Proof that the Christian god cannot exist

[rjr6]

Rjr6,

All you have done is re-state the paradox. If everything has already happened then what you might claim is free will is an illusion since you would now be powerless to alter anything that has already happened. If everything is pre-destined or has already happened then free will cannot exist.

If that were possible then the entire foundation of everything we observe in terms of cause and effect would be nonsense. What does it mean to have an effect occur before its cause? What would it mean if you were born before your parents conceived you?

I do not believe having an effect bring about a cause would render the foundation of our understanding of the universe "nonsense". Though it would open up new avenues of research. If an effect brought about a cause would that eliminate the paradox of someone understanding the end destiny and still allow for free will? What if time only existed for humans? What would that do for free will? Do you think this should have been included in the Bible? Maybe this text does exists, but how would you explain to a mostly illiterate world that time does not exists? Maybe you would use words like "eternity" instead. Please don't ask for proof, I don't have any that you would accept.
It is just a thought. Being confined to only using a narrow view of logic to understand the universe baffles me when this view (ie: our scientific observations and measurements to date) fundamentally has absolutely no understanding at the most basic levels of what is happening and cannot explain even the most rudimentary aspects of our existence.

You act as if "paradox" is a bad thing, or that somehow that means it is absolutely impossible to be that way if there is a "paradox". Of course this (no problem with perceived paradox from a divine point of view) cannot be "proved" to you, just as you cannot "prove" to me that if I drop a rock it will not fall up as opposed to down. All you can say is that the rock normally falls down when you drop it, so it probably will again. You can not "prove" it to me (that it will fall down). Gravity is yet unexplained-it is a mystery.
What if I ran around saying "gravitarians believe in a falsehood!" You would, and most would, think I am crazy. And I would be crazy to do that, just as a believer in Christ would think you were being a hypocrite to say that that belief was a "falsehood".

 

[Cris]

Rjr6,

You are trying to argue from the perspective that there are things we don’t know, even basic things, and I’m not denying that but that isn’t the issue here. Those are largely concerns of inductive reasoning. My point is entirely deductive and is created by the very “divine point of view” that you reference. I.e. the very definitions and concepts Christianity has defined create an impossible scenario.

Put simply – if something exists that has perfect knowledge of all that will happen then it is impossible for anyone to change those events, i.e. the events are pre-determined. If they could, e.g. through the exercise of free-will then that something could not know what will happen before the exercise of free-will.

Either the knowledge exists and hence free-will is impossible, or free-will exists and hence the knowledge cannot exist. They cannot both coexist which is what Christianity claims.

Note that there is no implication that actions are dependent on the existence of knowledge which is the essence of the modality refutation; in fact there cannot be a connection. And I make no attempt to explain how future events can be known before they occur. I strongly suspect that such a scenario is not possible since time does not appear to be a medium that can be manipulated in such a way. My only point is the paradoxical implications if such a thing were possible.

 

[TW Scott]

Rjr6,

You are trying to argue from the perspective that there are things we don’t know, even basic things, and I’m not denying that but that isn’t the issue here. Those are largely concerns of inductive reasoning. My point is entirely deductive and is created by the very “divine point of view” that you reference. I.e. the very definitions and concepts Christianity has defined create an impossible scenario.

Put simply – if something exists that has perfect knowledge of all that will happen then it is impossible for anyone to change those events, i.e. the events are pre-determined. If they could, e.g. through the exercise of free-will then that something could not know what will happen before the exercise of free-will.

Either the knowledge exists and hence free-will is impossible, or free-will exists and hence the knowledge cannot exist. They cannot both coexist which is what Christianity claims.

Note that there is no implication that actions are dependent on the existence of knowledge which is the essence of the modality refutation; in fact there cannot be a connection. And I make no attempt to explain how future events can be known before they occur. I strongly suspect that such a scenario is not possible since time does not appear to be a medium that can be manipulated in such a way. My only point is the paradoxical implications if such a thing were possible.

Okay you are looking at this completely wrong. Take a step back, clear your mind. Now imagine a being that can see all the myraid of possibilities in the universe. this being knows them in advance of the oppurtunity for them to happen. Now this being knows all the possible futures. it knows what you will do if you are presented with certain stimuli. You are assuming that it is becuase it is preordained to happen. You're not factoring thagt this being just has perfect knowledge of you.

It would be like if you knew your sister is not ready for marriage. In fact she absolutely wants to wait another two years and she does not think her current boyfriend is the one. Would you be taking away her freewill if you knew her answer would be no when her boyfriend proposes to her tomorrow.

 

[rjr6]

Rjr6,

You are trying to argue from the perspective that there are things we don’t know, even basic things, and I’m not denying that but that isn’t the issue here. Those are largely concerns of inductive reasoning. My point is entirely deductive and is created by the very “divine point of view” that you reference. I.e. the very definitions and concepts Christianity has defined create an impossible scenario.

Put simply – if something exists that has perfect knowledge of all that will happen then it is impossible for anyone to change those events, i.e. the events are pre-determined. If they could, e.g. through the exercise of free-will then that something could not know what will happen before the exercise of free-will.

Either the knowledge exists and hence free-will is impossible, or free-will exists and hence the knowledge cannot exist. They cannot both coexist which is what Christianity claims.

Note that there is no implication that actions are dependent on the existence of knowledge which is the essence of the modality refutation; in fact there cannot be a connection. And I make no attempt to explain how future events can be known before they occur. I strongly suspect that such a scenario is not possible since time does not appear to be a medium that can be manipulated in such a way. My only point is the paradoxical implications if such a thing were possible.

Exactly my point, we don't understand even basic aspects of our reality. I completely understand your logical refutation of a paradox as explained in the Bible. But what makes your science beyond reproach to a point where you call christianity a falsehood? The almighty knowledge that you can observe natural laws and deduce aspects of our physical reality?

Maybe time cannot be manipulated in a way that makes sense to our level of understanding. But if time exists such as a landscape, and we are traveling through that landscape, why is it impossible to get off of the train and wander in the landscape, so to speak. This does not alter free will and destiny to my understanding. Free will, which is basically what the bible addresses, may be more important and complex than we can imagine. The Christian God choose to sacrifice his Son over it.

 

[Cris]

rjr6,

Maybe time cannot be manipulated in a way that makes sense to our level of understanding. But if time exists such as a landscape, and we are traveling through that landscape, why is it impossible to get off of the train and wander in the landscape, so to speak. This does not alter free will and destiny to my understanding. Free will, which is basically what the bible addresses, may be more important and complex than we can imagine. The Christian God choose to sacrifice his Son over it.

The proof assumes that such a god does have that "independence if time" ability, but from our perspective we remain tightly coupled with time. The result remains the same that for us there is a before and an after. And, if by whatever mechanism is imagined, our future actions are known long before we make them then we cannot have free will, our actions are somehow pre-determined.

That such a god might have such abilities that we cannot comprehend is appreciated but that does not remove the logical conclusion of resultant pre-determination and hence the resultant absence of free-will.

 

[Jan Ardena]

rjr6,

The proof assumes that such a god does have that "independence if time" ability, but from our perspective we remain tightly coupled with time. The result remains the same that for us there is a before and an after. And, if by whatever mechanism is imagined, our future actions are known long before we make them then we cannot have free will, our actions are somehow pre-determined.

That such a god might have such abilities that we cannot comprehend is appreciated but that does not remove the logical conclusion of resultant pre-determination and hence the resultant absence of free-will.

You are labouring under the notion that this life is all there is, and there is no transmigration of the soul, or even that there is a soul.
This appears to be a comfort zone, where you have to be correct.
But even in the Bible, we can understand that the soul (animator) is separate from the body. We can understand that the soul is part and parcel of God, and as such cannot die in the same way the body does. If you wish to use the current institution of christianity, as your reference, then this discussion can never be resolved.
But what would your analysis be, if the soul was part and parcel of God?

Jan.

 

[Balerion]

I'm way late on this one...

It would be like if you knew your sister is not ready for marriage. In fact she absolutely wants to wait another two years and she does not think her current boyfriend is the one. Would you be taking away her freewill if you knew her answer would be no when her boyfriend proposes to her tomorrow.

It would be nothing like that, actually. The only way you would know your sister did not want to get married would be if she gave you some indication of her desire. It's not as if you had access to some over-knowledge.

Here's my opinion on the whole "proving there is no God" argument...

The problem with using logic to disprove the existence of a god is that you must assume at the outset that this god is bound by that logic. That's simply not something anyone can prove. I don't know if there is or isn't a god, but I would imagine any god would have to reside beyond the borders of our universe, and thus not held to the laws that regulate it. Perhaps an inherent trait of god-hood is the ability to know all without having to influence--or program--the events beforehand. And it sounds absolutely outrageous, but consider what the notion of abstract thought would sound to a frog, or a wolf...it would be incomprehensible.

 

[MarcAC]

Give It Up Already!

Really, this thing has been beaten to death so many times, by so many individuals in this thread, you would think the proponents would have conceded by now.

But! Still holding out...

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.

Omiscient = Adjective

Coercing = Verb

Verbs refer to action. Adjectives refer to description. Thus Omniscience is a feature, not an action. Coercion is an action.

Now which idiot is going to conclude that Omniscience is equivalent to coercion? Clearly it isn't, which means then... Well... That if there is any cause-effect relationship to consider, the choices made in the future, as with the past, must affect the timeless knowledge, not vice versa.

Reasoning:

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

Yes.

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.

No. Said differently, actions of the past, and actions of the future determine the Omniscience of God. Saying an action is predetermined by God's Omniscience is like saying our actions are predetermined by our actions. So silly.

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.

No. As noted above, knowledge is not equivalent to coercion, be it all encompassing or not.

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.

But the integrity of Free Will in parallel with Omniscience still stands 1000+ posts after the faulty proposal on the first page, so this question is clearly irrelevant.

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.

LOL... Wrong. See arguments above, and on other pages (blonde_cupid, tony1)

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.

No. It has been shown that Omniscience and Free Will go quite well together. Omnipotence (= Adjective) is not equivalent to total action. Think... Omni, Potential... See my leaning? Omnipotence is the capacity for "total action" as it is put in the errant argument.

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.

So I guess Christianity still makes a lot of sense after this one - even more sense, now.

Cris

Someone needs to brush up on their grammar.

 

[SnakeLord]

Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.

Marcac:

What would the above say about a god itself? Does a god that is omniscient have any free will? It would know long before doing any action that it was going to do that action and, because it knew it was going to do it, had no choice not to. It would certainly seem that this god lacks any free will.

But for now let's pretend such a being does.. It would stand that this entity chose to create two certain individuals knowing everything they would ever do. So then the question is why not create Bob and Jane instead of Adam and Eve? You see, Bob and Jane would never eat the fruit or disobey this god. They would still have the free will you claim they have because this god would not make their choices for them it would simply know what choices they were going to make. By choosing to create Bob and Jane instead of Adam and Eve this god would prevent billions of people from being tortured needlessly while not impacting this free will you claim they have.

This is typically where the theist backtracks and claims they don't have free will because they can't do anything other than what this god knows they are going to do. You do not have that luxury given your own statements, (it is exactly the same position Adam and Eve were in).

So, either this god has free will and chose for many billions to burn needlessly or this god itself has no free will and thus isn't much of a god.

 

[MarcAC]

Saw it coming...

What would the above say about a god itself? Does a god that is omniscient have any free will? It would know long before doing any action that it was going to do that action and, because it knew it was going to do it, had no choice not to. It would certainly seem that this god lacks any free will. [...] So, either this god has free will and chose for many billions to burn needlessly or this god itself has no free will and thus isn't much of a god.

Does "a god" require free will? You seem to think it would? I'm not so sure. But just make sure you're not hopping onto that dimwit bandwagon confusing knowledge (of a decision) with action (decision).

Whether "a god" does or doesn't have free will the same things happen to individuals by their choices, providing "a god" allows individuals free will.

Pretty smart way for "a god" to get out of that little atheist-blame-game-mess if you ask me. Don't blame God, blame yourself. You choose to burn, you burn. Man He must've seen it coming!

 

[SnakeLord]

Does "a god" require free will? You seem to think it would? I'm not so sure.

I didn't imply that a god would require free will, merely that it would have about the same ultimate value as a fart in the wind, unable to decide its own actions or course. As it is nothing but a fart in the wind, it's not really worth much attention.

Pretty smart way for "a god" to get out of that little atheist-blame-game-mess if you ask me. Don't blame God, blame yourself. You choose to burn, you burn.

You use the term 'dimwit' and then use one of the most pathetic, idiotic arguments ever seen in these kinds of debates. Curious behaviour.

Even if we allow for the notion of 'free will', there are certain things that people have absolutely no choice over. One such thing is the ability to choose to just believe in something, (without external coercion). If you want to contest this issue we can do a little experiment:

Sit down, (squeeze real hard pal), and make yourself believe in leprechauns. The fact of the matter is you wont be able to do it, you have absolutely no personal control over what you do or do not believe in. The only way to reach a belief in something is via external 'evidence' (and I use the term loosely in this context). Humans, being different, require different forms of 'evidence' to come to belief in something. To some finding small footprints in the mud will convince them that leprechauns exist, to some it takes much much more. None of this is a choice, please make note of that.

So, the unbeliever - the person that has no belief in gods is apparently going to burn forever and chose to do so. The notion is simple idiocy. They had no choice in the matter whatsoever. You know that, that's why with all that squeezing you'll never manage to choose to believe in leprechauns. That means you chose to go to the leprechaun underworld where you'll be prodded and poked with all manner of sharp instruments. Was your own choosing apparently :bugeye: What foolishness.

 

[MarcAC]

Hmmm... Still going...

I didn't imply that a god would require free will, merely that it would have about the same ultimate value as a fart in the wind, unable to decide its own actions or course. As it is nothing but a fart in the wind, it's not really worth much attention.

O.k. As I said I'm not so sure. So one knows their route from Google Maps, then they take that route. Here, apparently, God would know - for example - other drivers decisions, light changing, and weather conditions which will affect the journey. Of course, even that is largely predictable now with SatNavs and GIS.

Even if we allow for the notion of 'free will', there are certain things that people have absolutely no choice over. One such thing is the ability to choose to just believe in something, (without external coercion). If you want to contest this issue we can do a little experiment:

Sit down, (squeeze real hard pal), and make yourself believe in leprechauns. The fact of the matter is you wont be able to do it, you have absolutely no personal control over what you do or do not believe in. The only way to reach a belief in something is via external 'evidence' (and I use the term loosely in this context). Humans, being different, require different forms of 'evidence' to come to belief in something. To some finding small footprints in the mud will convince them that leprechauns exist, to some it takes much much more. None of this is a choice, please make note of that.

So now we move on to whether or not belief or disbelief/"lack-of-belief" has its basis in free will. I think that for the more rational among us, choice plays a large part in belief - i.e. acceptance by evidence after considering alternatives (= or not). For those overwhelmed by emotive response... Well, they feel more than they think. Question remains of which are more beneficial in the end: think more, or feel more? Thought or instinct/intuition? I'm still thinking about the one...

So, the unbeliever - the person that has no belief in gods is apparently going to burn forever and chose to do so. The notion is simple idiocy. They had no choice in the matter whatsoever. You know that, that's why with all that squeezing you'll never manage to choose to believe in leprechauns. That means you chose to go to the leprechaun underworld where you'll be prodded and poked with all manner of sharp instruments. Was your own choosing apparently :bugeye: What foolishness.

Maybe its the human contribution to a higher form of natural selection. :shrug:

 

[SnakeLord]

I think that for the more rational among us, choice plays a large part in belief - i.e. acceptance by evidence after considering alternatives (= or not).

Seemingly you'd now like to drag this down to a "I'm more rational" contest, which is fine by me given by what can be gathered from your posts. However, let me ask you what you typically compare what you think is rational to. Who and what are you making a comparison to?

Anyway, as far as the subject goes, accepting or not accepting that 'evidence' is also not a "choice" as much as what happens to convince you, (which is beyond your control). One does not choose to be convinced by an argument, one merely is or isn't convinced by it.

Either way you would need to recognise that 'evidence' is an external factor that you would or wouldn't be coerced by. In saying, it goes against the earlier given definition of 'free will': Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion. If you would like to provide a definition of 'free will' then please do.

Maybe its the human contribution to a higher form of natural selection.

Apologies, I don't see what this is a debate to. Would you assert that because you cannot just choose to believe in leprechauns that you have in fact chosen to go to the leprechaun underworld and get prodded with sharp instruments? Yes or no. Btw, do note the distinct problem your earlier argument will suffer from if you say no.

 

[MarcAC]

Hmmm...

[???]...let me ask you what you typically compare what you think is rational to. Who and what are you making a comparison to?

That which I think isn't rational. Deep, I know... But you asked the question after getting the answer.

Anyway, as far as the subject goes, accepting or not accepting that 'evidence' is also not a "choice" as much as what happens to convince you, (which is beyond your control). One does not choose to be convinced by an argument, one merely is or isn't convinced by it.

One can be convinced by the choice of evidence to accept or reject, particularly when these pieces of evidence approach equivalence from one's perspective.

Either way you would need to recognise that 'evidence' is an external factor that you would or wouldn't be coerced by. In saying, it goes against the earlier given definition of 'free will': Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion. If you would like to provide a definition of 'free will' then please do.

This is been taken a bit too far. There must be a framework within which one has alternatives to facilitate choice. You've taken it past choice, into what makes you choose. Choice constitutes free will. Taking it further launches into some nature vs. nurture debate, which may as well be conducted off the religious forum.

Apologies, I don't see what this is a debate to. Would you assert that because you cannot just choose to believe in leprechauns that you have in fact chosen to go to the leprechaun underworld and get prodded with sharp instruments? Yes or no. Btw, do note the distinct problem your earlier argument will suffer from if you say no.

I have asserted that you have a choice through thought. You seem to assert you don't. I've done my job here. Have a good one.

 

[SnakeLord]

One can be convinced by the choice of evidence to accept or reject

'Convinced' certainly - and judging from the mammoth differences between theists and atheists it seems the levels of what is found convincing or not differs incredibly. Where does choice fit into any of that, (especially given the context of discussion)?

This is been taken a bit too far.

Not at all and, needless to add, I even gave you the 'choice' to give your own definition. Of course it's always worth looking at where 'choices' stem from - which is entirely relevant given the earlier definition of 'free will'.

I have asserted that you have a choice through thought. You seem to assert you don't.

Unsurprisingly enough this is not an answer to my question. Should I try again or is that attitude of yours just gonna get in the way again? Sod it, I'll try:

"Would you assert that because you cannot just choose to believe in leprechauns that you have in fact chosen to go to the leprechaun underworld and get prodded with sharp instruments? Yes or no."

 

[ang2223]

'
"Would you assert that because you cannot just choose to believe in leprechauns that you have in fact chosen to go to the leprechaun underworld and get prodded with sharp instruments? Yes or no."

I am going to have to use this one!! I never think to bring "other" personal beliefs into the "Christ" debates.

 

[Cris]

Jan,

You are labouring under the notion that this life is all there is, and there is no transmigration of the soul, or even that there is a soul.
This appears to be a comfort zone, where you have to be correct.
But even in the Bible, we can understand that the soul (animator) is separate from the body. We can understand that the soul is part and parcel of God, and as such cannot die in the same way the body does. If you wish to use the current institution of christianity, as your reference, then this discussion can never be resolved.
But what would your analysis be, if the soul was part and parcel of God?

Appears to have no relevance to the topic.

 

[Cris]

MarcAC,

Now which idiot is going to conclude that Omniscience is equivalent to coercion? Clearly it isn't, which means then... Well... That if there is any cause-effect relationship to consider, the choices made in the future, as with the past, must affect the timeless knowledge, not vice versa.

As has been discussed in the thread. What is not said is how Omniscience results in coercion; in fact I have stated that they cannot be related, re the modality issue. However, the issue remains that if something is known long before its occurrence then that event must occur. That is a predetermined event. I make no conclusion about how such a thing is possible and neither do I make a claim that Omniscience is the cause.

The issue remains very simple – if omniscience exists then events are necessarily predetermined and that precludes free-will.

But the integrity of Free Will in parallel with Omniscience still stands 1000+ posts after the faulty proposal on the first page, so this question is clearly irrelevant.

How so? I see no one has solved the paradox yet.

No. It has been shown that Omniscience and Free Will go quite well together.

Where?

So I guess Christianity still makes a lot of sense after this one - even more sense, now.

Dream on kiddo. You have barely begun.

 

[Cris]

JDAWG,

The problem with using logic to disprove the existence of a god is that you must assume at the outset that this god is bound by that logic. That's simply not something anyone can prove. I don't know if there is or isn't a god, but I would imagine any god would have to reside beyond the borders of our universe, and thus not held to the laws that regulate it. Perhaps an inherent trait of god-hood is the ability to know all without having to influence--or program--the events beforehand. And it sounds absolutely outrageous, but consider what the notion of abstract thought would sound to a frog, or a wolf...it would be incomprehensible.

Logic is not something that is eligible to be bound or not. It makes no more sense for a god to call a circle a square than it does for a human. If an effect has a cause then the cause will occur first and that will be true for gods as well as people.

If a god is to take any type of action then there would be a transition from a before and an after, i.e. time would elapse. I.e. a god could not exist outside of time.

Logic is not something that is optional. Logic is simply a disciplined method of determining a truth. The alternative to logic is illogic. And if you want to say a that a god is not bound by logic then that simply leads to the conclusion that such a god is illogical, i.e. paradoxial and could not exist.

 

[lightgigantic]

JDAWG,

Logic is not something that is eligible to be bound or not. It makes no more sense for a god to call a circle a square than it does for a human. If an effect has a cause then the cause will occur first and that will be true for gods as well as people.

If a god is to take any type of action then there would be a transition from a before and an after, i.e. time would elapse. I.e. a god could not exist outside of time.

the difference between your two analogies (that of the circle and that of cause and effect) is that a "circle" is defined as something quite distinct from say a square (ie circle and square are mutually exclusive terms). It is not logically tenable to say that a square is a circle.

The notion of something existing outside of cause and effect is slightly different however, especially when the nature of cause and effect is said to be contingent on that something. Actually what you are arguing is that there is nothing beyond cause and effect except the nature of cause and effect. This is not an issue of logic but of your experience, knowledge and, most obviously, your values .... much like everything from a frog to albert einstein has experience, knowledge and values

Logic is not something that is optional. Logic is simply a disciplined method of determining a truth. The alternative to logic is illogic. And if you want to say a that a god is not bound by logic then that simply leads to the conclusion that such a god is illogical, i.e. paradoxial and could not exist.

To put it quite simply, god is not bound by our experience, knowledge or values, and especially not the illogic of god must conform to the extent of anyone else's experience, knowledge or values.