Do you believe in God(s)?

[Atilla]

Actually, that's called basic genetics. Even the most rabid creationists are generally aware that, for example, a corgi will not give birth to a wolf, even though we know domestic dogs came about through selective breeding of non-domestic canines. Which is why I'm not really inclined to take this guy seriously.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

This video is absolutely amazing.

1'41"00 (roundabouts there) is the best part. Richard Dawkins layin' down the hurt.

[origami_alligator]

This video is absolutely amazing.

1'41"00 (roundabouts there) is the best part. Richard Dawkins layin' down the hurt.

I felt that the person asking the question about the replacement for religion at 47:50 and the answer following was the most interesting and engaging question of the entire Q&A.

Overall it was a wonderful lecture, I'm glad I took the time to watch it.

[Paddy]

I am katholic, but I do not really believe in God. I do not think that there is somebody who made all creatures. I just trust science facts.

[Seneschal]

I am katholic, but I do not really believe in God. I do not think that there is somebody who made all creatures. I just trust science facts.

I've never heard of the katholics before - do they have a large following?
And how can you be a, ahem, catholic, and not believe in God? Isn't that a contradiction in terms or am I just ignorant of this particular schism in the church?

[Tanner]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=katholic Maybe? It's sort of hard to tell if this is a typo or not.

[Atilla]

Maybe he means he's one of those people who just call themselves Catholic for the sake of tradition, or because their parents expect it.

[Seneschal]

Anyway, I was wondering whether anyone can tell me the answer to the question "Could God create a rock too heavy for him to lift?", since God is omnipotent.
Personally, I think this just illustrates the impossibility of omnipotency, and thus the impossiblity of God.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Anyway, I was wondering whether anyone can tell me the answer to the question "Could God create a rock too heavy for him to lift?", since God is omnipotent.
Personally, I think this just illustrates the impossibility of omnipotency, and thus the impossiblity of God.

Omnipotence necessarily puts God outside the restrictions of the natural universe and logic as we can possibly understand it.
The answer to your question is yes, He can, and the explanation of how it's possible is beyond anything we could comprehend.

[SlappyMcGee]

Yeah, basically, God doesn't believe in logic, so why should we?

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Yeah, basically, God doesn't believe in logic, so why should we?

That's why I don't believe in science. I challenge you to name a single functional product of applied science.

[SlappyMcGee]

The bindings that hold my Bibles together. Also, skydiving.

[Atilla]

Yeah, basically, God doesn't believe in logic, so why should we?

Only people who believe in logic need a reason. Also, turnips.

[Studebacher Hoch]

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/ ... 9.471.html

Abiogenesis. Bam. Religion is a goner.

[Atilla]

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/ ... 9.471.html

Abiogenesis. Bam. Religion is a goner.

I think you mean Young Earth Creationism, sir. Many religions are down with the evolvin'.

[Adoniseppi]

I personally am a strong atheist, in that I firmly believe that no deities, spirits, or any supernatural entities exist in our universe. Upon deep consideration, I find it seemingly impossible that one conscious being could be aware of every human being's past, present, and future. I also wonder with so many different religions, why should any one of them be correct?

[blue_tetris]

Thanks for the helpful new content, Guiseppi.

[Seneschal]

An argument:

God is perfect.
Three necessary conditions of being a perfect being are omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence.
Since God is omniscient, he knows what will happen before it happens.
Since God is also omnipotent, he has control over everything, including humans.
Since he knows what will happen, and must control what will happen, he is responsible for everything that has ever happened and everything that ever will happen.
That means he is the cause of all our sins (and we have no free will either), and yet is omnibenevolent simultaneously.

Conclusion: Either God is not perfect (and a liar to boot), in which case I see no reason to worship him, or he doesn't exist. I tend to agree with the latter.
I would be interested to see how a religious person answers this little paradox.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

An argument:

God is perfect.
Three necessary conditions of being a perfect being are omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence.
Since God is omniscient, he knows what will happen before it happens.
Since God is also omnipotent, he has control over everything, including humans.
Since he knows what will happen, and must control what will happen, he is responsible for everything that has ever happened and everything that ever will happen.
That means he is the cause of all our sins (and we have no free will either), and yet is omnibenevolent simultaneously.

Conclusion: Either God is not perfect (and a liar to boot), in which case I see no reason to worship him, or he doesn't exist. I tend to agree with the latter.
I would be interested to see how a religious person answers this little paradox.

I'm good with everything you say after your seemingly arbitrary definition of perfection, until the conclusion. It's something that I and a few other atheists here have been repeating like parrots without much of an intelligible response (besides "no, free will does exist though... *whimper* *leave*").


But yeah, there's a problem with arbitrarily deciding what constitutes perfection. You declare it as though some official committee of supernatural beings got together and decided the Three Human-Conceived Qualities of Perfection.

Burritos are tasty.
Three necessary conditions of being tasty are variety of flavors, spices, and the quality of being currently eaten by me.
Although I could be wrong, I do not appear to be eating any burritos at the moment.
Conclusion: Either burritos couldn't possibly be tasty (and in fact taste like sewage), in which case I see no reason to eat them, or they don't exist. I tend to agree with the latter.
I would be interested to see how a consumer of Mexican-American Cuisine answers this little paradox.

[Seneschal]

But yeah, there's a problem with arbitrarily deciding what constitutes perfection. You declare it as though some official committee of supernatural beings got together and decided the Three Human-Conceived Qualities of Perfection.

Hmm. Perfection is a tricky one to define, I admit.
The way I see it, God has 4 main properties:

Omnibenevolence

And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him

Omnipresence

God is not limited to a certain space. God fills the heavens and the earth. Every person throughout the world is always in the presence of God.

Omnipotence

God is all powerful. God can do whatever God wants to do.

Omniscience

Because God knows everything, we can trust that God knows what is good for us

Given that Gid God is perfect, his qualites must constitute perfection, on the basis that if he had a property that wasn't beneficial, he couldn't be perfect as it would be a liability.
These properties, when applied to the same being, are impossible, as there are a lot of paradoxes involved, like the one I mentioned before and the omnibenevolence vs. omnipotence one (God loves us and yet is the cause of pain).

Even if God weren't perfect (and there are a number of bible references that claim that he is), these qualities still can't exist together.

[capt_weasle]

I read an article about the "God creating a rock he can't lift" question. It compared it to making the perfect glue: one that will stick to any surface, adhere under any conditions, and hold indefinitely. But the problems with the glue being so perfect is that it would either get the lid stuck to the jar of said glue, or the applicator itself to whatever it was applying the glue to. So by adding the limitations of the glue not being able to stick to either the lid or get the applicator stuck to any said object, you would actually be increasing the quality despite these "imperfections." Interesting article, although I suppose that would throw omnipotence into question.

[Studebacher Hoch]

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/ ... 9.471.html

Abiogenesis. Bam. Religion is a goner.

I think you mean Young Earth Creationism, sir. Many religions are down with the evolvin'.

Well, what I mostly meant is that this proves the life from unliving particles is possible, meaning that the last religious argument with any merit (that life cannot do so, meaning there must be a creator) is undone.

[Seneschal]

I used to think that this rock-type paradox was a death blow to any concept of an omnipotent god. But then I started to think - Is it really meaningful to put incoherent strings of words into the set of predicates we call "anything"? For instance, does it make any sense to ask "Could God asdfghjkl; purple cows?" This made me realize that in the same way that "asdfghjkl; purple cows" is meaningless, "create a rock he cannot lift" is also meaningless. The question necessarily violates the rules established by written language. In the first case, basic sentence structure is absent. In the second, the law of non-contradiction is violated. And so my conclusion is that when we define omnipotence as the ability to do "anything," what we mean is that omnipotence is the ability to do any real thing. This set of real things does not include logical impossibilities. The question "Can God create a rock he can't lift?" is invalid as an attempt to disprove god's existence, for two reasons. (1) It presupposes a definition of omnipotence that, for reasons I have already laid out, doesn't make sense. And (2) it attempts to disprove god using the rules of logic, even though it has thrown them out the minute the question is posed.

God isn't one for obeying the laws of logic - this is the guy who walked on water, turned water into wine, fed 5000 people with a loaf of bread and a fish, returned from the dead, etc, etc. These things are already outside of the realms of logic, so I fail to see his problem with creating a rock he can't lift. Furthermore, using the quote from earlier:

Matthew 19:26
God is all powerful. God can do whatever God wants to do.[/quote]

The bible claims that he can do whatever he wants to do, even things that we humans deem impossible or that don't make sense to us.
I have a Christian friend who answered my above argument by saying that God chooses what to exert his power over and gave humans free will so that we could choose whether to sin or not. To me this is still ridiculous, as by giving us free will he ceases to be omnipotent, surely?

[yungerkid]

cheesemonger, Jesus' miracles ocurred in coordination with logic. logic dictated that they happen. just because they don't follow what the physical realm usually does, does not at all mean that they defied logic.

Demonz, God could not asdfghjkl; purple cows because that action does not exist at all, even in the hypothetical realm. the action of creating a rock that He can't lift, however, does exist within the hypothetical realm. to answer a question with a logical impossibility, we merely are evaluating behaviour on a hypothetical level, of hypothetical objects. of course, the answer will be meaningless, because the thing can't happen anyway (which is why God can't create a rock so large that He is unable to lift it, among other reasons), but there is still an answer to the question. but the first question you posed is meaningless because it cannot have an answer. what i'm saying is that the two are both meaningless, but for different reasons, and that one of them still has an answer. i do, however, agree with your conclusion that omnipotence still requires adherence to logic.

also, i prefer not to evaluate anything in terms of its meaning or meaningfulness, because meaning and importance are relative, and ultimately truth is our object, not the good of humanity (which is only a luxury).

[Seneschal]

cheesemonger, Jesus' miracles ocurred in coordination with logic. logic dictated that they happen. just because they don't follow what the physical realm usually does, does not at all mean that they defied logic.

You're right, I should have said the laws of reality rather than logic - but he still commits illogical acts, I think: like creating humanity and telling them not to sin when he knew they would, and tempting them to do so in the first place.