Arguing about God's existence is nonsensical

[Feelings]

And, similarly, once the definition of 'wrong' is revised, my argument might stop being it.

Point being, of course my argument is off base if the definitions I used are changed. But I'm curious: how would you define omnipotence?

....
.......
...
Yeah, you get the dots. Big time. I am annoyed that I have to literally spell out implications for you seemingly because you want to believe that your OP is more profound than it is.

Your argument is that it is a waste of time to discuss whether or not God exists. That argument is based on one particular definition of God. If that view of God is changed even slightly, then your argument is completely dead.

 

[Radiantshadow]

Knowledge and logic are based upon assumptions, as are any cognitive tools we use to represent "reality"; therefore, it follows that "rational" discussion is ultimately flawed. From this point, it's a subjective phenomenon to (dis)believe.

If one were to argue for/against nonsensical articles, thorough definitions must be established...if the article in question is "omnipotent/all-knowing" then one with limited cognition cannot establish said definitions, so the argument is pointless.

To answer your question: yes

(Aside: Pardon the dull redundancy of my statements)

 

[dream echo]

Does God exist?

Idk...and neither does anyone else, imo.
Well find out later, or not at all.


Is it a waste of time to argue about his existence?

Not if you like to argue about things no one can prove. =P
And why argue unless you're trying to make someone else
agree with or understand your POV?

 

[randomsomeone]

I think that for many, the argument is more of an internal one than one that is meant to convince another. We try to make sense of things, or of cultural discussions, and often we start out in our heads. We seldom end there, but it can be a convenient place to start for some. Actual awareness ultimately happens on many levels.

 

[manatee]

I'd like some clarification on this as well because in certain cases, and from certain perspectives, this could indeed be possible in God.

It's just the law of non-contradiction, a fundamental tenet of logic. X can not be not-X. Which cases and perspectives do you mean? (The possibility of God overriding these concepts is, I think, related to my argument)

....
.......
...
Yeah, you get the dots. Big time. I am annoyed that I have to literally spell out implications for you seemingly because you want to believe that your OP is more profound than it is.

Your argument is that it is a waste of time to discuss whether or not God exists. That argument is based on one particular definition of God. If that view of God is changed even slightly, then your argument is completely dead.

My apologies for not considering more definitions. It is true that my argument was based on a definition of God as omnipotent, and furthermore, a particular interpretation of omnipotent. As previously pointed out, I did add the caveat that my argument didn't pertain to all definitions of God.

However, my impression is that most people agree that omnipotence is one of the properties possessed by God, according to their definition of the word. So, if this impression and my interpretation of 'omnipotence' are correct, then the argument does apply to, at least, most definitions of God. This was why I asked you for your definition of omnipotence: where am I wrong?

Simply pointing out the obvious that a change in definitions changes the validity of the argument isn't very helpful. I would appreciate it if you specified how the definitions I use ought to be changed, according to you. I apologize if I've offended you.

 

[myself]

how can Mother Father Creator God not exist?

existence exists

it is simple

there are plenty of ways to trick oneself if one chooses to believe otherwise

logical gymnastics are not necessary

it really is all about choice

 

[Animekitty]

When I think about God I think about what fills the emptiness of space. What does it mean to be empty, it means having full potential for anything. In quantum physic there exist multiple world occupying the same space. Only when the wave function collapses do you get a particular world. Each world is different rule sets for matter interactions. The quantum entanglements of non local(spooky action at a distance) within the micro tubes of our brain allows quantum computation. Wavicals produce souls in the aether much like code in the matrix movies.

In philosophy, panpsychism is the view that all matter has a mental aspect, or, alternatively, all objects have a unified center of experience or point of view.

 

[Kmal]

Of course, nonsensicalness does not imply that one shouldn't partake in it.

So then expand your definition of god--

the universe (we'll agree that the universe is everything that is) is what some consider god. there is the omniscience and omnipotence and whatnot.

observing god has to do with the observer. the only way you take in information is through your nervous system; making everything subjective. there is no reason to separate the universe and the observer. same with god, ufos, and ghosts. the universe is consciousness--consciousness is 'god' in my opinion; the everything that is, what has been, what is, and what will be.

what came first? the chicken or the egg? the observer or the universe? like the legendary ko-ko bird, we follow our tail in never ending circles, but unlike the bird, we never complete the process and fly up our own butt and disappear.

 

[detectivepope]

I'm atheist and I believe there is a god/gods.

 

[randomsomeone]

X can not be not-X. Which cases and perspectives do you mean?

I suppose I am referring to paradox. Depending on the descriptors or trait used in a logical discussion, the X and not-X might be two sides of the same coin to us, but both exist in God.

I suspect in many cases the idea is sound...perhaps the words, and the meanings we assign to them, are the first problem to surmount.

 

[detectivepope]

In order for something to exist it has to be agreed upon in the case of metaphysical entities e.g. language context, meaning. So the fact that a huge number agree on the fact doesn't this make it exist, we are discussing this which shows that there is basis or (at least half) truth. I don't think there is a sole creator as is told in Judeo-christian traditions and tangent beliefs, but I think there is a basis at for a god to exist. Ideas are gods as they shape peoples actions. Science is a god because we follow its teachings even though most aspects of science can not and will never be truly experienced by humans. I think what should be looked at is not if it exists or not but rather, what is a god?

 

[AUM]

Science is a god because we follow its teachings

I would say that science has become another form of dogma, which is a pity. Now instead of people relying on religious scriptures for the truth, we now look at science journals to do the work for us.

The truth, in my opinion, cannot be told, only experienced. Scriptures or scientific journals should only serve as sign posts, one has to actually walk the path themselves.

 

[Kmal]

I would say that science has become another form of dogma, which is a pity. Now instead of people relying on religious scriptures for the truth, we now look at science journals to do the work for us.

The truth, in my opinion, cannot be told, only experienced. Scriptures or scientific journals should only serve as sign posts, one has to actually walk the path themselves.

"Facts" have a way of changing when new information comes about-- science is generally a generation behind itself.

 

[AUM]

"Facts" have a way of changing when new information comes about-- science is generally a generation behind itself.

I don't really have a problem with science, science is a great tool for understanding. With what I have a problem with is people not questioning scientific principles but taking them for granted. The few people who actually know what these principles are, or in other words, have experienced knowledge firsthand themselves through experimentation and analysis are a step ahead of those that take those principles as gospel and don't really know what each "fact" entails in the bigger picture.

That is what a dogma is, isn't? Not questioning authority(religious, political or in this case, scientific) and taking their word for truth.

Or did I misunderstand you?

 

[Matariki]

I agree. However I believe that whether God exists or not based on 'fact' but on faith.

Faith is personal because its spiritual, and spirituality is identity, and identity is what you associate with. I associate with Christianity. I believe in a God that cannot be analyzed, manipulated or replicated by means of science or natural philosophy or as we know it 'by fact'. The God I believe in exists beyond 'fact' and is not bound by it as we are. Which is why I personally find the argument pointless. IMO To make God's existence a fact he would need to be a created being rather than a creator and placed as either equal to humanity or below humanity which is where it becomes a problem of authority.

If God is created by humanity then he is by default lower than humanity and not sovereign or supernatural. In that case he can be measured by us and be ruled out as either fact or fiction. However the questions would be; Why would people want to worship a God that is not all powerful as many claim him to be? Why would humanity need to create something of higher authority than themselves, where would the internal requirement come from?

If God is the creator, then he cannot be measured by created beings or by anything lower than him. So ultimately it becomes a matter of faith, acceptance and submission to his authority, and God's will to show himself to us, not ours.

This is what the bible has to say:

Romans 1:19 - 25 (NKJV)
19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man

 

[Candice_XX]

Sure, you might argue that, logically, omnipotence is impossible. Does it follow from this that a being defined as omnipotent does not exist? I'd contend that it doesn't: if one of the most fundamental properties of a being is specified as omnipotence, and omnipotence+logic does not blend, then how wrongheaded would it not be to apply logic to this being? Any discussion of it is beyond the reach of logic.

I am not of your view because your argument says that religion+science does not blend. It's not a matter of the specific world because you did not find the only word that science can not define, there are definitions and conclusions. There's no simply a problem of the linguistic meaning of that very word. If you leave room for wonder due to scientific doubt, that's respected. If you leave room for wonder due to faith doubts,which seems so because you draw a line and you put things beyond the reach of logic, I don't agree.

The thing is, if you let whatever logical obstacle you've set up for God trip ithimher, then, you're no longer discussing God (assuming God is defined as omnipotent). The argument that 1. Omnipotence is impossible, 2. God is omnipotent, Conclusion: God is impossible is not valid, since the premises are not internally compatible. If God is omnipotent, then nothing for ithimher can be impossible. The result of applying logic to God seems to be nothing short of illogical. You dig?

I am sure we are getting the same thing, as I don't see where we disagree. If one of the two statements is false (to our case let's say statement one) the conclusion will be false. You have to check the validity of both statements. There's no way that both are right and contradictory. This logical process seems to have possibilities to lead in agnosticism (scientific doubt) or atheism (acceptance that there is one absolute truth).