Actual questions from a real athiest!

[PRMan]

I can prove God to your friend quite easily. Ask him to pray to the God that doesn't exist that he will reveal Himself so completely that your friend will be unable to resist. Since God doesn't exist, it should be no problem for your friend to pray this. I believe God will answer that prayer eventually and your friend will be praying for his own salvation (which in turn proves that God DIDN'T create him only to send him to hell ).

Also, it gives him a true test of what he ACTUALLY believes in his heart and with his actions, rather than what he professes to believe with his intellect. Also, it will cause him to analyze himself deeply, since he will likely be surprised at his own fear that God MIGHT be true and his unwillingness to pray such a prayer may poke a bigger hole in his theory than any of these answers.

I argued with an atheist in Russia one time and asked him to pray this. He refused, which caused him to be made fun of a great deal by his friends, since he had been loudly professing his atheism. Finally he did start praying, and about halfway through his prayer he already knew God was real. I could see the change in his face. I never saw him again, but I believe I will see him in heaven.

 

[agnosticator]

This is my first post on these forums, so... hi!

I would like to comment on the Fitch-style sentential derivation from earlier, however, which is what brought me to the site (the search I was conducting):

Namely, this one...
| 1. God is omnipotent.
| 2. For any omnipotent person P, there is no action A such that P cannot do A.
|—
| | 3. There is an action A such that God cannot do A. (Assumption)
| |—
| | | 4. God cannot eat a burrito too hot to be eaten. (Assuming an A)
| | |—
| | | 5. There is no action A such that God cannot do A. (Universal Elimination on 2)
| | | 6. Every action A is such that God can do A. (A logical equivalence of 5, which can be proven easily)
| | | 7. God can eat a burrito too hot to be eaten. (Universal Elimination of 6)
| | | 8. Contradiction (4 and 7 contradict)
| | 9. Contradiction (Existential Elimination from 4-8, the subproof, and 3, the existential)
| 10. There is no action A such that God cannot do A. (Negation Introduction, from 3-9)

This proof has not been set up correctly at all. This is what's called a Strawman fallacy - it has been set up specifically for the purpose of being knocked back down. Note that rather than generating the intuitive conclusion of the "omnipotence paradox" which would be "God is not omnipotent" this plays into the author's own argument by deriving that "There is no action A such that god cannot do A." Also note that someone arguing that God is not omnipotent would not make an undischarged assumption that He is (premise 1). The premises of the omnipotence paradox were re-arranged here so that the author can confuse his readers into believing that he has proven something. In fact, he has only shown through a long and complicated process (his proof only requires four lines, rather than 13 plus a theorem alluding to a subordinate derivation) that the assumptions can be re-ordered allowing modus ponens to generate a different result. Both argument structures (the omnipotence paradox and the one above) can be contested on soundness, but the above, although valid, is simply a misrepresentation of a centuries-old logical question that is not so easily refutable.

The actual Fitch-style derivation for the omnipotence paradox runs like so:

1 | (∀x) (Ox ⊃ ~(∃y)(~Dxy))
2 | (∃y) ~Dgy
------------------------------
3 | | Og
---------
4 | | Og ⊃ ~(∃y)(~Dgy) ∀E 1
5 | | ~(∃y)(~Dgy) ⊃E 3, 4
6 | | (∃y) ~Dgy R2
7 | ~Og ~I 3-6

For those of you not fluent in sentential derivation jargon, that translates like so:

1. For all x, if x is omnipotent then there does not exist a y such that x cannot do y.

This is the statement of the second premise from the faulty derivation above; namely, that by the definition of omnipotence, there should be nothing an omnipotent being CANNOT do, at the risk of no longer being, strictly speaking, omnipotent.

2. There exists a y such that God cannot do y.

This is the key turn of the argument, whereby it is stated that there is in fact something which God cannot do, usually something that results in a logical contradiction. Whatever this action is, it can usually be proved that God cannot do whatever it is in a subordinate derivation relying on the principle of non-contradiction.

3. This is where the assumption that God is omnipotent is finally put into place. The reason the faulty derivation ran as it did is because the premises (the three assumptions upon which the argument relies) were in the wrong order, leaving the wrong two premises undischarged, and making the argument inconsistent.

4. This is an instantiation of the first universal premise, replacing x with God. It says "If God is omnipotent, then there does exists no action such that God cannot do it."

5. Since we have assumed that God is omnipotent, we can isolate (by modus ponens, or conditional elimination as it is called in Fitch-style deduction) that there exists no action which God cannot do.

6. This reiterates the second premise of the argument, and generates a contradiction between 5 & 6.

7. This is the conclusion - that God is not omnipotent. ~I 3-6 means that the rule of negation introduction was applied because of the subordinate discharged derivation running from line 3 to line 6. In other words, because assuming that God IS omnipotent generates a contradiction, we can deduce that the opposite is in fact true; namely, that God is NOT omnipotent.

Also, I am curious as to why so many people believe that it is not possible to prove a negative. Clearly you can assume the positive, and upon generating a contradiction, derive its opposite and negation, as I have demonstrated.

I welcome any comments and look forward to the discussion.

 

[Vigil]

Great Posts Everyone !

Truly Great Posts!

Vigil

 

[Mustaphile]

Also, I am curious as to why so many people believe that it is not possible to prove a negative. Clearly you can assume the positive, and upon generating a contradiction, derive its opposite and negation, as I have demonstrated.

I welcome any comments and look forward to the discussion.
[Report Bad Post]

Hi Agnosticator,

I'd strongly suggest taking this question up in General Apologetics forum, Agnosticator. There are a larger number of people familiar with apologetic arguments, in that area, and the responses might be of greater quantity and in that regard of greater quality, too. This is not to cast aspersions on the answers already given in this thread, but just a heads up on where you might find some more people willing to give answers.

God bless,

Mustaphile

 

[HolyGuardianAngels]

i sent my athiest friend an email listing his faults and he replyed with these questions - help me answer them! it might be the begining of him finding salvation...

THE PERFECTION-vs.-CREATION ARGUMENT
1.) If God exists, then he is perfect..
2.) If God exists, then he is the creator of the
universe.
3.) A perfect being can have no needs or wants.
4.) If any being created the universe, then he must
have had some need or want.
5.) Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to
be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).
6.) Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1,
2, and 5).

PERFECTION/CREATION INCOHERENCE ARGUMENT
1.) God, by definition, is a perfect being.
2.) God, by definition, deliberately created the
universe.
3.) So, if God were to exist, then he would be a
perfect being who deliberately created something.
4.) To be perfect, one cannot have any needs or wants.
5.) To deliberately create something, one must have at
least one need or want.
6.) Thus, it is impossible for a perfect being to
deliberately create anything.
7.) Therefore, God cannot exist.

GOD's omnipresence (ever -present)

ARGUMENT FROM THE SELF
1.) If God exists, he is omnipresent (occupying all
space).
2.) Since God occupies all space, past, present, and
future, there is nothing that is NOT God.
3.) God therefore, cannot have a sense of the
independent self.
4.) Since God has no sense of the self or non-self, he
cannot have a consciousness.
5.) In conclusion, God cannot have a mind and would
resemble nothing more than the non-conscious Universe.

GOD is omniscience (all knowing)

1 John 3 3:20
in F21 whatever our heart condemns us; for God is
greater than our heart and knows all things.

Counter Arguments

ON HELL
1.) God is all-knowing.
2.) Before I was born God knew I wouldn’t believe in
him.
3.) I was born to go to Hell.

Comments: (Sure you may say I have a choice, but I
think I`ve proven already that I really don`t. I`m
simply fulfilling the will of God by being an atheist
aren`t I? If I`m not, I shouldn`t exist: For God would
have known that before I was created that I wouldn`t
believe in him.)

ON THE GARDEN OF EDEN
1.) God is omniscient (all knowing)
2.) God knew that before he created man that they
would eat of the tree of knowledge.
3.) God placed the tree of knowledge in the Garden
anyway.
4.) God wanted sin to enter the world.

Comments: (If God didn`t want sin to enter the world,
why create Adam and Eve at all? He knew what would
happen. Why place the forbidden trees in the Garden in
the first place?)

Why I had no choice arguments

ON MAN'S FREEWILL
1.) God has an unchangeable plan for everything past,
present & future.
2.) Everything that occurs past, present and future
will be part of God's unchanging plan.
3.) Thoughts and actions occur and are part of God's
unchanging plan.
4.) Thoughts and actions cannot be anything other than
what God has planned.
5.) Free-will doesn't exist.

FREEWILL ARGUMENT FOR THE NONEXISTENCE OF GOD
1.) The Christian God is a personal being and is
omniscient.
2.) Personal beings have free will.(according to most
Christians)
3.) To have freewill, a personal being must be able to
make a choice.
4.) A being who knows everything can have no "state of
uncertainty". It knows its choices in advance.
5.) God has no potential to avoid its choices, and
therefore has no free will.
6.) Since a being that lacks free will is not a
personal being, a personal being who knows everything
cannot exist.
7.) Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

INFALLIBLE KNOWLEDGE / FREEWILL ARGUMENT
1.) God knows infallibly what will occur in the
Universe before it occurs.
2.) God can’t change the future because he knows
everything absolutely.
3.) God has no Free-will.


GOD is unchangeable

Numbers 23 :19
23:19
" God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of
man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He
not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it
good?

ON GOD'S IMMUTABILITY - Unchangingness
1.) If God exists, then he is immutable.
2.) If God exists, then he is the creator of the
universe.
3.) An immutable being cannot at one time have an
intention and then at a later time not have that
intention.
4.) For any being to create anything, prior to the
creation he must have had the intention to create it,
but at a later time, after the creation, no longer
have the intention to create it.
5.) Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to
have created anything (from 3 and 4).
6.) Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from
1, 2, and 5)

All Powerfull

Ceds Arguement
Jeremiah 32:17 'Ah Lord GOD! Behold, You have made
the heavens and the earth by Your great power and by
Your outstretched arm! Nothing is too difficult for
You,

Summary
It cleary states that nothing is too difficult for God

Jaiyeson Argument

Question
1) Can god create a boulder so heavy that even God
himself could never lift it?
2) If nothing is to difficult for god then the answer
would be yes
3) There now exist a boulder to difficult for God to
lift
4) Jeremiah 32:17 is a logical error. God is not all
powerfull

However lets say you answer the question with a no.
1) Can god create a boulder so heavy that even God
himself could never lift it?
2) No, because God cannot create something he could
never lift. He would always be able to lift it.
3) There is something to difficult for God. He can
never create something he could never lift. It is
beyond his scope
4) Jeremiah 32:17 is a logical error. God is not all
powerfull

Counter argument to Jaiyeson with Jaiyeson
counter-counter arguments

1)God would never put itself into that scenatio thus
the scenario would never happen.
1-b) The statement presented in Jeremiah 32:17 allows
the argument to exist.
1-c) If God refused to do it he would acknowledge the
scenarios existence.
1-d) If God said the scenario does not exist. Then
once again God acknowledges the existence of the scenario

You know, I love a guy who is atheist!
And that's fine by me. I certainly don't want to change him . . .
However, while atheist are busy trying to prove there is NO God. . . .

I just have this thought . . . (and perhaps, you could point this out to your friend).

They (atheist) seem to have lost control of the evolutionary process . . .

I haven't seen an ape, monkey or chimpanzee CHANGE into a human lately . . . None, not ONE even in the process of becoming human.


Just a comment.







Happy Easter

 

[PhilosopherD]

refutation of the first one is easy.

It's in the semantics of the syllogism.

The problem is that we really don't know what a perfect being is like...we just use the word 'perfect' to point us to some idea of fullness which human beings lack. It is our opinion that a perfect being has not wants, but this really has no bearing on whether or not there is an Almighty God who has created the universe and us.

Moreover, the words need and want can be used to created an obscurity. What exactly is a want? Some things I want because I need them. Some things I want simply because I like the idea of those 'things.' I think the problem here is that human beings are materialistic and it is difficult for us to separate the idea of 'want' as needful desire from want as simple appreciation for what something is in itself. We are consumers, and we confuse ourselves when we attribute the shape of our ideas with our words to God.