God refuted

[Anonymous No.15407539]

The five 'proofs' asserted by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century don't prove anything, and are easily - though I hesitate to say so, given his eminence - exposed as vacuous. The first three are just different ways of saying the same thing, and they can be considered together. All involve an infinite regress - the answer to a question raises a prior question, and so on ad infinitum.

Incidentally, it has not escaped the notice of logicians that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible. If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent. Karen Owens has captured this witty little paradox in equally engaging verse: Can omniscient God, who Knows the future, find The omnipotence to Change His future mind?

To return to the infinite regress and the futility of invoking God to terminate it, it is more parsimonious to conjure up, say, a 'big bang singularity', or some other physical concept as yet unknown. Calling it God is at best unhelpful and at worst perniciously misleading. Edward Lear's Nonsense Recipe for Crumboblious Cutlets invites us to 'Procure some strips of beef, and having cut them into the smallest possible pieces, proceed to cut them still smaller, eight or perhaps nine times.' Some regresses do reach a natural terminator. Scientists used to wonder what would happen if you could dissect, say, gold into the smallest possible pieces. Why shouldn't you cut one of those pieces in half and produce an even smaller smidgen of gold? The regress in this case is decisively terminated by the atom. The smallest possible piece of gold is a nucleus consisting of exactly seventy-nine protons and a slightly larger number of neutrons, attended by a swarm of seventy-nine electrons. If you 'cut' gold any further than the level of the single atom, whatever else you get it is not gold. The atom provides a natural terminator to the Crumboblious Cutlets type of regress. It is by no means clear that God provides a natural terminator to the regresses of Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.15407555]

>>15407539
See >>15406884

[Anonymous No.15407587]

>>15407539
This is a quote from something that got published?
Shit, I'm mad as hell. Our essays have a better standard.

[Anonymous No.15407606]

>>15407539
Every refutation of God necessarily begins with a denial of some essential quality of God, and therefore is not a refutation of God, but of a false God, proving not his non-existence, but the necessity of that quality which was ignored.

God created and creates all things. This includes time, which is itself a limit of our perception, not a constraint on reality. So, it is not that God already knows what is going to happen, but that (in a sense) it has already happened. All of creation is already perfected, and it is only our perception of it, lacking revelation, which perceives anything to be unfinished. Simultanesously, it is this lack of full knowledge which gives us free will. We are free to act in time, not knowing precisely how reality will unfold.

Further, change is a meaningless term in relationship to God. Nothing can be understood as changing without being subject to external qualities. Nothing is external to God in such a way, for he has made all things. He is not a being among many, but is rather the Source of Being itself. He is both Change, and Unchanging. He is the Unmoved Mover.

Of course, if you attempt to consider the nature of God at the same time you deny some necessary attribute of God, he will no longer seem to be God, for he will be without that which is necessary in our conception of him. In other words, if you consider what is not God to see if it is God, obviously you will find that what is not God is not God.

[Anonymous No.15407607]

>In Why there almost certainly is a God: Doubting Dawkins, philosopher Keith Ward claims that Richard Dawkins mis-stated the five ways, and thus responds with a straw man. Ward defended the utility of the five ways (for instance, on the fourth argument he states that all possible smells must pre-exist in the mind of God, but that God, being by his nature non-physical, does not himself stink) whilst pointing out that they only constitute a proof of God if one first begins with a proposition that the universe can be rationally understood. Nevertheless, he argues that they are useful in allowing us to understand what God will be like given this initial presupposition.
>Eastern Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart says that Dawkins "devoted several pages of The God Delusion to a discussion of the 'Five Ways' of Thomas Aquinas but never thought to avail himself of the services of some scholar of ancient and medieval thought who might have explained them to him ... As a result, he not only mistook the Five Ways for Thomas's comprehensive statement on why we should believe in God, which they most definitely are not, but ended up completely misrepresenting the logic of every single one of them, and at the most basic levels." Hart said of Dawkins treatment of Aquinas' arguments that:
>Not knowing the scholastic distinction between primary and secondary causality, for instance, [Dawkins] imagined that Thomas's talk of a "first cause" referred to the initial temporal causal agency in a continuous temporal series of discrete causes. He thought that Thomas's logic requires the universe to have had a temporal beginning, which Thomas explicitly and repeatedly made clear is not the case. He anachronistically mistook Thomas's argument from universal natural teleology for an argument from apparent "Intelligent Design" in nature. He thought Thomas's proof from universal "motion" concerned only physical movement in space, "local motion," rather than the ontological movement from potency to act. He mistook Thomas's argument from degrees of transcendental perfection for an argument from degrees of quantitative magnitude, which by definition have no perfect sum. (Admittedly, those last two are a bit difficult for modern persons, but he might have asked all the same.)"
Essentially, Dawkins made a straw man and attacked it. He hasn't refuted shit and should stick to biology.

[Anonymous No.15407633]

>>15407607
Why should I care about what any of these science deniers have to say? All you did was post a bunch of quotes from people who believe in fairy tales.

[Anonymous No.15407648]

>>15407633
The straw man is comes from Thomas Aquinas' Five Proofs of God. In this passage he's explainig the fifth proof for God.

Aquinas says:
"The fifth way is taken from the governance of things. For we see some things lack knowledge, namely natural bodies, act for the sake of some end. This is apparent from the fact that they always or most often act in the same way so as to attain what is best. From this it is obvious that they achieve their end not by chance but by intention. But those things that lack knowledge do not tend toward an end except under the direction of something with knowledge and intelligence, as in the case of an arrow from an archer. Therefore there is some intelligent being by whom all natural things are ordered to an end, and this we call God."

Dawkins says:
"Things in the world, especially living things, look as though they are designed. Nothing that we know looks designed unless it is designed. Therefore there must have been a designer, and we call him God. Aquinas himself used the analogy of an arrow moving towards a target, but a modern heat seeking- anti-aircraft missile would have suited his purposes better (103)."

Dawkins goes on to explain that "Thanks to Darwin, it is no longer true to say that nothing that we know looks designed unless it is designed." He uses evolution to argue against an intellectual designer of life.

I think Aquinas is trying to understand how exactly life came to be in the first place. Dawkins says evolution explains it, but it's not getting to the root of the problem that Aquinas is addressing.

[Anonymous No.15407667]

>>15407539
>subjecting God to his own material reductions
How did he seriously write this

[Anonymous No.15407682]

>>15407633
What is science? What is a science?

[Anonymous No.15407691]

>>15407633
>science deniers
>people who believe in fairy tales.

[Anonymous No.15407702]

>I'm gonna prove god exists
>*embeds god's existence in the axioms*
at least muslims have the decency to have faith
most christians these days look like they're constantly preoccupied with trying to keep their flimsy faith from collapsing around them
unironically exactly like schizos who keep jumping from one argument to another for why the earth is flat, since the cessation of asserting truth causes the dreadful existential void to expand in their mind

[Anonymous No.15407711]

>>15407702
>*embeds god's existence in the axioms*
Where does Aquinas do that?

[Anonymous No.15407721]

>>15407711
have you never read kant?

[Anonymous No.15407728]

>>15407702
yeah, an actual Christian doesn’t bother much with this philosophical nonsense. But it can support faith by giving us an idea of the reasonableness of God’s existence. If we can grasp partly then we can have faith that there is an even greater explanation accessible to God

[Anonymous No.15407743]

>>15407728
if the average person was capable of digesting kierkegaard, christianity would be in a much better spot in the west
instead we are left with insecure schizo larpers

[Anonymous No.15407749]

>>15407702
God can be proved through reason, the resurrection of his son is necessarily an article of faith

[Anonymous No.15407761]

>>15407648
Why cant naturalists distinguish a how from a why?

[Anonymous No.15407793]

>>15407711
>infinite regress isn't possible
>why?
>because the bible has a start date
this is literally aquinas first way, dude

[Anonymous No.15407808]

>>15407793
This is the silliest post I have read in a week.

[Anonymous No.15407809]

>>15407793
No, Aquinas didn't argue against infinite regress because he believed the universe had a beginning. He was actually disgusted with the notion that you could argue so, actually.

Infinite regress is impossible to Aquinas because in order for the chain to be infinite, each member of the chain would have to derive its attributes from the member before it in the chain. Since each member of the chain would derive its attribute from a previous member, no member of the chain would have its attributes inherent to it; it would derive its attributes from a previous member in order for the chain to be infinite. Since no member of the chain would have inherent attributes, it logically follows that the chain could not be infinite.

[Anonymous No.15407812]

>>15407539
I don't see how any omnipotent being that sees her own future can't change it. Can you please derive a contradiction from the concept of a being that knows all knowable factd and can do all doable things?

[Anonymous No.15407817]

Dawkins didn't understand the 5 proofs. OP never read them either.

[Anonymous No.15407830]

>>15407793
Realistically, all five of Aquinas' Five Ways come down to
>Aristotle didn't like infinite regress, and the Bible says that the world had a beginning
not just the first one.

[Anonymous No.15407843]

>>15407702
One ought not confuse the average self-proclaimed Christian today with Christianity itself, or even the average self-proclaimed Christian of the past. The greatest Doctors of the Church primarily wrote theology as a contemplation of the Divinity, with a mind to the common objections of their time. Many who have weak faith today use the reasoning provided in those texts to try and justify their faith to themselves, but it would be incorrect to suppose that Augustine or Aquinas argued themselves from skepticism to belief. The Confessions of Augustine demonstrates this very well. He shows how arguments from Christians caused his Manichaean faith to crumble, but the entire work rests on the simple contemplation of the seeming paradox that Man must seek God to know God, but how can one seek God without first knowing God? Augustine begins this argument with a belief in God, and so the resulting logic presupposes faith. It is not convincing because it leads one from unbelief to belief, but rather it convinces be leading from a position of faith which the readers does not necessarily hold to a revelation of understanding which the reader cannot help but recognize and accept, and so therefore leads back to belief by the clarity of its conclusion which relies upon belief. If one approaches skeptically, one will inevitably seek an alternative explanation as a proof, and never be satisfied in either.

[Anonymous No.15407844]

>>15407809
>would have inherent attributes
Show me something that has inherent attributes.

[Anonymous No.15407850]

>>15407844
"Something" has the inherent attribute of existence.

[Anonymous No.15407855]

>>15407809
so again
>infinite regress can't happen
>why not?
>because i said so

[Anonymous No.15407858]

>>15407812
God is extratemporal so it doesn't matter anyway

[Anonymous No.15407860]

>>15407844
Do you know what inherent means?

[Anonymous No.15407863]

>>15407855
I didn't do that. Precisely, where do you take issue with my logic there?

[Anonymous No.15407873]

>>15407863
im wondering why you dont think an infinite regress can happen. i thought that was pretty clear.

[Anonymous No.15407880]

>>15407873
I just explained why and you didn't point out any objections.
>Infinite regress is impossible to Aquinas because in order for the chain to be infinite, each member of the chain would have to derive its attributes from the member before it in the chain. Since each member of the chain would derive its attribute from a previous member, no member of the chain would have its attributes inherent to it; it would derive its attributes from a previous member in order for the chain to be infinite. Since no member of the chain would have inherent attributes, it logically follows that the chain could not be infinite.

[Anonymous No.15407881]

>>15407761
In their limited bugman/materialist worldview only the how is important. That's what science is.

[Anonymous No.15407883]

>>15407850
So do Unicorns have this attribute, then? Could you show me a unicorn?

[Anonymous No.15407891]

>>15407883
Why are you bringing up unicorns? But yes, unicorns have ontological existence as a conception, but clearly not as anything corporeal.

[Anonymous No.15407897]

>>15407880
>in order for the chain to be infinite, each member of the chain would have to derive its attributes from the member before it in the chain. Since each member of the chain would derive its attribute from a previous member, no member of the chain would have its attributes inherent to it; it would derive its attributes from a previous member in order for the chain to be infinite.
this makes perfect sense, we agree

>Since no member of the chain would have inherent attributes, it logically follows that the chain could not be infinite.
this is where your problem arises, as you're arbitrarily sticking a point here that doesnt have to be. because there is no reason we have to go back to something "inherent", you're just arbitrarily putting a point here for no real reason, and im wondering why you are doing that. my assumption is that you're trying to defend the Biblical narrative of Creation by embedding it in here ("OBVIOUSLY something can come from nothing because otherwise the bible would be wrong"), as this is what aquinas does

[Anonymous No.15407901]

>>15407883
Not him, but your being intentionally obtuse. If a unicorn existed, it would have the inherent attribute of existence. The idea of a unicorn is easily distinguishable from a unicorn itself. The idea of a thing can exist without there being the thing idealized. So, the idea of the unicorn also has the inherent attribute of existence, even if there are no unicorns. You position is not actually one of reason, but is only to deny what is self-evident as though things are known by reason and not experience.

[Anonymous No.15407908]

>>15407891
>Why are you bringing up unicorns?
It's a reddit argument. I bet he also likes faggotry like the church of the flying spaghetti monster.

[Anonymous No.15407910]

>>15407897
Not the guy you're replying to but the prime mover argument has nothing to do with creationism or The Bible

[Anonymous No.15407911]

>>15407539
Merely because proofs of God are futile, it does not mean he does not exist.

[Anonymous No.15407913]

>>15407897
It's not arbitrary. By "inherent" I mean within the object. For instance, a dog has the quality of "dogness" within it, not from something else. There could not be an infinite regress of dogs because then none of the dogs would have "dogness" within themselves.

[Anonymous No.15407962]

>>15407913
why would you assume "dogness" is a thing at all, or is even necessary? why is a finite regress without dogness okay, as long as it eventually goes back to a source of dogness?

>>15407910
99% of the time when it's brought up it's used entirely as a defense of Yahweh as described by the Bible (recently, you get this for Yahweh described as the Quran), so you must forgive me if im biased from what ive seen 99% of the time. ill let you know when i find someone trying to use this to defend the existence of zeus as aristotle himself was doing, however

[Anonymous No.15407987]

>>15407962
>why would you assume "dogness" is a thing at all, or is even necessary?
It doesn't matter for the topic at hand. You could substitute "dog" with "thing" and "dogness" would "existence" if you want.
>why is a finite regress without dogness okay, as long as it eventually goes back to a source of dogness?
First, infiniteness isn't the problem here. It's the regress. if something had dogness within itself as an actualizer for this chain, then it could go on for infinity. Second, if a member of the chain had the property that the chain was based on, then it would be fine. The problem with an infinite regress is that none of the members would have said property because none of them would have it within themselves.

[Anonymous No.15408029]

>>15407987
>The problem with an infinite regress is that none of the members would have said property because none of them would have it within themselves.
Not him, but you seem to be wading straight into the assumption of existence as a property
None of what you are saying is a problem for infinite regress, it's not even a problem for finite regress. My property of "life" of "consciousness" does not exist if you follow my parts back 10 billion years. I doubt you can reference any "property" that behaves the way you are describing other than existence, which is a very doubtful assumption

[Anonymous No.15408045]

>>15408029
>None of what you are saying is a problem for infinite regress, it's not even a problem for finite regress.
stop confusing "infinite regress" with infinity u bitch
>My property of "life" of "consciousness" does not exist if you follow my parts back 10 billion years. I doubt you can reference any "property" that behaves the way you are describing other than existence, which is a very doubtful assumption
doesnt matter if it didnt exist, it's still contingent

[Anonymous No.15408065]

>>15407749
>God can be proved through reason
you utter twat

[Anonymous No.15408076]

>>15408045
Name a property bitch
All you've done is create artificial associations with no real property behind them

[Anonymous No.15408091]

>>15407539
Nothing comes from nothing
There is something so there has always been something
The problem of the infinite regress is that it relys on infinite contingencys
You are a contingent being you could not have come into existence without your parents furthermore you are now contingent on food and water. For contingent beings to arise there has to be a necessary being i.e. god

[Anonymous No.15408096]

>>15407539
based OP makings tradcucks and pewds ITT seethe hard

[Anonymous No.15408111]

>>15408091
>problem of the infinite regress is that it relys on infinite contingency
not a problem
>necessary being
not a coherent idea

I wish you had to pass an exam on Kant before being allowed to post on /lit/

[Anonymous No.15408143]

>>15408065
the concept of God can absolutely be proved through reason

personal knowledge of God however, is impossible, which is the entire point divine revelation, and even the point of Jesus Christ

[Anonymous No.15408146]

>>15408091
>Nothing comes from nothing
>There is something so there has always been something
it's hard to believe that there are people who seriously believe this backwards medieval nonsense
do you also believe illnesses are caused by an imbalance of the humours?

[Anonymous No.15408158]

>>15408111
something cannot come from nothing

infinite regress is illogical, and there is in fact, a state of nothing that can be achieved - see how atoms break apart resulting in an atom bomb, for instance

[Anonymous No.15408159]

>>15408143
>the concept of God can absolutely be proved through reason
well sure. any fucking "concept" can be proved through reason. it still doesn't mean that there is a god.

[Anonymous No.15408165]

>>15408158
>a state of nothing that can be achieved - see how atoms break apart resulting in an atom bomb, for instance
wait. what?

[Anonymous No.15408166]

>>15408146
is your argument that the science of philosophy and the science of medicine are one and the same? that's just silly.

should we throw out Plato and Aristotle simply on account of age? or because they didn't know germ theory?

[Anonymous No.15408171]

>>15408111
>Necessary being
The unmoved mover

[Anonymous No.15408173]

>>15408158
>infinite regress is illogical
let me guess
you think 0.9999... =/= 1

[Anonymous No.15408175]

>>15408158
>something cannot come from nothing
wrong

[Anonymous No.15408177]

>>15408165
1. I point out that something cannot come from nothing
2. I substantiate that nothing, a state of non-existence, actually exists, by pointing out how the smallest matter possible can break apart and no longer exist

there is no scientific proof for infinite regress, and philosophically, it's a complete dud

[Anonymous No.15408182]

>>15407987
any thing, then, it doesn't matter which. why do you need a "thingness" to describe the thing?

[Anonymous No.15408192]

>>15408173
Fuck it it’s close enough god is not real I guess

[Anonymous No.15408194]

>>15408175
so your two choices are:

1. things pop up randomly (from non existence)
2. you believe the quantum mechanics meme, that given an endless amount of time things will inevitably happen

they're both pretty silly...at least as silly as the idea of God, no?

[Anonymous No.15408207]

>>15408177
>1. I point out that something cannot come from nothing
>tfw your belief in god gets refuted by hawking radiation
oh no no no no

[Anonymous No.15408220]

>>15408207
>this pre-existing mechanism is totally not a thing

you're not getting it...

[Anonymous No.15408223]

>>15408166
>should we throw out Plato and Aristotle simply on account of age?
the ancient greeks believed that a woman's womb moved around inside her body and was attracted to nice fragrances- the "wandering womb". not everything they said is worth keeping, no.

[Anonymous No.15408232]

>>15408177
>smallest matter possible
an atom isn't the "smallest matter possible", doofus
we've got people looking for the smallest matter possible right now

[Anonymous No.15408233]

>>15408223
what does their erroneous conception of medicine have to do with philosophy, once again?

your arguments against the greeks on account of their age is a whole lot of hot air

[Anonymous No.15408246]

>>15408232
ACKSHUYUALLY, matter is by definition composed of atoms, so yes, two hydrogen atoms are axiomatically the smallest matter possible. Anything else, even if made up of smaller things, would not be "matter".

[Anonymous No.15408248]

Do atheists Here have any better refutations than no, name calling, a scientific term with no explanation?

[Anonymous No.15408249]

>>15408194
>they're both pretty silly...at least as silly as the idea of God, no?
No.

[Anonymous No.15408252]

>>15408232
that still doesn't address the main point, that "nothingness" exists. they can find a trillion old piece of matter, and would still have the problem of having something that isn't "infinite"

[Anonymous No.15408254]

>>15408249
More silly

[Anonymous No.15408259]

>>15408246
>ACKSHUYUALLY, matter is by definition composed of atoms
this isn’t true btw

[Anonymous No.15408265]

>>15408246
sweet baby christmas crackers
how old are you anon? you either haven't attended high school yet or you went in the 19th century

[Anonymous No.15408268]

>>15408254
God is more silly, correct

[Anonymous No.15408270]

>>15408249
why? and please substantiate. my point is that the two biggest scientific explanations sound just as mystical and un-explainable as God (apparently) is.

for the nth time, a mechanism is still a "thing", hawking radiation is still a "thing".

[Anonymous No.15408277]

>>15408265
>>15408259
You know there's literally a multi-million dollar prize for anyone who can find matter not made of atoms, right?

[Anonymous No.15408281]

>>15408277
No there isn’t.

[Anonymous No.15408282]

>>15408265
mockery with no substantial rebuttal

beginning to notice a pattern with atheists

[Anonymous No.15408289]

>>15408248
what would be the point? there is absolutely no chance that you will change your mind, or do any research of your own or anything like that. basically we're just here to make sure you don't go out into the real world and annoy any actual people

[Anonymous No.15408292]

>>15408277
even if that was true it would disprove your claim that matter is defined as being made of atoms
>electrons aren’t matter
>protons aren’t matter
>whatever dark matter is isn’t matter
I swear /lit/ gets dumber by the day

[Anonymous No.15408296]

>>15408277
maybe you should tell CERN about it. that massive thing underneath switzerland wasn't cheap and they could recoup some of the cost.

[Anonymous No.15408300]

>>15408246
So you're saying the property of matter is not contingent, but emergent?
Theists BTFO once again

[Anonymous No.15408306]

>>15408270
>my point is that the two biggest scientific explanations sound just as mystical and un-explainable as God (apparently) is.
this point is wrong and stupid, but obviously you’ve already dismissed science as a meme so there’s no point in trying to dispute it
>a mechanism is still a “thing”
wrong

[Anonymous No.15408309]

>>15408289
>there is no matter below atoms that isn't demonstrably able to become "nothing"
>HAHHA you religious people are so stupid!

you're a charlatan

>>15408292
>even if that was true it would disprove your claim that matter is defined as being made of atoms

you're STILL not getting the point.

electrons, dark matter, protons, are still THINGs, and not INFINITE. as long as you cannot find an INFINITE piece of matter to substantiate INFINITE REGRESS, the entire idea is just a theory

[Anonymous No.15408312]

even if you can 'prove' god, you can't prove your holy book
taketheshamanpill

[Anonymous No.15408333]

>>15408309
uhhh the universe is clearly infinite
go ahead and try to find an edge to it

[Anonymous No.15408346]

>>15408333
*unsheathes katana*

kisama!!!!

[Anonymous No.15408357]

>>15408346
*unholsters gunblade*
heh...

[Anonymous No.15408370]

[Anonymous No.15408393]

>>15408300
Matter is not a property, it's a substance.
A substance is a thing that isn't emergent but the ground out of which things are composed.

[Anonymous No.15408422]

>>15408393
>A substance is a thing that isn't emergent
uh oh bros lets hope your 2000 year old philosophical dogma doesn't need another tune up after contact with breit-wheeler experiments...
it would be a shame to see some pseud defend bronze age ideas about reality for the millionth time

[Anonymous No.15408429]

>>15408277
> there's literally a multi-million dollar prize
as opposed to a figurative prize?

[Anonymous No.15408457]

>>15408429
>NOOOOOOO you can’t just use the word literally for exaggeration like everyone else does!!!

[Anonymous No.15408461]

>>15408429
there is a figurative prize of having the biggest science dick, yes

[Anonymous No.15408512]

>>15408422
You managed to write a whole paragraph yet refute nothing very impressive

[Anonymous No.15408561]

>>15408512
>writes 40 words
>doesn't break a sweat
how does he do it bros?

[Anonymous No.15408580]

>>15407539
midwits love occams razor to death, as if it was some universal rule and not just something occam made up for the sake of simplicity.

[Anonymous No.15408601]

>>15408561
I mean what are the conclusions of the experiment I could just say infinite regress isn’t real because Aristotle and would be rightfully so called a retard if you’re gonna just name drop some random experiment you should say something about what it is
Brainlet prick

[Anonymous No.15408615]

>>15408601
ur being a meanie why should i be google for a meanie? apologize

[Anonymous No.15408661]

>>15408615
Sorry your dad didn’t give you enough attention and now you’re an atheist

[Anonymous No.15408743]

>>15408661
will you be my new daddy?

[Anonymous No.15408887]

>>15408743
only if you pick up the bible

[Anonymous No.15408902]

>>15407539


>>15407587


>>15407606


>>15407555
https://www.strawpoll.me/20087442

[Anonymous No.15408934]

>>15408887
okay now what?

[Anonymous No.15409057]

>>15407539
>Incidentally, it has not escaped the notice of logicians that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible. If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent. Karen Owens has captured this witty little paradox in equally engaging verse: Can omniscient God, who Knows the future, find The omnipotence to Change His future mind?
All of this presupposes a God which exists within time. God in basically all religions is transcendent and timeless, he can't "change his mind" at a later date. There is no future or past for God, all is one.

[Anonymous No.15409080]

>>15408902
What is the dataset you're trying to build?

[Anonymous No.15409096]

>>15407539
More like the God "of" Delusion aka the Demiurge

[Anonymous No.15409132]

>>15409057
So God would be disproved if Eternalism is disproved?
Finally we have a christcuck willing to (somewhat) put God into the realm of falsifiability

[Anonymous No.15409133]

>>15409057
Good post. I'd also add that knowing something is going to happen is not the same as being chained by that future event; if I know I am going to brush my teeth before I go to bed, I'm not somehow enslaved by that knowledge; when I brush my teeth later, I'll have acted in accordance with my previous will. If God lays out every decision He will ever make outside of time and space, He isn't somehow enslaved by those decisions; rather, He's acting in accordance with His own will.

[Anonymous No.15409174]

>>15408158
>something cannot come from nothing
says who

[Anonymous No.15409181]

>>15408661
Sorry you're still laboring under the belief in an illusion

[Anonymous No.15409323]

>>15407633
Because circular logic is cool!

[Anonymous No.15409468]

>>15407539
God can see the future but he doesn't use that ability all the time, that's why he feels hurt when basically all of humanity was evil during Noah's time. Same reason why he didn't know Adam and Eve would sin and so on. Dawkins the duck is trying to refute something that the Bible doesn't even claim, like most dumb atheists. Creating strawmen where there is none so they can look smart and logical. Works with morons who doesn't read, not so much with people who does

[Anonymous No.15409513]

>>15409468
i didnt know god can turn off his powers, thats pretty cool
kinda like a marvel superhero haha maybe ill give this bible thing a shot

[Anonymous No.15409611]

>>15407606
>I'll define necessity into existence so that God must exist
What can be defined into existence can be defined out of existence.

[Anonymous No.15409612]

>>15409132
No, because God is transcendent, like I said, he exists outside the universe.

[Anonymous No.15409626]

>>15409468
>God can see the future but he doesn't use that ability all the time, that's why he feels hurt when basically all of humanity was evil during Noah's time. Same reason why he didn't know Adam and Eve would sin and so on.
Atheism is retarded but this might be even more retarded.

[Anonymous No.15409632]

>>15407607
>All possible smells must pre-exist in the mind of God... But God doesn't stink.
And all possible wits must pre-exist in the mind of God, but God is not intelligent.

[Anonymous No.15409643]

>>15409612
>my god has the power of existing no matter what lalalalala don't analyze his attributes im not listening lalalala
wow. powerful.

[Anonymous No.15409653]

>>15409626
Why?

[Anonymous No.15409697]

>>15407913
'Dogness' is not an inherent quality. It is an atrribute of family resemblance. Some members of the classification 'dog' are more typical whole some are less typical, and some are so atypical they are on the border of even being dogs, like the proto-dogs of the dostant past. At some point a creature transitioned to become the first dog, but picking it out is like picking out when adding a grain of sand to another makes it a heal and not just a couple of grains.

[Anonymous No.15409835]

>Reading thread
>Every christcuck gives some pathetic argument for Deism as a maximum
Do none of you larpers actually believe in Christianity? Not a single person in this thread has defended their religion in a way that couldn't easily be applied to Islam or Hinduism.
If that is the extent of your belief, why not choose a faith NOT based around cuckoldry? Why is it important to you that your messiah be the fruit of cucking?

[Anonymous No.15410311]

>>15409611
Wrong sense of the word necessary

[Anonymous No.15410406]

>>15407539
>be me
>atheist
>walk in forest
>sit on fallen tree
>feel the presence of God
>convert

Lmao how deluded to you have to be to become cut off from your creator?

[Anonymous No.15410440]

>>15407761
You haven't got the wrong end of the stick there, pal, you've got the wrong stick.

[Anonymous No.15410446]

>>15410406
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.15410474]

>>15409835
You're better than this anon. Theism comes first. Once you prove theism then you can talk specifics.

[Anonymous No.15410493]

>>15410474
Don't worry about him. Aquinas answers his complaints in the first question of the Summa. Non-believers will spend their whole lives struggling to reach what is the very beginning of theology.

[Anonymous No.15410515]

>>15410474
>Once you prove theism

[Anonymous No.15410677]

The trinity is real, I was watching legend of zelda and finally saw it. Jesus teams up w god to save him, they're usually buddy-buddy but sometimes God abandons Jesus or tricks him to save Hyrule (heaven) ofc Satan always gets reborn and enables a long war between them. None of them ever win

[Anonymous No.15410710]

>>15410677
based and gnosticpilled

[Anonymous No.15410778]

>>15407539
>engaging verse

[Anonymous No.15410826]

Why do we still have these retarded god threads when Parmenides already disproved Christianity/islam/etc?

[Anonymous No.15411126]

>>15407844
heat and light can be considered the inherent attributes of fire and the sun

[Anonymous No.15411151]

>>15407539
>proof?

[Anonymous No.15411186]

>>15408146
If nothingness (X) gives rise to Y then X wasn't really nothingness to begin with because nothingness does not possess latent capacities or inherent creations, ergo nothing can emerge or be caused by pure nothingness

[Anonymous No.15411270]

>>15411186
Nothingness cannot exist, otherwise it wouldn't exist, because it was existing

[Anonymous No.15411397]

>>15411270
I agree

[Anonymous No.15412088]

The notion that a human can "understand" and crystallize the concept of a divine entity that's far beyond that of a physical object is folly at its best, and presuming God does exist, neither a worshipper of Abrahamic religions, nor the most vehemently """"scientific""" Atheist will ever have a modicum of the knowledge needed to comprehend it. Attempts to "prove" or "disprove" God are some of the most wasteful activities a human can engage in, and worse yet is the fact that the entire point of religion (application of a set of philosophies onto a wayward culture) is ignored by BOTH the religious masses and the atheist masses. All of you cartoon characters fighting this theological arms race should be shot on sight.

[Anonymous No.15412213]

>>15407539
>arguing about if god Is real or not in this post modern current year
The real question is Should we believe in god or not.
Does Dawkins posit any arguments on why we should be atheists? Or is he one of those retarded that thinks one of Truths intrinsic qualities is that it is always beneficial to know it?