Silkroad Online Forums

Non flame thread! I want to hear some constructive arguments on the religion side, as I am a strong atheist.
Here are some arguments I dug up supporting the Science side, and also, as of right now, it appears religion is just an argument from ignorance (look it up)?


The omnipotence paradox suggests that the concept of an omnipotent entity is logically contradictory, from considering a question like: "Can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it?" or "If God is all powerful, could God create a being more powerful than itself?".

The argument from free will contests the existence of an omniscient god who has free will — or has allotted the same freedom to his creations — by arguing that the two properties are contradictory. According to the argument, if God already knows the future, then humanity is destined to corroborate with his knowledge of the future and not have true free will to deviate from it. Therefore our free will contradicts an omniscient god. Another argument attacks the existence of an omniscient god who has free will directly in arguing that the will of God himself would be bound to follow whatever God foreknows himself doing in eternity future.

The "no reason" argument tries to show that an omnipotent and omniscient being would not have any reason to act in any way, specifically by creating the universe, because it would have no needs, wants, or desires since these very concepts are subjectively human. As the universe exists, there is a contradiction, and therefore, an omnipotent god cannot exist.

IN BEFORE THE LOCK.

I want this to be a serious thread menz

Not one of these threads.

It's you guys who make this not possible. I want arguments not QQ/annoying fillers.

If you seriously thought everyone is going to stay on topic and discuss this like the civil people we are...

I appreciate the effort but a decent conversation is just not possible =/

I even found some arguments
Sad face

Can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it

God, from my understanding, wouldn't. For what reason would an Omnipotent God create a rock he cannot lift? Would that not contradict his very existence? The argument stems from the hypothesis that because God is Omnipotent he can create anything, but his very omnipotence makes the existence of a "rock he cannot lift" impossible.

Premise: An Omnipotent, all-powerful, being can create an object he cannot lift.
Problem: If the being is omnipotent how can such an object exist?
You then come to this conclusion:
Because such an Object cannot exist said God is not Omnipotent because he cannot create the aforementioned object.

You should not draw conclusions from an impossible premise. The only answer is: He wouldn't.

Free Will

There is no "free will" if God is Omniscient.

As the universe exists, there is a contradiction, and therefore, an omnipotent god cannot exist.

I don't understand. You present three natures:

Omnipotent
Omniscient
Omnipresent

None of those imply lack of needs, wants, or desires. Why wouldn't an Omniscient and Omnipotent have a reason to act in the way people believe him to act.

These are very classic "arguments" but I think it's simpler simply not believing instead of trying to "disprove" a supernatural belief that hinges entirely on faith. God or gods will stop existing when man considers them myth. Plain & Simple.

FYI, the third option, "Agnostic" is invalid as one can be an Agnostic Atheist or an Agnostic Theist. Myself, I'm the former but playing devil's advocate as I wait for the League of Legends Client to start working is fun.

This will not end well.

I'll contribute to this later, I don't quite understand the question though. Are we giving Arguements for Religion? or against? Or discussing the 3 you presented us?

Would be cool if a mod could moderate this thread to keep it civil and on topic.

So, you are looking for arguments that support the existence of an anthropomorphic god?

Second, "agnostic" tells you nothing... they could still be a theist or an atheist.

All 3, i guess read the arguments I found, and argue for either side?
And to Barotix, I see what your saying, but my argument is that the traditional deity/god figure is represented as omnipotent, however I try to prove the theoretical impossibility of omnipotence.
And wants/needs etc. are subjectively human, as an omnipresent etc. being would not have any wants/needs, because those are human attributes.
And I guess I define god as one of those higher beings in one of the main religions
And soz about whole agnostic deal.

Your vocabulary guys...mindfuck for an immigrant like me

ExSoldier wrote:Your vocabulary guys...mindfuck for an immigrant like me

I guess can someone clarify what an agnostic really means? I always thought it was undecided?

McLovin1t wrote:All 3, i guess read the arguments I found, and argue for either side?
And to Barotix, I see what your saying, but my argument is that the traditional deity/god figure is represented as omnipotent, however I try to prove the theoretical impossibility of omnipotence.
And wants/needs etc. are subjectively human, as an omnipresent etc. being would not have any wants/needs, because those are human attributes.
And I guess I define god as one of those higher beings in one of the main religions

Well, if we're going by the main religions omnipotent deities tend to have many human attributes. Remember, we created them in our image. Now, once you step out of the realm of Major World religions you start to question what our Ancestors where thinking when they came up with distinctly human gods.

Agnostics don't deny God yet don't have knowledge of God. In a nutshell: God may or may not exist. The existence of God is unknowable. And that's my last post because I'm starving and this Client is being so lame.

So that's undecided imho?
And I guess those deities do display human-like attributes. Hmph, that's strange to argue, then how bout the Christian/Jewish/Islam god?

The way I've always looked at it... Simple ofc... I've been wrong before but anyways...

How are we to determine what contradicts what when speaking of a God, when the whole reason anything contradicts another idea is because it was made so by God. Everything we have and everything we believe to be true could all change in an instant. Like the laws of physics. The world as we see it may only be an example of what is possible. Then on the other hand, there may not be a God, but I'm keeping my faith.

ExSoldier wrote:Your vocabulary guys...mindfuck for an immigrant like me

I'm an immigrant too o-o? Moved here when I was 3 though. So, Lol.

Anyways, on the topic on omnipotence.
Quite possibly one of my favorite quotes.


Agnostic is exactly as barotix said, Agnostic Atheist or an Agnostic Theist.

Definition of Agnostic(Dictionary.com)
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

Agnostic theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. For theism, an agnostic theist believes that the proposition at least one deity exists is true, but, per agnosticism, believes that the existence of gods is unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the god(s) they believe in.

Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, encompasses atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but does not claim to have knowledge of such.Individuals who identify as agnostic atheists may justify their position by reference to epistemology, theory of justification or Occam's razor.

Yeah, I love that quote. That's an argument I like, the presence of evil.
And to Barotix, doesn't Christianity advocate that god gives free will to my understanding? Also, the argument encircles any being (including god) to have free will, so that's important?

Here is some common vocabulary that will appear in this thread. Should help those wishing to participate and those who are simply reading the thread.

Agnosticism is the belief that something is unknowable and therefore cannot be proved or disproved.
Atheism - is a simply a lack of belief in a theistic god, or (many) theistic gods.

The two are not mutually exclusive, you can get both agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.

Religion - is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or more in general a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the universe, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Omnipotent - unlimited power.
omniscient - unlimited knowledge, all-knowing.
benevolent - kind or good.
Omnibenevolent - all-loving, infinitely good/kind.
Omnipresent - being present everywhere at once

Determinism - the view that every event, including human cognition, behavior, decision, and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.
Free-will - rational agents exercise control over their actions, decisions, or choices.

If I left any out let me know. I will reply to the OP later.

Sources: Wiki, google, my brain.

What do you mean reply to OP
Well, how can one be an Agnostic atheist? One believes that god doesn't exist, but isn't sure?

McLovin1t wrote:Yeah, I love that quote. That's an argument I like, the presence of evil.
And to Barotix, doesn't Christianity advocate that god gives free will to my understanding? Also, the argument encircles any being (including god) to have free will, so that's important?

That has always bugged me so much so that I'm starting to think I was mislead as a child when I was told God gave man free will. It's a lot like how people claim Christianity is against masturbation but you'll never find that in any of Jesus' teachings. Does Christianity teach it? No. Do Christians? Yes, very much so. That is my understanding but I haven't given the bible a thorough look-see in almost a year now.

McLovin1t wrote:What do you mean reply to OP
Well, how can one be an Agnostic atheist? One believes that god doesn't exist, but isn't sure?

You believe God does not exist. You do not know God does not exist.

Lack of belief
Lack of knowledge

McLovin1t wrote:What do you mean reply to OP
Well, how can one be an Agnostic atheist? One believes that god doesn't exist, but isn't sure?

Pretty much.

McLovin1t wrote:What do you mean reply to OP
Well, how can one be an Agnostic atheist? One believes that god doesn't exist, but isn't sure?

I will reply to the original post and/or other replies in this thread soon.

You lack belief in god and don't think there is any way of knowing for sure. AKA, we will never know. Posed as a question makes more sense I think: How can we prove the existence of a metaphysical entity? I don't think we can. Therefore, I don't think either way we can prove nor disprove, with certainty, the existence of god and therefore lack belief in god. Hope that makes sense.

Most atheist are agnostic atheists. They lack belief in god due to their agnosticism towards the knowledge of god's existence.

Ah ok. But I think we can all agree that mainstream religions are pretty much flawed and theoretical impossibilities, simply created to placate the masses?

McLovin1t wrote:Ah ok. But I think we can all agree that mainstream religions are pretty much flawed and theoretical impossibilities, simply created to placate the masses?

What exactly is a mainstream religion to you?

Agreed, I'm damn near gnostic atheist towards the god of religion/s.

McLovin1t wrote:Ah ok. But I think we can all agree that mainstream religions are pretty much flawed and theoretical impossibilities, simply created to placate the masses?

BE EYE EN GEE OH.

Fiction wrote:

McLovin1t wrote:Ah ok. But I think we can all agree that mainstream religions are pretty much flawed and theoretical impossibilities, simply created to placate the masses?

What exactly is a mainstream religion to you?

And that changes everything.

Well aren't there like 5 classified main world religions?
Christianity
Judaism
Islam
Hinduism
Buddhism
And I mean, they are all ok because of the values they support, but if their ideas of deities are based off of even older and less accurate ideas, can't we assume that the idea of the supernatural doesn't exist until further proven to be true?

McLovin1t wrote:can't we assume that the idea of the supernatural doesn't exist until further proven to be true?

That's what a rational person would do.