Proof that the Christian god cannot exist

[I don't know]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

- If God is omnipotent he doesn't have to follow the rules of logic, i.e. you can't argue against the existence of God in any friggin way

And that is dodging the very interesting discussion on the nature of the free will that you might be having here :l

 

[TheVisitor]

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

You don't understand, Chris...
God came and died for humanity.....he didn't send his son, or someone else.
Jesus Christ is God.
And doing that, He alone has the right to the book of redemption.
He as any king is sovereign.
He knew by foreknowledge what you would do with the opportunities life has given you, and let you have your own way.
Some to honor and some to dishonor...so that the glory of the honored , His glory...the only glory there is, might be displayed in that day.
He with longsuffering and patience waited while they had their day first.
He gave them that chose not to believe in Him a time in the sun, with preeminence and a kingdom that persecutes believers and rewards unbelief, where the wicked and unrighteous flourish and laugh his little ones to scorn.
Soon it will be time for His kingdom to reign on earth, and having patiently waited for the pleasant fruits of the earth....those who stood for Him in the kingdoms of this world, will rule with Him as kings and priests.
God will rule the nations with a rod of iron.
The situation will be reversed, there is a reason it has been this way.

 

[KennyJC]

I demand TheVisitor be locked up (if he isn't already) in a padded room before the voices in his head tell him to kill someone.

 

[(Q)]

God will rule the nations with a rod of iron.

My rod of titanium can beat your gods rod of iron anyday.

I'll ram his rod of iron so far up his patootie that his pus-filled head will explode.

Bring it on, godboy!

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Hey guys, you may be getting side-tracked! Isn’t this supposed to be the “intelligent” forum? :m:

I want to know - is there a flaw in this argument?

Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

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.

Statement 1: Freedom to choose between alternatives without coercion can only be eliminated by:

a) Elimination of the alternatives I have to choose from (i.e. by a change in the situation)
b) Elimination of my freedom to choose (i.e. by a change in my capability to decide).
c) Coercion (i.e. use of force or threat to compel a choice).​

Statement 2: God’s perfect knowledge of past and future events does not in itself eliminate my freedom to choose in the present (i.e. it does not affect my capability).
Statement 3: God’s perfect knowledge of past and future does not eliminate the alternatives I have to choose from (i.e. it does not affect the situation).
Statement 4: God’s perfect knowledge of past and future does not constitute coercion (i.e. I am not compelled to a choice by force or threat).

Conclusion: Therefore God’s perfect knowledge of past and future events is not inconsistent or contradictory to my freedom to choose between alternatives without coercion.

Summary: The claim that God can be omniscient and also that humans can have free will does NOT form a paradox or a falsehood.

Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.
Reasoning:
If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.

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.

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.

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.

The error is in the confusion between prescient and pre-determined. Prescience of a decision does not mean it is pre-determined or coerced. To make it pre-determined or coerced involves an intervention to ensure a specific outcome. This may be e.g. to set up the conditions that make it inevitable.

Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

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.
Cris

Well, that is a good question... and the obvious oxymoron that "a loving God creates individuals in order to damn them eternally" is a very good proof that God (if he exists) cannot be like this. QED

 

[TheVisitor]

Well......... obviously

How ridiculous..why not waste time theorizing about.....
"If God can do anything , can He create a rock to big for Him to lift....?
Or a "square circle ?", a "stupid smart man ?"....theres one that applies here.

Obviously.

 

[Teetotaler]

I find it funny when people try to disprove God. If God doesn't exist, then you are a worthless organism. If God doesn't exist, then the only choice you have is to pass away into non-existence.

If non-existence is your only outcome, then why in the hell are you wasting your time disproving what does not exist? Since you are finite and destined for non-existence, then your opinion does not matter; nothing matters.

So, all of you non-believers can kiss my round, lady-like ass.

 

[Tattooed Soul]

Cris,

I find your proof compelling.
It has a very salient corner post i.e. omniscient vs free will.

I must say that I agree with the argument but I will add these comments.

I think that the "Christian Idea" of God is seriously flawed and flawed more deeply than you reveal here. Quite simply the flaws are caused by the fact that the Christian idea of God is a construct of man. The Christian Idea of God, being a creation of man, can only be described by humans, in as much as their languages and thought can describe it. For this reason I think any Christian description of God will be inherently flawed, perhapse fatally so as you so aptly demonstrate.

I am not however ready to admit that there is no God, in some form. I am not ready to accept that there is no "Supreme Life Force". Whether or not it is / was the creative force for our reality or even concerned with our existance remains to be discussed. But I wonder still.

Yours is, All in all, a good argument thanks for posting it.

 

[Cris]

I Don't know,

If God is omnipotent he doesn't have to follow the rules of logic,

Not true. If he possesses omniscience then he has no choice but to know everything. You could argue that he could remove his ability to be omniscient, but then he wouldn't be omnipotent since there would be something he couldn't do, i.e. he wouldn't be able to know everything.

Either way he has no choice but to be constrained by logic.

i.e. you can't argue against the existence of God in any friggin way

Clearly I have.

 

[Cris]

Teetotaler,

I find it funny when people try to disprove God.

I find it funny that no one has yet to show a god exists yet billions believe it regardless.

If God doesn't exist, then you are a worthless organism.

Why? If he did exist wouldn’t your eternal life be equally worthless, whether in heaven or hell?

If God doesn't exist, then the only choice you have is to pass away into non-existence.

Unless you find a way to avoid that.

If non-existence is your only outcome, then why in the hell are you wasting your time disproving what does not exist?

I don’t accept that non-existence is inevitable.

Since you are finite and destined for non-existence, then your opinion does not matter; nothing matters.

Expressed opinions may well survive forever whether you exist forever or not.

 

[Cris]

Diogenes Dog,

The error is in the confusion between prescient and pre-determined. Prescience of a decision does not mean it is pre-determined or coerced. To make it pre-determined or coerced involves an intervention to ensure a specific outcome. This may be e.g. to set up the conditions that make it inevitable.

Not true. To prove your point you will need to show how foreknowledge is possible without the event having been predetermined. The two states are inextricably linked.

 

[Cris]

Diogenes Dog,

Statement 2: God’s perfect knowledge of past and future events does not in itself eliminate my freedom to choose in the present (i.e. it does not affect my capability).

But yes it does. You have zero capability to make any choice other than what is already known. E.g. if you were to make a different choice then that would be reflected in God’s prior perfect knowledge and you are back to the original paradox.

Statement 3: God’s perfect knowledge of past and future does not eliminate the alternatives I have to choose from (i.e. it does not affect the situation).

The number of alternatives is not relevant since only one will occur and that will have been predetermined.

Statement 4: God’s perfect knowledge of past and future does not constitute coercion (i.e. I am not compelled to a choice by force or threat).

It is not necessary for you to realize that you are being coerced for it to occur.

 

[I don't know]

I Don't know,

Not true. If he possesses omniscience then he has no choice but to know everything. You could argue that he could remove his ability to be omniscient, but then he wouldn't be omnipotent since there would be something he couldn't do, i.e. he wouldn't be able to know everything.

Either way he has no choice but to be constrained by logic.

Clearly I have.

- No no no, you're not getting it Omnipotence means that God can do everything, including breaking the rules of logic.

He can create a rock too big for Him to lift, and then lift it anyway!

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Diogenes Dog,
Not true. To prove your point you will need to show how foreknowledge is possible without the event having been predetermined. The two states are inextricably linked.

...but not the same!

I think the problem is in trying to mess about with time, which leads to all sorts of apparent paradoxes. Ask yourself - by knowing (e.g. remembering) the outcome of a past choice, am I determining what it was? If not why would transferring that information (by strange means) to someone in the remote past cause that choice to become pre-determined?

Your assumption is that knowing the future would "fix" it like the past into a single inescapable track. However, this may not be the structure of time. Hence the "Many Worlds Interpretation" and other such hypotheses.

So, back to my perspective as the choice maker, it is irrelevant to my ability to choose whether someone else has (unknown to me) predicted the outcome of my decision - I still have as much ability to make a free choice as if they had not, or did not exist. Thus my choice is not pre-determined, nor am I coerced into making one choice.

If however they set up the conditions so I can only choose one alternative - then my choice is pre-determined.

 

[Sarkus]

Your assumption is that knowing the future would "fix" it like the past into a single inescapable track. However, this may not be the structure of time. Hence the "Many Worlds Interpretation" and other such hypotheses.

In the idea of the infinite number of worlds, where all possible outcomes occur on one world or another, the decision / choice on all of them individually is fixed.
It is only by moving from one world to another that one can experience a change in decision and thus appear to be unfixed - but in reality this would not be the case - as the first decision and the apparent change are actually performed by distinct entities - i.e. not the same person.

So, back to my perspective as the choice maker, it is irrelevant to my ability to choose whether someone else has (unknown to me) predicted the outcome of my decision - I still have as much ability to make a free choice as if they had not, or did not exist. Thus my choice is not pre-determined, nor am I coerced into making one choice.

But this is then only the appearance of free-will - which for most people is sufficient for them to conclude that it is actually freewill.

Does ignorance of coercion mean that you aren't coerced?
Does ignorance of the lack of freewill mean that you have it?
It depends, I guess, on the point of view:
The person who is ignorant of the coercion is, as far as they are concerned, free of coercion. And if they are unaware of someone being able to determine their choices then they are free to choose.

The person doing the coercion knows that the subject is being coerced - and would know that they lack free-will, even if the subject doesn't.

So are we talking subjective or objective reality?

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

In the idea of the infinite number of worlds, where all possible outcomes occur on one world or another, the decision / choice on all of them individually is fixed.
It is only by moving from one world to another that one can experience a change in decision and thus appear to be unfixed - but in reality this would not be the case - as the first decision and the apparent change are actually performed by distinct entities - i.e. not the same person.

But this is then only the appearance of free-will - which for most people is sufficient for them to conclude that it is actually freewill.

Yes, but the person to whom the future has been communicated may be forced to accompany the version of me that makes the decision that he predicts. I may choose to take another "branch" into another parallel world.

Does ignorance of coercion mean that you aren't coerced?
Does ignorance of the lack of freewill mean that you have it?
It depends, I guess, on the point of view:
The person who is ignorant of the coercion is, as far as they are concerned, free of coercion. And if they are unaware of someone being able to determine their choices then they are free to choose.

The person doing the coercion knows that the subject is being coerced - and would know that they lack free-will, even if the subject doesn't.

So are we talking subjective or objective reality?

There's some interesting paradoxes that occur if you assume that someone knowing the future restricts my freedom to choose.

1) Suppose this person communicates to me what my future decision is. I would undoubtedly change my mind and choose something else. Does that make his information NOT from the future, or can I NOT change my mind?

2) Suppose this person is told of a future decision of mine that I will take in 2 minutes time. However, this person is in a spacecraft 3 light-minutes from Earth. Will his knowing still restrict my freedom to choose?

 

[GeoffP]

- No no no, you're not getting it Omnipotence means that God can do everything, including breaking the rules of logic.

He can create a rock too big for Him to lift, and then lift it anyway!

...I hate to say it but this does make a certain sense. He can think of everything, and do it. Kind of fits the whole "infinite" bill.

Geoff

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

...I hate to say it but this does make a certain sense. He can think of everything, and do it. Kind of fits the whole "infinite" bill.
Geoff

I think it shows the futility of trying to understand God using logical statements concerning infinite values e.g. omniscience, omnipotence etc.

 

[Sarkus]

There's some interesting paradoxes that occur if you assume that someone knowing the future restricts my freedom to choose.

No there isn't.

1) Suppose this person communicates to me what my future decision is. I would undoubtedly change my mind and choose something else. Does that make his information NOT from the future, or can I NOT change my mind?

If you assume someone does know the future, then they will also be restricted by what they know. They know that what they are telling you is all part of the pre-destined plan - and that your response to what they tell you is what they saw. You can "second-guess" yourself, but the choice you make is what they saw. And the "future" that they saw was based on everything that occurred up to the point you make your decision - even them telling you what your future is.

2) Suppose this person is told of a future decision of mine that I will take in 2 minutes time. However, this person is in a spacecraft 3 light-minutes from Earth. Will his knowing still restrict my freedom to choose?

Yes - but from your perspective you will have the feeling of choice - the illusion of choice - which some would argue is indistinguishable from choice and thus equates to choice.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

If you assume someone does know the future, then they will also be restricted by what they know. They know that what they are telling you is all part of the pre-destined plan

I think this could be begging the question Sarkus. What we are debating is whether the "plan" becomes pre-destined or predetermined.

...and that your response to what they tell you is what they saw. You can "second-guess" yourself, but the choice you make is what they saw. And the "future" that they saw was based on everything that occurred up to the point you make your decision - even them telling you what your future is.

If at 11.30am you "know" that I will choose A at noon today, and give me this information truthfully, I can then at noon choose B or C instead, (unless I am magically restrained) and change what you "knew" was the future (unless you are magically restrained from telling me). It is irrelevant that you might also know you would tell me, but it does create a paradox. If you and I ARE restrained, you need to find a mechanism by which we would lose our freedom. The simplest way out is to rethink your hypothesis that the future is single and fixed.

Yes - but from your perspective you will have the feeling of choice - the illusion of choice - which some would argue is indistinguishable from choice and thus equates to choice.

If the man in a spacecraft 3-light minutes away, by suddenly knowing my future in 2 minutes, does affect me - then his effect on me is transmitted faster than light can travel. This contravenes the constancy of the speed light (and therefore the laws of causality).

I'm willing to entertain the hypothesis that we may NOT have free will, and that our seeming freedom of choice is in fact ruled by unbreakable chains of causation in our clockwork like brains.

However, that actually doesn't help you one bit to resolve the paradoxes I mentioned.