Does the (Christian) God Exist?

[With Teeth]

What a nonsense.

I like that phrase. I'm going to use it now.

There's no need for a 'god' to be 'non-contingent'. That's a property you've decided MUST be attributed, arbitrarily and circularly.

What a nonsense!

I didn't give it that property anymore than I gave bachelors the property of being unmarried.

But seriously, you should read my last post so we can hug now.

[Conscentia]

[...] Perhaps the problem is that I don't know what you mean by 'cliche New-Atheist comments'. I'm not sure who these 'New Atheists' are, or how one attributes their clichés.

Perhaps?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

[Grave_n_idle]

The argument ISN'T that the non-existence of the god eater proves the non-existence of the god.... or even vice-versa. The argument is that the same logic that DISMISSES the god-eater, can dismiss the god.

Ok, I think I know what happened here. Conscentia's original argument was that the god-eater argument proves that god cannot exist (see below). My whole contention has been showing that it doesn't prove anything because one can just assume certain modal axioms, neither of which are better than the other, one of which is theistic, and the other one being atheistic. I think you've been going for the weaker claim that the argument simply shows modal arguments for god to be unsupported. If that's the claim, then I agree. I've been trying to construct an argument against the former rather than the latter. So, I guess we can hug now?

You've misunderstood.
My argument is that God & Ba'al Gat'yter are both unproven entities. The existence of Ba'al Gat'yter makes God's exist impossible (because Ba'al Gat'yter destroys gods). And argument that would disprove the existence of Ba'al Gat'yter would be equally applicable to God. Either way, God cannot exist.

Ba'al Gat'yter is not a god.

"And argument that would disprove the existence of Ba'al Gat'yter would be equally applicable to God."

Conscentia is making the same argument I'm making. Basically, that any logic that can be applied to disprove the god-eater would also be applicable to the god.

[With Teeth]

"And argument that would disprove the existence of Ba'al Gat'yter would be equally applicable to God."

Conscentia is making the same argument I'm making.

(S)he claimed that the argument disproved god. You said the exact opposite. Given this, I'm not sure how that's the case.

Basically, that any logic that can be applied to disprove the god-eater would also be applicable to the god.

Right, but like I said, you can assume either modal axiom and get a different conclusion, so the argument really doesn't establish anything.

[Grave_n_idle]

[...] Perhaps the problem is that I don't know what you mean by 'cliche New-Atheist comments'. I'm not sure who these 'New Atheists' are, or how one attributes their clichés.

Perhaps?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

I think the "Criticism of the term" section is relevant.

[Grave_n_idle]

"And argument that would disprove the existence of Ba'al Gat'yter would be equally applicable to God."

Conscentia is making the same argument I'm making.

(S)he claimed that the argument disproved god. You said the exact opposite. Given this, I'm not sure how that's the case.

Basically, that any logic that can be applied to disprove the god-eater would also be applicable to the god.

Right, but like I said, you can assume either modal axiom and get a different conclusion, so the argument really doesn't establish anything.

The fact that you're wishing certain assumptions to be made, does not make them axiomatic.

[Conscentia]

"And argument that would disprove the existence of Ba'al Gat'yter would be equally applicable to God."
Conscentia is making the same argument I'm making.

(S)he claimed that the argument disproved god. You said the exact opposite. Given this, I'm not sure how that's the case.

[...]

I said essentially the same thing Grave_n_Idle said in different words ("The argument is that the same logic that DISMISSES the god-eater, can dismiss the god").

[With Teeth]

(S)he claimed that the argument disproved god. You said the exact opposite. Given this, I'm not sure how that's the case.



Right, but like I said, you can assume either modal axiom and get a different conclusion, so the argument really doesn't establish anything.

The fact that you're wishing certain assumptions to be made, does not make them axiomatic.

A modal axiom is just an axiom about what is possible or not possible, so the statement "A god-eater cannot exist because god is necessary " is indeed a modal axiom. On the same token, the statement "God cannot exist because of a god-eater" is also a modal axiom, because it relates to the impossibility of the existence of god. We can assume the former axiom and show that a god-eater can't exist, or we can assume the latter axiom and show that god can't exist. Neither axiom has any special preference over the other, so the argument doesn't prove anything. Theists can deny the other axiom, and atheists can deny the other axiom, and you're at an epistemic dead end.

[With Teeth]

(S)he claimed that the argument disproved god. You said the exact opposite. Given this, I'm not sure how that's the case.

[...]

I said essentially the same thing Grave_n_Idle said in different words ("The argument is that the same logic that DISMISSES the god-eater, can dismiss the god").

It was that little bit where you said "Either way, god does not exist" which made it different.

[Beiluxia]

I understand that this is someone similar to Russell's teapot. However, it's a very poor substitute for it,

Actually, it's more like a step on from the teapot - and the reason you think it's a poor substitute appears to be that you've failed to grasp that, and are thinking it's the same argument.

It isn't.

...as it creates a fallacy in which an all-powerful being (God) is destroyed by another entity, which in itself makes no logical sense.

You're right - an all-powerful being makes no logical sense.

Russell's teapot, on the other hand, makes no such claims. Again, I use the unmovable force meets unstoppable force example; the very impact of a force that cannot be stopped on a force that cannot be moved is simply not logical in our universe. Likewise, the moment this entity "eats" God will never occur, because Christianity stipulates that God cannot be destroyed. This entity not existing = God not existing is like saying unmovable force not existing = unstoppable force not existing, neither of which is necessarily true. Just because such a causation between these two opposing forces cannot be possible does not mean that both are automatically proven non-existent at the same time.

...and there's the evidence that you didn't get it.

The argument ISN'T that the non-existence of the god eater proves the non-existence of the god.... or even vice-versa. The argument is that the same logic that DISMISSES the god-eater, can dismiss the god.

My very premise is the fact that the god-eater argument is not the same as Russell's teapot, hence why I call it a "poor substitute".

I think we're misunderstanding each other. I simply believe that Conscentia's argument is fallacious mainly due to its nonsensical nature. I don't claim that the logic to disprove this entity cannot be used to also dismiss God; I simply don't see how it's possible this entity's end goal can be possible to begin with. Had Conscentia used an argument not involving the convoluted scenario such as the destroying of an omnipotent god, I might've understood his point.

I feel like we're both arguing for the same underlying conclusion, but via different perspectives and pathways.

[San Maria y Pedro]

According to 99.9% of my nation and myself, yes, Good does exist.

[Grave_n_idle]

The fact that you're wishing certain assumptions to be made, does not make them axiomatic.

A modal axiom is just an axiom about what is possible or not possible, so the statement "A god-eater cannot exist because god is necessary " is indeed a modal axiom. On the same token, the statement "God cannot exist because of a god-eater" is also a modal axiom, because it relates to the impossibility of the existence of god. We can assume the former axiom and show that a god-eater can't exist, or we can assume the latter axiom and show that god can't exist. Neither axiom has any special preference over the other, so the argument doesn't prove anything. Theists can deny the other axiom, and atheists can deny the other axiom, and you're at an epistemic dead end.

I think you're almost at the point of grasping it. The whole point is that the same logic that can be used to 'disprove' the god-eater, can disprove the 'god'.

If theists invoke a special exception for their god (like your 'contingency' nonsense), the same special exception can be invoked for the god-eater - and thus the god doesn't exist. If the god-eater is disproved through logical dismissal of it's properties, then the god can be similarly dismissed.

[Grave_n_idle]

I said essentially the same thing Grave_n_Idle said in different words ("The argument is that the same logic that DISMISSES the god-eater, can dismiss the god").

It was that little bit where you said "Either way, god does not exist" which made it different.

But that is a logical conclusion. If you can't dismiss the god-eater, god doesn't exist because of the god-eater argument. If you can... god doesn't exist, for the same reason as for the god-eater.

[With Teeth]

The whole point is that the same logic that can be used to 'disprove' the god-eater, can disprove the 'god'.

I said a few posts ago that I agreed with this. My posts in this thread were directed at the other poster who made the further argument that it demonstrates god doesn't exist. You came into the thread to defend the quoted statement, but that wasn't the contention I was arguing against. Hence the confusion between us. So at the end, we never really disagreed, but misunderstood each other's contentions.

(like your 'contingency' nonsense),

Sorry about that unmarried bachelor nonsense. I'll try not to use analytical statements in the future.

[The Scientific States]

According to 99.9% of my nation and myself, yes, Good does exist.

Why do you believe in a God?

[With Teeth]

It was that little bit where you said "Either way, god does not exist" which made it different.

But that is a logical conclusion. If you can't dismiss the god-eater, god doesn't exist because of the god-eater argument. If you can... god doesn't exist, for the same reason as for the god-eater.

It comes back to the assumptions in the arguments. The theist can deny the anti-god axiom, and the atheist can deny the anti-god-eater axiom. There is no particular reason to prefer one or the either. You can say that the necessity of god makes the god-eater impossible, or that the god-eater makes the necessity of god impossible, hence his non-existence. It's a dead-end because neither statement has more justification than the other.

[Luveria]

According to 99.9% of my nation and myself, yes, Good does exist.

There isn't any country in the world with a 99.9% rate of religious belief.

[Conscentia]

The whole point is that the same logic that can be used to 'disprove' the god-eater, can disprove the 'god'.

I said a few posts ago that I agreed with this. My posts in this thread were directed at the other poster who made the further argument that it demonstrates god doesn't exist. You came into the thread to defend the quoted statement, but that wasn't the contention I was arguing against. Hence the confusion between us. So at the end, we never really disagreed, but misunderstood each other's contentions.

As I said, I'm bad at explaining things.

[The Scientific States]

According to 99.9% of my nation and myself, yes, Good does exist.

There isn't any country in the world with a 99.9% rate of religious belief.

To be fair, Afghanistan is really, really close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Afghanistan

[Conscentia]

But that is a logical conclusion. If you can't dismiss the god-eater, god doesn't exist because of the god-eater argument. If you can... god doesn't exist, for the same reason as for the god-eater.

It comes back to the assumptions in the arguments. The theist can deny the anti-god axiom, and the atheist can deny the anti-god-eater axiom. There is no particular reason to prefer one or the either. [...]

The point is that they're equally valid, and thus there is no rational reason for the Christian to dismiss the existence of the god-eater as the same reasoning used to dismiss the god-eater also applies to God.

[Johotostan]

There is actually rather a large amount of scientific evidence that God does exist. A prime example would be were the Jews crossed the Red Sea scientist have found remains of some of the Egyptian army.

[Espagnant]

There is actually rather a large amount of scientific evidence that God does exist. A prime example would be were the Jews crossed the Red Sea scientist have found remains of some of the Egyptian army.

How does the statement "Remains from the Egyptian army have been found" entail the conclusion "There is scientific evidence that god exists"?

[Conscentia]

There is actually rather a large amount of scientific evidence that God does exist. A prime example would be were the Jews crossed the Red Sea scientist have found remains of some of the Egyptian army.

Source?

[Luveria]

There isn't any country in the world with a 99.9% rate of religious belief.

To be fair, Afghanistan is really, really close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Afghanistan

Then we can assume San Maria y Pedro is in Afghanistan.

[Grave_n_idle]

But that is a logical conclusion. If you can't dismiss the god-eater, god doesn't exist because of the god-eater argument. If you can... god doesn't exist, for the same reason as for the god-eater.

It comes back to the assumptions in the arguments. The theist can deny the anti-god axiom, and the atheist can deny the anti-god-eater axiom. There is no particular reason to prefer one or the either.

Fortunately, that doesn't matter - and is, indeed, kind of the point.