Proof that the Christian god cannot exist

Cris said:
Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

This is a revision and refinement of a post I made over a year ago but there are so many new members now that I felt it worth a revisit.

Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.

Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.

Proposal:

Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.

Reasoning:

If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.

Agreed

Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.

This is not a logical conclusion. God's foreknowledge of our choices does not negate the fact that we decide what those choices are. The statement that choices are predetermined has not been proved or explained, and any further conclusions based on this premise are faulty. God's omniscience means that He knows what we will do, but He does not make us choose that course.

Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.

Or, He could know all of the possible decisions that we would make, incuding the one we DID make.

Question:

If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.

This presupposes that God predestines people for Heaven or Hell, which is not true. I do not presume to explain how God will justly deal with those who have never heard of Him, but one can personally say whether or not they have heard evidence of Jesus and whether that evidence is solid enough to have faith in, or whether it is not. If you feel that there is not enough evidence for you to believe in God, did you make that decision or did someone else make you believe it?

Conclusions:

If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.

If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.

If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.

Cris
Click to expand...
However, God's omniscience does not require predestination, man's freewill is not an arbitrary situation, and God's omniscience and omipontence includes knowledge of all possible outcomes as well as the actual outcome.

Whether or not humans have free will depends on the answer to the question: What did/will you have for dinner today, and why did you choose it as opposed to something else?
 
Cris said:
Marlin,

Don't be silly no worthwhile god is going to be using a throne. What an infantile notion.

Again a silly idea. A real god wouldn't use such a dumb idea as religion.

LOL - How can you be so naive and gullible as to be so totally brainwashed by a proven charlatan?

Dream on - that is all you have.
Click to expand...


On what do you base your determinations of what a real God would or would not do?
 
KennyJC said:
Why do fundies constantly wish for something non-physical within the universe? They even resort to trying to call aspects of the physical world non-physical. It's really quite sad that they seek mystery and comfort in this way.
Click to expand...


When we look at the physical world and see the contradictions between the empirical facts of quantum physics and general relativity, we realize that we don't even understand what's going on in the physical world too often. To limit oneself to what one can detect with instruments, or to what we can feel tangibly, is to cut off the greater wonder of existence that is no less real just because we can't explain or feel it. How can physics explain the beauty of a Bach prelude, or Miles Davis's "Kind of Blue"? What instrument can explain what makes the Mona Lisa so priceless? Does biology alone determine why you view your wife (or husband) as the most beautiful woman (or man) on the earth?

Or is it biology and the threat of alimony?
 
Mythbuster said:
Not quite. Logic is a system of deduction used to argue valid conclusions. Not just the conclusions we as people can come up with, but anything that can be determined by reason. And in this case it seems the rules of logic force us to accept that God is not omnipotent.

(A) God is omnipotent
If (A)God is omnipotent, then (B)God can lift anything.
If (A)God is omnipotent, then (C)God can make anything.
If (C)God can make anything, then God can make a rock so big that (~B)he can't lift it.

A
A=>B
B
A=>C
C
C=>~B
~B

B^~B => ~A (By negation introduction)

(Note ~A is the negation of A, that is, it means God is not omnipotent)

It seems that by the rules of logic, we're not allowed to assume God is omnipotent because to do so would result in a contradiction. This means we have to change our definitions of both God and omnipotence, Otherwise the rules of logic won't apply at all, and the world would be rendered incoherent.

There's competing claims here. God's very existence on the one hand, and the fundamental rule of logic that contradictions are unacceptable.

The way the paradox works is that you can't simply claim God transcends logic, because for logic to have any real meaning it has to apply all the time, everytime. God either exists and logic doesn't or logic exists and God doesn't. You can't hold God goes beyond the system like some people would be inclined to say.
Click to expand...



Omnipotence does not mean "ability to make what is logically impossible". If God can do everything, then that would include the impossible. But if God can do everything, impossible things should not be possible; yet how could they not be possible if omipotence incuded the possiblity of everything, even "the impossible"?

One cannot make a four-sided triangle. Why? The instant the shape has four sides, it is not a triangle anymore. God cannot make a rock so big that He cannot lift it; because it is a logical impossibility. In the same way that 2+2 cannot be made to equal 5, the existence of logical impossibilities does not in any way limit God's omnipotence. St. Augustine said "It is precisely because He is omnipotent that for Him, some things are impossible.


I acknowledge the book "God, Godel and Grace" by Clifford Goldstein for providing much of my response in this post.
 
SnakeLord said:
But it does. Omnipotence is "all powerful", not "all powerful.. except for.."
Click to expand...

Does the statement, "God can't make a fefilflackhujnidgggg," make sense to you?
I hope not. The same applies to saying God can't do the logically impossible.
Applying a meaningless statement to God and then saying that it should have meaning for God is no good.
 
Does the statement, "God can't make a fefilflackhujnidgggg," make sense to you?
Click to expand...

Yes, and god can make one. Just because your puny human brain cannot comprehend it doesn't really mean anything. (Btw that's not an insult, it's a comparison between human brains and godly ones).

But, given your statements, it might be worth inventing a new word for a being that is all powerful with exceptions. Like.. "omnialmostpotent" or something. Remember cole, it isn't god's understanding of the word that's relevant, but ours. When you use the word omnipotent you are talking language of humans, and it refers to a being that can do anything. Not "anything except for this that and that", but anything.

Applying a meaningless statement to God
Click to expand...

A) I didn't apply a statement to god, I applied it to smallaxe

B) All I have ever seen on this forum, and from the mouths of religious people are meaningless statements to/concerning god/s

and then saying that it should have meaning for God is no good
Click to expand...

Where did I say it should have meaning for a god?

Let me requote the statement made:

"Omnipotence does not mean "ability to make what is logically impossible"

I responded that "omnipotence" means the ability to make anything - and that is regardless to what a god has to say on the matter. The word omnipotence would mean that yes, a god can make a square circle or anything else it so chooses to.

K?
 
SnakeLord said:
Yes, and god can make one. Just because your puny human brain cannot comprehend it doesn't really mean anything. (Btw that's not an insult, it's a comparison between human brains and godly ones).
Click to expand...

It is a nonsense word. Get it?

A square 2 dimensional triangle is impossible to create, by definition. You can add a third dimension which will allow the triangle to be seen as "square" and a triangle. Perhaps God could, in the same way, add a dimension to an impossible situation to make it possible.
Or we could change the definition of traingle, that is easy enough. The impossible could become possible that way as well.
But my point is still that nonsense is nonsense - a logical contradiction, if accurately defined and described, is, in terms of actually entering reality, nonsense.
 
It is a nonsense word. Get it?
Click to expand...

Then why assign a nonsense, (and meaningless), word to a god, (something you scalded me about in the first place) - i.e god is omnipotent?
 
SnakeLord said:
Then why assign a nonsense, (and meaningless), word to a god, (something you scalded me about in the first place) - i.e god is omnipotent?
Click to expand...
I agree, your definition of the word "omnipotent" is nonsenical.
 
And here comes wikipedia to the rescue;

Omnipotence

Heck by reading the above link, not even theist can determine wether god is omnipotent or not :rolleyes:

First premise:

Does a god exist?

Second premise:

Can a questionable entity, with no identity by omnianything?

Third Premise:

Occam's razor, would suggest that such an entity with no identity, no evidence of it's existence, is more than likely non-existent. It's the only logical answer, given the "lack of evidence" of it's existence.

Godless
 
Does God exist? If you believe he exists, then he will exist.
Click to expand...

By this analogy; The flying speghetty monster is god.
The PinkInvisibleUnicorn is god
There are green goblins on the other side of the moon. Though they consider themselves demons, not gods
Zeus says he's still god, Apollo says he's not as powerfull as zeus, but considers himself a god, and a hole bunch of Greek, Roman, demi-gods consider themselves to be gods throughout the ages. ;)

Godless
 
smoon6.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top