God's Power

[Azunite]

So this came upon my mind today.

We say that " God has power to do everything ".
So then, God could make a stone so heavy that God couldn't lift. But since god has power to do everthing, he would lift the stone. But then we cannot say god can do everything because he couldn't make a stone he couldn't lift himself.

[Korashk]

This is the first you've heard of the paradox of the stone?

[Jess]

yeah, I've heard of that paradox.

[Azunite]

"Paradox Stone?"

[Death]

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox)

This is why I find arguments for omnipotence invalid.

[The Dark Lord]

Your proceeding from a false premise: Gods not real.

[Peace God]

The response from a clever theist would go something like this... "If god was omnipotent wouldn't he be beyond the rules of logic?"

Also, there's way better paradoxes involving God's omnipotence but i have to go to a class right know so i'll post them when i get back.

[Azunite]

I hate VT. It persuades me that there is no God, every day...

[The Dark Lord]

I hate VT. It persuades me that there is no God, every day...

presumably because there isn't one

[Sogeking]

presumably because there isn't one

That's an absolute statement. To say such a thing would mean that you know EVERYTHING in the Universe, and since on human being is omniscient, you don't qualify to say that.

[Azunite]

That's an absolute statement. To say such a thing would mean that you know EVERYTHING in the Universe, and since on human being is omniscient, you don't qualify to say that.



Well, everything is scientificly explained. Except this small matter...
What triggered the Big Bang. If we knew that, we could bring down the church bells, synagogue domes and minarets !

[The Dark Lord]

on human being is omniscient.

Actually I am

[Sogeking]

Actually I am

Ummm, No your not

[The Dark Lord]

Ummm, No your not

Ummm, Yes I am

[Clawhammer]

presumably because there isn't one

You mind not bashing other people's opinions? You just sound like a jackass. Let us believe what we want to believe. Hell, you believe in spontaneous generation by believing evolution, so I don't see how one is more logical than the other.

[Azunite]

Matty can proove you anything, seriously....
But yes at some points human mind cannot fully explain the God's powers ( if it exist, thats another thing. )
We were having a religious talk with my friends and after some point we just got stuck because we couldn't think beyond

[Sugaree]

You mind not bashing other people's opinions? You just sound like a jackass. Let us believe what we want to believe. Hell, you believe in spontaneous generation by believing evolution, so I don't see how one is more logical than the other.

He's not bashing on other people's beliefs, he's simply countering them with his own. Is that so wrong now? More people are leaning toward agnosticism, atheism, and even other religions than to belief in one supreme being. I don't believe in a god, does that make me a jackass? No. If I were to continually make it known to everyone who DOES being in a god, I would be a jackass. But I don't do that. If you believe in God, I'm not going to judge. I'm just going to present evidence on my opinion.

On the subject of being omniscient: I'd actually like to hear more on your opinions about this Matthew. Off topic I know, but interesting none the less.

Anyway, this is a typical paradox. There's nothing new here, we can just move along. No matter what solution you come up with, you will always end up back where you started. No yellow brick road here folks.

[Clawhammer]

He's not bashing on other people's beliefs, he's simply countering them with his own. Is that so wrong now? More people are leaning toward agnosticism, atheism, and even other religions than to belief in one supreme being. I don't believe in a god, does that make me a jackass? No. If I were to continually make it known to everyone who DOES being in a god, I would be a jackass. But I don't do that. If you believe in God, I'm not going to judge. I'm just going to present evidence on my opinion.

On the subject of being omniscient: I'd actually like to hear more on your opinions about this Matthew. Off topic I know, but interesting none the less.

Anyway, this is a typical paradox. There's nothing new here, we can just move along. No matter what solution you come up with, you will always end up back where you started. No yellow brick road here folks.

I was referring to his methods. He could at least give premises, and respect others beliefs. I have friends who are athiests or agnostics, I have nothing against it. I'm not referring his beliefs, merely questioning his way of presenting them.

[Amnesiac]

The problem with proving God exists is that it's not possible. Neither is proving he doesn't. However, the overwhelming lack of material evidence supporting the theory of God, combined with the overall absurdity of the entire idea, makes agnostic atheism the most rational stance when it comes to religion.

That's my opinion, feel free to debate me on it :rolleyes:

[Sogeking]

Ummm, Yes I am



On the subject of being omniscient: I'd actually like to hear more on your opinions about this Matthew. Off topic I know, but interesting none the less.


Yeah I'd also like to know

[Sage]

Sup ROTW. God here.

I could make a stone too heavy for me to lift if I wanted to, but I could make myself able to lift it afterwards.

/thread

[The Dark Lord]

You mind not bashing other people's opinions? You just sound like a jackass. Let us believe what we want to believe. Hell, you believe in spontaneous generation by believing evolution, so I don't see how one is more logical than the other.

Wasn't bashing your opinion, just putting across mine. There is an argument that if you don't agree with someone and you think they are wrong, then you are being disrespectful anyway.

Yeah I'd also like to know

Sarcasm is a wonderful thing, particularly when it isn't recognised.

I was referring to his methods. He could at least give premises, and respect others beliefs. I have friends who are athiests or agnostics, I have nothing against it. I'm not referring his beliefs, merely questioning his way of presenting them.

I don't believe in God. I rejected the premise of this debate, as I believed in was false

[Sogeking]

I knew you were fibbing, usually you indicate wether you were sacastic or not. A word in text has over 1,000 meanings it could be interpreted as.

[The Dark Lord]

I knew you were fibbing, usually you indicate wether you were sacastic or not. A word in text has over 1,000 meanings it could be interpreted as.

Which is why my avatar carries a warning

[Sogeking]

Which is why my avatar carries a warning

Fair enough. But how can people take you seriously then?

[Sugaree]

Sarcasm is a wonderful thing, particularly when it isn't recognised.

I recognized it. Was pretty funny, gotta admit.

Fair enough. But how can people take you seriously then?

Because sarcasm can not be heard through the internets.

Sup ROTW. God here.

I could make a stone too heavy for me to lift if I wanted to, but I could make myself able to lift it afterwards.

/thread

Well folks, there's your answer. Thread over.

[Korashk]

Hell, you believe in spontaneous generation by believing evolution
No, this is absolutely incorrect as evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

so I don't see how one is more logical than the other.
Really...?

[Peace God]

Here's some more paradoxes...

1. God can not be both omnipotent(all-powerful) and omnibenevolent (100% Good).
Why? Because evil exists.
Either he is allowing evil to exist knowing he has the power to stop it (which makes him not omnibenevolent).
or he is good but doesn't have the power to stop evil. (which makes him not omnipotent).

2. God can not be both omninscient(all-knowing) and omnipotent(all-powerful).
Why? Because he would only be able to do what he already knew he was going to do. Due to omniscience the unlimited possibilities of his his omnipotence are now limited to what he already knows is going to happen. And there's nothing he could do to change it.

... "If god was omnipotent he would be beyond the rules of logic"

to elaborate on this statement...basically, God is able to lift a rock that he cant lift

[huginnmuninn]

God would just move the universe down there by creating the illusion that the rock was lifted

[Amnesiac]

No, this is absolutely incorrect as evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

Finally, I find someone who understands that evolution and the origin of life AREN'T the same.

[Death]

I hate VT. It persuades me that there is no God, every day...

Maybe you're supposed to argue back? Besides, this should only be on RotW.

Sup ROTW. God here.

I could make a stone too heavy for me to lift if I wanted to, but I could make myself able to lift it afterwards.

/thread

Which surely means that the original stone was not unliftable by God (meaning he failed the first task), because he was able to do it in the end, right?

Well, everything is scientificly explained. Except this small matter...
What triggered the Big Bang. If we knew that, we could bring down the church bells, synagogue domes and minarets !

All the theories and evidence in the world won't make that happen since the religious people will probably not accept it just like that.

You mind not bashing other people's opinions? You just sound like a jackass. Let us believe what we want to believe. Hell, you believe in spontaneous generation by believing evolution, so I don't see how one is more logical than the other.

If you don't want refutal, why are you on RotW? True, he maybe could have elaborated in that post, but it still isn't a bashing. This is a bashing: "Everyone knows that all religious people are self-centered, self-righteous pricks who never help anyone and pray instead so they pretend they're helping whilst doing nothing." BTW, I don't actually believe this.

Here's some more paradoxes...

1. God can not be both omnipotent(all-powerful) and omnibenevolent (100% Good).
Why? Because evil exists.
Either he is allowing evil to exist knowing he has the power to stop it (which makes him not omnibenevolent).
or he is good but doesn't have the power to stop evil. (which makes him not omnipotent).

2. God can not be both omninscient(all-knowing) and omnipotent(all-powerful).
Why? Because he would only be able to do what he already knew he was going to do. Due to omniscience the unlimited possibilities of his his omnipotence are now limited to what he already knows is going to happen. And there's nothing he could do to change it.

I knew a something similar to that, but different. It basically says that God can't be all three. Evil and suffering exists, so he is either purposefully allowing it or causing it, so he isn't omnibenevolent, or doesn't know about it but otherwise could and would (or not) stop it so he isn't omniscient, or he knows and wants to stop it (or not) so he isn't omnipotent. Although personally, I think that he can't be omnipotent if he isn't omniscient, since he should be able to make himself all-knowing - unless he doesn't want to, which would be strange, and ridiculous in my opinion.

[Magus]

I hate VT. It persuades me that there is no God, every day...

Once, I was really a devout and pious Muslim, and about to blow some shix up into pieces. But when VT came into my life, I became a dirty, sinning anti-theist atheist that doesn't want to blow shix up.

This website is run by ILLUMINATI and the ANT-CHRIST! RUN!

Finally, I find someone who understands that evolution and the origin of life AREN'T the same.
I though they are the same... Abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis)-Evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)-Biodiversity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity); they are inter-linked with one another, right?

[Azunite]

Sup ROTW. God here.

I could make a stone too heavy for me to lift if I wanted to, but I could make myself able to lift it afterwards.

/thread

I told you guys before that Sage was God !

So Sage, church or synagogue or masjid ?

[Sith Lord 13]

Your proceeding from a false premise: Gods not real.

We've been through this before, accepted premise means it's your burden of proof disprove God. Unless you can conclusively disprove God's existence, stop going off topic.

The problem with proving God exists is that it's not possible. Neither is proving he doesn't. However, the overwhelming lack of material evidence supporting the theory of God, combined with the overall absurdity of the entire idea, makes agnostic atheism the most rational stance when it comes to religion.

That's my opinion, feel free to debate me on it :rolleyes:

Wouldn't pure agnosticism be more rational? What exactly, to you is the difference between the two?

Sup ROTW. God here.

I could make a stone too heavy for me to lift if I wanted to, but I could make myself able to lift it afterwards.

/thread

Exactly.

Wasn't bashing your opinion, just putting across mine. There is an argument that if you don't agree with someone and you think they are wrong, then you are being disrespectful anyway.

You could have phrased it in a more respectful manner. Could have been less respectful too. If you want to be taken seriously as a debater in the real world, you'll want to practice utmost respect, as it makes them look even more foolish.

I don't believe in God. I rejected the premise of this debate, as I believed in was false

Repeating myself, accepted premise means your burden of proof. Conclusive evidence God doesn't exist or stop going off topic.

1. God can not be both omnipotent(all-powerful) and omnibenevolent (100% Good).
Why? Because evil exists.
Either he is allowing evil to exist knowing he has the power to stop it (which makes him not omnibenevolent).
or he is good but doesn't have the power to stop evil. (which makes him not omnipotent).

Challenge to see who is capable of withstanding temptation.

2. God can not be both omninscient(all-knowing) and omnipotent(all-powerful).
Why? Because he would only be able to do what he already knew he was going to do. Due to omniscience the unlimited possibilities of his his omnipotence are now limited to what he already knows is going to happen. And there's nothing he could do to change it.

Simply not true. Knowing I will not do something doesn't mean I can't do it. I know I won't go to sleep as soon as I finish writing this post. Doesn't mean I can't.

Which surely means that the original stone was not unliftable by God (meaning he failed the first task), because he was able to do it in the end, right?

No. I can't run a marathon right now. I train for years, and I am able to. The fact that I am at that point able to doesn't mean I was always able to.

All the theories and evidence in the world won't make that happen since the religious people will probably not accept it just like that.

Many religions are learning to adapt, albeit slowly, to modern science. It often causes a reinterpretation of beliefs.

If you don't want refutal, why are you on RotW? True, he maybe could have elaborated in that post, but it still isn't a bashing. This is a bashing: "Everyone knows that all religious people are self-centered, self-righteous pricks who never help anyone and pray instead so they pretend they're helping whilst doing nothing." BTW, I don't actually believe this.

It wasn't about statement, it was about tone. It may not have been bashing, but it was rather discourteous.

I knew a something similar to that, but different. It basically says that God can't be all three. Evil and suffering exists, so he is either purposefully allowing it or causing it, so he isn't omnibenevolent, or doesn't know about it but otherwise could and would (or not) stop it so he isn't omniscient, or he knows and wants to stop it (or not) so he isn't omnipotent. Although personally, I think that he can't be omnipotent if he isn't omniscient, since he should be able to make himself all-knowing - unless he doesn't want to, which would be strange, and ridiculous in my opinion.

The paradox is resolved by seeing the evil not as needless suffering but as a way of allowing us to appreciate the good.

[Sage]

Which surely means that the original stone was not unliftable by God (meaning he failed the first task), because he was able to do it in the end, right?
Hey, don't question divinity.


So Sage, church or synagogue or masjid ?
Brothel.

[Sith Lord 13]

Brothel.

Just so long as I get those beer volcanoes and stripper factories when I die.

[Korashk]

We've been through this before, accepted premise means it's your burden of proof disprove God. Unless you can conclusively disprove God's existence, stop going off topic.
What you're asking for is impossible with the definition of proof I perceive you're using. Proof is for math and alcohol. The mere fact that there is no evidence for any god's existence is proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_(truth)) that none do.

Wouldn't pure agnosticism be more rational?
Only if one is also a solipsis (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=solipsis).

What exactly, to you is the difference between the two?
Can't speak for Darth, but agnosticism takes the irrational position that god's existence is equally as likely as god's non-existence.

Challenge to see who is capable of withstanding temptation.
That's not benevolent...

No. I can't run a marathon right now. I train for years, and I am able to. The fact that I am at that point able to doesn't mean I was always able to.
Can't speak about other gods, but the Abrahamic god is constant and unchanging. If He can't do it now or couldn't do it in the past He's not the Abrahamic god.

Many religions are learning to adapt, albeit slowly, to modern science. It often causes a reinterpretation of beliefs.
So in other words what their book says isn't true so they're trying to convince people it means something else.

[Azunite]

What you're asking for is impossible with the definition of proof I perceive you're using. Proof is for math and alcohol. The mere fact that there is no evidence for any god's existence is proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_(truth)) that none do.


Only if one is also a solipsis (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=solipsis).


Can't speak for Darth, but agnosticism takes the irrational position that god's existence is equally as likely as god's non-existence.


That's not benevolent...


Can't speak about other gods, but the Abrahamic god is constant and unchanging. If He can't do it now or couldn't do it in the past He's not the Abrahamic god.


So in other words what their book says isn't true so they're trying to convince people it means something else.

Simply, human history prooves that there is a God.

[Korashk]

Simply, human history prooves that there is a God.
Okay...you can't just say it and expect people to give your assertion any credence.

[Peace God]

Challenge to see who is capable of withstanding temptation.

God is ultimately responsible for everyone's actions... he's creating billions of people knowing that a lot of them wont be able to withstand his temptations.


Simply not true. Knowing I will not do something doesn't mean I can't do it. I know I won't go to sleep as soon as I finish writing this post. Doesn't mean I can't.

There's a difference between humans like you & I, and omniscient beings. We cant know for certain anything about the future. Example: You didnt know that you weren't going to sleep a soon a you finished your post, you just assumed it.
But for a being that knows everything...if that being knows that something is not going to happen, then its not going to happen. And there's nothing he could do about it (unless he isnt omniscient).

[The Dark Lord]

Simply, human history prooves that there is a God.

How?

[Death]

Simply, human history prooves that there is a God.

Correction: It proves that a lot of people believed that there was a God. It also proves how religion has sparked conflict.

We've been through this before, accepted premise means it's your burden of proof disprove God. Unless you can conclusively disprove God's existence, stop going off topic.

Actually, I don't think that it's the atheist's responsibility to disprove God until a theist proves there is one first. Otherwise, one would have to assume that the flying spaghetti monster exists. Besides, the concept of God is purposefully put in such way that it cannot be disputed, just like the Chinese Teapot Religion. I could go on to explain, but I have a rather interesting video I'd like to share with you:

iJS0cPba8iM

I do in fact know more videos like this, but I think one is probably enough.

[Perseus]

Simply, human history prooves that there is a God.

Okay, what about all the different (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Mythology) religions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism) that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinto) have (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism) been (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism) created (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism) and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1'%C3%AD_Faith) everything (http://www.religioustolerance.org/var_rel.htm)?

[Sith Lord 13]

What you're asking for is impossible with the definition of proof I perceive you're using. Proof is for math and alcohol. The mere fact that there is no evidence for any god's existence is proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_(truth)) that none do.

Actually, I don't think that it's the atheist's responsibility to disprove God until a theist proves there is one first. Otherwise, one would have to assume that the flying spaghetti monster exists. Besides, the concept of God is purposefully put in such way that it cannot be disputed, just like the Chinese Teapot Religion. I could go on to explain, but I have a rather interesting video I'd like to share with you:

iJS0cPba8iM

I do in fact know more videos like this, but I think one is probably enough.

Under normal circumstances, you'd both be right. If the purpose of the debate were to discuss God's existence, the burden of proof falls most heavily on the side of the believer. (The atheist bares burden of proof when arguing against an agnostic.) However, when the assumption of something is part of the premise, so long as there is a chance of it happening, you accept it. Only if you can absolutely disprove God's existence (which I don't believe you can, regardless of his actual existence), can you change the accepted premise. Otherwise these arguments will always boil down to God's existence and precludes other debates. If you're given the debate prompt "If WWIII started tomorrow, who would be the winner" and proceeded to argue how WWIII is ridiculously improbable, you will lose. You have to debate on the give terms unless you can prove them invalid.


Can't speak for Darth, but agnosticism takes the irrational position that god's existence is equally as likely as god's non-existence.

I have to disagree here. As per my view, agnosticism accepts we don't know everything. The possibility, not the probability is what matters.

That's not benevolent...

Depends on one's definition of benevolence. A benevolent father does not shelter his son all his life.

Can't speak about other gods, but the Abrahamic god is constant and unchanging. If He can't do it now or couldn't do it in the past He's not the Abrahamic god.

There is no reason he could not impose a limit on himself and then remove that limit, if he so chose.

So in other words what their book says isn't true so they're trying to convince people it means something else.

Nice try. Unfortunately, that is only true on the most simple levels of true and false, of the most basic complexity. Everything that was written was written through the lens of its time. New times means we need to reexamine the lenses.

There's a difference between humans like you & I, and omniscient beings. We cant know for certain anything about the future. Example: You didnt know that you weren't going to sleep a soon a you finished your post, you just assumed it.
But for a being that knows everything...if that being knows that something is not going to happen, then its not going to happen. And there's nothing he could do about it (unless he isnt omniscient).

But the same principal still applies. The fact is that if he's omniscient, he knows every fact, so there can be nothing new to change his decision. He could do something about it, but if he was going to choose to do something about it, he would know he was going to choose to do so.

[Amnesiac]

Wouldn't pure agnosticism be more rational? What exactly, to you is the difference between the two?

Since the burden of proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof) is on religion, not on the non-religious, it can be assumed that since they haven't amassed any substantial evidence to support their claims, God probably doesn't exist.

It's true each side has a burden of proof, but it's uneven. Religion introduced the idea of a God, therefore it's their duty to provide evidence to support that claim.

[Korashk]

I have to disagree here. As per my view, agnosticism accepts we don't know everything. The possibility, not the probability is what matters.
That doesn't make it any more rational to accept the validity of everything that's deemed possible. All the word possible implies is any nonzero chance.

Depends on one's definition of benevolence. A benevolent father does not shelter his son all his life.
You can't really redefine words to suit your arguments, because that's exactly something that a completely benevolent (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&hs=m8s&rls=en&&sa=X&ei=-x3XTMe7OYL58Ab1gKmpDQ&ved=0CAMQBSgA&q=define%3A+benevolence&spell=1) father would do.

There is no reason he could not impose a limit on himself and then remove that limit, if he so chose.
How would he unimpose the limit and wouldn't imposing the limit change the unchangable God?

Nice try. Unfortunately, that is only true on the most simple levels of true and false, of the most basic complexity. Everything that was written was written through the lens of its time. New times means we need to reexamine the lenses.
But changing the interpretation by viewing it through the lens of time contradicts the text of the Bible itself.

[Sith Lord 13]

Since the burden of proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof) is on religion, not on the non-religious, it can be assumed that since they haven't amassed any substantial evidence to support their claims, God probably doesn't exist.

It's true each side has a burden of proof, but it's uneven. Religion introduced the idea of a God, therefore it's their duty to provide evidence to support that claim.

Under a debate of the validity of God, that's true, but to change the underlying premise, you must prove it. So long as it's possible, you must accept an accepted premise.

That doesn't make it any more rational to accept the validity of everything that's deemed possible. All the word possible implies is any nonzero chance.

Not to accept it's validity, just it's possibility. Agnosticism does not believe in god, it just doesn't make the unprovable claim that god doesn't exist.

You can't really redefine words to suit your arguments, because that's exactly something that a completely benevolent (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&hs=m8s&rls=en&&sa=X&ei=-x3XTMe7OYL58Ab1gKmpDQ&ved=0CAMQBSgA&q=define%3A+benevolence&spell=1) father would do.

Actually, it's not. A man with a disposition to do good does not necessarily do that which will cause that which will cause further harm.

How would he unimpose the limit and wouldn't imposing the limit change the unchangable God?

By doing so. He says he can't, he can't. He says he can, and now he can. The unchangeable aspect comes from his omnipotence. It's not that he can not change, it's that he has no need to, as he knows all.

But changing the interpretation by viewing it through the lens of time contradicts the text of the Bible itself.

How so?

[Death]

Not to accept it's validity

What do you mean by "accept it is validity"?

Agnosticism does not believe in god, it just doesn't make the unprovable claim that god doesn't exist.

This isn't how me or most people would put it. Agnosticism as far as definitions go is not being sure whether or not God exists. Saying they do not believe means that they are sure about their beliefs. Also, is assuming there is no god because there's zero evidence for it any worse than believing there is no fairy floating around Neptune?

[Peace God]

But the same principal still applies.
No not really because like i said there's a difference between people that think they know and beings that actually know.

The fact is that if he's omniscient, he knows every fact, so there can be nothing new to change his decision. He could do something about it, but if he was going to choose to do something about it, he would know he was going to choose to do so.
Ok i get that... but i fail to see how it makes my statement less valid.
Agnosticism does not believe in god, it just doesn't make the unprovable claim that god doesn't exist.
neither does atheism (atheism - a lack of belief in god)

[Sith Lord 13]

What do you mean by "accept it is validity"?

I mean that to say something is possible does not mean it is true.

This isn't how me or most people would put it. Agnosticism as far as definitions go is not being sure whether or not God exists. Saying they do not believe means that they are sure about their beliefs. Also, is assuming there is no god because there's zero evidence for it any worse than believing there is no fairy floating around Neptune?

All agnosticism means is knowingly lacking another belief. Not believing god exists, but not believing god doesn't exist either.

No not really because like i said there's a difference between people that think they know and beings that actually know.

Which is inconsequential to the principal.

Ok i get that... but i fail to see how it makes my statement less valid.

Because you're putting the cart before the horse. That's like saying people in the past had no free will because we know how they acted. He could do different than he knew, but then he would know he would act in the different manner.

neither does atheism (atheism - a lack of belief in god)

The common definition of atheism is the belief god does not exist. If you're not making the positive claim that god doesn't exist, you're generally grouped with agnostics, not atheists.

[Peace God]

He could do different than he knew, but then he would know he would act in the different manner.
The two parts of your statement contradict each other.

The common definition of atheism is the belief god does not exist.
your definition doesnt apply to all of atheism
the main definition of atheism is lack of belief in a deity

its in the word itself
"a"...prefix meaning "lack of" or "without"
"theism"... belief in god

[Sith Lord 13]

The two parts of your statement contradict each other.

Not exactly. My point is that knowing what you will do doesn't mean you couldn't have chosen some other option. You're looking at it from the wrong angle. He knows what action he will take because he knows he won't change his mind, not because he couldn't choose to do otherwise.

your definition doesnt apply to all of atheism
the main definition of atheism is lack of belief in a deity

its in the word itself
"a"...prefix meaning "lack of" or "without"
"theism"... belief in god

Your definition of atheism is not the generally accepted one.Link (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism) Your definition is more appropriately identified as agnosticism.

[Peace God]

Not exactly. My point is that knowing what you will do doesn't mean you couldn't have chosen some other option. You're looking at it from the wrong angle. He knows what action he will take because he knows he won't change his mind, not because he couldn't choose to do otherwise.
How can he even change his mind in the first place if he knows and has known everything?


Your definition is more appropriately identified as agnosticism.
Agnosticism doesnt state anything about belief...just knowledge. There's agnostic theist's (people believe but dont claim to know for certain), agnostic athiests(people that dont believe and dont claim to know for certain) and pure agnostics(who claim that it is unknowable and make no statement about belief or disbelief).

[Sith Lord 13]

How can he even change his mind in the first place if he knows and has known everything?

That's my point. He could act differently but he won't because he won't change his mind.

Agnosticism doesnt state anything about belief...just knowledge. There's agnostic theist's (people believe but dont claim to know for certain), agnostic athiests(people that dont believe and dont claim to know for certain) and pure agnostics(who claim that it is unknowable and make no statement about belief or disbelief).

Source this please?

[Korashk]

Source this please?
You don't need to cite common knowledge, but I'll indulge you (http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/beliefdisbelief.htm).

EDIT: Link debunks the claim that atheism is the belief that deities don't exist.

[Peace God]

That's my point. He could act differently but he won't because he won't change his mind.
Well my point is.... He can't act differently because he cant change his mind.


Source this please?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
lol half assed i know...but i pretty sure everything you need is somewhere on that page

[Sith Lord 13]

You don't need to cite common knowledge, but I'll indulge you (http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/beliefdisbelief.htm).

EDIT: Link debunks the claim that atheism is the belief that deities don't exist.

Except for the fact that my link, to Encyclopedia Britannica, contradicts your claim, and I think we can both agree Encyclopedia Britannica to be the better source.

Well my point is.... He can't act differently because he cant change his mind.

I think at this point we just have to agree to disagree. We've reached the point at which there's simply an ideological disagreement, and no logical argument can disprove the other's position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
lol half assed i know...but i pretty sure everything you need is somewhere on that page

As much as I'm a proponent of using wiki, using it is dangerous because one can supplant it with a better source which contradicts it.

Like Encyclopedia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/9356/agnosticism)

[Korashk]

Except for the fact that my link, to Encyclopedia Britannica, contradicts your claim, and I think we can both agree Encyclopedia Britannica to be the better source.
I read a lot of your link and I couldn't find where it defines atheism. However, I can assure you that denying the existence of deities is not an inherent part of atheism. Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of one.

The difference is:

I don't believe any exist.
VS
I believe none exist.

The first is the only inherent quality of atheism. The second is not.

[Sith Lord 13]

I read a lot of your link and I couldn't find where it defines atheism. However, I can assure you that denying the existence of deities is not an inherent part of atheism. Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of one.

The difference is:

I don't believe in any.
VS
I believe there are none.

The first is the only inherent quality of atheism. The second is not.

By etymological definition, yes, but not in practiced definition. The way the word is commonly defined in practice is as the belief that no deity exists.

Also, you must not have read the article very closely. I'll quote the first sentence here:
atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.

[Korashk]

By etymological definition, yes, but not in practiced definition. The way the word is commonly defined in practice is as the belief that no deity exists.
Not by atheists, which is all that really matters.

Not to accept it's validity, just it's possibility. Agnosticism does not believe in god, it just doesn't make the unprovable claim that god doesn't exist.
Neither does atheism.

Actually, it's not. A man with a disposition to do good does not necessarily do that which will cause that which will cause further harm.
If it causes harm then it's not benevolent. This is the really big part of what makes the problem of evil so compelling.

By doing so. He says he can't, he can't. He says he can, and now he can.
o_O

The unchangeable aspect comes from his omnipotence. It's not that he can not change, it's that he has no need to, as he knows all.
So now we're re-interpreting the bible again:

Malachi 3:6 (New International Version)
I the LORD do not change.

EDIT: Not won't, don't need to. I the Lord DO NOT change.

[Sith Lord 13]

Not by atheists, which is all that really matters.

Every atheist I've ever met before you has defined it that way.

Neither does atheism.

Again, you're the only atheist I've met who does not deny the existence of God. We actually have very similar beliefs, but everyone I've ever known who's expressed a view similar to ours has been classed not as an atheist but as an agnostic.

If it causes harm then it's not benevolent. This is the really big part of what makes the problem of evil so compelling.

Sometimes the immediate harm is the lesser of two evils. Without ever experiencing evil, one could not understand good.

o_O

Best analogy I can think of (Though it's rather crude) is turning a cheat code on and off. I can die, then I turn on the code and I can no longer die. I turn the code back on, and I can die again. It's hardly an appropriate analogy, but it's the best I can come up with.

So now we're re-interpreting the bible again:

Malachi 3:6 (New International Version)
I the LORD do not change.

EDIT: Not won't, don't need to. I the Lord DO NOT change.

1) I don't see how we're re-interpreting it. 2) Even if we were, what's wrong with that? Religion must be malleable, changing with the times, being re-understood and re-examined to understand its true nature.

[Korashk]

Every atheist I've ever met before you has defined it that way.
Do you have a point?

Again, you're the only atheist I've met who does not deny the existence of God. We actually have very similar beliefs, but everyone I've ever known who's expressed a view similar to ours has been classed not as an atheist but as an agnostic.
I deny the existence of deities. However agnosticism is not a statement about belief at all. It's the claim that knowledge of the existence of deities is unknowable. I'm going to introduce you to a scale that may make more sense:
http://zackfordblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/contratheism-scale2.jpg

Another phrase for 'contratheism' is 'Strong Atheism.'

Sometimes the immediate harm is the lesser of two evils. Without ever experiencing evil, one could not understand good.
However, God has the ability to make evil not ever happen. There doesn't need to be a lesser evil. God allows evil to occur and is therefore not benevolent.

1) I don't see how we're re-interpreting it.
God doesn't change, by changing we've introduced a contradiction to something that is supposed to be a perfect being.

2) Even if we were, what's wrong with that? Religion must be malleable, changing with the times, being re-understood and re-examined to understand its true nature.
If we change what things mean when what they say is obviously wrong then nothing about it really means anything. The fact that one must re-interpret a text in order for said text to make and sense seriously harms said text's validity.

[Sith Lord 13]

Do you have a point?

Yes, which I've made repeatedly and will attempt to make again.

I deny the existence of deities. However agnosticism is not a statement about belief at all. It's the claim that knowledge of the existence of deities is unknowable. I'm going to introduce you to a scale that may make more sense:
http://zackfordblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/contratheism-scale2.jpg

Another phrase for 'contratheism' is 'Strong Atheism.'

That is not the generally accepted definition of atheism. The generally accepted definition has the parts of that chart labeled Atheism fall under Agnosticism, and the parts labeled Contratheism marked as Atheism.

However, God has the ability to make evil not ever happen. There doesn't need to be a lesser evil. God allows evil to occur and is therefore not benevolent.

Without evil, one could not comprehend good, could not appreciate good, there would be no good.

God doesn't change, by changing we've introduced a contradiction to something that is supposed to be a perfect being.

Which is why he doesn't. He can, but he doesn't.

If we change what things mean when what they say is obviously wrong then nothing about it really means anything. The fact that one must re-interpret a text in order for said text to make and sense seriously harms said text's validity.

Not at all. A modern literary criticism could establish a whole new meaning for Romeo and Juliet and that wouldn't make the work any less valid. The bible is written for both it's own time and modern time. There are new, deeper, better understandings all the time. I'll reference the kosher rules. Those were established to keep people safe from the dangers of uncooked pork. As times changed and pork became safer, that rule was no longer needed. Things change over time, that doesn't make thing invalid as a whole.

[Korashk]

That is not the generally accepted definition of atheism.
Doesn't matter, the generally accepted definition of 'theory' in America is 'hypothesis' doesn't change the fact that a theory and a hypothesis are different things. But you're obviously never going to accept this so I'm going to stop trying to get through to you.

Without evil, one could not comprehend good, could not appreciate good, there would be no good.
Why does good need to be understood to exist? I think the premise that if God exists them objective morality exists isn't too hard to accept. Moral things would still be good under this system even if they weren't understood.

Not at all. A modern literary criticism could establish a whole new meaning for Romeo and Juliet and that wouldn't make the work any less valid.
Faulty comparison.

The bible is written for both it's own time and modern time. There are new, deeper, better understandings all the time. I'll reference the kosher rules. Those were established to keep people safe from the dangers of uncooked pork. As times changed and pork became safer, that rule was no longer needed. Things change over time, that doesn't make thing invalid as a whole.
It does if said text claims that the word is eternal and should be obeyed until the end of time.

[Sith Lord 13]

Doesn't matter, the generally accepted definition of 'theory' in America is 'hypothesis' doesn't change the fact that a theory and a hypothesis are different things. But you're obviously never going to accept this so I'm going to stop trying to get through to you.

Faulty comparison. When the vast number of self-identified atheists claim that their beliefs, ie. being an atheist, means there is no god, claiming to be an atheist means claiming god doesn't exist. Your usage of atheist here is archaic and no longer appropriate in English.

Why does good need to be understood to exist? I think the premise that if God exists them objective morality exists isn't too hard to accept. Moral things would still be good under this system even if they weren't understood.

Without evil, good cannot exist, they're two points on a continuum. Also, you might want to go back and look at Sage's thread on Heaven to understand why without a concept of evil, good is meaningless.

It does if said text claims that the word is eternal and should be obeyed until the end of time.

It's the religious concepts that are eternal, how they fit into life today is not.

[Korashk]

Faulty comparison. When the vast number of self-identified atheists claim that their beliefs, ie. being an atheist, means there is no god, claiming to be an atheist means claiming god doesn't exist. Your usage of atheist here is archaic and no longer appropriate in English.
This would be true except that definitions aren't just changed based on popular opinion. If you don't believe in deities you're an atheist. That's all there is to it. I'd also like some source for your claim in bold. You mentioned something about never meeting an atheist who defined it the way that you do. Well, I've never met an atheist that defines it like YOU do and I think I know more atheists that you do.

Sidebar question: Are you a follower of a faith? I'm curious.

Without evil, good cannot exist, they're two points on a continuum. Also, you might want to go back and look at Sage's thread on Heaven to understand why without a concept of evil, good is meaningless.
Link to the thread?

[Sith Lord 13]

This would be true except that definitions aren't just changed based on popular opinion. If you don't believe in deities you're an atheist. That's all there is to it. I'd also like some source for your claim in bold. You mentioned something about never meeting an atheist who defined it the way that you do. Well, I've never met an atheist that defines it like YOU do and I think I know more atheists that you do.

Source (http://www.atheists.org/atheism) You seem to not be realizing what a language is. It's nothing more than the agreed upon definition of word, regardless of past. Your usage is archaic, in modern English,

Sidebar question: Are you a follower of a faith? I'm curious.

Agnostic actually. Only logical position, IMO, as I make no unsubstantial claim.

Link to the thread?

http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=74511

[Korashk]

Source (http://www.atheists.org/atheism) You seem to not be realizing what a language is. It's nothing more than the agreed upon definition of word, regardless of past. Your usage is archaic, in modern English,
...I don't understand. Your source uses the exact same definition as I do:
"Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity"

The only difference is it then goes on to describe what this definition implies which is different that stating what it means.

The following sentence:
"This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."

Does not logically come as a result of the provided definition.

Agnostic actually. Only logical position, IMO, as I make no unsubstantial claim.
I'll only accept your position as logically coherent if it's completely consistent. Not that my opinion matters to you at all.

http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=74511
Skimmed the thread and read most of Sage's posts. Did not find it very authoritative. It basically stated a bunch of opinions and things that sounded nice. Far from showing that without evil there is no good.

[Sith Lord 13]

...I don't understand. Your source uses the exact same definition as I do:
"Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity"

The only difference is it then goes on to describe what this definition implies which is different that stating what it means.

The following sentence:
"This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."

Does not logically come as a result of the provided definition.

That page reflects the attitude of a very large group of atheists, and every atheist I have personally met. That entire page is what that group considers to be part of the definition of atheism. While the short definition blurb doesn't include it, the fuller, more complete definition does.

I'll only accept your position as logically coherent if it's completely consistent. Not that my opinion matters to you at all.

Actually it does. If it didn't I would have stopped debating. I disagree with you, but I find you a worthy adversary.

Skimmed the thread and read most of Sage's posts. Did not find it very authoritative. It basically stated a bunch of opinions and things that sounded nice. Far from showing that without evil there is no good.

There have been other threads which also delve into it. I wasn't necessarily saying it was authoritative, just that I felt it raised some good points for you to consider.

[Korashk]

That page reflects the attitude of a very large group of atheists, and every atheist I have personally met. That entire page is what that group considers to be part of the definition of atheism. While the short definition blurb doesn't include it, the fuller, more complete definition does.
I'm willing to concede the debate about the changed/changing definition, but I will not concede that the changed/changing definition is a logical or appropriate one and I will keep within the spirit of 'true' atheism which says nothing about you as a person other than that you don't believe in deities.

Actually it does. If it didn't I would have stopped debating. I disagree with you, but I find you a worthy adversary.
Interesting. Well is your agnosticism logically consistent? Meaning that you apply the same standard to more concepts than just deities.

There have been other threads which also delve into it. I wasn't necessarily saying it was authoritative, just that I felt it raised some good points for you to consider.
Ahh.

[Peace God]

Sith Lord: so...according to your definition, there's no such thing as "agnostic atheism" right?

[Sith Lord 13]

I'm willing to concede the debate about the changed/changing definition, but I will not concede that the changed/changing definition is a logical or appropriate one and I will keep within the spirit of 'true' atheism which says nothing about you as a person other than that you don't believe in deities.

I hold it is logical, as lack of belief either way, I feel, fits better under agnosticism. If you neither believe god exists, nor believe he does not exist, you are without knowledge of his existence.

Interesting. Well is your agnosticism logically consistent? Meaning that you apply the same standard to more concepts than just deities.

I do. I hold that it is the realm of acceptable possibility that many things exist, even if there is no evidence for them. Some of them have things that can be taken from them regardless of validity, some do not.

Sith Lord: so...according to your definition, there's no such thing as "agnostic atheism" right?

Define "agnostic atheism".

[Peace God]

Define "agnostic atheism".
...agnostic athiests(people that dont believe and dont claim to know for certain)...
but remember i was asking for "your definition".

Edit: To elaborate...use your definitions of agnosticism and atheism and tell me whether or not "agnostic atheism" can even exist.

[Magus]

Define "agnostic atheism".

Click me - somewhere in that page you will find out about the combining terms.

--------
Wow... you guys have already brought that down.

What about Dawkin's scale?

[Korashk]

I hold it is logical, as lack of belief either way, I feel, fits better under agnosticism. If you neither believe god exists, nor believe he does not exist, you are without knowledge of his existence.
No, atheism is the position of the skeptic. Agnostics [typically] claim that knowledge of the existence of deities is unknowable and therefore refrain from making a belief statement on either side of the issue. Making a belief statement makes you either an atheist or theist. Atheists make the statement of disbelief. I do not believe that gods exists. Atheist do not believe that gods exist. This is not the same as claiming that gods don't exist. Simply acknowledging that the concept is possible does not make you an agnostic.

To reiterate, the bold is the claim that atheists make. This is not saying that gods don't exist.

I do. I hold that it is the realm of acceptable possibility that many things exist, even if there is no evidence for them. Some of them have things that can be taken from them regardless of validity, some do not.
I think that you're not really an agnostic as the term is commonly used because what I'm reading makes me think you make belief statements.

Define "agnostic atheism".
Disbelief in gods without claiming that they don't exist.

[Sith Lord 13]

No, atheism is the position of the skeptic. Agnostics [typically] claim that knowledge of the existence of deities is unknowable and therefore refrain from making a belief statement on either side of the issue. Making a belief statement makes you either an atheist or theist. Atheists make the statement of disbelief. I do not believe that gods exists. Atheist do not believe that gods exist. This is not the same as claiming that gods don't exist. Simply acknowledging that the concept is possible does not make you an agnostic.

To reiterate, the bold is the claim that atheists make. This is not saying that gods don't exist.

There are two kinds of agnostics, those who say it is unknowable and those who say they don't personally know. I, along with the authors of Encyclopedia Britannica, the research they have done, and the foremost atheist society in America, all seem to disagree with you when it comes to where saying god exists places you. I, along with the sources I have provided, all place the acceptance of the possibility of god as a marking of an agnostic.

I think that you're not really an agnostic as the term is commonly used because what I'm reading makes me think you make belief statements.

There is where you're mistaken. I neither believe nor disbelieve god exists. The closest I come to a belief statement is saying I believe god MAY exist.

Disbelief in gods without claiming that they don't exist.

True belief god doesn't exist makes one an atheist. If one says they may exist, but is highly doubtful they exist, they would be an atheistically leaning agnostic.