On generic failures found in arguments for the existence of god

Philosophy of Religion
,
1080

Ok cool, so that’s one attribute of god which doesn’t appear necessary to equivocally define it with the word love so we keep love and get rid of god, either way doesn’t matter for now.

so let me bring you another definition of god. Omniscient, the ability to see everything past, present and future.

How would you disprove such an attribute in and of itself without disproving god ? That is the existence of the attribute itself not necessarily god … does the attribute exist ? (At least without god)

1081

I am not sure I understand the question. Presumably an attribute exists if there is some individual to which it applies. So are you asking me why I don’t think there is something that “sees” past, present and future?

Because I haven’t any reason to think such a thing exists.

Have you an argument that demonstrates there is such a thing?

See how the burden of proof falls here, @Scorpion .

1 Like
1082

I’ll respond to this: You also don’t have any reason to think such a thing does not exist.

There are agnostic atheists by the way.

1084

We can invoke Spinoza’s version of god as it might be useful when it comes to the omniscient definition: that is that the total system of nature contains all knowledge about itself. I’m not quite satisfied that this meets the true definition of omniscience however as whilst spinozas version certainly contains all knowledge, it only does so in the present at least, but as the present becomes the past and was once the future then this argument makes more sense.

1085

Hm.

Last night I saw upon the stair…

Yes; that those who support it have not been able to present a coherent account of what it might be.

I’ll happily populate the domain of discourse with items that can be subject to a predicate.

There are presumably an indenumerable number of other items you would include, that are not subject to any predicate.

Which one is god?

:joy:

1086

Knowledge is had by humans, humans are part of nature, so sure.

But more analytically, that looks to be a simple misuse of the word “knowledge”. Rocks know very little, by our ordinary accounts.

1088

Yes perhaps a misuse of the word knowledge, what if instead of knowledge i use the term information instead. Does that change anything ?

1089

Life is short. I’m not watching your video. If you have an argument, set it out.

(Enoch - that’s the one with Angles fucking humans, and the poor astronomy… yes? Interesting choice.)

1090

You tell me. What does your argument now become?

1091

It would remove your objection regarding rocks having knowledge or knowing.

1092

Leaving…?

That the universe contains all the information there is?

Ok.

Now, what about god?

1093

No god needed, just trying to prove an attribute namely omniscience and it appears that such an attribute exists without god.

1094

And how did that work out?

Instead of omniscience you have a stipulation about information and the universe.

Yes, I know I’m being a bit of a dick - I should just nod in sagely agreement, like most others hereabouts. But philosophy involves more than making up pleasant just-so stories.

1 Like
1095

So you disagree that the information the universe has about itself is not omniscience ?

1097

Hu?

You’ve stipulated that omniscience is all the information the universe has about itself…

An odd stipulation, to be sure, but that’s what you did.

What that means is that “the information the universe has about itself is omniscience” is not a conclusion.

1098

…and now we are back to the very arguments already shown to be wanting.

1099

It might not be a conclusion you like but it’s a conclusion nonetheless, actually a reinterpretation of Spinozas conclusion and nothing odd about it.

1101

Then your argument has eluded me. Your stipulation, paraphrasing, was “We can invoke Spinoza’s version of god as it might be useful when it comes to the omniscient definition: that is that the total system of nature contains all information about itself”

And your conclusion is that therefore the total system of nature contains all information about itself.

Looks to be just a stipulation that the universe contains all the information there is. Not going to disagree with a mere stipulation.

1102

Kinda have. See the OP, and the following few hundred posts.

Do you want to do it again?

1104

The matter is 2-questions

  1. Is there Proof(God exists)?
  2. Is there Proof(God doesn’t exist)?

The answer to both is NO.

1 Like