Atheism is the god-snake eating its tail

Some partial backups of posts from the past (Feb, 2004)
Post Reply
zarathustra
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
Location: Australia

Atheism is the god-snake eating its tail

Post by zarathustra » Sat Feb 20, 2010 10:46 am

An omnipotent god, devoid of qualifications, is illogical. If a being can do everything, then there is nothing it cannot do. Therefore, it cannot do nothing; hence making the being not omnipotent. If it is replied that ‘nothing’ is not something in itself, but it is merely a lack of something, then a question arises: Is it possible for such a being to do something to a lack of something? The answer is, obviously, no; for it is inconceivable to do something to non-existence. Consequently, even an “omnipotent” being is still bound by some logical necessities. These binding laws, then, make an “omnipotent” being not omnipotent. On the other hand, I just can't bring myself to believe that there was nothing and nothing happened, and then nothing magically exploded for no reason creating everything, and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs...

zarathustra
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Atheism is the god-snake eating its tail

Post by zarathustra » Fri Mar 05, 2010 5:04 am

Atheists like Richard Dawkins and creationists like Ksolway and co all require of us to take a leap of faith i.e. that god or the infinite exists or it doesn't, for which, in the final analysis, no proof can be offered. We either believe it, or we don't, then, based on what we choose to 'believe' arguments are formulated. But belief proves nothing! Weather they know it or not, both of these belief systems are evolutionist i.e. they can only trace their origins back so far, beyond which they cannot see, but merely speculate i.e. take a jump!

User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Atheism is the god-snake eating its tail

Post by Kelly Jones » Sat Mar 06, 2010 6:16 pm

zarathustra wrote:An omnipotent god, devoid of qualifications, is illogical. If a being can do everything, then there is nothing it cannot do. Therefore, it cannot do nothing; hence making the being not omnipotent. If it is replied that ‘nothing’ is not something in itself, but it is merely a lack of something, then a question arises: Is it possible for such a being to do something to a lack of something? The answer is, obviously, no; for it is inconceivable to do something to non-existence. Consequently, even an “omnipotent” being is still bound by some logical necessities. These binding laws, then, make an “omnipotent” being not omnipotent. On the other hand, I just can't bring myself to believe that there was nothing and nothing happened, and then nothing magically exploded for no reason creating everything, and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs...
You are supposing that nothing is a logical possibility. Since it is not, it makes no sense to say God is not omnipotent for being unable to make nothing into something. There is no nothing to be acted on.
zarathustra wrote:Atheists like Richard Dawkins and creationists like Ksolway and co all require of us to take a leap of faith i.e. that god or the infinite exists or it doesn't, for which, in the final analysis, no proof can be offered. We either believe it, or we don't, then, based on what we choose to 'believe' arguments are formulated. But belief proves nothing! Weather they know it or not, both of these belief systems are evolutionist i.e. they can only trace their origins back so far, beyond which they cannot see, but merely speculate i.e. take a jump!
I think you made an assumption there. Since the Infinite is not-finite, by definition, then it always is. It is everything. There is no logical alternative for its always being. Or, to use your term, existing. That reasoning proves that it definitely is.

But since the Infinite cannot come into existence or stop existing, no "proof" can be offered in a scientific sense, ie. as evidence. Any proof would obviously be the Infinite, so there would be no proof.

.

Post Reply