15 Apr 13
Originally posted by twhitehead2. The Bible describes God with contradicting properties that match your restricted definition of contradiction.
Nevertheless, I claim that:
1. If, by your restricted definition of contradiction, an entity is defined with contradicting properties, it cannot exist.
2. The Bible describes God with contradicting properties that match your restricted definition of contradiction.
Of course you may claim that I simply don't understand the meaning of the Bible, but my ...[text shortened]... ly known as the Bible, and their interpretation is either uncommunicable, or subject to change.
Are you positive that these contradictory properties are actually in the Bible, explicitly, or are they classical theological interpretations of the Bible? I for one am not keen on classical theology, so when people like yourself say outright that the God of the Bible is absurd and therefore doesn't exist, it's easy for me to see the flaw in your reasoning. Perhaps it is possible to rule out certain readings, or perhaps even all of them, nevertheless doing so still doesn't make God's existence impossible.
Of course you may claim that I simply don't understand the meaning of the Bible...
The Bible is highly intelligible. Provided you read it critically, keeping it in its cultural and literary context. It's fairly easy to get lost in or misinterpret its intended meaning otherwise.
...but my counter is then that the Bible does not constitute a definition as it is unintelligible.
Well, if you're planning on figuring out what you're not going to believe in, the best place to go is the Bible. Granted, there are many interpretations, but both religious and secular scholars have been studying the Bible for ages now, and if you're ever curious enough to figure out for yourself what the gist of the Bible is, i.e., what it says about God, there are plenty of resources to help you.
16 Apr 13
Originally posted by epiphinehasHe doesn't want any help. He wants to remain willingly ignorant.
[b]2. The Bible describes God with contradicting properties that match your restricted definition of contradiction.
Are you positive that these contradictory properties are actually in the Bible, explicitly, or are they classical theological interpretations of the Bible? I for one am not keen on classical theology, so when people like yourself say ...[text shortened]... the Bible is, i.e., what it says about God, there are plenty of resources to help you.[/b]
For this they willingly are ignorant....
(2 Peter 3:5 KJV)
Originally posted by epiphinehasYes.
Are you positive that these contradictory properties are actually in the Bible, explicitly,
or are they classical theological interpretations of the Bible?
As I said, interpretation, classical or otherwise, may resolve the contradictions by essentially saying that what I think the Bible says is not what it says. But then it is the interpretation, not the Bible that must be the definition, and someone must present the interpretation for consideration.
Otherwise you are saying "I am thinking of something, prove it doesn't exist!".
Perhaps it is possible to rule out certain readings, or perhaps even all of them, nevertheless doing so still doesn't make God's existence impossible.
It makes the God as defined by those readings impossible.
The Bible is highly intelligible. Provided you read it critically, keeping it in its cultural and literary context. It's fairly easy to get lost in or misinterpret its intended meaning otherwise..
So easy in fact that it seems every person who ever read it has their own unique interpretation.
Well, if you're planning on figuring out what you're not going to believe in, the best place to go is the Bible. Granted, there are many interpretations, but both religious and secular scholars have been studying the Bible for ages now, and if you're ever curious enough to figure out for yourself what the gist of the Bible is, i.e., what it says about God, there are plenty of resources to help you.
Sorry, not particularly interested. The thread was about disproving the existence of God, and I think my proof still stands (with the acknowledgement that it only covers a specific definition of God, but since no other definitions are forthcoming, no more can be expected of me).
Yes, I recognize that your sentence above essentially says: "go find out the definition for yourself", but I simply am not interested.
16 Apr 13
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadAs I said, your argument is valid, but calling it sound is definitely premature. So far you've assumed that the God of the Bible possesses properties which contradict each other in the same sense at the same time. I agree that something that contradicts itself in this fashion cannot exist. Now show me why you are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that God doesn't exist. Use the law of non-contradiction to disprove the classical conception of God:
Yes.
[b] or are they classical theological interpretations of the Bible?
As I said, interpretation, classical or otherwise, may resolve the contradictions by essentially saying that what I think the Bible says is not what it says. But then it is the interpretation, not the Bible that must be the definition, and someone must present the interpreta ally says: "go find out the definition for yourself", but I simply am not interested.[/b]
1.) Omniscient (All-knowing)
2.) Omnipotent (All-powerful)
3.) Omnibenevolent (All-good)
4.) Transcendent (Independent of the physical world)
5.) Simplicity (Being without parts)
6.) Immutable (Unchanging in character)
7.) Timeless (Eternal)
8.) Impassable (Impervious to harm)
9.) Incorporeal (Non-physical)
Go.
16 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasI never made any claims regarding the classical conception of God. In fact, very early on in the thread I pointed out that the usual game is that once I prove that a given definition of God cannot exist, the theist merely changes the definition, then asks again. You have already stated that you are not really a supporter of 'classical theological interpretations of the Bible' so you may do the same with your definition here.
Use the law of non-contradiction to disprove the classical conception of God:
What if I said "OK, you're classical conception of God" might exist, but has nothing to do with Jesus? Will you then start adding on to your definition?
I must also add that a brief glance at your "classical conception of God" strongly suggests to me that it doesn't exist, because it doesn't match reality, but that is not proof by self contradiction. I also think a number of the properties you list would need significant explanation before they become meaningful ie as stated they could mean just about anything.
16 Apr 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat is not real about the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Ovideo? What is your proof? Do you have facts or beliefs?
I never made any claims regarding the classical conception of God. In fact, very early on in the thread I pointed out that the usual game is that once I prove that a given definition of God cannot exist, the theist merely changes the definition, then asks again. You have already stated that you are not really a supporter of 'classical theological interpre ...[text shortened]... anation before they become meaningful ie as stated they could mean just about anything.
16 Apr 13
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI never made any claims regarding the classical conception of God. In fact, very early on in the thread I pointed out that the usual game is that once I prove that a given definition of God cannot exist, the theist merely changes the definition, then asks again.
I never made any claims regarding the classical conception of God. In fact, very early on in the thread I pointed out that the usual game is that once I prove that a given definition of God cannot exist, the theist merely changes the definition, then asks again. You have already stated that you are not really a supporter of 'classical theological interpre anation before they become meaningful ie as stated they could mean just about anything.
Well, of course! You said yourself that you're not even interested in the Bible, so why should anyone expect you to understand the precise sense in which these terms are used? Obviously you might be tempted to see contradiction where there isn't one, as it would bolster your argument. Likewise, the theist has an interest in making sure the contradictions you find are actually contradictory "in the same sense at the same time".
You have already stated that you are not really a supporter of 'classical theological interpretations of the Bible' so you may do the same with your definition here.
Well, then it wouldn't be the classical theistic conception anymore. Don't worry, they're very different. Too different for me to pass one off as the other.
What if I said "OK, you're classical conception of God" might exist, but has nothing to do with Jesus? Will you then start adding on to your definition?
The list I provided is the classical theistic conception of God, which means, it could fit either the Hebrew, Muslim, or Christian concept of God. Let's assume it has nothing to do with Jesus.
I also think a number of the properties you list would need significant explanation before they become meaningful ie as stated they could mean just about anything.
Fair enough; I'm willing to get into the nitty-gritty, as far as I am able (I am not a theologian).
16 Apr 13
Originally posted by epiphinehasI'm a lost here. What are you saying? What wouldn't be the classical theistic conception?
Well, then it wouldn't be the classical theistic conception anymore. Don't worry, they're very different. Too different for me to pass one off as the other.
The list I provided is the classical theistic conception of God, which means, it could fit either the Hebrew, Muslim, or Christian concept of God. Let's assume it has nothing to do with Jesus.
So its a very general definition. What if I made it simpler for you and said:
1. God is a blue entity.
Nobody could ever prove that doesn't exist. Problem solved!
Fair enough; I'm willing to get into the nitty-gritty, as far as I am able (I am not a theologian).
And once in the nitty-gritty and a contradiction is found, would you change your nitty-gritty so as to remove the contradiction, or would you accept that God doesn't exist?
16 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm a lost here. What are you saying? What wouldn't be the classical theistic conception?
I'm a lost here. What are you saying? What wouldn't be the classical theistic conception?
[b]The list I provided is the classical theistic conception of God, which means, it could fit either the Hebrew, Muslim, or Christian concept of God. Let's assume it has nothing to do with Jesus.
So its a very general definition. What if I made it simpler for itty-gritty so as to remove the contradiction, or would you accept that God doesn't exist?[/b]
Sorry, I was referring to the neoclassical conception of God. It's too radically different to be passed off as the classical version, if that were ever my intention.
So its a very general definition. What if I made it simpler for you and said:
1. God is a blue entity.
Nobody could ever prove that doesn't exist. Problem solved!
You're the one who said you proved that God doesn't exist because God is contradictory. With that kind of confidence I figured you had this thing locked down already! Look, it shouldn't matter to you what definition of God I give you. As long as you can find a contradiction in it, you've proven that particular definition of God non-existent.
I've provided you with the biggest fish in the pond, though (the classical theistic definition), so it's not like it's an irrelevant task.
And once in the nitty-gritty and a contradiction is found, would you change your nitty-gritty so as to remove the contradiction, or would you accept that God doesn't exist?
I will admit the contradiction, but, again, the contradiction only refutes the definition. A God of some sort, one that possesses a set of compatible attributes, may still exist, so I can't obviously say, based on one contradictory definition, that no God exists.
You can start whenever you want. I'll do my best to help.
16 Apr 13
Originally posted by epiphinehasNo, I said I have proved that a particular definition of God (that described in the Bible) does not exist, because the definition is contradictory.
You're the one who said you proved that God doesn't exist because God is contradictory.
At no point have I said that all possible definitions of God are contradictory, hence my example of a definition of God which cannot be disproved ie 'God is a blue entity'. The key thing is to note that nobody actually believe in this God.
Look, it shouldn't matter to you what definition of God I give you. As long as you can find a contradiction in it, you've proven that particular definition of God non-existent.
Correct.
I've provided you with the biggest fish in the pond, though (the classical theistic definition), so it's not like it's an irrelevant task.
Except that it isn't the a god that anyone actually believes in, or at least it is not very specific. Hence my point that if you cut down your definition to 'God is a blue entity' then it will be impossible to disprove, but also have very little relation to the God you believe in.
I will admit the contradiction, but, again, the contradiction only refutes the definition. A God of some sort, one that possesses a set of compatible attributes, may still exist, so I can't obviously say, based on one contradictory definition, that no God exists.
And here lies the problem which I laid out at the very beginning of the thread. As long as you cannot define God, we cannot discuss his existence.
As long as you say: 'there is a God, but I know nothing about him' then neither of us should be discussing whether or not he exists.
But once you start making specific claims, I may or may not be able to prove that he does not exist, depending on how specific they are and whether or not I can find a self contradiction or a contradiction with known facts about the universe.
I fully admit that the general problem occurs with regards to just about anything. So for example if one was to ask 'do atoms exist'. Then the question is 'how do you define 'atom'? If you define it quite loosely, then it is unlikely that anyone will disprove their existence. But if say you claim that an atom is made up of quarks and electrons, and some future theory of physics discards the concept of quarks, then atoms (as defined) do not exist.
Similarly if you define 'light' as 'an electromagnetic wave' then light as defined does not exist (because it isn't actually a wave). But we know there is something there, and depending on how much Quantum Mechanics you know, you will know various things about it.
Now suppose I claim that there is a massless, energyless, chargeless particle that is undetectable and travels in large quantities throughout space. Can you prove they don't exist? Probably not, but who cares?