Quantcast
If You Could Ask God ONE QUESTION

Forums - General Discussion - If You Could Ask God ONE QUESTION

Tyrannical said:
mmnin said:

@ Tyrannical


Actually, thinking back on it. A lot of educated people do use that argument, though they may not be educated in what they need to be in order to understand any weaknesses it might have. Typically someone thought it was witty and used it in their presence or a fellow skeptic passed along the thought and since they couldn't disprove it on the fly, they decided to use it. Then considering that most Christians, lower income protestants which make up the majority, are generally not of the highest education and probably would not be able to combat the phrase either, they then would think that it was a perfect way to make their point quickly. Usually I see these people, as Tombi seems to have done, throwing the statement to the world, even if it is just to one person, as if to rid it of all deities.

 

 

Well, certain religious theologians had debated that question for several hundred years. After much study, the basic conclusion was that it was a silly question not worth an answer.

 

I'm not sure I ever met an uneducated "good" protestant. Everyone I ever met was well read and had a firm understanding of the bible from both scripture and various other theologians. A lot of the more conservative denominations have bible study where most members go regularly. There are not a lot of christians who activley study the bible and try to understand it. So it is silly and a waste of time to ask theological questions to someone who claims they are a christian but lacks the understanding behind it.

Oh yes, versed in the Bible, but not really in cognitive deductions, so they wouldn't readily combat the comment and certainly not successfully, a nonspoken "throwing in the towel" of sorts, at least to the extent that the skeptic would be satisfied. 

Also, when people ask those questions, most of the time, they don't care if the person understands the question or that they know enough of the Bible to answer it well, they just want to disprove the Christian.  I don't know whether its because they really care whether God exists or not or if they just want to satiate their ego.




Around the Network

Would you like a beer?



scottie said:
Would you like a beer?

Definitely. Hand it over.

 



Of course, All Mighty one



Idk what I would ask. I mean, if I can talk to him I must be dead so I would be scared if had the opportunity to actually ask him something >_



Third member of the Sonic Support Squad.  Member of the Fierce Fox Force.

Click Sonic for my main Youtube channel :D

Around the Network
WessleWoggle said:
Are you implying that you're god, Louie?

 

He wasn't refering to god, he just asked if one of us wanted a beer. I like beer



will i actually save money on my car insurance by switching to geikco?



The last time I tried to apply logic in an argument concerning philosophy on here, I was informed it doesn't apply to real life :p

But I'll try again, regarding the rock-God question: What it's asking is essentially "Can God do something he can't do"?
The question is actually implying incoherent propositions, so it's meaningless in the first place. In hypothetically stating the existence of God in the beginning, the question inevitably accepts the definition of said hypothetical God as all powerful (indeed, a lifter of all rocks). Then the question introduces the term "a rock God can't lift". Well... that already contradicts the hypothetical scenario we set up.
It's certainly tricky to recognize as it seems to emphasize the ability to do an action (create) rather than emphasizing the contradictory predicate (the rock God can't lift).
Thus as a contradictory question it may be called false or meaningless. I think we could recognize many false questions more easily than this. E.g. "How many miles are in a square"?
If you don't accept any of what I just said, the question is a trite misrepresentation of omnipotence if anything else.



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
tombi123 said:

True. I should have put 'seems to have no cause'. Although because of the absence of evidence, the logical view is always the skeptical view, ie, it has (seems to have) no cause. Much like the the existence of God. There is no evidence for the existence of God therefore he (probably) doesn't exist, until you can provide evidence for his existence.

 

 

 This is untrue; assuming nonexistence is no more logical than assuming existence, even if we were to think that probability lends anything to logic (you don't have to assume anything, so it's not a logical necessity to assume anything).  Furthermore, it's not more probable that God does not exist than he does exist if we're saying there is proof for neither.  Because if there isn't, how could we say one is more likely than the other?  Skepticism is not a necessary assumption.



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
appolose said:
tombi123 said:

True. I should have put 'seems to have no cause'. Although because of the absence of evidence, the logical view is always the skeptical view, ie, it has (seems to have) no cause. Much like the the existence of God. There is no evidence for the existence of God therefore he (probably) doesn't exist, until you can provide evidence for his existence.

 

 

 This is untrue; assuming nonexistence is no more logical than assuming existence, even if we were to think that probability lends anything to logic (you don't have to assume anything, so it's not a logical necessity to assume anything).  Furthermore, it's not more probable that God does not exist than he does exist if we're saying there is proof for neither.  Because if there isn't, how could we say one is more likely than the other?  Skepticism is not a necessary assumption.

So do you think Middle Earth has an equal likelihood of existing then it does at not existing? How about Father Christmas? The Tooth Fairy? Harry Potter? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? There is no evidence that these exist, they were made up by humans.