Proof that the Christian god cannot exist

[Sarkus]

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.

Surely the simplest way is to say that an omniscient entity doesn't exist in our Universe? The above example is only a paradox with that assumption. Remove the assumption and you remove the paradox - as, in your example, I could not "know" that you would choose A. I could at best have an estimate of the probability that you would choose A - but I could never have absolute knoweldge that you would.

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 don't recall saying that the act of knowing the future (by the man in the space-craft) directly affects the actions of the other.
If I did - I apologise.
What I do say is that the knowing of the future by the man in the space-craft will have no bearing on the outcome - and hence the other man will do exactly what the man in the space-craft knew.
So - if the spaceman can not interact to make you change your mind (even if he could) then you WILL certainly make the choice he knew you would - and thus you had no real choice - only an illusion of choice.

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.

I'm in agreement with this. On one level (cause and effect) I don't think we do - but what we're left with is the illusion of choice - and that is good enough for me

 

[Mythbuster]

Reasoning:

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

Stop right there - major problem. When talking about an eternal being and His relation to a world that is not, words like "before" do not belong. The closest thing you could say to express God's relation in terms of knowledge of states of affairs is that He always knows them (or knows them tenselessly).

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 does not follow - only if our actions come about through God's direct causal action does that mean they are predetermined in such a way that negates volition. In other words, any given human's salvation decision is predetermined iff 1) God does some specific act that causes the outcome of accepting or rejecting salvation or 2) salvation is not an act of choice and the saved are instead chosen by God. I reject the latter (which is Calvinism), and I see no reason to accept the former. Consequently, the rejection of Calvinism negates the "Question" section below as well, since Arminianists hold that God does not choose the elect: their fate is in their own hands.

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.

This also does not follow if God exists out of time and simply knows all the states of affairs tenselessly. He does not need to know them "in advance".

And another less related point - the definition of paradox seems somewhat incomplete. As it stands, it seems synonymous with "contradiction", which is erroneous; most accurately, a paradox is a true statement that is seemingly self-contradictory (like the statement "There is a set of all possible sets").

 

[Mythbuster]

Cris,

Here is the typical christian response, as I hear it.

"God is omniscent in that he knows every possible consequence of every possible decision you COULD make. In other words, he knows every POSSIBLE FUTURE that would result from every possible choice I might make. Think of the way god sees the world as a completely large "Choose your own adventure" book, wherein all the chapters are written in advance (and known to the Author) but it is still left up to you to choose which paths you will take. for every choice you make, god knows of all the possible results of that choice, and the next choice you make, god knows of all the possible results of making that choice, etc."

My response is that this absolutely fails to resolve the question. If god does not know which choice you will make (but only knows what all the 'possible futures' are for each choice you COULD make, then god is simply not omniscient, as he does not know all tha can be known!

Also, this is utter bull for another reason. There are many millions of people in the world and what my future looks like depends on an innumerable web of people making innumerable decisions (how much steak will cost tomorrow depends on the grocer's chosen markup, the importer's ease in gettiing it to land, the chosen price for gas for the boat, etc.)

Were he to know IN ADVANCE all the possible futures for every decision i make, he would have to know an innumerable number of choices from everyone else (as my possible futures also depend on their choices which affect me).

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Surely the simplest way is to say that an omniscient entity doesn't exist in our Universe? The above example is only a paradox with that assumption. Remove the assumption and you remove the paradox - as, in your example, I could not "know" that you would choose A. I could at best have an estimate of the probability that you would choose A - but I could never have absolute knoweldge that you would.

I think the non-existence of God as an omniscient entity is what this thought experiment was designed to "prove"? One cannot use it as an assumption therefore Sarkus!

What I hope I have shown is:
1) That knowing the future does not eliminate the freedom to choose.
2) The original paradox (posed by Cris) is flawed because it was based on the questionable assumption that the future is single and fixed.
3) That prescience therefore does not mean pre-determination.
4) that an omniscient entity (God) is therefore not incompatible with free will.
QED

I don't recall saying that the act of knowing the future (by the man in the space-craft) directly affects the actions of the other.
If I did - I apologise. What I do say is that the knowing of the future by the man in the space-craft will have no bearing on the outcome - and hence the other man will do exactly what the man in the space-craft knew.
So - if the spaceman can not interact to make you change your mind (even if he could) then you WILL certainly make the choice he knew you would - and thus you had no real choice - only an illusion of choice.

I think you are confused in your thinking here Sarkus!

1) If the man in the spacecraft can constrain my freedom to choose (free will) by knowing "the future", there must be some (unknown) mechanism by which that happens.

2) It is not possible for anything to travel faster than light through a vacuum.

Conclusion 1: Therefore is it NOT possible for a man in a spacecraft, by knowing the future to effect me in any way (including constraining my free will) more rapidly than light can travel between us.

Conclusion 2: Therefore his knowing the future is not incomaptible with my free will in this instance.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Cris,

Here is the typical christian response, as I hear it.

"God is omniscent in that he knows every possible consequence of every possible decision you COULD make. In other words, he knows every POSSIBLE FUTURE that would result from every possible choice I might make. Think of the way god sees the world as a completely large "Choose your own adventure" book, wherein all the chapters are written in advance (and known to the Author) but it is still left up to you to choose which paths you will take. for every choice you make, god knows of all the possible results of that choice, and the next choice you make, god knows of all the possible results of making that choice, etc."

My response is that this absolutely fails to resolve the question. If god does not know which choice you will make (but only knows what all the 'possible futures' are for each choice you COULD make, then god is simply not omniscient, as he does not know all tha can be known!

Also, this is utter bull for another reason. There are many millions of people in the world and what my future looks like depends on an innumerable web of people making innumerable decisions (how much steak will cost tomorrow depends on the grocer's chosen markup, the importer's ease in gettiing it to land, the chosen price for gas for the boat, etc.)

Were he to know IN ADVANCE all the possible futures for every decision i make, he would have to know an innumerable number of choices from everyone else (as my possible futures also depend on their choices which affect me).

I think the point is Mythbuster that I retain the freedom to choose, and will experience a different choice as a result of my choice. My freedom is therefore not constrained by God knowing the choice I make. Perhaps I make (and experience) all choices, but am only aware of one at this moment!

 

[Sarkus]

I think the non-existence of God as an omniscient entity is what this thought experiment was designed to "prove"? One cannot use it as an assumption therefore Sarkus!

It is not an assumption, but a logical conclusion.

What I hope I have shown is:
1) That knowing the future does not eliminate the freedom to choose.

If you are referring to your example of someone "knowing" at 11:30 and getting someone at 12:00 to change their mind / the future - then NO - you have not shown it.

If I claim to know the future - and know it "omnisciently" - then I surely know the outcome of every event - of every apparent "choice" - including my own actions.

If, at 11:30am I TRULY knew the future - then that future ALREADY takes into account EVERY ACTION I MAKE GOING FORWARD.
Otherwise you are claiming that the "knowing" isn't omniscience and that the person who is omniscient isn't bound by it.

So the person I tell will make the same choice that I knew they were going to make back at 11:30 - by the same chain of cause and effect that I knew was going to happen back at 11:30.

2) The original paradox (posed by Cris) is flawed because it was based on the questionable assumption that the future is single and fixed.

How is the future not single or fixed? Please elaborate on this.

My view is that there may be multiple universes' where every possibility occurs - but on each of these, taken in isolation, the future is fixed and single.

3) That prescience therefore does not mean pre-determination.

Again, please elaborate. At what point does prescience not mean pre-determination.

4) that an omniscient entity (God) is therefore not incompatible with free will.

You will need to expand on all 4 of these points individually. I apologise if I have missed where in prior posts you have thought you have achieved each of these, so please could you lay out your thought process again?

1) If the man in the spacecraft can constrain my freedom to choose (free will) by knowing "the future", there must be some (unknown) mechanism by which that happens.

2) It is not possible for anything to travel faster than light through a vacuum.

Conclusion 1: Therefore is it NOT possible for a man in a spacecraft, by knowing the future to effect me in any way (including constraining my free will) more rapidly than light can travel between us.

Conclusion 2: Therefore his knowing the future is not incomaptible with my free will in this instance.

You are the one confused, I fear.

In point (1) you are assuming that the very act of knowing the future constrains your actions. This is flawed.
You are going from a cause (Spaceman knowing the future) to effect (future actions). This is wrong.
It goes from cause (call it CAUSE 1 for sake of a better term) to 2 effects (your future actions and the spaceman knowing your future actions).

There is no direct cause / effect relationship between spaceman and your future actions.

I think the non-existence of God as an omniscient entity is what this thought experiment was designed to "prove"?

You can not prove non-existence.

 

[Sarkus]

I think the point is Mythbuster that I retain the freedom to choose, and will experience a different choice as a result of my choice. My freedom is therefore not constrained by God knowing the choice I make. Perhaps I make (and experience) all choices, but am only aware of one at this moment!

Again, it comes down to the experience / illusion of choice and the objective reality of the situation.

If you hold with cause and effect, then at it's logical extreme there is no free-will.

If you hold with an omniscient God, then there is no free-will.

In both instances there is a mighty good illusion of free-will. And this suffices us in everyday life when we consider "choice".

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Sarkus, you might have to go back and look at some of the previous posts. I think we are stuck in a loop here.

It is not an assumption, but a logical conclusion.

It's NOT an assumption OR a logical conclusion. The only assumption made (originally by cris) is that the future can be known. This leads to the above paradoxes if you also assume the future is single and fixed.

If you are referring to your example of someone "knowing" at 11:30 and getting someone at 12:00 to change their mind / the future - then NO - you have not shown it.

If I claim to know the future - and know it "omnisciently" - then I surely know the outcome of every event - of every apparent "choice" - including my own actions.

If, at 11:30am I TRULY knew the future - then that future ALREADY takes into account EVERY ACTION I MAKE GOING FORWARD.
Otherwise you are claiming that the "knowing" isn't omniscience and that the person who is omniscient isn't bound by it.

So the person I tell will make the same choice that I knew they were going to make back at 11:30 - by the same chain of cause and effect that I knew was going to happen back at 11:30.

THAT IS THE PARADOX! How can someone know THE future, if (having told me what it is) I can then change it?

How is the future not single or fixed? Please elaborate on this.

Please see the above! THE = one only. The only ways out of the paradox is that there cannot be a single, fixed future that can be known.

In point (1) you are assuming that the very act of knowing the future constrains your actions. This is flawed.
You are going from a cause (Spaceman knowing the future) to effect (future actions). This is wrong.
It goes from cause (call it CAUSE 1 for sake of a better term) to 2 effects (your future actions and the spaceman knowing your future actions).

There is no direct cause / effect relationship between spaceman and your future actions.

OK, so what/who and when is this cause1? If it is situated in the future for both (i.e. after I make the choice), then cause1 cannot be said to have "determined" my choice, just as you do not determine a choice by remembering it. Similarly if it is an effect of the act making a choice (i.e. making the choice=cause1).

So, it resolves the "spaceman" paradox (2), but in both cases I retain the freedom to choose = free will. Therefore "free will" is not incompatible with an entity knowing the future (or being omniscient) in these instances.

If you are postulating an entity/mechanism that both constrains my freedom to choose, and sends it back through time, then I'd have to ask for your evidence for such an entity/mechanism. Could this be our Omniscient Deity perhaps?

Q. Why need this entity/mechanism constrain my freedom to choose (free will)?
A. Only so that you can cling onto the prejudice that the future is single & fixed and the illogical conclusion that free will must therefore be an illusion!

God moves in mysterious ways.

 

[Sarkus]

Your confusion seems to stem from your removal of the OMNISCIENT ENTITY.

If an entity KNOWS your future and doesn't tell you - you will think you are making a choice and choose A over B.

If an entity KNOWS your future and does tell you - and you change your mind - then you now choose B over A when he apparently KNEW you were going to choose A.
The only conclusion here is that the entity is NOT OMNISCIENT.

Having an unfixed future CAN NOT EXIST with an OMNISCIENT entity.
Having multiple futures is irrelevant - as the OMNISCIENT entity will either know the outcome of your choices or not (in which case he is not Omniscient)!

An OMNISCIENT entity is also bound by his own Omniscience - he can not do anything that he does not know he will do.
Therefore he knows when he will coerce and he knows when he will not - and his knowledge of outcomes will already have this taken into account.

But we are not talking about someone who can merely tell the future like in a fair-ground - or someone who has a hunch - we are talking about OMNISCIENCE.


If you create a paradox by having an Omniscient entity AND free-will then the only conclusion is that one or the other do not exist.

If you think, as you do, that multiple futures and / or unfixed futures resolve the paradox - CLEARLY explain your reasoning and how it doesn't also breach one of the initial claims of the existence of Omniscience and Free-will.

 

[Mythbuster]

G = The Judeo-Christian God exists
B = God is benevolent
P = God is omnipotent
N = There is no evil

P1. If G, then B and P
P2. If B and P, then N
P3. Not-N
C1. Therefore, not-B or not-P
C2. Therefore, not-G

Christian does not exist.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Your confusion seems to stem from your removal of the OMNISCIENT ENTITY.

If an entity KNOWS your future and doesn't tell you - you will think you are making a choice and choose A over B.

If an entity KNOWS your future and does tell you - and you change your mind - then you now choose B over A when he apparently KNEW you were going to choose A.
The only conclusion here is that the entity is NOT OMNISCIENT.

Having an unfixed future CAN NOT EXIST with an OMNISCIENT entity.
Having multiple futures is irrelevant - as the OMNISCIENT entity will either know the outcome of your choices or not (in which case he is not Omniscient)!

An OMNISCIENT entity is also bound by his own Omniscience - he can not do anything that he does not know he will do.
Therefore he knows when he will coerce and he knows when he will not - and his knowledge of outcomes will already have this taken into account.

But we are not talking about someone who can merely tell the future like in a fair-ground - or someone who has a hunch - we are talking about OMNISCIENCE.

No, what you have shown is that having a fixed future is incompatible with an omniscient entity. My original point was that Cris's paradox was based on that very assumption - and the future may not be fixed or single! As an example, I suggested the MWI.

The whole point of the "many worlds interpretation" (MWI) is that you make ALL the choices, not just one. The future branches at the point of decision, and 3 nearly identical Sarkuses (assuming it was A,B and C to choose from) exist in 3 parallel worlds. An omniscient entity therefore correctly knows that you will choose ALL the options. If he tells someone you will choose A, it is because that person will meet you again in the future where you chose A. At the decision point however, you have total freedom to choose B or C and go off on another branch and another parallel world, and maybe never meet this A character. The omniscient entity is with you down all the branches. It is meaningless to ask this entity therefore what you will decide, because he will correctly say you will choose A,B and C. Suppose the you I'm addressing chose B yesterday. This "you" has lost sight of the other "you"s, and can only see yourself choosing B. Somewhere, in a parallel world it is possible that another "me" is addressing a "you" that chose A. However, as parallel worlds can never communicate, MWI is only an "interpretation", and we will never know.

If you create a paradox by having an Omniscient entity AND free-will then the only conclusion is that one or the other do not exist.

If you think, as you do, that multiple futures and / or unfixed futures resolve the paradox - CLEARLY explain your reasoning and how it doesn't also breach one of the initial claims of the existence of Omniscience and Free-will.

We are going round in a loop! Sarkus, you've worn me out. The original refutation I posted of Cris's proposition is on p40, with some subsequent posts and replies. HERE.

P.S. ALL proofs for the existence or non-existence of God are only playing with words. This one is no exception. There is a flaw in all of them - you just have to find it.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

G = The Judeo-Christian God exists
B = God is benevolent
P = God is omnipotent
N = There is no evil

P1. If G, then B and P
P2. If B and P, then N
P3. Not-N
C1. Therefore, not-B or not-P
C2. Therefore, not-G

Christian does not exist.

This is an old one Mythbuster!

The flaw is in P2 which is FALSE. An omnipotent God may have benevolent reasons (R) for not intervening to erradicate the existence of "evil".

So it should read:
P1. If G, then B and P
P2. If B and P but not-R then N
P3. If B and P and R then not-N
P4. If not-G then not-N
P5. Not-N
C1. Therefore, not-G or G and B and P and R

OK ?

 

[cato]

This does not follow - only if our actions come about through God's direct causal action does that mean they are predetermined in such a way that negates volition.

if god created all that exists, I would call that a causal action. if god created us, and knows our "future," or states, then god must have predetermined our states, after all god made the states.

This also does not follow if God exists out of time and simply knows all the states of affairs tenselessly. He does not need to know them "in advance".

you are correct to say that if we assume god is outside of time, then we can't define future or past in terms of god. however, the underlying theme still exists. if god knows the states, then the states can't be any other way, thus we can't "move through time" to any other state. ergo, our states (our future) is unchangeable.

 

[Mythbuster]

OK ?

Why are you soo good ?

 

[cole grey]

question -
Is there anybody here who thinks that the future is going to be anything other than what it is?
I hope not.
Does anyone think that the future being guaranteed to be what it is, just as surely as the past is what it is, causes the future to be what it is?
I hope not.
Our future is guaranteed to be what it is whether or not there is any knowledge of what it will be because whatever happens will be the future.

I am going to pick up my cell phone.
I pick up the cell phone.
The cell phone, you may as well say, was pre-determined to do that, the same way everything on earth that happens was, and not many things actually are.

 

[Sarkus]

No, what you have shown is that having a fixed future is incompatible with an omniscient entity. My original point was that Cris's paradox was based on that very assumption - and the future may not be fixed or single! As an example, I suggested the MWI.

The whole point of the "many worlds interpretation" (MWI) is that you make ALL the choices, not just one.

This idea falls down right here!
If, under MWI, you make ALL choices - then there surely IS NO CHOICE. YOU WILL TAKE ALL CHOICES!
The fact that you "lose sight of" the other worlds where you have taken the other choice only leaves you with the illusion of choice.
If I give you an option of A, B, or C - and the MWI states that you will choose ALL options - this means it is as predetermined as if it were a single fixed future.

P.S. ALL proofs for the existence or non-existence of God are only playing with words. This one is no exception. There is a flaw in all of them - you just have to find it.

While I agree that it is all playing with words, I don't hold that there is necessarily a flaw in all of them.
It all depends upon the definition of "God" being used.
If you set up a definition of "God" (which is after all merely a word being used for something that has no evidence of existence nor non-existence) then it is entirely possible to say whether or not it is logical, illogical, true or false.

 

[cole grey]

The fact that you "lose sight of" the other worlds where you have taken the other choice only leaves you with the illusion of choice.
If I give you an option of A, B, or C - and the MWI states that you will choose ALL options - this means it is as predetermined as if it were a single fixed future.

Using the word "pre-determined" is meaningless unless there is some other option by which events occur. If no choices are ever made in this type of reality, the word "pre-determination" as commonly defined becomes meaningless. This is a problem with my last post as well as your statement above.
A non-choice is not pre-determined at all, only an event that can have choice can have the choice removed from it.

Also, I agree that the definiton of the word "God" in any particular proof or idea will determine whether or not the idea can be logically followed. If you define God as an illogical thing and then say that that shows God can't exist - which is what this thread is all about from the start - you have merely shown that your idea of God is illogical.

 

[Sarkus]

Using the word "pre-determined" is meaningless unless there is some other option by which events occur. If no choices are ever made in this type of reality, the word "pre-determination" as commonly defined becomes meaningless. This is a problem with my last post as well as your statement above.
A non-choice is not pre-determined at all, only an event that can have choice can have the choice removed from it.

Okay - semantics, possibly.
I mean Predetermined as in "absence of any choice". I do not mean "removal of choice".

 

[Mythbuster]

Been thinking about this and came up with the question.

Assumptions:
- Omnipresence is necessarily everywhere presence required.
- Omnipotence is capacity to do everything.

My question is, Why is it necessary for "Omnipotent & All powerful being" to be present everywhere?

Sure Omnipotent being can do anything, means, he can even be at point X location and still affect point Y location.

Thus by being omnipresent, God cannot do one thing, he cannot be present at particular X location and affect Y location without being there. A limitation to omnipotence?



Conclusion: God cannot affect any location, without being present there.

So this is an unneccessary attribute given to him by those who wanted an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-everything Super-God! They slipped up.

Question: Can god be at X location, and affect Y location from X?
Answer: He can't coz he is everywhere. NECESSARILY. He must have to be present at Y.



IN SHORT:

WHY IS OMNIPRESENCE ATTRIBUTED TO GOD WHEN HE IS OMNIPOTENT... WONT THAT BE A LIMITATION INSTEAD?

 

[cole grey]

Okay - semantics, possibly.
I mean Predetermined as in "absence of any choice". I do not mean "removal of choice".

I think you really hit on something when you brought up the illusion of choice.
We have to decide whether human consciousness must include the perception of choice. And we have to create a shared understanding of what the word "pre-determined" means and how it may be affecting us, with or without a God involved, before we can really get anywhere on solving the puzzle posed by the thread starter.