If God, by definition, created the universe, and you deny that he did, aren't you just denying the definition of the word "God"? But isn't it logically inconsistent to deny the definition of any word?
2007-08-26 13:57:38 · 7 answers · asked by x4294967296 6 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
If this is the case and Gods creations are perfect, then nothing that we can do could change what God created perfect and make it imperfect unless we think that we are more powerful than God is.
How likely is it that we the creation could be more powerful than the creator. I personally find this idea somewhat amusing, and a bit absurd.
Religion tells us that God is perfect. If this is true then it could hardly be logically for Gods creations to be considered to be anything less than perfect.
If this is the case and we are perfect creations of a perfect God then Nothing that we can ever do could possibly change this perfection that God willed, unless we were so powerful that our choices could override and change the will of God.
How likely is that????
by the way im 14!
Think about it.
2007-08-26 16:41:45 · answer #1 · answered by zeigfeild 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
LOL. So are you denying all of the gods and goddesses of other religions? Like shiva, the chinese god of high salaries. Do you also deny the Tao?
The definition of god is not "creator of the universe" -.-. There are many religions whith many gods. Not all those gods had a part to do with the begining of the universe.
Also do you deny the existance of santa clause? the easter bunny? unicorns? elves? and knomes? Because you'd deny their very definition if u didn't! MAKEING YOU ILLOGICAL..
Please, if your goign to try and bash someone. HAVE EVIDENCE -.- Not "WHOMG I MADE THIS DEFINITION UP!!!!!!111shift+1!!! AND YOU ARE DENYING IT MAKEING YOU TEH LOZER!!!!!!!!" Besides they don't nessasarily deny that definition, rather they don't believe that it exists....
Honestly you bashing hypocrite -.- Maybe you should be selfish. Aleast then you probably wouldn't be trying to make otehrs feel bad -.-
2007-08-26 21:17:44 · answer #2 · answered by lufiabuu 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
since your entire hypothesis begins with the word IF, then all you other statements support it, that is illogical and inconsistent. there is no inconsistency in denying the definition of a word, to deny means to disallow, which in itself is a word. no one is denying the definition of a word, they might be disagreeing with someone's definition, that is, IF the word atheist means not believing in God's existence, and you are denying that definiton, then your own illogical inconsistency is true, that you can't deny the definition of a word, therefore athiesm can not be denied, its definition proves it's accuracy. That is of course, IF, anything you said makes sense, but of course, we know it doesn't
I suggest you go back to reading you high school text books
2007-08-26 21:12:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Try this:
If Santa, by definition, delivers toys to all good girls and boys, and you deny that he did, aren't you just denying the definition of the word "Santa"? But isn't it logically inconsistent to deny the definition of any word?
Your logic is a mess. No one is denying the definition. Many things that don't exist have a definition. Goblins, trolls, gods, angels, leprichans, ghosts, Santa.......Do you think they all exist?
2007-08-26 21:12:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
What you are attempting to do (poorly, I'm afraid) is what's known as an ontological proof of the existence of God. An ontological proof of the existence of God is a demonstration which claims to prove the existence of God from the very definition of God.
The problem with your demonstration is that I can refute it with an ad absurdum argument. By definition, Aphrodite is the Greek Goddess of Love. Isn't it just as equally illogical to deny the definition of Venus? In which case, you either admit your proof is invalid, or that Venus also exists, which I suspect you're not ready to do.
If you want to see how the pros do ontological proofs, try wrapping your mind around this: http://members.aol.com/plweiss1/anselm.htm
2007-08-26 21:08:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Atheists do not blindly accept statements as true if they can't be shown to be such. So your definition that god is the creator of the universe is not accepted by atheists as a true statement, and thus your whole argument is invalid.
2007-08-26 21:04:13 · answer #6 · answered by Ralfcoder 7 · 7⤊ 0⤋
Atheists rule and Evangelicals drool !!
2007-08-26 21:00:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋