Because theists ask for evidence against gods, when clearly there is none. And on and on it goes, because it's impossible to prove or disprove that something that doesn't exist either exists or doesn't. — whollyrolling
Likewise, there is also no evidence to prove otherwise? — SethRy
Therein lies the lie. That is NOT how the concept of “god” is generally used.
If your definition of “god” is accepted everyone knows there is a “god”. God refers to “deity” in the argumentation of for or against the proposition. If there is a deity then it is up to the claim to explicate what this deity is ... yet it cannot. It is concept, in this sense, dealing with the limitations of human comprehension dressed up as some anthropomorphic “being”. Once the concept of ‘god’ is used outside of the ‘deity’ idea it is more of an intellectual item to toy with. I feel this is why religions have managed to last; they entice the human intellect to the idea of “beyond” and encourage us to grasp for something else we’re admittedly ignorant of. — I like sushi
When a Christian or a person of another theistic religion says that their God exists, the truth is that they are saying this because they believe that God(s) exists. Regardless of how sure they claim to be or what "evidence" they give, the fact is that is simply what they believe, because no one knows if any God(s) exist, which is the exact reason why no evidence has been provided for the existence of any God(s). — Maureen
I think another such question is the matter of what are called 'the laws of science'. Are they something that exists independently of any act of observation by a scientist, waiting to be discovered? You might argue either for or against, but I don't see how you could adduce any empirical evidence for one side or the other. — Wayfarer
An all pervading universal force/law is nothing more to the rational mind than natural laws as opposed to “supernatural” - which, if you follow the logic through is another meaningless concept that appears to be sensible but is anything but sensible, as if we’re to know of something it is “natural” not “supernatural,” thus undermining the premise of “supernatural” and merely revealing it as, at best, a distorted version of human ignorance/skepticism. — I like sushi
Like Russell said, no one can disprove that a teapot is orbiting Jupiter, yet we don’t assume there is. — I like sushi
Omnipotence - Could God create a copy of himself? If he did create a copy of himself, he would no longer be omni-potent, so we can conclude God is effectively not omni-potent. — Devans99
Omniscience - To know everything about one’s self requires memory storage larger than one’s self so it is not possible to even know everything even about one’s self. — Devans99
Omnibenevolent - This requires infallibility which in turn requires perfect information (omniscience) before making decisions. — Devans99
That says more than what you are saying, but each religion further defines "God" according to their traditions. — Noah Te Stroete
Yes he can, but in a way he already did. He created Jesus, which emanates from himself as a piece of him with the holy-spirit dwelling inside him. God creates a portion of himself to represent his wholeness, emanating from him, he is the total balance of creation. — SethRy
The best answer I can offer though, however, is that God predates knowledge and logic (we had this discussion before). The void non-existence of something cannot even exist, that nothingness is nothing. From there, God as an omniscient being would have to withdraw from learning - and from there, knowledge as an infinite is incomprehensible when what God's capacity to store knowledge is beyond natural capability. — SethRy
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.