Limitless possibilities of god

[Zhavric]

A strange & irrational assertion has been made by several agnostics on this site. As near as I can understand their argument, they hold there to be a infinite number of possibilities for god... or that if a god exists his attributes could be like nothing we could ever imagine even given an infinite number of guesses.

This is an invalid line of reasoning for a variety of reasons.

The core faulty assumption in this reasoning is the idea that any god with any set of attributes is possible. We already know that agnostics hold to faith where god is concerned because they make the positive claim god may be real which is an assertion based on a lack of evidence. The agnostics will disagree, but the only evidence they have are their own imaginings. "If we can imagine a god / creator of the universe that created the universe without being omnipotent then such a being may exist!"

... not so much.

Imagination =/= possibility.

I can muse over things like married bachelors & square circles, but my musings do not change the fact these things are logical contradictions & thus not possible. While some of the agnostics' gods don't suffer from logical paradoxes, many do... like the creator of the universe who lacks the necessary attributes to create the universe. Some concepts of god that agnostics posit are even sillier... such as the god that intelligently designs the universe, created intelligent life, but just couldn't be bothered to notice it / can't notice it / etc.

There is a kind of desperation in these inventive explanation. Theists have one definition of god which they hold to using religious dogma and complete memetic indifference to logical arguments. Agnostics have no such structure. When their views are challenged by atheists, god becomes their silly putty which they'll twist, pull and shove into any gap they can think of... even if it means their end product is logically untenable. The only common thread is a universal lack of support and demand we believe this freak show of divinity is possible without a shred of support.

This is a chance for agnostics to prove that god is a possibility. Please, please, please do not waste our time with "I can imagine it & you can't disprove it" arguments. You need positive support for god to be possible.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Zhavric A strange & irrational assertion has been made by several agnostics on this site. As near as I can understand their argument, they hold there to be a infinite number of possibilities for god... or that if a god exists his attributes could be like nothing we could ever imagine even given an infinite number of guesses. This is an invalid line of reasoning for a variety of reasons. The core faulty assumption in this reasoning is the idea that any god with any set of attributes is possible. We already know that agnostics hold to faith where god is concerned because they make the positive claim god may be real which is an assertion based on a lack of evidence. The agnostics will disagree, but the only evidence they have are their own imaginings. "If we can imagine a god / creator of the universe that created the universe without being omnipotent then such a being may exist!" ... not so much. Imagination =/= possibility. I can muse over things like married bachelors & square circles, but my musings do not change the fact these things are logical contradictions & thus not possible. While some of the agnostics' gods don't suffer from logical paradoxes, many do... like the creator of the universe who lacks the necessary attributes to create the universe. Some concepts of god that agnostics posit are even sillier... such as the god that intelligently designs the universe, created intelligent life, but just couldn't be bothered to notice it / can't notice it / etc. There is a kind of desperation in these inventive explanation. Theists have one definition of god which they hold to using religious dogma and complete memetic indifference to logical arguments. Agnostics have no such structure. When their views are challenged by atheists, god becomes their silly putty which they'll twist, pull and shove into any gap they can think of... even if it means their end product is logically untenable. The only common thread is a universal lack of support and demand we believe this freak show of divinity is possible without a shred of support. This is a chance for agnostics to prove that god is a possibility. Please, please, please do not waste our time with "I can imagine it & you can't disprove it" arguments. You need positive support for god to be possible.

You need not be an agnostic to believe that IF a God exists, God would be one of infinite attributes. I believe in God and fully recognize that the human worldview is eminantly falliable and could not define God at the expence of God expressed in other worldviews, ie religions.

Humans cannot define god narrowly in one worldview no more than a Mayfly could define the earth.

I am a Baha'i and believe in a God of infinite attributes and names,

[Zhavric]

Quote by: shunyadragon You need not be an agnostic to believe that IF a God exists, God would be one of infinite attributes. I believe in God and fully recognize that the human worldview is eminantly falliable and could not define God at the expence of God expressed in other worldviews, ie religions. Humans cannot define god narrowly in one worldview no more than a Mayfly could define the earth. I am a Baha'i and believe in a God of infinite attributes and names,

That's one for "I can imagine it so it must be possible". Any other takers?

Honestly, how so many people can adhere to this post-modernistic "we can't know anything" drivel is beyond me. We do not need all the knowledge in the universe to conceptualize things and we can conceptualize impossible & fictional things. This conceptualization does not prove god is possible. The challenge of this thread is to do just that: prove god is possible. Where is your evidence?

[LetThereBe]

'tis true that God could not have a set of attributes that exclude each other (such as round circle), but anything else is certainly possible.

God could be an intelligent creator who does not really care about His creation, or He could be anything as long as it does not contradict with itself.

And of course such proof does not exist, for if it did you would much more likely be a theist than an agnostic.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Zhavric I can muse over things like married bachelors & square circles, but my musings do not change the fact these things are logical contradictions & thus not possible.

Omnipotence is logically impossible.

Do you believe there is something logically paradoxical about the existence of a being capable of doing anything that can be done?

Do you believe there is something logically paradoxical about the existence of a being capable of designing and implementing a reality such as our own?

When their views are challenged by atheists, god becomes their silly putty which they'll twist, pull and shove into any gap they can think of... even if it means their end product is logically untenable.

I assume you are referring to me, here.

The fact is, your attempts at establishing my arguments as untenable have fallen woefully short, and you know it. This is why you always evade the key points.

This is a chance for agnostics to prove that god is a possibility. Please, please, please do not waste our time with "I can imagine it & you can't disprove it" arguments. You need positive support for god to be possible.

The default position, for an argument that does not contradict known truths, is unknown.

My definition of a god does not contradict known truths, thus the question about whether or not such a being is possible defaults to unknown.

Now, given forever, if it is possible for such a being to come into existence, it will.

So, what is needed is to discuss the relevant physics to see if we can figure out if such a being is possible.

Frankly, Zhavric, you simply do not possess the physics knowledge necessary for such a discussion. If others are interested, I will resurrect the thread I created for that topic.

[belverron]

There are so many things we don't understand still. We don't know what black holes are, we don't know why we sleep, we don't know how, exactly, gravity works. We don't know how sauropods or tyrannosaurs had sex. And maybe there's a god that fills in some of those unknowns. And maybe not. It's hard to discount so many people's experience of God, even if we can't duplicate it.

[Kamehameha34]

Your ignorance of the attributes of agnosticism is rather trollish in practice.

First of all, agnostics don't make any positive assertions that aren't based in evidence. We don't have evidence that a god is possible, we just have no evidence that doesn't contradict the possibility of a god.

Second of all, there are an infinite amount of possibilities for a "creator of the universe" that don't contradict any evidence that we have. Just imagine one unfalsifiable claim regarding a universal creator, and simply add microscopic variations to it. Each one constitutes a new, and uncontradicted possibility for a god. This is simply a reason for why disproving one god (ie the Christian god) doesn't disprove all others.

When their views are challenged by atheists, god becomes their silly putty which they'll twist, pull and shove into any gap they can think of... even if it means their end product is logically untenable.

This is ridiculous. We are the ones proposing the definition in the dictionary. You are requiring us to define the concept of "god" into impossibility.

I'm sure you've heard this analogy before: You're painting bullseye's around your points. You're just out to disprove the word "god", even if it means that you have to make the word adopt a completely different meaning. Truth be told, if that's the tactic you're going to persue, the conclusion will be meaningless.

"I've proven that no flying, pink elephants exist."
"Ok, but how does this support the notion that no elephants exist?"

This is a chance for agnostics to prove that god is a possibility. Please, please, please do not waste our time with "I can imagine it & you can't disprove it" arguments. You need positive support for god to be possible.

God is possible, based on our current evidence. I'm not proposing that god will always be possible, regardless of what we discover. I am saying that since you can not logically disprove the concept of a universal creator, and that theists can not logically prove it, the stance remains unknown.

You really need to seperate agnosticism and theism before you attempt to enter a discussion such as this.

[Jack]

To engage in any sort of intelligent discussion, we have to understand what we're talking about. To propose gods without suggesting any characteristics, to say that gods could be anything imaginable, reduces the concept of gods to the ridiculous. Their must be some characteristics that identify a god, otherwise you could call a carrot god and worship it, to what end I have no idea.
So there must be some characteristics we can agree a god must have. Is it (are they) the ultimate creator? Is it (are they) able to form a personal relationship with you? Is it (are they) actively involved in your life, guiding, forgiving, etc.?
If gods can be everything, they are nothing.

[Kamehameha34]

The definition I've been pushing is "creator of the universe". The term "creator" implies that it is a being, with consciousness.

For now, let's apply the term to a creator of the universe, with a human range of emotions. It'll be fun to see where it goes.

[another day]

See the thing is, if we are to believe that god is a being with a thinking mind, then HE must be bound by certain laws. The way a mind works is that it operates and processes logical thoughts in interaction with the world around it. You cannot have a mind that exists in a realm where only the mind is the creator and there is nothing else, or else there is nothing for the mind to operate on. It's like trying to run a program on a computer with no operating system. If there is no base realm of interaction for which to operate on, a thinking mind is useless and impossible. You cannot just take the ignorant, head in the sand stance of "god can do anythign cus he's god". It is not an intellectually sound argument. Thinking minds are linear things, they have to be.

Anyway the idea of a thinking mind creating the world is ridiculous for so many other reasons. A thinking mind is a narrowed down scope of the universal core, meant for a creature that lives and interacts in a landscape. It is only because we ourselves are thinking minds that we relate to this concept. Emotions also, are survival mechanisms of earthly beings and have no place in an eternal creator of reality. People need to grasp that intelligence does not only come in the form of a conscious mind. Nature is intelligence itself, in the way it is carefully guided by it's own internal laws. It is an intelligence of systems.

The whole god concept rests squarly on the notion that MAGIC EXISTS. God is magic. He snaps his fingers and things appear. He can make black white. But why should we believe that magic exists? Everything we know tells us it does not. And if you look at why we love the concept of magic, it is because it is foremost, a DENIAL OF REALITY.

[Kamehameha34]

Just because our proposed god created our universal plane doesn't mean that its mind did not exist on its own universal plane.

For example, we could have been created in a lab by a scientist who successfully recreated a "big bang", which was, in turn, believed to be the beginning of his universe.

The big bang theory states that nothing inside our universe existed before it. This doesn't mean that nothing existed outside of it.

God is magic. He snaps his fingers and things appear.

Only if you accept omnipotence as a necessary characteristic for a god. For the purposes of this thread, we aren't.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Isherwood To engage in any sort of intelligent discussion, we have to understand what we're talking about. To propose gods without suggesting any characteristics, to say that gods could be anything imaginable, reduces the concept of gods to the ridiculous. Their must be some characteristics that identify a god, otherwise you could call a carrot god and worship it, to what end I have no idea. So there must be some characteristics we can agree a god must have. Is it (are they) the ultimate creator? Is it (are they) able to form a personal relationship with you? Is it (are they) actively involved in your life, guiding, forgiving, etc.? If gods can be everything, they are nothing.

The more characteristics you apply, the further you narrow down the category, and thus exclude possible entities.

Because we think of gods as creators, I use this definition:

A being capable of designing and implementing a reality such as our own


This meets our common-sense idea of a god, without making impossible requirements such as omnipotence. This would exclude most gods from our pagan past. Thor would not meet this definition, for instance.


The more restrictions we place on our definition of a god, the further down we push the probability of its existence. For example, the idea of whether or not they should be able to form personal relationships - well, you could have personal gods as one category of gods, and impersonal gods as another category of gods. I see no reason why we should pointlessly narrow the range.

A carrot clearly is not capable of designing and implementing a reality such as our own.


So, the question becomes one of whether or not there is a limit to power and intelligence. At this point, we are getting into highly speculative territory. We can speculate all sorts of stuff, based on M brane theory and apparent superluminal effects, but whatever conclusions we draw will still be speculative. Even if we concluded that the probability of a god existing exceeds 80% (purely made up number), the variance on that probability would be so wide that we would still remain in the unknown category.

I am happy to engage in these speculations, but we need to make it clear from the outset that we cannot draw firm conclusions from them.

[Zhavric]

Ten replies & not one of you has even ATTEMPTED to provide evidence for your assertion "god is possible". You really all are thoroughly convinced that your ability to conceptualize something makes it possible. Why is that? You're all far to smart to be baffled by something so simple.

I did get a kick out of this:

Quote by: Kame We don't have evidence that a god is possible, we just have no evidence that doesn't contradict the possibility of a god

Kame admitting there's no positive evidence suggesting god is possible was good. The second part of the sentence explains why agnostics are loathe to committ to any definition of god & why their stance is untenable. "Since god is anything I want god to be, I don't have to worry about things like evidence or support..."

[Fonceai]

There is no way to prove that God is possible.
Nor is there a way to prove that God is impossible.

And as Isherwood's post alludes to, there is no single definition of God. There are different characteristics and attributes and you could disprove them all, I'm sure, but our science is a more primitive mind's magic.

Someone who defines God as being above and beyond the laws of the universe that govern us is hardly making excuses. And our human definitions are hardly conclusive.

And that brings us full circle to the opposite of the topic...

There are too many ways in which God could be possible.
And there are too many ways in which God could be impossible.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Zhavric Ten replies & not one of you has even ATTEMPTED to provide evidence for your assertion "god is possible".

Given how you evade tough questions directed at you, you really should not complain that others do not respond to your requests for arguments.

I will address this question is a thread I previously created for this topic.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: F There are too many ways in which God could be possible.

No one in this thread has provided support for any of them.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Given how you evade tough questions directed at you, you really should not complain that others do not respond to your requests for arguments.

Who has posed me a tough question? Certainly you're not referring to your ever-changing completely unsupported conceptualization of god? This is your chance to prove god is possible. Where is your evidence?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Zhavric Who has posed me a tough question? Certainly you're not referring to your ever-changing completely unsupported conceptualization of god? This is your chance to prove god is possible. Where is your evidence?

Please answer these questions, Zhavric:

1) Our universe appears to have a starting point. Doesn't this imply the existence of a reality other than our own? Unless you believe in acausal magic, our universe had to come from something.

2) You keep saying a god is impossible because no being could create energy. Actually, the law of conservation of energy applies to closed systems. If a god exists outside of a universe, then the universe in question is not a closed system. Thus, the law of conservation of energy would not apply to a god creating energy within a universe, by acting from outside of the universe. Right?

3) There are multiple definitions of the word god:

god - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Some of those definitions call for omnipotence, some do not.

Thus, there are definitions of god that do not require omnipotence.

Thus, we are not misusing the term god, when we discuss the possibility of non-omnipotent gods. Right?

[Captain Chaos]

Ten replies & not one of you has even ATTEMPTED to provide evidence for your assertion "god is possible". You really all are thoroughly convinced that your ability to conceptualize something makes it possible. Why is that? You're all far to smart to be baffled by something so simple.

I already created a thread for this purpose:

Is a god possible?

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Captain Chaos You keep saying a god is impossible because no being could create energy. Actually, the law of conservation of energy applies to closed systems. If a god exists outside of a universe, then the universe in question is not a closed system. Thus, the law of conservation of energy would not apply to a god creating energy within a universe, by acting from outside of the universe.

That there is very valid.

Creating energy without using existing material is indeed impossible in a closed system. A closed system, however, implies that this universe is not "natural"; it was created.

Creating energy without using existing material is possible of that material is brought in from outside the system. Which means that it's most definitely possible for energy to be created. A not-closed system, then, implies that there is more outside this universe.

Is that what you're getting at?