Arguements against the Christian God

[RickyH]

So telling him if you eat you die is telling him the full force of his actions? And i seriously doubt that Noah was the only good man on earth. Even at the level of corruption today there are still lots of good people. So unless things worse than thefollowing things happened God wasnt justified.
1.Mass genocide
2.Wars
3.massive levels of adultry and sexual perversion
4.Murders
5.Destruction of the enviroment

All of this is present today yet there is still good people. (And remeber we are supposed to be heading toward the end times the worst period of human history) And your telling me that the only good person was Noah? I doubt it.

And you still didnt touch on my my statement about the the beleif in savages.

Well if god told you to not eat the apple, or you would be cast aside from the garden of eve, isn't a good enough warning for you. Well i guess it makes sense, seeing as i am still here talking to you about this.

So i would like to know, where i said all people alive where bad. I said they were sinners. There is nothing wrong with being a sinner, with the bible standars of sin, it is a common thing to commit. But you have the choice to do it or not. It's not gods fault if you do it. It's yours. I didn't exactly say Noah was the only pure person, i just said he was a good person.

Have you ever heard the quote, "Rome wasn't built in a day."? I wonder, because with your reasoning you assume we where born with technology, and were born with civilization. The reason god talked to the jews isn't clear at all, and is almost outragous of you to ask any human. That is something only he knows himself, and i don't have any knowledge of it. But i'm sure you know so much more. Seeing as how you have the divine plan. Either way, after all this you have made no real clear points, and have wasted little time doing it. But it's kinda funny, to see people try to answer these questions, or blow other peoples thoughts and opinion as the final say. Before i feel it is of any use to go on, answer me one question correctly. What do gods do, when they have all the power in the world?

 

[spiritual_spy]

No actualy it isnt. if my parents told me as a child to stay away from the cookie jar or i wouldnt be barred from the kitchen i would have did it anyways. That is exactly what adam and eve were. Children. they were without knowledge of good and evil remeber?
God killed them all becuase they were sinners. So what about all the other good people in the world at the time? Did he say well to hell with them i only need one? And no i dont assume we were born with tech but the point is your dealing with savage ideals.
And those ideals still echo today in the middle east. Thats why you see people getting blown up by shells while they sit on a beach and why rockets land in the middle of schools and why suicide bombers kill innocent people. And to awnser your qestion about what would god do if he had all the power in the world. If he was God he would be content with his own perfection becuase he needs nothing nor desires nothing and is without nothing. Which is the general definition of a perfect being.

 

[RickyH]

Well here is the big finisher, take it for what you will. Free will is only controlled by mans actions, and god will take no actions in it.

While your answer was atleast somewhat good, it lacked one thing. The fact that it is only a guess, a guess from mens generalizations about god. There isn't much you can do in your lifetime to answer that question. My only guess would be, whatever he felt like doing, at the given time. Wouldn't it be funny if he was just a big kid with a magnifying glass and we're just ants. Either way it doesn't refute his ultimate power to decide whether or not where we end up, or his inability to exist. All it even suggests is god does what he wants to do, sort of like free will. His free will in which you choose to disagree with, just like everyone else with free will.

 

[spiritual_spy]

If a god exists he isnt one worth worshipping. Even if he did create us. Kinda like your magnifiying glass analogy.

 

[scorpius]

I hear non believers say this all the time, so I'll throw it back to you - prove me wrong.

no need to,believe what you wish ,just dont expect us to ACCEPT this religious rubish as The Truth which youd even like to teach in every school,aint gonna happen!

 

[scorpius]

God created the entire universe,including time itself, which did not exist prior to God creating it.

IMPOSIBLE,without time god couldnt have created anything,because it takes time for anything to happen,even a thought pasing in your head takes time.

actualy the truth is more like ;the universe always existed,no creator needed !

The idea that God is a made-up concept to soothe our fears makes no sense, since we reject the existence of other made-up figures that might, likewise, make us feel better.

careful...isnt lying a SIN in your book?
WHY would you believe otherwise?

 

[superluminal]

The idea that God is a made-up concept to soothe our fears makes no sense, since we reject the existence of other made-up figures that might, likewise, make us feel better.

So god is a made up figure, right?

 

[Oli]

The idea that God is a made-up concept to soothe our fears makes no sense, since we reject the existence of other made-up figures that might, likewise, make us feel better.

And the same goes for other faiths since they reject god and pick deity (i.e. fantasy figure) X, Y or Z. God just got better (and certainly more vociferous) publicity over the older fantasies and in the West.

 

[SnakeLord]

If it's so logical that God can do anything that is possible, however impossible it might seem to us, what's the point of asking questions about things that supposedly transcend logic?

No idea, ask the person that asks those kind of questions.

Unless the OP believes he knows what is possible and impossible, how does he propose to evaluate any answers?

Quite simply by looking at the meaning of the word omnipotent. If a being is 'all powerful', there can be no time that it wouldn't be able to do something, (no matter how illogical we see it as being).

If you, a human, say "god is omnipotent", then the minute you say he can't do something, your original claim falls apart.

He can't say something disproves omnipotence if he doesn't already have some thoughts about what omnipotence should be.

Which of course he would have because it's a human word.

It seems spiritual_spy can imagine conditions under which omnipotence is impossible, but not that an omnipotent being should then also be able not to be omnipotent (since he can do anything).

If the argument is "can an omnipotent being....", and the answer is ever "no", then by definition, that being isn't omnipotent. You could always answer; "yes, and it can also choose not to do it".

So even if he asked "can God lift this 5kg rock" and someone answered "no", it would still not be an argument against omnipotence.

Yes it would. By definition, the minute no is used, 'omnipotence' is redundant.

Just because we can't imagine God both being able to do something and not being able to do something simultaneously (and I'm using your argument here) doesn't mean He can't, right?

You're not using my argument, indeed it seems you didn't grasp it, but if it is omnipotent then it can do anything. If you say "it can't", then you remove omnipotence as one of it's attributes.

--------

As far as the lions go, you're right, they do in fact do that. But again, they do it because that's the nature of their species.

And you do what you do because it's your nature to do them.

The know no other way.

But they do. There are many instances of animals doing things against what would be the typical action for that animal - much the same as humans.

then they would have the conciousness to say "I am lion" or an elephant to say "I am elephant", which of course, they do not

An animals inability to speak English isn't an issue. Animals, (including us), all communicate with each other - and most do it a lot more impressively than we do. They also use body language just like we do.

 

[RickyH]

To Snakelord, interesting comments on being omnipotent. But assuming it was correct, wouldn't it take prior knowledge as to why god would ever say no? Possibly the correct path was saying no. Like if the lord said i cannot grant you into heaven, because you're a sinner, or i cannot interact with your free will, because i have given you the right to make your own choices. Which isn't quite saying he couldn't do it. But saying he wont do it, because it goes against his own morals, and guidelines.

 

[superluminal]

To Snakelord, interesting comments on being omnipotent. But assuming it was correct, wouldn't it take prior knowledge as to why god would ever say no? Possibly the correct path was saying no. Like if the lord said i cannot grant you into heaven, because you're a sinner, or i cannot interact with your free will, because i have given you the right to make your own choices. Which isn't quite saying he couldn't do it. But saying he wont do it, because it goes against his own morals, and guidelines.

I think SnakeLord is simply saying that the claim of omnipotence by theists completely dissallows the statement by them (during logical debates) "god can't..." whatever. This is completely different from god choosing to do or not do a thing.

 

[RickyH]

I think SnakeLord is simply saying that the claim of omnipotence by theists completely dissallows the statement by them (during logical debates) "god can't..." whatever. This is completely different from god choosing to do or not do a thing.

Okay, well then i would like to see where god couldn't do something, with proof of course, rather then a mans statement,

 

[pavlosmarcos]

Okay, well then i would like to see where god couldn't do something, with proof of course, rather then a mans statement,

for some strange reason, you keep asking for proof, as to how a thing which has no evidence for existence, could/could'nt do something.
that's redundant and infantile.
snakelord, oli, spirtual spy, superliminal, and scorpius, are discussing god they have no believe it exists,just that the things atributed to it are foolish thus make the believe in a god foolish.
(none of us could be absolutely sure it does'nt exist, however the evidence for it's existence is non-existent too, so it is irrational to have a belief in a god/fantasy)
you being the one that believes, have to accept that the onus is on you, for you are the one asserting something/god exists in the first place.

Proving Existence or Non-Existence.

The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.

To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist

The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:


The thing exists.

It is unknown if the thing exists or not.

It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.

If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.

 

[SnakeLord]

Possibly the correct path was saying no.

From a choice perspective: yes and no.

1) Yes, god can say no - can choose not to do something, (that's not really what I was getting at with my earlier post, {as pointed out by Superluminal})

2) an omniscient god would already know whether it's going to say yes or no, and as such actually doesn't have a choice in the matter.

A while back I was writing a story about this man who has a serious car crash. Next thing he knows he's in a room where god and satan are sitting at a table with a chess board. The man walks up, looks at the untouched chess board, and says; "Aren't any of you going to make a move?", to which god says; "There's no point, I already know who wins".

Omniscience and omnipotence as we know them cause a serious dilemma when put together. While the omnipotence gives this god the ability to do anything, the fact that it knows everything it ever will do negates the value of that omnipotence, and it instantly has no say in what it can or can't do. It is confined by what it will do and leaves it with no freedom to do anything else.

It also ends up negating any discussion between atheists and religious folk when it comes down to all those "couldn't god have.." questions. Examples, which are commonly used:

"couldn't god have removed the snake from the garden of eden?"

"couldn't god have saved all the people on 9/11 if he's all loving?"

The answer is undoubtedly 'no'. The fact that he would already know that he doesn't, means he can't - so to come back to the start:

If a god is 'omnipotent', then yes - it can do anything, even making that which we consider illogical and impossible.

If a god is omnipotent and omniscient then while it theoretically has the ability to do anything, it doesn't actually have the ability to do anything other than that which it already knows it will do. In this instance, no.. god cannot make a square circle or answer someone's prayer, or kill satan, or remove evil from the world or anything else unless it is part of what it already knows it's going to do - in which case it also wouldn't have a choice in not doing them. It would have to do or not do that which it knows it's already going to do or not do.

 

[Jenyar]

In simple terms: I'd like to know why nobody sees the double standard here.

By SnakeLord's own admission, omnipotent is a human word (or more accurately, a philosophical construct), that relies on human logic. The definition cannot somehow transcend our logic or our abilities, because it owes its existence to them. Nobody should have any problems recognizing that.

But suddenly, when this word is applied to God, all the human logic that gives the word any meaning is mysteriously left out of the equation, and "God" should be able to do what "omnipotence" (by definition) doesn't allow - logical contradictions - supposedly in order to be omnipotent. A double standard.

If the definition of "omnipotence" (A) must necessarily exclude "not being omnipotent" (A'), that is a logical limitation put on "omnipotence". When the definition "omnipotence" is carried over on an object that will be subjected to logical scrutiny ("God" in this case), the definitions should stay the same for the experiment to remain valid, and the same logic applied to omnipotence should apply to God. That's supposedly the argument, but nobody notices that the logic used to create the definition of omnipotence (A excludes A') has slipped out the back door when that "omnipotence" is measured. Now (goes the reasoning) God's omnipotence (A) should be able to include logical limitations A' (such as creating a rock too big for him to lift or a square circle) - a line of reasoning which I argued would bring down the whole house of cards on your head, since such a definition of omnipotence would in any case allow him to be simultaneously omnipotent and non-omnipotent.

God being logically precluded from doing something (the word "unable" is misleading) does not limit his actual (and logical) omnipotence - more or less the same way artists are not limited by an inability to paint in non-existent colours.

Surely somebody else here sees this?

 

[Jenyar]

Omniscience and omnipotence as we know them cause a serious dilemma when put together. While the omnipotence gives this god the ability to do anything, the fact that it knows everything it ever will do negates the value of that omnipotence, and it instantly has no say in what it can or can't do. It is confined by what it will do and leaves it with no freedom to do anything else.

Knowledge of freedom doesn't negate freedom. Knowing what a decision would be or lead to doesn't negate the decision - even if, in retrospect (or in "omnispect") the decisions have already been made. Without substance, there is also no appearance. Without an actual act or decision (no matter how certain), there is nothing to know. If God's nature determines his decisions, it only means He is consistent (or unchanging, as the Bible claims), not that there isn't any nature or any decisions (at least not from our perspective - I don't see a problem if God never has any doubt about what He will do. If He determines his decisions, He determines them. So do we).

A set course does not by itself preclude the existence or possibility of other courses, even if they are never followed. A determined course (or set of constants) only excludes non-determined courses (or variables), it doesn't preclude them - that's perhaps the only reason why decisions (which are made among choices, real or illusionary) carry any significance at all.

 

[superluminal]

In simple terms: I'd like to know why nobody sees the double standard here.

By SnakeLord's own admission, omnipotent is a human word (or more accurately, a philosophical construct), that relies on human logic. The definition cannot somehow transcend our logic or our abilities, because it owes its existence to them. Nobody should have any problems recognizing that.

But suddenly, when this word is applied to God, all the human logic that gives the word any meaning is mysteriously left out of the equation, and "God" should be able to do what "omnipotence" (by definition) doesn't allow - logical contradictions - supposedly in order to be omnipotent. A double standard.

If the definition of "omnipotence" (A) must necessarily exclude "not being omnipotent" (A'), that is a logical limitation put on "omnipotence". When the definition "omnipotence" is carried over on an object that will be subjected to logical scrutiny ("God" in this case), the definitions should stay the same for the experiment to remain valid, and the same logic applied to omnipotence should apply to God. That's supposedly the argument, but nobody notices that the logic used to create the definition of omnipotence (A excludes A') has slipped out the back door when that "omnipotence" is measured. Now (goes the reasoning) God's omnipotence (A) should be able to include logical limitations A' (such as creating a rock too big for him to lift or a square circle) - a line of reasoning which I argued would bring down the whole house of cards on your head, since such a definition of omnipotence would in any case allow him to be simultaneously omnipotent and non-omnipotent.

God being logically precluded from doing something (the word "unable" is misleading) does not limit his actual (and logical) omnipotence - more or less the same way artists are not limited by an inability to paint in non-existent colours.

Surely somebody else here sees this?

Yes. Nicely presented.

 

[SnakeLord]

By SnakeLord's own admission, omnipotent is a human word (or more accurately, a philosophical construct), that relies on human logic. The definition cannot somehow transcend our logic or our abilities, because it owes its existence to them. Nobody should have any problems recognizing that.

The definition of omnipotent does 'transcend our abilities' - which funnily enough means we're not omnipotent. The word exists to point at that which can do anything, which by definition includes that which to us is seemingly impossible or illogical.

You always point out the really daft: "By SnakeLord's own admission, omnipotent is a human word".. Did you honestly think anyone would believe I was claiming it was a Klingon word?

But that word, (yes, a human word duh), is there to define a being or entity that can do anything - yes Jenyar, even that which is illogical as far as you see it.

But suddenly, when this word is applied to God

What other entity would the word be applied to? There was nothing 'sudden' about it.

all the human logic that gives the word any meaning is mysteriously left out of the equation

Certainly, why would human logic be a factor in godly ability? We use the word to define that which can do anything - clearly including that which humans cannot do and cannot even comprehend.

"God" should be able to do what "omnipotence" (by definition) doesn't allow - logical contradictions

How does omnipotence not allow that which is illogical to humans?

If the definition of "omnipotence" (A) must necessarily exclude "not being omnipotent" (A'), that is a logical limitation put on "omnipotence".

Not exactly. If a being is omnipotent then it isn't 'not omnipotent', but it's omnipotence wouldn't stop it from being able to be 'not omnipotent' if it wanted to. The omnipotence itself hasn't had limitations put on it - unless omnipotence has changed meaning so instead of being able to do anything it now means has to have different abilities at the same time.

When the definition "omnipotence" is carried over on an object that will be subjected to logical scrutiny ("God" in this case), the definitions should stay the same for the experiment to remain valid, and the same logic applied to omnipotence should apply to God.

The definition has remained the same the whole time. A being that is able to do anything is not constrained from doing that which you consider to be impossible.

That's supposedly the argument, but nobody notices that the logic used to create the definition of omnipotence (A excludes A')

But A excluding A isn't of any relevance. A black omnipotent god is clearly not a white omnipotent god, but it could make itself white if it wanted to, or a mixture of white and black, or white and black at the same time or yellow with pink polka dots.

God's omnipotence (A) should be able to include logical limitations A' (such as creating a rock too big for him to lift or a square circle) - a line of reasoning which I argued would bring down the whole house of cards on your head, since such a definition of omnipotence would in any case allow him to be simultaneously omnipotent and non-omnipotent.

An omnipotent being could if it so chose. Don't try and understand how, you're just a human.

----------

Knowledge of freedom doesn't negate freedom. Knowing what a decision would be or lead to doesn't negate the decision - even if, in retrospect (or in "omnispect") the decisions have already been made.

I didn't say it negated the decision, just the value of omnipotence. If you sat down with an omnipotent being and said: "dude, make a talking, green cow", it could do it - but if you said the same to an omnipotent being that already knows it's not going to, the worth of that omnipotence, from a human perspective - (before you go ahead and point out that I'm just giving you a human perspective, as if you thought I was a martian), is negated. I never personally appreciated omniscience, as my 'chess board' sentence points out - or indeed as seen in Clyde Bruckman's Final Repose, (an X Files episode). Clyde can basically see how everyone dies. I can't remember the exact line which is a bit of a shame, but it basically comes down to "why get up every morning?". I think what I was getting at is the inability to be spontaneous.

 

[Jenyar]

The definition of omnipotent does 'transcend our abilities' - which funnily enough means we're not omnipotent. The word exists to point at that which can do anything, which by definition includes that which to us is seemingly impossible or illogical.

You always point out the really daft: "By SnakeLord's own admission, omnipotent is a human word".. Did you honestly think anyone would believe I was claiming it was a Klingon word?

But that word, (yes, a human word duh), is there to define a being or entity that can do anything - yes Jenyar, even that which is illogical as far as you see it.

It was a rather silly way to put it, but the way you use the word almost necessitates it. By drawing attention to your own realization that it's an intrinsically human word, I want to point out that its definition and usage doesn't depend on God, and that you apparently recognize this. The definition (the "defining" of the word) doesn't transcend us - the defined word only indicates something that transcends us. The definition of omniscience doesn't transcend us, but omniscience, as we have defined it, does. That's the power of language.

In other words, it's not in the first place a word that "defines a being or entity that can do anything", but a word we've defined, as if in a lab. That we use it to express divine power is not a problem, as long as we keep our reasoning consistent.

What other entity would the word be applied to? There was nothing 'sudden' about it.

"Sudden" in the sense that the rules seem to change from where we've constructed it philosophically and where it's being put into use.

You have to realize that we're not actually deducing these definitions from God, but inducing it on a philosophical deity, one that either conforms or contradicts our definition of the word. The result is a theory, not a reality. And if a theory proves contradictory, we only prove ourselves wrong.

Certainly, why would human logic be a factor in godly ability? We use the word to define that which can do anything - clearly including that which humans cannot do and cannot even comprehend.

Obviously I agree. That's why I have a problem with it when someone assumes his definition of omnipotence can somehow be used to prove God isn't omnipotent by any definition.

How does omnipotence not allow that which is illogical to humans?

An omnipotent God might easily manage something that seems illogical to us on the surface, such as becoming fully man yet remaining fully God. But "omnipotence", as far as our ability to comprehend and measure it goes, is limited to its logical construction. If our argument excludes logical contradictions, it should still do so when we discuss God. If our definition allows logical contradictions, then again, so would a discussion about God. But to change the rules halfway is a kind of philosophical bait and switch.

Not exactly. If a being is omnipotent then it isn't 'not omnipotent', but it's omnipotence wouldn't stop it from being able to be 'not omnipotent' if it wanted to. The omnipotence itself hasn't had limitations put on it - unless omnipotence has changed meaning so instead of being able to do anything it now means has to have different abilities at the same time.

Precisely (although I don't see that being able to do anything and having different abilities at the same time are mutually exclusive and imply a change of meaning). I didn't say the logical limitation limits God - as I explained above as well - but it does limit us. It sets the meaning, and that meaning should remain logically consistent. This highlights the importance of agreeing on a definition beforehand, which the OP hasn't done (eg. "all-powerful" isn't a definition of omnipotence - see fallacy of definition). Your definition was much more clear and consistent.

The definition has remained the same the whole time. A being that is able to do anything is not constrained from doing that which you consider to be impossible.

And that would invalidate any argument which goes: A) Omnipotence means [insert logical definition]; B) God can't [insert illogical action]; therefore C) God isn't omnipotent. The definition in A relies on logic, and if the logic has changed or is discarded in B, the definition becomes meaningless and C is invalid, whatever it is.

I have a problem with the assertion that God should be able to do genuinely illogical things (as could well be supposed in a philosophical argument), because we only have our logic to go by, but I see no reason why He shouldn't be able to do apparently illogical things (which doesn't explain why skeptics often claim these make God himself illogical).

There are definite examples we can imagine that are illogical, and which a logical definition of omnipotence wouldn't allow, but this has everything to do with our logic and little or nothing to do with God's actual abilities.

But A excluding A isn't of any relevance. A black omnipotent god is clearly not a white omnipotent god, but it could make itself white if it wanted to, or a mixture of white and black, or white and black at the same time or yellow with pink polka dots.

It becomes relevant when it's used in an argument, which you might not be doing, but it does happen.

An omnipotent being could if it so chose. Don't try and understand how, you're just a human.

It's because we're human that we try to understand. Whether we can is usually besides the point. If we are in the image of God, then to be human is nothing to be ashamed of (muddying the image would be).

I didn't say it negated the decision, just the value of omnipotence. If you sat down with an omnipotent being and said: "dude, make a talking, green cow", it could do it - but if you said the same to an omnipotent being that already knows it's not going to, the worth of that omnipotence, from a human perspective - (before you go ahead and point out that I'm just giving you a human perspective, as if you thought I was a martian), is negated. I never personally appreciated omniscience, as my 'chess board' sentence points out - or indeed as seen in Clyde Bruckman's Final Repose, (an X Files episode). Clyde can basically see how everyone dies. I can't remember the exact line which is a bit of a shame, but it basically comes down to "why get up every morning?". I think what I was getting at is the inability to be spontaneous.

Like I said, it's important to be aware of our human perspective because of its implications on what we're saying. Maybe omnipotence and omniscience has no value for God. The only reason the concepts have any significance is because of what they could mean for us - not for God. It matters that God can do even what seems impossible to us, and that's what the Bible authors asserted.

If we can't conceive of having purpose while knowing everything about something, it only shows we're not God - and probably why He didn't want Adam and Eve to gain "the knowledge of good and evil". The same could apply to unlimited power, such as God discouraged at Babel. Those who benefit from and rely on God's omniscience and omnipotence value it, and those who don't benefit by them, won't. The same might be said about God.

 

[Jenyar]

So a man with little knowledge of what he was doing made a choice so now all of us have to suffer for it? i still fail to see what is just in that.

It's not just, that's why it's called "sin". And one of the reasons God hates it is because it's so selfish - it affects everybody after you. Adam burned down the house we were supposed to live in. He shouldn't have, and God told him not to, but he did. Seeing all the generations after him suffering because of his actions would not have made any difference if even the thought of his own suffering did not dissuade him. He found a way to justify it, and no sin since then has been any different.