The non-thinking that is Religion.

[Rebelius]

Originally Posted by LesMts

Omnipotence throws up a bunch of problems on its own, even before you look at where it sits with omniscience.
You can't have an omnipotent being without playing around a wee bit with the whole concept of omnipotence. Or using special pleading that you be allowed to use your own special definition of omnipotence.

or just that there is something about the universe, that as lowly humans, we couldn't possibly understand.

[LesMts]

Originally Posted by Rebelius

or just that there is something about the universe, that as lowly humans, we couldn't possibly understand.

Which is the kind of special pleading I'm talking about.
Doesn't make it untrue, it's just a weak argument.
Theologians have debated for centuries on the problem of omnipotence, without reaching agreement. Some ascribe this notion you've detailed above, some say omnipotence only applies insofar as it remains logical, others argue that God is only omnipotent to the extent that he retains his omnipotence (that is, he can't stop himself being omnipotent).
All are responses to the ancient 'powerful object' argument, which really got theology knickers in a twist.
That is, "can God create an object so powerful that not even He can destroy it?"

[Thee Alex]

'God' clearly cannot be 'all powerful' and simultaneously 'all knowing' (in the Biblical 'he knows everything about everything for all of history forever as if it's all already happened' kind of way)

Once the notion of 'God' being beyond time and space starts to collapse, 'his' whole existence and point must surely be the next thing to be questioned?

After-all, what is the point of a deity that ISN'T all powerful or all knowing? Surely a 'supreme being' that is unable to do anything imaginable becomes merely a very powerful being that exists naturally in the Universe? In fact, I'd go as far as saying that makes 'him' no god at all.

So we're back to the non-existence of 'God' again....this time argued entirely from 'his' own claims of Omnipotence and Omniscience.

(To be honest you can argue the absolute bollocks-ness of Christianity using only the Bible as your source - I did this once with a Jehovah's Witness who turned up at my door....she left doubting her faith)

[Thee Alex]

Originally Posted by humndislocation

Most believers in a god (of the all knowing and all powerful kind), would maintain that their god is capable of doing things that are impossible and completely defy logic. Making a spherical cube for example.

I would agree that they have a real skill in believing something that is clearly illogical and nonsensical.

Originally Posted by humndislocation

If you're trying to argue against god, I think a better argument is how the behaviour of the christian god is completely incongruous with an all-loving, just and fair god.

Absolutely. The 'God' in the Old Testament is all 'Kill Kill Stab Stab', demanding that the Israelites kill everyone in their way (including women and children....though sometimes 'god' tells them to use the women and children as slaves), insisting on ritual mutilation (in the form of circumcision), and blood sacrifices (in the form of cattle). Really 'he' is identical to all the 'pagan' gods around in the middle east at the time.

The New Testament version is all 'Hug Hug Love Love'....which is a bit odd considering 'God' claims to be 'never changing'.

I firmly believe that the Old Testament 'God' and the New Testament one are different deities, and have some how ended up linked by the compilers of the myths that became the Bible.

[LesMts]

Originally Posted by Thee Alex

I would agree that they have a real skill in believing something that is clearly illogical and nonsensical.

Most theologians wouldn't argue that God could make a spherical cube. Your Christian man on the street might but it wouldn't be the widely held opinion of Christian scholars.
Theologians would say that spherical and cube are two ways of describing an object that are mutually exclusive, therefore a "spherical cube" is meaningless an it matters not that God could not create one.
Thing is, they try to extend this argument to defeat the "powerful object" argument by positing that "something that cannot be destroyed by God" is as meaningless as a "spherical cube". Which is just another kind of special pleading.

[ubermensch]

Always a good read:

http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/sad0707Krss4p.pdf

As mentioned before, I think Krauss's method in approaching this subject is more appealing to my sensibility as someone who wants to LEARN, not to be TOLD. Some of you may disagree though.

In addition, there's a part of this debate between Krauss and Dawkins that also rings bells with those of you that are seemingly inclined to instantly reject those that are swaying towards the religious end of the spectrum in an argument like this. In fact, these people are labelled 'stupid', when it's a little silly to call anyone stupid without having thoroughly researched the topic yourself, and that includes BOTH SIDES of the topic in question.

By this I don't mean 'have a jaunt about the world wide web' or 'read material by one author exclusively', I mean EXTENSIVELY research something. Reading 'The God Delusion', watching some of Dawkins's TV programs and reading articles like '100 THINGS THAT ARE WRONG IN THE BIBLE' does not count. This is, in essence, lazy science.

Just because someone else's beliefs and intellectual foundations are not situated on the same ground as your own doesn't mean they are an idiot. In fact, I know people that would be insulted by such a proposition, and these are people that are in better stead to put down others due to their commitment to, and knowledge of, the area in question.

Not everyone can be polarised about everything. Just a thought for some of the psuedo-scientists here (excluding Les, who is actually a scientist).

[Dashingmajor]

That's me convinced.

[LesMts]

Originally Posted by Dashingmajor

That's me convinced.

That's one of my favourites.
Totally ignorant of the fact that wild bananas look nothing like what we think of as "bananas" and our bananas were created over many years by selective breeding.

A real banana.....

[Thee Alex]

The whole 'Intelligent Design'/'Creation' thing has been so thoroughly disproven that I'm amazed that anyone can still believe it.

[Thee Alex]

Originally Posted by ubermensch

By this I don't mean 'have a jaunt about the world wide web' or 'read material by one author exclusively', I mean EXTENSIVELY research something. Reading 'The God Delusion', watching some of Dawkins's TV programs and reading articles like '100 THINGS THAT ARE WRONG IN THE BIBLE' does not count. This is, in essence, lazy science.

Which is why I've made sure that I understand both sides of the argument, have read and watched extensively and know what I'm talking about as a result.

Originally Posted by ubermensch

Just because someone else's beliefs and intellectual foundations are not situated on the same ground as your own doesn't mean they are an idiot. In fact, I know people that would be insulted by such a proposition, and these are people that are in better stead to put down others due to their commitment to, and knowledge of, the area in question.

However, if someone believes something that is a provable falsehood even when presented with the evidence of this, then you have to wonder about how bright they actually are.

Originally Posted by ubermensch

Not everyone can be polarised about everything. Just a thought for some of the psuedo-scientists here (excluding Les, who is actually a scientist).

Ross, some people are just *wrong* though.

[ubermensch]

Originally Posted by Thee Alex

Which is why I've made sure that I understand both sides of the argument, have read and watched extensively and know what I'm talking about as a result.

This is fair enough, it's just that your initial presentation was pretty Dawkins-heavy; his popularity as an orator in this area is not doubted, but he is also an orator that owes a lot of said popularity (or infamy) to being incredibly obtuse and aggressive.

Originally Posted by Thee Alex

However, if someone believes something that is a provable falsehood even when presented with the evidence of this, then you have to wonder about how bright they actually are.

I think it depends on how the evidence is presented really. It's one of those things - if I visualise having a conversation with Dawkins, I'd be afraid of having whatever religious leanings that bring out Dawkins' really nasty side. I'm one of those people that doesn't learn, or take interest in, the opinions of people that broadcast it in a heinous way.

Teachers are important for their ability to communicate with those that they are reaching out to; I think Dawkins lacks a genuine tact for dealing with those that are ignorant and, subsequently, a lot of 'fence sitters' or religious types are pushed away. I'm one of them. His delivery is no better or worse than your average Christian preacher in the high street.

Originally Posted by Thee Alex

Ross, some people are just *wrong* though.

Plenty of people have been wrong. Plenty of intelligent people have been wrong. Stephen Hawking has been wrong. Is he an idiot for arguing against one of the empirical laws of science?