3. Philosophy in general. Wastes time and never gives answers.

3. Philosophy in general. Wastes time and never gives answers.

That's funny, because the answers are up there. Obviously we could discuss what constitutes an answer

To quote Socrates in Plato's Apology, "The unexamined life is not worth living." Regardless of whether we ever get answers these are all important questions to discuss, though I do admit that arguing about these issues does often result in problems. Sometimes the greatest of wisdom comes from questions rather than answers. Also, you seem to oversimplify the issue of free will, and your argument about God is really just an issue of semantics, though your conclusion that one cannot ever truly know whether God truly exists or not is probably valid.

I don’t think these are things people should stop engaging in dialogue about. Maybe they shouldn’t yell at each other via text on the Internet, but as far as the topics at hand go, they are rather important. The existence or non-existence of God or free will makes a rather big impact on how one lives their life and views reality.

Now, it seems that you’re arguing that we either can’t know any truth about these at all (a sort of agnosticism) or that we can’t know any truth about them for 100% sure.

Fair enough.

Your argument boils down to saying that we can’t do more than give opinions on the matter - and by "boils down" I mean you explicitly stated this.

However you’ve failed to make a compelling case for that.

The first issue with your argument is that right off the bat you’ve already slipped regarding the definition of “omnipotence”. While the exact definition of omnipotence varies from each religion and philosophy to the next, it always relates to unlimited power – not to attributes.

This mistake alone ruins your argument – at least as far as the argument is applicable to the Abrahamic God.

As far as I’m aware none of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) claim that God has every attribute possible. Certain pantheistic religions make such a claim, but considering your usage of the word “God” with a capital “G” I take it you were trying to prove the improvability of that particular deity.

Your argument gives me the impression that you intended to refute what is known as the “ontological argument”.

If that is the case, then your argument fairs a bit better. But even then, it does not necessarily lead to your conclusion.

Just because the concept of God does not necessitate his existence does not mean that it is only a matter of opinion whether God exists.

If that is so, then the same would apply to apples (I’m using your analogy here). Just because the concept of an apple does not necessitate its existence does not mean it is only a matter of opinion whether apples exist.

Human knowledge and reasoning is not limited to one philosophical argument (the ontological argument in this case). Just because one philosophical argument fails does not necessarily lead to the complete inability to move beyond mere opinions relating to what said argument was attempting to prove. Thus your argument is a non sequitur.

Isn’t it also a bit odd that you’re saying we shouldn’t argue over this stuff while at the same time you yourself are arguing over it?

I was going to respond to your statements about free will but I’m tired at the moment. Maybe next time!

When most people say "God", they are referring to the Christian God, so I'll go with that.

As LRP said, omnipotence means all powerful, not that something has every attribute. For example, douchebaggery is an attribute that I just made up (which I can do, because an attribute is merely a way to describe something, and there are no rules on how something can be described), but I doubt any monotheistic religion would claim their God to be a douchebag. Christians certainly don't. And homosexuality is an attribute. Try telling a Christian that God is flaming gay and see how they take it

The reason that I personally believe that God can't be proven to exist is that if he is omnipotent as he is claimed to be, he could change or get rid of any and all evidence of his existence.

There is an inherent problem in trying to prove the existence of something that has both the ability and will to wipe out any proof of it's existence.

As for it being a matter of opinion, I disagree. God exists or he doesn't, these are mutually exclusive. Our inability to show definitively which of these is true does nothing to effect his actual existence (or lack thereof).

The reason that I personally believe that God can't be proven to exist is that if he is omnipotent as he is claimed to be, he could change or get rid of any and all evidence of his existence.

There is an inherent problem in trying to prove the existence of something that has both the ability and will to wipe out any proof of it's existence.

That's interesting, but how exactly does this make God unprovable?

What's the "inherent" issue about such an ability?

I don't really see one.

Now, if God ("God" as in the Christian God - for this example) could remove all evidence that he existed, that would make you wonder whether God did remove all evidence that he existed.

But by the very fact that minds are lead to ponder whether he exists at all must mean he didn't remove all evidence that he exists.

Therefore what is the barrier here?

Now, I'm not trying to argue for God's existence, but how does the ability to remove all evidence for his own existence lead to the improvability of his existence?

As far as the Christian God is concerned, I do not see this as an issue to proving his existence (although, of course, there can be other issues).

unlimited power

I did pass by a bit quickly on why I said attributes and not power. ( I myself I was tired. )

Also, by God I did not mean specifically the Christian God, but rather any metaphysical being that would explain somehow our existence in this Universe ( and more often than not also the Universe ).

To be able to create something or, in this case 'conceive' ( As in making out of thin air ) you need to know about it. You cannot conceive something you don't know. ( The funny part is that you don't know what you know. More on this later.* ) So this means that if God does exist, and that he indeed created the Universe he had to have every Attribute possible SINCE else it wouldn't exist and thus we wouldn't know about it.

Of course, now one can argue "But what about these Spacefaring insects with 3 heads that shoot lasers out of their fingers? We don't know about them! How come I can still think of them?" 

This is where opinions will probably split. Imagination for me is simply your brains way of preparing for possible encounters, whether they exist or not does not matter, but all parts of what you imagined did already exist you just re-assembled them to make it look like they are new.

Which joins my earlier argument about having to know about something to conceive it.

PS: Saying that God exists is a matter of opinion is not being agnostic, I was being polite. I'm Atheist but not arrogant enough anymore to blatantly just dismiss it by saying God does not exist.

* The main reason why things like this cannot be answered is the human factor. You cannot know if someone is saying the truth about what he says by just listening to him. That is the reason for me to rather believe in facts, which do not depend on anything but themselves.

I did pass by a bit quickly on why I said attributes and not power. ( I myself I was tired. )

 

Also, by God I did not mean specifically the Christian God, but rather any metaphysical being that would explain somehow our existence in this Universe ( and more often than not also the Universe ).

 

To be able to create something or, in this case 'conceive' ( As in making out of thin air ) you need to know about it. You cannot conceive something you don't know. ( The funny part is that you don't know what you know. More on this later.* ) So this means that if God does exist, and that he indeed created the Universe he had to have every Attribute possible SINCE else it wouldn't exist and thus we wouldn't know about it.

 

Of course, now one can argue "But what about these Spacefaring insects with 3 heads that shoot lasers out of their fingers? We don't know about them! How come I can still think of them?" 

This is where opinions will probably split. Imagination for me is simply your brains way of preparing for possible encounters, whether they exist or not does not matter, but all parts of what you imagined did already exist you just re-assembled them to make it look like they are new.

Which joins my earlier argument about having to know about something to conceive it.

 

---

 

 

* The main reason why things like this cannot be answered is the human factor. You cannot know if someone is saying the truth about what he says by just listening to him. That is the reason for me to rather believe in facts, which do not depend on anything but themselves.

Can you, perhaps, provide an example of an attribute not normally given to God that must be present in him so that he could create the universe?

In order to create ex-nihilo, why would you need to have every attribute possible?

You would need the ability to create and the knowledge necessary to create (omnipotence and omniscience).

These are attributes, are they not? Why would you need any more attributes than these?

If you have omnipotence and omniscience then you must necessarily know of every possible thing that can be created. Thus, you need no more attributes (save for a will) to create a universe – especially this universe.

Now, what it appears to me is that you’re applying human experience to God in a most fallacious manner.

In order to “conceive” you must go from a state of not having conceived to having conceived. This is the normal human process. And in this context such a conception requires the one conceiving to be introduced to an existing object through their senses. Else they cannot conceive. As your own example shows, even to conceive of a non-existent space alien requires you to have experienced – through your senses – the attributes you supply to such a figure in your imagination. (You must know of blue to say it’s blue, you must know of large to say it’s large, etc.).

However this process of changing from not-having-conceiving to conceiving would not be necessary for a God that transcends time and is omnipresent and omniscient.

Should he have eternal omniscience (full knowledge that is not bound to time) then any “process” is already not applicable to him. He would know all because omniscience would place him in a state of already having conceived every possible attribute, action, etc. Because he is not bound to time, in order to know he would not need to experience already existing things – for all knowledge would already be present in himself.

From there, if he has a will to create and the omnipotence necessary to create he would be able to use such knowledge – combined with his power – to create a universe.

Therefore he need not have all possible attributes for him to be what Christians claim him to be.

PS: Saying that God exists is a matter of opinion is not being agnostic, I was being polite. I'm Atheist but not arrogant enough anymore to blatantly just dismiss it by saying God does not exist.

I'm aware that you're an atheist. I wasn't calling you an agnostic. I was stating that the position you are arguing for is a sort of agnosticism.

I can't recall the proper terminology at the moment but believing that no truth can be known about God(s) and that (t)he(y) cannot be proven is known as something like "invincible agnosticism".

Holding that position does not make you an agnostic because the position is not mutually exclusive from atheism.

For example, one can hold "I do not believe in any god, but even if there was a god, we would be unable to know anything about said god and we would not be able to prove said god's existence".

Now, once again, this argument doesn't lower belief in God (or lack thereof) to a matter of mere opinion. You can't funnel all human knowledge through this one argument. Especially when your argument isn't even applicable to what many people regard as "God".

You'd have to do a bit more than present one single philosophical argument about the possible (or as you claim - necessary) traits of God to do such a thing.

In order to “conceive” you must go from a state of not having conceived to having conceived. This is the normal human process.

No, this is the process for anything ever. Humans are not the only things that conceive or create things. We are the only one able to abstract that though.

No, this is the process for anything ever. Humans are not the only things that conceive or create things. We are the only one able to abstract that though.

On what basis are you stretching this to an absolute truth that all minds must abide by?

You're saying it's the process for "anything ever". How is such a process necessary for an eternal omniscient immaterial being?

I have argued above that such a process is not applicable. All you've responded to my argument with is the repeated assertion that it is applicable - yet you've provided no more of an argument than you did before.

The reason humans need to have experience with existing things in order to conceive (and even to abstract) is because ultimate knowledge is not part of a finite human.

If a mind should have knowledge of all possible things already within itself (and part of itself) then such a mind has no need to refer to already existing objects other than said mind's own, already-existing, source of knowledge (i.e. itself).