If God could do anything, he could make a bowl of porridge that was so big, he couldn't eat it.
But if he could do anything, he could eat it.
If that's not scientific enough for you, then I jolly well don't know what is, sir.
The problem with this objection is that when theists assert the omnipotence of God it comes with a couple of caveats.
Since, in at least the view of Abrahamic theism, god is a supremely and perfectly rational being, he therefore, by definition cannot perform an inherently irrational action.
For God to create a rock (or a bowl of porridge) so big he can't lift it is a logical impossibility/absurdity. It's like asking Him to create a square circle or a married bachelor. Since these objects are logically self-contradictory a rational God cannot create them.
Step 3: Do some research and apply some critical thought
Step 4: Be embarrassed with yourself for creating this thread
Hard Atheism (as opposed to agnosticism) is a knowledge claim. The statement, 'there is no God' is a statement of faith just as much as the statement, 'there is a God'. You are claiming to know something (the non-existence of God) that you cannot prove with certainty. Indeed, proof with certainty almost only occurs in the field of pure mathematics, e.g. proof by induction, and even then you assume axioms.
The only statement that you can make regarding the existence of God that requires no supporting argument is the claim of the agnostic: 'I don't know if there is a God'. This is because this claim makes no assertions about reality but is simply a statement of the present psychological state of its proponent.
Hard Atheism (as opposed to agnosticism) is a knowledge claim. The statement, 'there is no God' is a statement of faith just as much as the statement, 'there is a God'. You are claiming to know something (the non-existence of God) that you cannot prove with certainty. Indeed, proof with certainty almost only occurs in the field of pure mathematics, e.g. proof by induction, and even then you assume axioms.
The only statement that you can make regarding the existence of God that requires no supporting argument is the claim of the agnostic: 'I don't know if there is a God'. This is because this claim makes no assertions about reality but is simply a statement of the present psychological state.
You certainly aren't wrong, but I was under the impression that atheism was a lack of belief in higher power, rather than an assertive belief that no higher power exists, if that makes sense.
You certainly aren't wrong, but I was under the impression that atheism was a lack of belief in higher power, rather than an assertive belief that no higher power exists, if that makes sense.
That definition of atheism would include agnosticism (aka soft atheism), as well as hard atheism which is the viewpoint which asserts the non-existence of God. Somebody who asserts neither the belief that there is a God nor the belief that God doesn't exist is, by definition an agnostic and therefore the word atheism is only really useful to describe hard atheism, or the assertion that God doesn't exist.
From here on out, I will use the word 'atheism' to refer to the assertion that God does not exist.
To illustrate my point that atheism also carries the burden of proof, let me use an analogy:
Suppose you know nothing at all about the country Peru, other than that there is such a place. In this scenario, let's say that I'm from Peru and so have first hand experience of the place. Now suppose that I tell you that there are ten mountains which exceed a certain height in Peru. Since you have never been to Peru, and in this hypothetical scenario have no access to any information about the place other than what I tell you, it should be obvious that the only statement you can make without faith is, 'I don't know if there are 10 such mountains in Peru'. To say that the mountains I described do exist is obviously a statement of faith, but so is the statement that the mountains don't exist.
Obviously this analogy is rather limited because I didn't give any evidence either way, and God's existence, unlike the existence of the mountains, cannot be empirically verified because of the non-material property of God.
That definition of atheism would include agnosticism (aka soft atheism), as well as hard atheism which is the viewpoint which asserts the non-existence of God. Somebody who asserts neither the belief that there is a God nor the belief that God doesn't exist is, by definition an agnostic and therefore the word atheism is only really useful to describe hard atheism, or the assertion that God doesn't exist.
From here on out, I will use the word 'atheism' to refer to the assertion that God does not exist.
To illustrate my point that atheism also carries the burden of proof, let me use an analogy:
Suppose you know nothing at all about the country Peru, other than that there is such a place. In this scenario, let's say that I'm from Peru and so have first hand experience of the place. Now suppose that I tell you that there are ten mountains which exceed a certain height in Peru. Since you have never been to Peru, and in this hypothetical scenario have no access to any information about the place other than what I tell you, it should be obvious that the only statement you can make without faith is, 'I don't know if there are 10 such mountains in Peru'. To say that the mountains I described do exist is obviously a statement of faith, but so is the statement that the mountains don't exist.
Obviously this analogy is rather limited because I didn't give any evidence either way, and God's existence, unlike the existence of the mountains, cannot be empirically verified because of the non-material property of God.
Thank you kindly! I hope now you can see that the OP need not feel embarrassed about asking atheists (at least hard atheists rather than agnostics) to provide some argument in support of their position, though I must admit that the original post is rather rude and therefore ironically not consistent with the moral guidelines and principles of any religion I've ever heard of.
I think that the complete lack of real evidence of the existence of any god is enough for me to point and say "there is almost certainly no god". Something as major as that would have evidence out there if it was real. For that reason I find the whole idea of a god to be ridiculous.
I think that the complete lack of real evidence of the existence of any god is enough for me to point and say "there is almost certainly no god". Something as major as that would have evidence out there if it was real. For that reason I find the whole idea of a god to be ridiculous.
Thank you kindly! I hope now you can see that the OP need not feel embarrassed about asking atheists (at least hard atheists rather than agnostics) to provide some argument in support of their position, though I must admit that the original post is rather rude and therefore ironically not consistent with the moral guidelines and principles of any religion I've ever heard of.
And the overwhelming majority of atheists are agnostic atheists and therefore don't make the claim that God doesn't exist, but rather lack a belief.