Talk to atheists on their own terms

While this article claims to offer a proof of god that the author thinks persuasive, I hate to be the one to show it fails at what it aims at proving.

The argument here is

A being is said to be possible if we can conceive no contradiction in the idea of it, and impossible if we can conceive a contradiction (as we do in the idea of a square triangle, for example).

but this cannot be said to be true for

 an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good God

for this contains contradictions.


About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

20 thoughts on “Talk to atheists on their own terms

  1. KIA says:

    Not to mention… just being able to think or conceive of a being doesn’t mean it exists. Just that we have a good imagination.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. keithnoback says:

    Let’s not forget that the lord is also a mind which does not experience time and spatial (or any other) location.
    A concept is at least internally consistent, which is what distinguishes speech of concepts from word salad.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. tildeb says:

    Atheists don’t live in the metaphysical artificially created axiomatic realm of the theist but in the real world. And in the real world we know as KIA says we cannot imagine stuff into being. Imagine that!

    Liked by 3 people

  4. essiep says:

    The linked article has its logical steps but has not clarified one thing. In an infinite universe, all thatmis possible must exist. Is a god even possible, that question is not answered.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. The Great Golden Boot exists because I can conceive of a great, powerful being that places its great, powerful golden boot up the arses of idjits who make weak, foolish arguments based on desire rather than empirical evidence.

    Liked by 1 person

    • makagutu says:

      Yes. The Great Golden Boot necessarily exists

      Liked by 1 person

      • Few are chosen, but many there are. Thus, there are many not chosen and only those who believe the right thing are right and chosen. To be chosen is to not be one of the many but, rather, one of the few. The few, being not of the many, are special because they are not of the many. Those who choose to know this are not of the many because they are one of the few making them not of the many. So sayeth the followers of the Great Golden Boot. Let all who disbelieve guard their asses for surely they are about to be kicked by the Great Golden Boot. $Amen$


  6. basenjibrian says:

    The traditional Jewish conception(s) of the godhood are much more appealing? rational? limited? than the nonsense of Christian theology, which just seems childish in comparison.

    Not that they are any more “correct”, but….


  7. basenjibrian says:

    I do prefer The Curmudgeon, though. 🙂

    The parable of the banquet is a cynical joke at the expense of those who imagine that Jesus and His Father will reward them with anything better than slavery and degradation. Not satisfied with inviting those who cannot reward him, the rich man in the parable invites those who cannot even attend: everyone has some reason for staying away. Even when the poor, the crippled, the lame and the blind have been asked, there is still so much room to spare that the host orders his slave to force people to come.

    Why should a rich man encounter such difficulties in getting people to attend his banquet? As soon as we recognise that the rich man represents the jealous, arbitrary and murderous Father, the answer becomes clear. The guests make their excuses because they know how the banquet will taste: how poisonous to the mind, how disgusting to the senses, how repulsive to the morals it will be. So awful is the menu that even the poor, the crippled, the lame and the blind have heard of its reputation and stay away in humiliating numbers. At last, like every tyrant, the spurned host is reduced to ordering people to put up with him.


  8. renudepride says:

    How can we, who have never experienced perfection and omnipotence, possess the ability to recognize it?


  9. John Faupel says:

    At one time our pre-linguistic ancestors felt and expressed their experiences emotionally, without thinking about them. When Homo sapiens began using language and started thinking about these experiences, they transposed them into thoughts, opinions, concepts and ideas and then numerically by means of science, and we’ve been arguing about their meaning, value and truth of these thoughts, with disastrous consequences such as competition, bigotry, conflict, violence and tribalism &c. ever since.
    In the hope of being congratulated, that our thoughts, concepts and ideas will to be more convincing that those of others, we seem to spend less time just feeling and responding to then emotionally in the now. If all our experiences are fundamentally subjective and indeterminate, we shouldn’t need to ask causation-questions about the universe and whether, or by whom it was created?


We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s