On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 10:32 AM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > Please provide some reference showing almost all theists use that
>> definition of God [ a omnipotent omniscient being who created the universe]
>> .  I find it unlikely that most theists would incorporate every facet of
>> that definition.
> That's true. Many theists, the more intelligent ones anyway, reject the
> idea of God but they become so in love with a word they play a silly and
> rather cowardly game. If, as so many have, you redefine the word "God"  to
> mean "a power greater than myself" then I am a theist who firmly believes
> in God because I believe that bulldozers exist. But if by "God" you mean a
> being with super-human abilities then God is just a comic book superhero
> (or supervillan) and I am a agnostic about something like that actually
> existing somewhere in the universe.
> > It doesn't matter if 95% of theisms are ones you find fault with; it
>> only takes one correct theism to make atheism wrong, which is why I think
>> it is an untenable and illogical position.
> Obviously I can't refute every one of the tens of thousands of Gods that
> humans have invented over the eons,

It is not about refuting all of them.  It is that maybe there are some you
would do believe in, if you knew more about them.  Even one who has spent
years studying all known human religions lacks knowledge about religions
unknown to history, or any of the individually developed privately known
religions, or religions of other species or civilizations on other
planets.  How can anyone presume to know enough to know that they are all

> but your statement assumes that if there is no hard evidence for or
> against a theory then there is a 50% chance that it is correct and thus
> worthy of serious consideration. And that is idiotic.

I never said there was a 50% probability, or that all theories are worthy
of serious consideration.  I do find it absurd, however, to reject all
theories when one has no evidence for or against them.  Why not remain
neutral until you have a reason otherwise?  Also, if you don't think 50% is
a valid starting point, what do you suggest is a good *prior
probability*to use in Bayesian inference when one lacks any evidence
for or against a

>> > John said that he "just believes in one less god" than I do, but he
>> refused to say what that one God was that I believed in but he doesn't.
> I don't believe in a omnipotent omniscient being that created the universe
> and I think you do.

No you don't.  I've said before an omniscient being does not have the power
to forget, and hence cannot be considered omnipotent.  However, if you
limit those words to refer to something else, like a universe (rather than
to itself, where the contradiction is created), then it may be possible to
be both omniscient and omnipotent in reference to that other thing.

Since you and I are both platonists, we agree that anything not ruled out
by its definition exists.   So you should agree there are instances in the
plentitude where beings create vast simulations of entire universes.  We
humans have already played this role in creating relatively simple GoL
universes.  In the context of the simulation, a being can know everything
about it and simultaneously exercise complete control over it, even
changing the laws or altering its natural progression of the simulation.

If you believe everything with a consistent definition exists, then there
exists a universe just like ours that was created by a being who knows
everything that happens in it and has complete control to alter it in any
way that being sees fit.  There is nothing inconsistent or impossible about
this.  So you have a choice: either abandon platonism or abandon atheism.
The two are incompatible.  This is more easily demonstrable when you use
other definitions of God, such as when you identify the platonic plenitude
with the Hindu's Brahman.  You and Brent seem hell-bent on using a
definition where God is an omniscient and omnipotent person, so I offer the
above example of the simulation hypothesis as an example more fitting to
your definition.

While on this subject, I have another question for you and Brent: Do you
believe in an afterlife or immortality?  Is there any definition of "soul"
you agree with?



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to