Is God omnipotent?

[salima]

Originally Posted by Krumple

No because the definitions are different.

Atheists lack belief in god.

Agnostics say there is not enough evidence to say if a god or gods exist or not.

They are exclusive.

Invisible friends are everywhere, but only one is special?

dont agnostics also lack belief in god? or do atheists lack belief in god even though they think there is enough evidence to prove there is one? these definitions dont make any sense to me.

the only way i can make sense out of it is to say theists believe there is a god, atheists believe there is no god, and agnostics dont believe anything at all, since they havent been convinced either way, but may change their mind later when some new information becomes known.

in light of the definitions as i see them, it would be a sort of white lie to believe in god or believe there is no god without any evidence, since a person would be coming to a conclusion based on nothing at all, or perhaps some inherent fear, need, hope, etc that even he is unaware of. however, i would allow subjective evidence as sufficient to say that the person who has this experience, even though he may in fact have misinterpreted it, has good reason to believe there is a god. at the same time, subjective evidence of a person is not a good reason for anyone else to believe in god.

[xris]

Originally Posted by salima

dont agnostics also lack belief in god? or do atheists lack belief in god even though they think there is enough evidence to prove there is one? these definitions dont make any sense to me.

the only way i can make sense out of it is to say theists believe there is a god, atheists believe there is no god, and agnostics dont believe anything at all, since they havent been convinced either way, but may change their mind later when some new information becomes known.

in light of the definitions as i see them, it would be a sort of white lie to believe in god or believe there is no god without any evidence, since a person would be coming to a conclusion based on nothing at all, or perhaps some inherent fear, need, hope, etc that even he is unaware of. however, i would allow subjective evidence as sufficient to say that the person who has this experience, even though he may in fact have misinterpreted it, has good reason to believe there is a god. at the same time, subjective evidence of a person is not a good reason for anyone else to believe in god.

Giving ourselves handles can be a very confusing way of describing our beliefs. I classify myself as an agnostic and I believe its beyond our capacity to comprehend god. God ,even the word, can or could be described in a way we dont comprehend. The word, God, is insufficient.

[Reconstructo]

I don't mean to offend any atheists out there. I used to identify with the term myself. But an increasing respect for myth and an exposure to more sophisticated uses of the word "God" got me over my allergy.

All this "God is not Great" pop-atheism especially turned me off the term. It strikes me as a petty little in-crowd. I myself used to like the word "atheist" better than "agnostic" because it was more aggressive. But times change. I saw what I would call vanity in this.

I strongly recommend checking out Nicholas of Cusa. He's old school and yet surprisingly modern. His great influence is Pseudo-Dionysus. It will surprise some out there I think to see just how sophisticated the concept of God was in the 16th century, within the Catholic Church.

[Krumple]

Originally Posted by salima

atheists believe there is no god

It is not believing. It is that there is no belief in a god. Other wise I would say I believe there is no Easter bunny. No, that is incorrect language but people use it all the time. You simply have no belief in the easter bunny. There is a difference.

Originally Posted by salima

and agnostics dont believe anything at all, since they havent been convinced either way, but may change their mind later when some new information becomes known.

A majority of agnostics have chosen that position because they feel the universe seems to have order in which chaos just couldn't cause. But this is a mistake of perception in my opinion. I have never seen any order in the universe what-so-ever.

Originally Posted by salima

in light of the definitions as i see them, it would be a sort of white lie to believe in god or believe there is no god without any evidence.

Alright then ALL mythical creatures would fall under this category as unprovable. So they should be considered existent because we lack evidence to prove they don't exist?

If you ask someone if gremlins exist they will quickly point out that they don't but as soon as you ask the same question about god they for some reason make up a new excuse as if they can prove gremlins don't but "of course god exists." No the question is exactly identical in every aspect. One just is given some extra importance so it is allowed to step outside the scope of reasoning.

Originally Posted by salima

since a person would be coming to a conclusion based on nothing at all

So since there is no evidence for the existence of the easter bunny we should accept that the eater bunny exists? This goes against reality. Does abecloshia exist? Please tell me what it is.

Originally Posted by salima

or perhaps some inherent fear, need, hope, etc that even he is unaware of. however, i would allow subjective evidence as sufficient to say that the person who has this experience, even though he may in fact have misinterpreted it, has good reason to believe there is a god.

Yeah it is called superstition. When a feeling is used as the basis for some sort of convinced knowledge.

Originally Posted by salima

at the same time, subjective evidence of a person is not a good reason for anyone else to believe in god.

But lack of any evidence is a worthy enough position. I don't believe in gremlins because there is a lack of evidence to support their existence. It is being honestly consistent with the data.

---------- Post added 12-09-2009 at 06:17 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

But an increasing respect for myth and an exposure to more sophisticated uses of the word "God" got me over my allergy.

Just the way in which you wrote this, since you use the word "allergy" it implies that there was something wrong with you. If that's the case then I would have to conclude that you felt the need to cure something in which you never had. Not a strong basis.

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

All this "God is not Great" pop-atheism especially turned me off the term. It strikes me as a petty little in-crowd. I myself used to like the word "atheist" better than "agnostic" because it was more aggressive. But times change. I saw what I would call vanity in this.

You might pick beliefs based off acceptance or trendiness but not everyone feels the need to.

[salima]

Originally Posted by Krumple

It is not believing. It is that there is no belief in a god. Other wise I would say I believe there is no Easter bunny. No, that is incorrect language but people use it all the time. You simply have no belief in the easter bunny. There is a difference.

A majority of agnostics have chosen that position because they feel the universe seems to have order in which chaos just couldn't cause. But this is a mistake of perception in my opinion. I have never seen any order in the universe what-so-ever.

Alright then ALL mythical creatures would fall under this category as unprovable. So they should be considered existent because we lack evidence to prove they don't exist?

If you ask someone if gremlins exist they will quickly point out that they don't but as soon as you ask the same question about god they for some reason make up a new excuse as if they can prove gremlins don't but "of course god exists." No the question is exactly identical in every aspect. One just is given some extra importance so it is allowed to step outside the scope of reasoning.

So since there is no evidence for the existence of the easter bunny we should accept that the eater bunny exists? This goes against reality. Does abecloshia exist? Please tell me what it is.

Yeah it is called superstition. When a feeling is used as the basis for some sort of convinced knowledge.

But lack of any evidence is a worthy enough position. I don't believe in gremlins because there is a lack of evidence to support their existence. It is being honestly consistent with the data.

are you saying that atheists dont believe in god but they think there may be a god? i dont believe in the easter bunny and i dont think there is one either. but i agree with you, there is no difference as to the criteria to be used. both are unprovable. same goes for gremlins and pink elephants.

the only difference is that a large number of people can relate personal experience with god, there are a vast number of people throughout the ages that have had subjective experience that they are unable to explain other than it being god-related. that isnt true about the easter bunny.

at the same time, if a person has not had any such experience, that is not enough that he should believe there is a god because other people say they have subjective evidence. but might it not be enough to believe that there could be a god? then again, if i understood you right, that is your definition of an atheist-someone who does not believe in god, but does not believe that no god exists.

so what is the name or category of a person who doesnt believe in god and is certain that there is no possibility of there being a god?

[Reconstructo]

I still think the term "atheist", considering its etymology, implies a denial that there is a God.

I don't believe that humans use some cold pure dialectic to arrive at what they call the truth. To me, that idea is superstitious and based on emotion. One gets to play the hero of rationality, standing fast against the tide of obscurantism, etc. One gets to play Data or Spock in relational to poor old Bones, who is afraid to be beamed up.

To me, Atheism is Romantic. I would call it Satanic-Byronic Romanticism. It's the solitary man heroically open-eyed to the godlessness of a merciless reality. The atheistic existentialist wasted no time in conjuring up an ethic to give their lives meaning. I should add that I always found this Romantic Atheism quite seductive. But a person must keep on reading, keep on taking the mind in new directions.

I'm skeptical when a social animal like homo sapien claims his or her ideas are not influenced by their intellectual environment. Smacks of the Pope's version of Free Will.

[Krumple]

Originally Posted by salima

are you saying that atheists dont believe in god but they think there may be a god?

When you say you believe something doesn't exist, it is incorrect language. Belief doesn't work off a negative statement. Or else there are billions of things you believe don't actually exist. The reality is there is no belief.

Originally Posted by salima

i dont believe in the easter bunny and i dont think there is one either. but i agree with you, there is no difference as to the criteria to be used. both are unprovable. same goes for gremlins and pink elephants.

The importance then is what the reaction to this reality is. If you react as if the existence were true, then you are making a statement that said subject exists. But why do that if you can not be certain? This would be like walking around an invisible object every day. When people notice you side step something that doesn't appear to be there, they can't help but wonder what is wrong with you. Why would you do that? This is how I see theist's behavior.

Originally Posted by salima

the only difference is that a large number of people can relate personal experience with god,

I have heard from people who were once believers denounce their personal experiences as every day occurrences that they were just attaching the label of god. I am skeptical of these experiences not because people are unreliable with experiences in general but because it is so one sided.

Why would a god choose to give person A an experience while person B no experience? That sounds like playing favorites. It would be like a parent giving one of their two children attention while completely and utterly ignoring the other. I doubt a parent would do that type of behavior regardless of how "bad" they were. That is why I don't buy the experience of god part.

Originally Posted by salima

there are a vast number of people throughout the ages that have had subjective experience that they are unable to explain other than it being god-related. that isnt true about the easter bunny.

Well people say the same thing about aliens. Some say the same thing about bigfoot. I had a friend tell me when he was a child he watched a skeleton crawl out of his dresser and was convinced it was not a dream. How many times have you seen that?

Originally Posted by salima

at the same time, if a person has not had any such experience, that is not enough that he should believe there is a god because other people say they have subjective evidence.

But they will base other things of their life as if those experiences were proof. Some even go as far as to press their life style onto other people because of their experiences. Is this fair to do with something that is only subjective?

Originally Posted by salima

but might it not be enough to believe that there could be a god? then again, if i understood you right, that is your definition of an atheist-someone who does not believe in god, but does not believe that no god exists.

Yeah and I think this is where a majority of theists get confused. They simply can not fashion why a person would have no belief. So they call it a belief anyways, which it's not.

Originally Posted by salima

so what is the name or category of a person who doesnt believe in god and is certain that there is no possibility of there being a god?

Strong Atheist.

---------- Post added 12-10-2009 at 01:51 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

I still think the term "atheist", considering its etymology, implies a denial that there is a God.

It is denial to you because you are convinced one exists. I am not in denial because the signs do not point to any presence. The universe is not consistent with the existence of a creator, I simply do not see it.

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

I don't believe that humans use some cold pure dialectic to arrive at what they call the truth. To me, that idea is superstitious and based on emotion. One gets to play the hero of rationality, standing fast against the tide of obscurantism, etc. One gets to play Data or Spock in relational to poor old Bones, who is afraid to be beamed up.

Not even sure what you are saying here.

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

To me, Atheism is Romantic. I would call it Satanic-Byronic Romanticism.

I could say the exact same thing word for word about theology.

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

It's the solitary man heroically open-eyed to the godlessness of a merciless reality. The atheistic existentialist wasted no time in conjuring up an ethic to give their lives meaning. I should add that I always found this Romantic Atheism quite seductive. But a person must keep on reading, keep on taking the mind in new directions.

If only they could find the god cure right? So they wouldn't be sick anymore. I think your perception of atheists stems from more of a distaste or some kind of suppressed prejudice. (Just going off your word usage)

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

I'm skeptical when a social animal like homo sapien claims his or her ideas are not influenced by their intellectual environment. Smacks of the Pope's version of Free Will.

Who is making these claims? I'm pretty sure what ever you mean by the "intellectual environment" (I assume you mean collective knowledge) is being ignore, then both sides are guilty.

A young scared child wants their security blanket. A frightened adult just wants their security blanket.

[salima]

Originally Posted by Krumple

When you say you believe something doesn't exist, it is incorrect language. Belief doesn't work off a negative statement. Or else there are billions of things you believe don't actually exist. The reality is there is no belief.

The importance then is what the reaction to this reality is. If you react as if the existence were true, then you are making a statement that said subject exists. But why do that if you can not be certain? This would be like walking around an invisible object every day. When people notice you side step something that doesn't appear to be there, they can't help but wonder what is wrong with you. Why would you do that? This is how I see theist's behavior.

I have heard from people who were once believers denounce their personal experiences as every day occurrences that they were just attaching the label of god. I am skeptical of these experiences not because people are unreliable with experiences in general but because it is so one sided.

Why would a god choose to give person A an experience while person B no experience? That sounds like playing favorites. It would be like a parent giving one of their two children attention while completely and utterly ignoring the other. I doubt a parent would do that type of behavior regardless of how "bad" they were. That is why I don't buy the experience of god part.

Well people say the same thing about aliens. Some say the same thing about bigfoot. I had a friend tell me when he was a child he watched a skeleton crawl out of his dresser and was convinced it was not a dream. How many times have you seen that?

But they will base other things of their life as if those experiences were proof. Some even go as far as to press their life style onto other people because of their experiences. Is this fair to do with something that is only subjective?

Yeah and I think this is where a majority of theists get confused. They simply can not fashion why a person would have no belief. So they call it a belief anyways, which it's not.

well they are only labels. it doesnt matter, i am just curious. i see your point though-an atheist has no belief, and what...an agnostic believes there might be a god?

sure i know some people who have had experiences they feel involve a deity go around evangelizing for the rest of their lives about it. there are two possibilities here; either they are prophets or they are zealots, i guess...nut cases most likely. those people who have had experiences of other levels of awareness normally (and wisely so) wouldnt wish to speak about them to people whom they know would not be familiar with them.

certainly a person can be a believer and imagine that their prayers are answered, etc, particularly in times of stress, and later come to their senses ...but i dont think anyone has ever had the kind of experience i am talking about and then later decide it was something they ate which gave them indigestion. i am talking about the kind of experience that st john of the cross and teresa of avila describe.

but i would say no god chose to give the experience to one person over another, it just happens how it happens. no one knows how or why it happens. i might make a guess that it has something to do with frequency of vibrations of the whatever it is that composes our bodies and minds. in other words, it is probably a plain neurological anomaly.

sure a lot of people think they saw bigfoot, but i think there is an astronomical difference in their total number and the number of people who believe they have experienced something transcendent which they are unable to comprehend in any other way than divinity. there are also, however, a growing number of people who sense this as a reality yet do not ascribe any deity to it, so then the argument becomes one not of atheist/agnostic/believer but one of ...duh, i dont know the proper terms. you know, those guys who say body and mind are two or are one, those who say everything can be measured...empiricists? and those who say there is something else behind what we see.

and yes, those people who have had those experiences will base their own life on them because for them it is proof-but they have no right to base anything else on them or to expect their proof to convince anyone else.

i think the people you object most to would not be the ones who have had any direct subjective experience, but rather the ones who are blind zealots. and yet there are people who say they have faith but no subjective experience as proof yet do not behave like zealots. those are the ones who mistify me.

[TickTockMan]

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

One gets to play the hero of rationality, standing fast against the tide of obscurantism, etc. One gets to play Data or Spock in relational to poor old Bones, who is afraid to be beamed up.

To me, Atheism is Romantic. I would call it Satanic-Byronic Romanticism. It's the solitary man heroically open-eyed to the godlessness of a merciless reality. The atheistic existentialist wasted no time in conjuring up an ethic to give their lives meaning. I should add that I always found this Romantic Atheism quite seductive. But a person must keep on reading, keep on taking the mind in new directions.

I'm skeptical when a social animal like homo sapien claims his or her ideas are not influenced by their intellectual environment. Smacks of the Pope's version of Free Will.

Wow. I had no idea that my views were so . . . exciting!

"The solitary man heroically open-eyed to the godlessness of a merciless reality . . . " Holy Crow! That's good stuff.

I never pictured myself that way at all. But now, wow! I have a whole new self image! Sweet.

It's fascinating, because my parents tell me that when I was seven years old I announced "there is no God" when I was making fun of a girl my age and she snippily informed me that "God hears all these mean things you say." (she told her mom also, and I was henceforth banished from their household, which really was no great loss to either party.)

Very cool to think that I was clever enough at that age to intellectualize matters of theology as a result of my intellectual environment.

[Kielicious]

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

I still think the term "atheist", considering its etymology, implies a denial that there is a God.

You could but that doesnt mean its correct.

Atheism is an incorrect label applied to something that doesnt require a label. Just like 'bald' is a hair color, or the classic example of non-stamp collectors, or (my personal favorite) 'off' is considered a TV channel. The term itself doesnt apply anywhere else besides religion -for some reason. And that reason, whatever it may be, is probably why you can connect an etymological background to 'atheism = believing no god/s exist'. I mean lets face it: religion is VERY personal to almost everyone on the planet, and the farther back in time you go, the more fundamental and 'obvious' it was for a diety to exist. But, again, that doesnt mean its correct. Atheism means 'A' = without, and 'theism' = religious belief. Just like some people are 'Ahaircolorists' and 'Atvchannelists'. The term doesnt makes sense.

Now some people do take the strong atheist stance but I'm not at liberty to talk for them because I dont know for sure what, how, and why the believe what they do. As for me, Im agnostic about god until you define the term because 'god' could mean any number of things. Some people define 'god' as love. In that case, yes I believe in god, but only because I have to by definition. However, if you define god as the traditional anthropormorphised deity that has inherent contradictions then no, I reject that claim. So Im not a strong atheist because the term 'god' is never fully defined.