull too
After i finish with omnipotence i will go for the benevolence (this one i truly enjoy )
So can God create a rock he cannot lift ?

Can a rooster lay an egg? God created the world - including the natural laws which govern them.

And without omniscience how can God be sure he is omnipotent ? INDEED,without that attribute he can guess at his very best
How am i doin till now ?

Why would he need omniscience to know he is omnipotent?
You're doing quite nicely and I think this debate is interesting

by **Ageleia** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:52 am

Norstal wrote:
Ageleia wrote:
Oh dear, are you people STILL defining God?

More like, proving the concept of god wrong.

...concept of god.
Some greater being must exist, but if that is not God, what is it?

by **The Daughters of Semiramis** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:53 am

Ageleia wrote:
Norstal wrote:More like, proving the concept of god wrong.

...concept of god.
Some greater being must exist, but if that is not God, what is it?

You tell me - I still think God exists.

by **Furious Grandmothers** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:57 am

Ageleia wrote:
Norstal wrote:More like, proving the concept of god wrong.

...concept of god.
Some greater being must exist, but if that is not God, what is it?

Why must some greater being exist?

Ah, another reason why being an ignostic is awesome. Knowing that it is absurd that people think they know what the concept of God means, you just sit back and watch the fight over nothing, really.

by **Furious Grandmothers** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:58 am

The Daughters of Semiramis wrote:
Ageleia wrote:
...concept of god.
Some greater being must exist, but if that is not God, what is it?

You tell me - I still think God exists.

1) What is your definition of God?
2) 100% sure He exists?

EDIT: Oops, I forgot, were you the one who told me you believed purely on faith, and with no logical basis for your belief?

by **Ageleia** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:00 am

Furious Grandmothers wrote:
Ageleia wrote:
...concept of god.
Some greater being must exist, but if that is not God, what is it?

Why must some greater being exist?

Ah, another reason why being an ignostic is awesome. Knowing that it is absurd that people think they know what the concept of God means, you just sit back and watch the fight over nothing, really.

Tbh, I don't know.
I still don't get this entire concept of God thing...omniscient, omnipotent, and not omnibelovent?
Does anything really interesting happens if this is proved? :blink:

by **Leepaidamba** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:12 am

Ageleia wrote:...omniscient, omnipotent, and not omnibelovent?

Three of the "omni's" most people attribute to their definition of God, being the only god they think exists. "Potent" means capable, "scient" means knowing and "omni" simply means all.
Another "omni" is omnipresent. I don't know any others from the top of my head though, maybe because they don't exist or because I'm not omniscient.

by **The Daughters of Semiramis** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:15 am

Furious Grandmothers wrote:
The Daughters of Semiramis wrote:
You tell me - I still think God exists.

1) What is your definition of God?
2) 100% sure He exists?

1) Learning from my past mistake, hell I'm not going to define God.
2) 90% sure. Sometimes I get depressed or doubtful. But right now, even THINKING God doesn't exist feels wrong to me

by **Leepaidamba** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:15 am

The Daughters of Semiramis wrote:so it's possible that God isn't omniscient.

You didn't think that he was in the first place, so why would you think he would be? Do you just want to hold on to the word "omniscient"?

by **The Daughters of Semiramis** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:16 am

Leepaidamba wrote:
Ageleia wrote:...omniscient, omnipotent, and not omnibelovent?

Three of the "omni's" most people attribute to their definition of God, being the only god they think exists. "Potent" means capable, "scient" means knowing and "omni" simply means all.
Another "omni" is omnipresent. I don't know any others from the top of my head though, maybe because they don't exist or because I'm not omniscient.

The point I find most interesting is...
What happens if you prove me wrong?

by **Ageleia** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:16 am

Leepaidamba wrote:
Ageleia wrote:...omniscient, omnipotent, and not omnibelovent?

Three of the "omni's" most people attribute to their definition of God, being the only god they think exists. "Potent" means capable, "scient" means knowing and "omni" simply means all.
Another "omni" is omnipresent. I don't know any others from the top of my head though, maybe because they don't exist or because I'm not omniscient.

I know what you mean, but-
So what if you all agree with a certain definition/concept? o.O

by **Furious Grandmothers** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:18 am

Leepaidamba wrote:
Ageleia wrote:...omniscient, omnipotent, and not omnibelovent?

Three of the "omni's" most people attribute to their definition of God, being the only god they think exists. "Potent" means capable, "scient" means knowing and "omni" simply means all.
Another "omni" is omnipresent. I don't know any others from the top of my head though, maybe because they don't exist or because I'm not omniscient.

The problem with organized religion is claiming to know what God is like (omnipotent/omniscient/omnivorous/omnietc.) when actually you know jack about Him, given that such a mathematically improbable being actually exists.

by **Leepaidamba** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:18 am

The Daughters of Semiramis wrote:2) 90% sure. Sometimes I get depressed or doubtful. But right now, even THINKING God doesn't exist feels wrong to me

Why that? A forgiving god wouldn't mind some scepticism, or would he?

Atheism? Yay or Nay.

Theist or atheist?

Who is online