Proof that the Christian god cannot exist

[Hellblade8]

Are you ignoring the rest of the post ?

These?

1.) He likes to see humans burn in hell

Then why create a heaven?

2.) He doesnt care if humans burn in hell

Again, why would He create a heaven and then why would He lie and say He actually cares when he does not?

3.) God was unable to make humankind without sin.

No, He gave free will. True free will means we can sin and not sin. If He stops us, He is stopping free will. If people do bad things, they deserved to be punished for their crimes do they not?

Actually there is a forth; God didnt create us at all.

If you think this is true, why bother with this board? If Yahweh is just some imaginary person you don't care about, why do you act as if you care so much about the subject? Why not just roll your eyes and get on with the more important things in your life than to debate something as silly as this?

Of course I guess it could be that you enjoy religous debates, but your manner seems to suggest that you picture Yahweh as an evil bastard.

 

[Enmos]

These?



Then why create a heaven?



Again, why would He create a heaven and then why would He lie and say He actually cares when he does not?



No, He gave free will. True free will means we can sin and not sin. If He stops us, He is stopping free will. If people do bad things, they deserved to be punished for their crimes do they not?



If you think this is true, why bother with this board? If Yahweh is just some imaginary person you don't care about, why do you act as if you care so much about the subject? Why not just roll your eyes and get on with the more important things in your life than to debate something as silly as this?

Of course I guess it could be that you enjoy religous debates, but your manner seems to suggest that you picture Yahweh as an evil bastard.

Thanks for answering that, the true questions however were:
"Why did he even create mankind with free will, if he knew beforehand that at the very least some are going to burn in hell for their sins.
Why not make a happy world with no sins, does he like us doing sins and then throwing us into the fires of hell ?"

I do not belief in God, but does that have to mean i cannot be interested in the subject ?
I do not think God is an evil bastard, i was merely going on claims made by you and the Job story.
Furthermore, it might shock you but the only ones debating your are atheists.
Afterall you are posting in a thread called: "Proof that the Christian god cannot exist". Maybe you forgot about that ?

 

[SnakeLord]

Because you are looking upon her with only sexual desire in mind.

As opposed to what, children and mortgages?

The ones that makes sense.

So kindly tell me which bible parts are nonsensical and thus can be discarded. I shall then inform the entire jewish and christian community to dispose of their biblical junk.

No, man is.

Sorry, who created man?

Yahweh changed his mind, since when couldn't He change his mind?

Numbers: God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

So, what's your next choice?

No.

What light then?

One can resist lust. Lust is an extreme sexual desire for sex. To look upon a woman with that in mind is to only want her for sex and has nothing to do with what God commanded in raising a family. And again, sexual desire, or finding a woman attractive is not lust.

You're seemingly making a confusing borderline between the two. How many people when they have a sexual desire, extreme or otherwise, are thinking about raising a family or anything other than sex? So what exactly is the distinction between lust and extreme lust.. the way you phrase it they're both the same thing.

Who said it is? If I recall, only seperation from Yahweh is forever.

Who said? Uhh..... jesus did.

Matthew: "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

Matthew: "If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire."

Matthew: "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Oh well, what now?

Reason and logic.

I wonder... have you ever done a test to see your level concerning reason and logic? Does such a test exist? If not, I want to ask under what basis you determine your ideas as being reasonable and logical. To what are you comparing them?

The bible is not perfect, why would you think it is?

So what is it then?

 

[Oli]

But how is knowing something denying you from choosin?

Because if the answer/ choice is already known then how does "choosing" mean anything?
We think we've taken a free choice, but if it's already known before hand then we haven't actually made a choice - we just think we have.

When you say infallibly correct, do you mean if He where to say one thing it must happen no matter what?

That's what infallibly correct means - never, ever being wrong.

 

[Hellblade8]

As opposed to what, children and mortgages?

Impart.

So kindly tell me which bible parts are nonsensical and thus can be discarded. I shall then inform the entire jewish and christian community to dispose of their biblical junk.

I can't, you must decided what is right or wrong for yourself.

Sorry, who created man?

Yahweh, what's your point?

Numbers: God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

God is not a man: Eh? When did I say this?

that he should lie: I did not say this.

nor a son of a man: confusing.

He should change His mind: Sure, why not? He's done it before. Read up on OT, He changed His mind before.

So, what's your next choice?

Um...Hello Kitty Adventure?

What light then?

That's plain to anyone with wisdom.

You're seemingly making a confusing borderline between the two. How many people when they have a sexual desire, extreme or otherwise, are thinking about raising a family or anything other than sex? So what exactly is the distinction between lust and extreme lust.. the way you phrase it they're both the same thing.

No.

Lust:
1. intense sexual desire or appetite.
2. uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.
3. a passionate or overmastering desire or craving

Sexual desire:
1. a desire for sexual intimacy

Who said? Uhh..... Jesus did.

Well, lets see then.

Matthew: "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

Yes, for the devil and his angels. It said the fire itself is eternal and was made for the devil and his angels. While the wicked are cast into hell, it was never stated how long they would stay.

Matthew: "If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire."

Again, the fire is eternal.

Matthew: "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Seperation from God is eternal punishment in and of itself. It does not mean that you shall burn for all of eternity in flames of hell.

I wonder... have you ever done a test to see your level concerning reason and logic? Does such a test exist? If not, I want to ask under what basis you determine your ideas as being reasonable and logical. To what are you comparing them?

Its case by case. Determining on what makes sense and what does not. If it does not make sense, I place it aside until it either makes sense or I just eventually discard it out of hand.

So what is it then?

It's a book.

 

[Hellblade8]

Because if the answer/ choice is already known then how does "choosing" mean anything?
We think we've taken a free choice, but if it's already known before hand then we haven't actually made a choice - we just think we have.

Again, this does not take away from free will.

You are saying that because I know what one will do, they have lost the ability to decide, this is not true. In no way is free will affected by knowing what will happen, for the person who made the choice still chose to do it, even if another knows that they will.

 

[Oli]

Again, this does not take away from free will.

Of course it does.
If the choice is infallibly KNOWN before hand then any "choice" is merely an illusion.
You may convince yourself that you chose freely but if I know without error what you are going to pick on each and every occasion then you really don't have a choice at all - you must pick what I know you're going to choose.

 

[Hellblade8]

Of course it does.
If the choice is infallibly KNOWN before hand then any "choice" is merely an illusion.
You may convince yourself that you chose freely but if I know without error what you are going to pick on each and every occasion then you really don't have a choice at all - you must pick what I know you're going to choose.

No, it isn't about you choosing and then me having to do so, its about you always knowing what I choose. I hold the power to choose, and you just know what I choose. Nothing more.

 

[Oli]

No, it isn't about you choosing and then me having to do so, its about you always knowing what I choose. I hold the power to choose, and you just know what I choose. Nothing more.

Then you're still missing the point: if I KNOW before you make the choice what you're going to pick then (if I am always correct) you cannot choose anything other than what I KNOW you're going to choose - therefore your choice is an illusion since you were always going to pick what I knew you'd pick.
You have no option but to choose what I know you're going to choose - therefore you have no "choice" - you MUST pick what I know you're going to, otherwise I wouldn't be infallible.

 

[Hellblade8]

Then you're still missing the point: if I KNOW before you make the choice what you're going to pick then (if I am always correct) you cannot choose anything other than what I KNOW you're going to choose - therefore your choice is an illusion since you were always going to pick what I knew you'd pick.
You have no option but to choose what I know you're going to choose - therefore you have no "choice" - you MUST pick what I know you're going to, otherwise I wouldn't be infallible.

Again, wrong. Knowing what I will choose does not mean I do not have a choice. Where are you getting this? This is utterly incorrect. Just because you have someone who knows what you are going to do, it does not mean that you have now choice. Infalibility does not mean that if you say something, its right. It means that you have never been wrong before because you do not think or say something that is not right.

 

[Oli]

Again, wrong. Knowing what I will choose does not mean I do not have a choice. Where are you getting this? This is utterly incorrect. Just because you have someone who knows what you are going to do, it does not mean that you have now choice.

See below.
If I am infallibly correct then I cannot EVER be wrong. Therefore whatever I know you are going to pick, you MUST pick.
Any "choice" on your part is an illusion because I am always right - therefore your choice is not really a choice since I know beforehand what you are going to pick: therefore you do not have any choice.

Infalibility does not mean that if you say something, its right.

Actually it does.

It means that you have never been wrong before because you do not think or say something that is not right.

Actually it doesn't.
Infallible:

# incapable of failure or error;
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# Infallibility is the ability to be free from error (obtain certainty).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallible

Incapable of error: always correct.
Not just in the past, but forever.

 

[SnakeLord]

I can't, you must decided what is right or wrong for yourself.

It is quite apparent that you would happily admit that man is not perfect and, given the statements on your last post, that they're not competent either.

In saying, what is the outcome if a person - through their incompetence and imperfection - decides for instance that the whole of the NT is wrong/fiction or that indeed the whole book is? Is he then eternally punished for that incompetence/imperfection?

Yahweh, what's your point?

The point is quite simple. Let's say you go about creating a robot. You end up with a final product that is incompetent. What does that ultimately say about your ability as a designer?

God is not a man: Eh? When did I say this?

that he should lie: I did not say this.

nor a son of a man: confusing.

Avoidance tactic. Kindly desist from doing that, it's annoying.

He should change His mind: Sure, why not?

Uhh.. because the biblical passage I quoted states that he does not.

That's plain to anyone with wisdom.

Is that what you call it? You know, I've never had much respect for those that are so quick and eager to metaphorically suck their own penis. Your statement is akin to saying you're better than me, and that I'm an idiot. I resent such arrogance.

No.

No what? Where is the difference in wanting sex really badly and just wanting sex? At the end of the day, you're just thinking about sex in either case. Someone with a desire for sexual intimacy is not thinking about kids and mortgages, he's thinking about sex. Where's the difference?

Seperation from God is eternal punishment in and of itself. It does not mean that you shall burn for all of eternity in flames of hell.

Almost as bad as your display of arrogance, is your inability to just own up when caught out. The first statement is made to humans who are cast into eternal fire. The latter statement shows that the punishment is eternal as is the fire and that the fire is where the punishment takes place.

Why are you even arguing? You do accept that it's our choice, so what does it matter to you if people are burning for eternity?

Its case by case. Determining on what makes sense and what does not. If it does not make sense, I place it aside until it either makes sense or I just eventually discard it out of hand.

Is that because you have ultimate understanding or some things don't make sense to you personally but might make perfect sense if you had better understanding? As a result wouldn't it be best not to discard it? Just incase your imperfection and incompetence causes you to get it wrong? Oh wait, yes... you're full of that "wisdom". I get it.

It's a book.

Like Harry Potter?

 

[Benauld]

If God is not obliged to grant me my choice of non-existence, I do not have true free will. Simple really.

 

[(Q)]

Ignoring that most of those people where smitten for their evil doings...

And, many of them were merely innocent bystanders. How are small children considered evil?

So what? did you miss the point of the story? Just because something bad happens to you, it does not mean Yahweh did it.

That's not the point of the story, because Yahweh was a participant. He did it.

I hardly see where you have any worry about that. And so far He won't let Satan take your life if that's any comfort.

It's no comfort at all. And if the bible were any indication of his so-called "just" behavior, no one is safe. The body count in the bible is in the millions, with god at the helm. Satan killed less than a dozen, who is the safer bet?

Those who are last shall be first and those who are first shall be last.

That makes no sense at all and doesn't answer the question.

Uhm, no it isn't. While part of the story was about Yahweh explaining that He doesn't have to do jack for humanity, He does it anyway. Not to mention upholding all of existence. Another point of His; His wisdom is greater. And no, you are wrong on the point of the story. You fail to understand it completely.

You failed to understand the simple logic in giving something away. He may not have to do 'jack for humanity' but he certainly has no right to take it away, IF he actually gave it away.

Obviously, that was a lie on his part. He never gave anything away, he simply allows people to live until he gets bored with them, and wipes them off the planet whenever he wants, and for whatever reasons he wants. Those reasons rarely add up to anything ethical or moral, and instead demonstrate his cruel and petty nature.

If his wisdom were greater, why does he take back what he gives away?

Is that what you do, take back anything you give away whenever you want?

 

[Sarkus]

How are small children considered evil?

You have obviously never been to some of the council estates in the UK!

 

[Rusty]

well

When do we remember god?either in times of grave difficulties or in extreme happiness(occasionally) well god is nothing but a psychological balm created by man himself it soothes the pain in ur difficulty and shows u the way out when an indecisive criteria the same applies to happiness throw evrything on god thinking vaccum will look after it and get lazy life gives u an ass boiling kick and the cycle continues.everyday a different brain is born on earth talents,creationists,great phenomena topplers in this rate it not surprising that some nutty illusionist created an excellent illusion called god to create fear,order,uprising,and better living which inturn lead to the imbalance in the human and animal ratio making humans powerful and succumb to his very power adding to this the onslauht of nature to balance this equation or else we would be a low populated cro magnons travelling from place to place on a perfectly green earth.

 

[Hapsburg]

I have something that would be of interest to the Opening Poster and his initial statement.
While his proof is a logical proof, I have here a mathematical one. It's interesting, IMO:

Infinity x zero = undefined.
Where infinity = time and location everywhere, and zero = time and location now. Since "god" is theoretically omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, "god" is everywhere, everywhen, and everywhat at the same time, both in the infinite past and infinite future and in the present. Multiply zero and infinity and you get undefined, thus "god" cannot be defined, and is thus impossible to quantify and prove. When you cannot quantify something, there's two logical roads to take: 1. agnosticism, and 2. assumption of non-existence.

And this second one:
The number of gods possible is infinite; infinitely positive and infinitely negative. The most reasonable and rational number that will exist from any given number line in the mean, or average, of the line. The mean of all numbers positive and negative is 0. Thus, the most reasonable number of gods in existence is 0.

 

[Sarkus]

Infinity x zero = undefined.
Where infinity = time and location everywhere, and zero = time and location now. Since "god" is theoretically omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, "god" is everywhere, everywhen, and everywhat at the same time, both in the infinite past and infinite future and in the present. Multiply zero and infinity and you get undefined, thus "god" cannot be defined, and is thus impossible to quantify and prove. When you cannot quantify something, there's two logical roads to take: 1. agnosticism, and 2. assumption of non-existence.

I'd call into question your assumptions of what "zero" and "infinity" are - i.e. can you really classify a position and time as a number and expect it to follow mathematical rules?

I could define "zero = a chair", "infinity = a table".
Infinity + zero = infinity, but if you add a chair to a table... you get a bench

And this second one:
The number of gods possible is infinite; infinitely positive and infinitely negative. The most reasonable and rational number that will exist from any given number line in the mean, or average, of the line. The mean of all numbers positive and negative is 0. Thus, the most reasonable number of gods in existence is 0.

This one is easy to dismiss...

How can you have a negative number of gods?
You either have a positive number... or none.
You can't have a negative number of something, except in maths.

So your analysis fails.

Furthermore - your (flawed) analysis that "the most reasonable number of gods in existence is 0" is purely probabilistic... and will be unlikely to reflect reality.

Your analysis would assume that people not of average height can't reasonably exist.

 

[Hapsburg]

Sure, you can have negative gods, theoretically. Call it "chaos". Call it "evil". Call it whatever, but it's still a vague concept.

 

[Sarkus]

Hmmm - vague indeed .

Anyhoo - you haven't responded to the last "criticism" - in that you're not offering a proof - just a probabilistic outcome analysis.

"Your analysis would assume that people not of average height can't reasonably exist."

Care to respond?