Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Gary Childress]

If they don't violate a stated regularity in the world, then they are not anti-scientific.

Well, if the weather is changed because someone said or wrote something, then that's not scientific.

If I would be in Your place, if You live in Europe, I wouldn't be so sure of this, but it's a free country.

[Iwannaplato]

And, by the way, talk of God being able to do anything is unscientific. God "can" nothing, for potentiality is not inherent in God, the One is only actual. Read Aristotle, and perhaps Maimonides, too.

Bit of a boo-boo then having Moses write so much text that shows God reacting with emotions all over the place. And then, humans, like you, can understand all that writing is wrong, which makes it an ever bigger boo boo. If you want stupid people, write down to them, as YHWH seems to have done.

If that kind of talk is unscientific, as you say, why aren't you referring us to scientific works, rather than Aristotle and Maimonedes, to see that? Science has come a long ways since the 12th century and the 4th century BC. I mean, I'm sure they had some fine international scientific journals, but still....so many advances.

I guess there's no free will. I mean, we can't have a complete God reacting in the future a couple of different ways to stupidity or not being stupid. It's so up in the air, so in potentia. Maimonides would be rolling over in his, well, scattered molecules. Or, perhaps, in the intervening years, his cosomology has also evolved.

[Janoah]

And, by the way, talk of God being able to do anything is unscientific. God "can" nothing, for potentiality is not inherent in God, the One is only actual. Read Aristotle, and perhaps Maimonides, too.

Science has come a long ways since the 12th century and the 4th century BC.

Yes, science has come a long and glorious way, but the Christian world is not able to reach Aristotle, because the dogma of the god-man does not allow them.
Yes, Aristotle also refuted anthropomorphic gods, and in general the materiality of God.
But Christians rejected Aristotle.
But when the monks saw that the Islamic world, armed with Aristotle, was overtaking the Christian world, then the monks became afraid and turned to Aristotle, and tried to adapt Aristotle.
But, anyway, either a god-man or Aristotle.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, Aristotle also refuted anthropomorphic gods, and in general the materiality of God.

Aristotle believed the body had four "humours." Aristotle believed the brain was just a radiator. Aristotle believed women had fewer teeth than men. Aristotle believed heavy objects fall faster than light ones. Aristotle believed that fleas, dirt and even mice magically appeared from spontaneous generation in garbage. Aristotle believed some men were just born to be slaves, that the earth is the center of the universe, and that only males should ever inherit.

So which category does his argument about God fall into: his clever beliefs, or his foolish ones? You'll need to prove that with reference to something more than the cachet of the name "Aristotle."

[Immanuel Can]

But, anyway, either a god-man or Aristotle.

Let me ask you this, Janoah.

Is it possible for a man to become God? (No, obviously.)

Is it possible for God to become man?

Torah says He has (Gen.18). The NT says He has (John 1). But even logically and philosophically, why would we be convinced it's impossible for an omnipotent God to present incarnate to mankind?

[Janoah]

Yes, Aristotle also refuted anthropomorphic gods, and in general the materiality of God.

You'll need to prove that with reference to something more than the cachet of the name "Aristotle."

Authority has nothing to do with it, the immateriality of the One is easily explained logically.
I have already given this explanation.

[Janoah]

But, anyway, either a god-man or Aristotle.

Torah says He has (Gen.18).

I have already said many times that the greatest stupidity is the literal understanding of the entire Tanakh.

[Greatest I am]

But, anyway, either a god-man or Aristotle.

Torah says He has (Gen.18).

I have already said many times that the greatest stupidity is the literal understanding of the entire Tanakh.

It may not matter, given that Jews follow the Oral Torah and not the written one. That Torah puts man above God.

Jesus shows this when asking us all from the Bible. "have ye forgotten that ye are Gods?".

Jesus id clear in that we create all of our Gods.

Step up or be stuck with a evil genocidal Trinity.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, Aristotle also refuted anthropomorphic gods, and in general the materiality of God.

You'll need to prove that with reference to something more than the cachet of the name "Aristotle."

Authority has nothing to do with it, the immateriality of the One is easily explained logically.

I don't believe you have. Give it again, or point us to it.

[Immanuel Can]

But, anyway, either a god-man or Aristotle.

Torah says He has (Gen.18).

I have already said many times that the greatest stupidity is the literal understanding of the entire Tanakh.

What parts of the Tanakh do you believe?

[commonsense]

Let me know how that all strikes you. We can go a further step in that thinking, but only if I'm clear so far, and if you're content with it.

It strikes me as very well thought out. I agree that it would be better to live in accordance with God’s wishes than to seek the protection of a Satan.

But here are my thoughts on the power of God—certainly the power not to do evil is a legitimate power.

Yes, agreed...NOT to do evil is a kind of desirable quality. But I don't think it requires any power, unless one is already inclined in some strong way to do evil. It doesn't take any power to not do what one is not inclined to do anyway.

Yet evil does occur in this world. That should mean that a power to do evil must sometimes overcome the power to do good. In other words, God’s power is not always powerful enough to overcome evil; I.e. God must be only partially powerful.

But there's another hypothesis, and I think it's worth thinking about. What if the allowance of some level of evil is actually a prerequisite to a surpassing good? What if the presence of evil could be turned, jujitsu-style, into a kind of good thing that is far better than what otherwise might have been?

Also, I would put it that the absence of health, for example, would be meaningless without the concepts of illness and injury. Good is meaningless without evil.

I don't think that's the case. One could BE healthy without the existence of illness or injury. One would simply not know the concept of health, but one would not BE less healthy. On the other hand, the reverse is not true; we only can identify illness or injury by reference to a state of health. And more, if health didn't exist, neither would illness or injury...they would have not only no meaning, but no possibility of existing at all.

However, that is only an analogy, not the core issue. The core issue, I would say, is whether evil is a thing-in-itself or only a derivative. I think it's derivative.

I would appreciate your continued feedback.

Likewise. Interesting conversation. Very challenging and thoughtful responses, on your side.

At this point, I would say that I am agnostic once again. I simply mean that I believe there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. I am adamantly not an atheist. I am just uncertain about God‘s existence. Most often the evidence cited for the existence of God is predicated on the belief that God exists. This is, in fact, circular.

[Immanuel Can]

It strikes me as very well thought out. I agree that it would be better to live in accordance with God’s wishes than to seek the protection of a Satan.

But here are my thoughts on the power of God—certainly the power not to do evil is a legitimate power.

Yes, agreed...NOT to do evil is a kind of desirable quality. But I don't think it requires any power, unless one is already inclined in some strong way to do evil. It doesn't take any power to not do what one is not inclined to do anyway.

Yet evil does occur in this world. That should mean that a power to do evil must sometimes overcome the power to do good. In other words, God’s power is not always powerful enough to overcome evil; I.e. God must be only partially powerful.

But there's another hypothesis, and I think it's worth thinking about. What if the allowance of some level of evil is actually a prerequisite to a surpassing good? What if the presence of evil could be turned, jujitsu-style, into a kind of good thing that is far better than what otherwise might have been?

Also, I would put it that the absence of health, for example, would be meaningless without the concepts of illness and injury. Good is meaningless without evil.

I don't think that's the case. One could BE healthy without the existence of illness or injury. One would simply not know the concept of health, but one would not BE less healthy. On the other hand, the reverse is not true; we only can identify illness or injury by reference to a state of health. And more, if health didn't exist, neither would illness or injury...they would have not only no meaning, but no possibility of existing at all.

However, that is only an analogy, not the core issue. The core issue, I would say, is whether evil is a thing-in-itself or only a derivative. I think it's derivative.

I would appreciate your continued feedback.

Likewise. Interesting conversation. Very challenging and thoughtful responses, on your side.

At this point, I would say that I am agnostic once again. I simply mean that I believe there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Okay, let's examine that claim.

You say you've got the belief that "there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God." How do you know, and why do you believe it?

Most often the evidence cited for the existence of God is predicated on the belief that God exists.

Well, actually, there's an entire field of Theistic thought called "natural theology" or "natural philosophy," which is predicated on no such thing at all. Are you already aware of that, or is that news to you?

[Janoah]

You'll need to prove that with reference to something more than the cachet of the name "Aristotle."

Authority has nothing to do with it, the immateriality of the One is easily explained logically.

I don't believe you have. Give it again, or point us to it.

I won't look for links, but I'll give the explanation again.
From a philosophical point of view, God is the First Cause, independent of anything, but the cause of everything.
The First Cause is immutable, otherwise it is subject to other causes which produce change, and therefore is not the First Cause.
Everything material is changeable, and therefore is not the First Cause.

[Janoah]

Torah says He has (Gen.18).

I have already said many times that the greatest stupidity is the literal understanding of the entire Tanakh.

What parts of the Tanakh do you believe?

The entire Tanakh is sacred.
The literal understanding of what is said in it is not so important to me.
In any case, a literal understanding of what is said in it can be assumed if it does not contradict science.

[phyllo]

From a philosophical point of view, God is the First Cause, independent of anything, but the cause of everything.

If it's independent, then it can't care about anyone or anything, including Israel.