• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Actual questions from a real athiest!

PRMan

Part-Time Bible Scholar
Oct 3, 2003
41
4
55
Yorba Linda, CA
Visit site
✟22,920.00
Faith
Pentecostal
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.
 
Upvote 0

agnosticator

New Member
Dec 15, 2004
1
0
✟112.00
Faith
Agnostic
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.
 
Upvote 0

Mustaphile

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 24, 2004
2,485
236
Indiana
✟80,696.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others

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
 
Upvote 0

HolyGuardianAngels

Merry Christmas Everyone
Mar 10, 2005
1,462
79
Southern California, just minutes from the beach !
✟24,581.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican









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



 
Upvote 0
P

PhilosopherD

Guest
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.
 
Upvote 0