God Paradoxes

[Keith&Co.]

So the topmost angel, the metatron, has 36 wings. That's 18 pairs. I've always wondered about the aerodynamics of that. How does the Metatron keep them from getting tangled.

Maybe only 2 pair are for flying? Another pair or two each for aggression displays, mating displays, sending team signals during games of paintball...

 

[funinspace]

What? Atheists don't believe in atheism?

There's ether belief that God does/doesn't exist or certainty.

Are atheists certain God doesn't exist? Or do they believe God doesn't exist?

If it's certainty then I would like them to justify their position with evidence. TIA

I would assume that you would know that there is no more a singular atheistic view than there is a singular theistic view. But I can describe my view, which may be all you are asking towards the various posters in a roundabout way.

I have not found any supreme entity/god to be plausible, therefore I don’t have any belief in any particular deity(s). I would say that I don’t think the atypical ‘God-breathed Bible’ Christian theology to be possible. I state this as there is a significant volume of archaeological and geological evidence that contradicts such a theology. One example is simply that there has not been any world covering deluge since the time of Archaic Humans. The geological record is quite clear on this issue. And I don’t think that the God-breathed Bible’ Christian theological construct allows for a trickster god. The same would be true of Islamic theology that holds these past Yahweh dramatic demonstrations to be true. I would say that the atypical liberal Christian theological view (think ELCA or UMC) is possible, but still not plausible IMPOV. And when I say possible, it is more in the sense that I don’t think one could prove it not possible, much as I’m not sure how one would prove that we don’t live in a Matrix like world where we are just plugged into a machine. The Blind Watchmaker is also possible, and I would consider this ever so marginally more plausible than the atypical liberal Christian theological view. But even if the blind Watchmaker exists, so what? It doesn’t seem to care if I care. And nothing in the above even gets me anywhere close to probable...

And there does seem to be manifestations of Loki within the Trump candidate for president, but I still don’t find Loki plausible…

PS And the above is what I try to encapsulate within the few words within my profile: 'functional atheist; theoretical agnostic'

 

[Draconis]

Can god photocopy himself?

 

[DrZoidberg]

What? Atheists don't believe in atheism?

There's ether belief that God does/doesn't exist or certainty.

This is just more Cartesian bullshit. False dichotomy. There's almost an infinite variety on that scale.

The problem with any particular theism, for example Christianity, is that it's essentially argument from ignorance, while also being absurdly narrow. Ie, we don't know, so therefore this particular thing.

Accepting that some sort of God exists tells you nothing about that God, or gods. So being a theist shouldn't functionally be any different from being an atheist. But it is.

Are atheists certain God doesn't exist? Or do they believe God doesn't exist?

I'm an atheist because I believe the question is unanswerable. No, I'm not an agnostic. Agnosticism implies that you think that each side has a point. I think theism is only stupid. Since I don't worry about things I (and everybody else) couldn't possible know I'm an atheist.

If it's certainty then I would like them to justify their position with evidence. TIA

I don't have to. All I need to do is establish that each of the known 6000 gods are supported by the exact same evidence... or rather lack of evidence. It also means that any god I invent will be supported by the exact same evidence. That means that God isn't an actual thing. It's just playing with words.

Atheism isn't a positive belief. It's a negative belief. It's what you get when an argument lacks evidence.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yeah but this idea of an all-powerfull God is so WEAK it's not even a real God. How powerful a non-existent God can be do you think?
EB

But you only know this through your own understanding, which if I understand you correctly, is as weak as God. So who's to say what's a weak or strong idea?

Why is an idea of say a stone "stronger" than an idea of God? It's the stone that's material, not it's intelligibility.

Personally, I'd be pleased with the conclusion that all metaphysical ideas are equally weak although some may be more useful than others.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

It's raining here so I'd be prepared to countenance a conversation with you but you have to be two to tango and you don't do English tango.
EB

So you rather make a condescending remark then answer the question.

You really are a nice person, not.

Look who is talking!
EB

 

[ideologyhunter]

Can God load up a fart so vast that he himself cannot suppress it? (Not a Trump analogy -- this is a theological inquiry -- possibly disputed in accredited seminaries.)

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Can God load up a fart so vast that he himself cannot suppress it? (Not a Trump analogy -- this is a theological inquiry -- possibly disputed in accredited seminaries.)

That could cause another mass extinction event. Don't give him ideas!

 

[Atheos]

There's either belief that leprechauns don't exist or there's certainty.

Are aleprechaunists certain leprechauns don't exist? Or do they believe leprechauns don't exist?

If it's certainty then I would like them to justify their position with evidence.

The moment one discovers why they don't believe in leprechauns they've made a lot of progress towards discovering why a great many don't believe in their invisible friend.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Ok I'll try again:

Creationists often state that the complexity of certain naturally occurring phenomena - for example trees - is evidence that they must have been created. Yet they fail to apply that principle to the creator itself. i.e. who created the creator?

I used the term 'randomly' because that's the most common term creationists use in my experience. When they say 'random' in this context they mean 'not created'.

The out here is, God is said to be a different order of being than the material Universe.

So that does not apply to God. It's special pleading, but that is all they have.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ok I'll try again:

Creationists often state that the complexity of certain naturally occurring phenomena - for example trees - is evidence that they must have been created. Yet they fail to apply that principle to the creator itself. i.e. who created the creator?

I used the term 'randomly' because that's the most common term creationists use in my experience. When they say 'random' in this context they mean 'not created'.

The out here is, God is said to be a different order of being than the material Universe.

So that does not apply to God. It's special pleading, but that is all they have.

The one I've heard is that God wasn't created. Since God is eternal. Pointing out that that breaks the requirement of that everything must have a cause and must be created, so, by logic, neither would the universe or nature require a creator, never ends well.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

It is circular reasoning. Something that was created, had a beginning had a creator. The Universe had a beginning so must have a creator. But God had no beginning and thus no creator. Once you tease out these not so hidden assumptions, it's obvious that what we have here is argument by assertion. That assertion being that a beginning must be by a single creator, not an eternal chain of causes. God is defined as eternal and not created.

As an atheist I have no problem with the concept of an infinite chain of cause and effect. The Christian take is that that is logically impossible. But that is not so.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It is circular reasoning. Something that was created, had a beginning had a creator. The Universe had a beginning so must have a creator. But God had no beginning and thus no creator. Once you tease out these not so hidden assumptions, it's obvious that what we have here is argument by assertion. That assertion being that a beginning must be by a single creator, not an eternal chain of causes. God is defined as eternal and not created.

As an atheist I have no problem with the concept of an infinite chain of cause and effect. The Christian take is that that is logically impossible. But that is not so.

Hmm... an infinite chain of cause and effect, still has to have a beginning. I think you need to use other words. "Circular chain of cause and effect"?

Quantum mechanics does solve a lot of the problems.

 

[Juma]

It is circular reasoning. Something that was created, had a beginning had a creator. The Universe had a beginning so must have a creator. But God had no beginning and thus no creator. Once you tease out these not so hidden assumptions, it's obvious that what we have here is argument by assertion. That assertion being that a beginning must be by a single creator, not an eternal chain of causes. God is defined as eternal and not created.

As an atheist I have no problem with the concept of an infinite chain of cause and effect. The Christian take is that that is logically impossible. But that is not so.

Hmm... an infinite chain of cause and effect, still has to have a beginning. I think you need to use other words. "Circular chain of cause and effect"?

Quantum mechanics does solve a lot of the problems.

No. An infinite chain of cause and effect doesnt need to have a beginning. It is counter intuitive, i give you that.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The argument is that God has aseity, among his properties, existence. Eternel existence. This is argument by definition. Evidence or proof is not forthcoming. Maybe the physical Universe as a collective has aseity among its properties. At least we know the Universe exists. The idea of a God cause so many problems logically, it is suspect.

What was God doing before he created the Universe?

 

[skepticalbip]

The problem being that “god” is a metaphor to explain something with no known explanation but religions take the metaphor as literal truth. Once god was “the explanation” metaphor for a great deal of reality that was not understood but, as more became understood about reality, god evolved into a smaller and smaller gap filler, a metaphor bridging those smaller and smaller gaps in our understanding. Only the die-hard in religions cling to the literal belief in the Biblical creation myths – most understand evolution so have consigned god as the metaphor to explain a current unknown, the “cause of the Big Bang”. As a metaphor, god being eternal makes sense but when that metaphor is taken as literal truth then it runs into ridiculous paradoxes.

 

[bilby]

'It's a mystery; we have no idea how it happened at all' is synonymous with 'God(s) made it happen'. The two phrases carry EXACTLY the same information.

Of course, when very little is known about the universe, the mysteries are large and profound, and those who subscribe to the latter form of words can imagine great and powerful gods with the massive knowledge needed to cause these hugely mysterious events.

Sadly for today's enthusiastic supporters of the 'God of the Gaps' argument, the gaps are now so small that whatever it is that fits into them is barely worthy of the epithet 'God'.

If all your gods did was sort out the first 10^-34 of a second of the universe, and then fucked off for fourteen billion years, then what exactly is supposed to be so worshipful about that - and why does he give a shit if 13-year-old Sid Greer is masturbating in his bedroom; or if Abdul Aziz is having bacon for breakfast; or whether Saul Solomon has his head covered in the temple?

It doesn't make one whit of sense.

 

[skepticalbip]

'It's a mystery; we have no idea how it happened at all' is synonymous with 'God(s) made it happen'. The two phrases carry EXACTLY the same information. .

EXACTLY



But for some mysterious reason some people prefer the metaphor to the clear statement.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The problem being that “god” is a metaphor to explain something with no known explanation but religions take the metaphor as literal truth. Once god was “the explanation” metaphor for a great deal of reality that was not understood but, as more became understood about reality, god evolved into a smaller and smaller gap filler, a metaphor bridging those smaller and smaller gaps in our understanding. Only the die-hard in religions cling to the literal belief in the Biblical creation myths – most understand evolution so have consigned god as the metaphor to explain a current unknown, the “cause of the Big Bang”. As a metaphor, god being eternal makes sense but when that metaphor is taken as literal truth then it runs into ridiculous paradoxes.

David Hume called it an anlogy. God as the craftsman, the creator. But Hume pointed out that large enterprises need many men to make them. Why is the universe not a large enterprise created by many Gods. Or maybe the Universe is cause by an organic being that just grows, like a carrot.

Hume's point is that an analogy is not an argument nor evidence. Again, at least we know there is a material Universe.

God as a giant carrot. I like that.

 

[Malintent]

God as a giant carrot. I like that.

Forget the iron chariots... the words, "what's up doc" strikes fear in His heart.