Ask an Atheist

[Russell Kanning]

this ask an atheist thread is full of questions for the theist

[TackleTheWorld]

So I would say that God is *not* acting outside of the bounds of nature. 

Careful Caleb!
You said god is inside nature, not nature was created by god.
That is the root of the difference between us.

In a phrase, we call the former - the primacy of existence - as opposed to the later axiom -the primacy of consciousness.

Skeptics see nature had to come first.  Believers think somebody had to make nature.

[MaineShark]

A rational person will always start with a premise that is a concrete reality.

"There is no god" is not a reality-grounded premise, as it presupposes unknowble knowledge.

The ground in reality is that 'there is no proof of a god', not that 'there is no god'.  One can not properly say that there is a god with out proof of god, but as a corollary to 'there is no proof of a god' one can properly say 'there is no god'.

Exactly how does that correlate?  You cannot logically derive an absolute statement from your lack of knowledge.

I don?t know what the current temperature is in Calcutta, but that doesn?t give me license to arbitrarily declare that Calcutta is currently existing at absolute zero (lacking all temperature).

Joe

[Braddogg]

Thanks   I think, though, that the circle is the problem I'm getting at.  If God intended to intervene, he would know that he was going to intervene.  And then he would be unable to not intervene without contradicting omniscience.

The doctrine of omniscience says that God sees all ends.  As soon as you start positing an end that he cannot see, you have denied the doctrine, and any conclusion you draw is based on the rejection of the doctrine of omniscience.  So you can't say "the doctrine of omniscience and omnipotence are contradictory," you can only say "once I have rejected the doctrine of omniscience, it makes sense to reject the doctrine of omnipotence."

I might not be being clear, because I don't see how I am assuming omnipotence to be false before I begin.  The question is can omnipotence and omniscience coexist?  You say yes, because the ability to do all implies the ability to know all.  I say no, because what is known cannot be changed.  That includes all the changes that God may make to his intentions; it ends up being turtles all the way down.  God knows I will eat a muffin tomorrow, for example.  As soon as God makes me not eat a muffin, God's knowledge of the future has been shown to be imperfect.

If God knows all ends, then he is unable to change those ends.  It could be that his knowledge of ends accounts for his interference, his expressions of omnipotence, but then God cannot take back those acts without changing the ends.  Omniscience limits omnipotence.

[Braddogg]

I would say that God is *not* acting outside of the bounds of nature.  It may just be that *nature* includes more than we had anticipated.  The ancients knew nothing of the four forces, though they had some limited experience with gravitation and electromagnetism.  An individual with a complex grasp of electromagnetic theory could have put on a show that would have convinced the ancients that he was a God. 

Interesting.  You say that our understanding of nature is limited, which is why we think "miracles" counteract the way nature works, and that if we understood more of nature, then we would see this.  I'm with you so far.  What's God's role in all this?  Are you saying that God is just a super-conscious?  That God is just a super-human?  Does he  have physical form?

[Jim Johnson]

A rational person will always start with a premise that is a concrete reality.

"There is no god" is not a reality-grounded premise, as it presupposes unknowble knowledge.

The ground in reality is that 'there is no proof of a god', not that 'there is no god'.  One can not properly say that there is a god with out proof of god, but as a corollary to 'there is no proof of a god' one can properly say 'there is no god'.

Exactly how does that correlate?  You cannot logically derive an absolute statement from your lack of knowledge.

I don?t know what the current temperature is in Calcutta, but that doesn?t give me license to arbitrarily declare that Calcutta is currently existing at absolute zero (lacking all temperature heat).

Joe

You can arbitrarily declare that, 'Calcutta is currently existing at absolute zero'.  There are no rules limiting assertions, except that ones credibility suffers upon making incorrect assertions.

Calcutta does exist and at any given moment it does have a current temperature.  With those pieces of evidence one could prove your assertion either right or wrong depending on the current temperature in Calcutta.
As well, one can declare that, Zorbdy on the Continent of Soupes on the Planet Torweck currently enjoys a warm sunny 82 degrees.
One could not prove that statement wrong, because there is no evidence of the Planet Torweck or evidence of the Continent of Soupes or evidence of Zorbdy.  So properly one should say, that since there is no evidence of the existence of these places, no statement about them can be true.  That means that the statement about the weather there is wrong.  It is not directly proved by going to Zorbdy and taking a temperature reading that is different than 82 degrees, but it does show that the statement is wrong.

There can not be a direct proof either for or against something that does not exist.  It can not even be shown, with a high degree of assurance, that something does not exist.  That is why the burden of proof is on the person who asserts existence.
One must have evidence to say that something does exist.  

[error]

So, Braddogg, did you eat that muffin today?

[Braddogg]

So, Braddogg, did you eat that muffin today?

Yes, may God be praised!   

[Caleb]

So, Braddogg, did you eat that muffin today?

Yes, may God be praised!   

God was on the edge of his seat waiting to see how that one would play out. 

I might not be being clear, because I don't see how I am assuming omnipotence to be false before I begin.

I didn't say you were assuming his omnipotence was false before you began.  I said you were subtly implying that he was not omniscient, and then proceeding from that point to draw your conclusions.

At some point, you are assuming that God is not omniscient.  You may not openly be stating it and you may not be openly aware of it, but it is inferred in the very question.  You can posit as many levels to the problem as you want, but ultimately you come down to some point at which you must assume that God is unaware of the change that he (or another person) intends to bring as well as whether that intended interference will be successful or not. At that point, you've denied his omniscience.  And your argument proceeds from that point.

You could try a more subtle way of attack by using Tackle's method:

Can God do something so secretive that even He is unaware of it?

If "yes" he is not omniscient
If "no" he is not omnipotent

But again, you have the logic caveat.  This argument is akin to asking "Can God do a thing, and at the same thing not do it."  No, because that would contradict the law of identity.

[Braddogg]

You can posit as many levels to the problem as you want, but ultimately you come down to some point at which you must assume that God is unaware of the change that he (or another person) intends to bring as well as whether that intended interference will be successful or not. At that point, you've denied his omniscience.  And your argument proceeds from that point.

Is there a way to prove or disprove God's omniscience?

[TackleTheWorld]

Is there a way to prove or disprove God's omniscience?

Any concept of unlimited scope - omnipotence, omniscience, ubiquity - is invalid if you accept logic.
Logic says a thing cannot be X and non-X at the same time in the same respect.  Another way to express that is to say a thing has a certain nature, and no other.  Any real thing has limits. 

[Braddogg]

Is there a way to prove or disprove God's omniscience?

Any concept of unlimited scope - omnipotence, omniscience, ubiquity - is invalid if you accept logic.
Logic says a thing cannot be X and non-X at the same time in the same respect.  Another way to express that is to say a thing has a certain nature, and no other.  Any real thing has limits. 

Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason.
-Martin Luther

[Russell Kanning]

I guess I disagree with Martin Luther.

[Braddogg]

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
-Colossians 2:8

Logic is a philosophy based on the basic principles of this world.

[Russell Kanning]

"this world" is a phrase used in the bible to mean this fallen system and the like. It is not used here as in "nature". I think that is a great verse that really applies to my life.

I thought this thread was "ask an atheist" .... do you want to start a thread called "accusations against Christianity" or something? Some of us could weigh in there.