Proof that the Christian god cannot exist

Your "Christian" God is entirely out of Greek Philosophy.

Shouldn't the Christian God be defined by Revelation? Take the Bible and then examine the last couple of thousand years of Catholic History. After that you might have some idea about a "Christian" God.

But the Greeks. The Greeks defined God for the sake of argument. They wanted a God they could laugh at... at drunken parties while they buggered each other. No Greek ever claimed to see God or experience God. God to them was only conceptual fodder for the sake of argument. The first thing any thinking person, or Society, does is to quickly get beyond Greek Philosophy. Except Atheists who simply adore Greek Philosophy because it gives them a stunted little vulnerable God they can attack from any angle and with practically any argument. But that was the intent of Greek Philosophy.. to have a god that could be laughed at at drunken bugger parties.

Is that what you Atheists are doing? Drunken bugger parties. Probably. That is what your Philosophy is suited for.


Cris said:
Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

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

Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.

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

Proposal:

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

Reasoning:

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

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
Click to expand...
 
Leo Volont said:
Your "Christian" God is entirely out of Greek Philosophy.

Shouldn't the Christian God be defined by Revelation? Take the Bible and then examine the last couple of thousand years of Catholic History. After that you might have some idea about a "Christian" God.

But the Greeks. The Greeks defined God for the sake of argument. They wanted a God they could laugh at... at drunken parties while they buggered each other. No Greek ever claimed to see God or experience God. God to them was only conceptual fodder for the sake of argument. The first thing any thinking person, or Society, does is to quickly get beyond Greek Philosophy. Except Atheists who simply adore Greek Philosophy because it gives them a stunted little vulnerable God they can attack from any angle and with practically any argument. But that was the intent of Greek Philosophy.. to have a god that could be laughed at at drunken bugger parties.

Is that what you Atheists are doing? Drunken bugger parties. Probably. That is what your Philosophy is suited for.
Click to expand...

How arrogant and ill-informed you are. The Greeks held cermonies to celebrate their gods and one of the reasons Socrates was put to death was for denying the gods. There were political motivations involved but it would have made no sense to accuse him of denying something which nobody believed in.

As far as looking at the history of the Catholic church is concerned, it's best not to go there; it won't do your argument much good.

Why do you think atheists need Greek gods to support bad behaviour. You have it the wrong way round. Christians need god so they can be forgiven for whatever vile acts they perform. That's a real cop out and one that is not available to an atheist, who has no choice but to live with the consequences of his actions.
 
Leo,

Is that what you Atheists are doing? Drunken bugger parties. Probably. That is what your Philosophy is suited for.
Click to expand...
A curious perspective to take in the light of recent revelations concerning widespread catholic priest sex abuse of children.
 
Cris,

I understand your argument but I think you need to consider that not all people hold such a strict definition of "omnicient".

The bible, although it is obviously not empiracally validated, can be viewed as acceptable evidence when inquiring about the abilities of the christian God. That being said, the bible suggests that God knows all of our present desires, beleif's, etc. This means that he is omniscient in a given plane of time but perhaps not through all.

Also, the bible states that God is aware of the future of everyone and thing. All this suggests is that he is aware of a certain end state, but perhaps not intermediates. Thus Humans can go about asserting free will all they want, but the idea is that they will all end up in the some ending position regardless of decisions made on the way. In this case, a person can have the ability to make free decisions without altering a pre-determined finality.

It seems that your paradox is only true in the strictest of parameters. Also, you should learn when to use a word as heavy as 'proof'. By stating your simple paradox you did not disprove anything, you simply found a paradox. They exist everywhere. An obvious example being the time paradox, if I invent a machine and go back in time and kill my mother before I am born, what will happen? Did I just disprove that time cannot be linear? No. I simply found a theoretical paradox in a complex system which we do not yet understand.

You cannot apply simple logic to such vast and complex subjects such as religion. If scientists accepted paradoxes as proof against a given subject, we would never have dived into such complex ideologies such as string theory among others
 
Alighieri said:
Cris,

I understand your argument but I think you need to consider that not all people hold such a strict definition of "omnicient".

The bible, although it is obviously not empiracally validated, can be viewed as acceptable evidence when inquiring about the abilities of the christian God. That being said, the bible suggests that God knows all of our present desires, beleif's, etc. This means that he is omniscient in a given plane of time but perhaps not through all.

Also, the bible states that God is aware of the future of everyone and thing. All this suggests is that he is aware of a certain end state, but perhaps not intermediates. Thus Humans can go about asserting free will all they want, but the idea is that they will all end up in the some ending position regardless of decisions made on the way. In this case, a person can have the ability to make free decisions without altering a pre-determined finality.

It seems that your paradox is only true in the strictest of parameters. Also, you should learn when to use a word as heavy as 'proof'. By stating your simple paradox you did not disprove anything, you simply found a paradox. They exist everywhere. An obvious example being the time paradox, if I invent a machine and go back in time and kill my mother before I am born, what will happen? Did I just disprove that time cannot be linear? No. I simply found a theoretical paradox in a complex system which we do not yet understand.

You cannot apply simple logic to such vast and complex subjects such as religion. If scientists accepted paradoxes as proof against a given subject, we would never have dived into such complex ideologies such as string theory among others
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: What a grave embarassment you are to Dante! A dust mite is more omniscient than any f*cking god!
 
Medicine Woman,

You're not a very bright girl are you? Dante was a religious man. Also, if you're going to disagree with me you should argue with evidense, not assertive statements. You are no different than a creationsist relying on emotion rather than evidense to argue against evolution.

Also note that I did not say an omniscient God necessarily exists, just that a simple paradox is not proof against it.

Educate yourself, then talk to me.
 
"Is that what you Atheists are doing? Drunken bugger parties. Probably. That is what your Philosophy is suited for."

My how disgusting and disturbing. What christ-like wisdom you exude.

Your comments make baby jesus cry.

Repent, bitch.
 
Umm... I think people should be more open about the cosmos and not keep a limited "Big Bang: Everything has a Beginning and End" sort of idea about reality.

To be sure, the Universe has existed as long as it WILL exist: Forever long past and a non ending future. Now go sip your tea on that idea.
 
I think that Proverbs 16:9 is a good answer to this thread. It says, "In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps." I think that pretty much explains the whole arguement.
 
Foxer,

I think that Proverbs 16:9 is a good answer to this thread. It says, "In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps." I think that pretty much explains the whole arguement.
Click to expand...
Yes very good, indeed just like a puppet on a string.
 
Aliqheiri,

I understand your argument but I think you need to consider that not all people hold such a strict definition of "omnicient".
Click to expand...
To be less than all-knowing implies a limited god and that is contrary to the Christian position.

The bible, although it is obviously not empiracally validated, can be viewed as acceptable evidence when inquiring about the abilities of the christian God.
Click to expand...
The bible offers no evidence. It makes assertions about the perfection of God and we can examine those assertions along with other related assertions which I have done here. We can then see they are logically inconsistent.

That being said, the bible suggests that God knows all of our present desires, beleif's, etc. This means that he is omniscient in a given plane of time but perhaps not through all.
Click to expand...
You are arguing then for a limited god. That is inconsistent with Christian thought.

Also, the bible states that God is aware of the future of everyone and thing. All this suggests is that he is aware of a certain end state, but perhaps not intermediates.
Click to expand...
That makes no sense. Intermediate states are things. Either he knows everything or he is fallible, imperfect, and limited.

Thus Humans can go about asserting free will all they want, but the idea is that they will all end up in the some ending position regardless of decisions made on the way. In this case, a person can have the ability to make free decisions without altering a pre-determined finality.
Click to expand...
This is also nonsense. E.g. if I choose to commit suicide but I am destined to become president then my earlier action prevents the latter.

It seems that your paradox is only true in the strictest of parameters. Also, you should learn when to use a word as heavy as 'proof'. By stating your simple paradox you did not disprove anything, you simply found a paradox.
Click to expand...
A paradox is something that cannot occur. If the paradox is confirmed then that is proof that the events asserted cannot occur. E.g. in a binary decision only 1 path can be the result, it is not possible for both to occur concurrently, to state otherwise is an example of a paradox. The essence of this entire thread is based on this simple binary concept of paradox.

They exist everywhere. An obvious example being the time paradox, if I invent a machine and go back in time and kill my mother before I am born, what will happen? Did I just disprove that time cannot be linear? No. I simply found a theoretical paradox in a complex system which we do not yet understand.
Click to expand...
This then reverts back to the entire discussion of what is meant by time. The error is to consider time as something that has independent properties. What we observe is that time is a property of existence. In this context, time travel, while a popular sci-fi concept is nonsense. Your example is not a good one to demonstrate a paradox.

You cannot apply simple logic to such vast and complex subjects such as religion.
Click to expand...
Religions are not complex. They can all be categorized as human imaginative fantasies. When reduced to what is factual they all fail without exception. The illusion of complexity arises when attempting to consider the fantasies as truth which then lead to ambiguities and contradictions that in turn require more fantasy to be developed to explain the contradictions, ad infinitum.

If scientists accepted paradoxes as proof against a given subject, we would never have dived into such complex ideologies such as string theory among others
Click to expand...
I don’t see the connection between reductionism and paradoxes.
 
Impressive Board

How long as this discussion for going on? Looks like for several years at least. This is a great forum to discuss such a long-debated issue.

Let's get a few things out of the way first:

1) Unless we come here with an open mind, we are not going to learn anything new. Most people seem good about not making inappropriate and certainly unhelpful insults so let's keep it that way.

2) I am an orthodox monotheist . However, I do not claim to have all the answers nor am I going to start quoting Bible verses. Doing so would not add credibility to my argument. So please do not call me a Bible thumper, conservative evangelical, etc... I hate being labeled.

3) We are truly honest with ourselves, whether we are atheists, agnostics, or theists, wee must at least allow room to admit that there are limitations to our logic and reasoning. I say that not because I doubt the human ability to reason, but because our knowledge-base is finite. Knowledge is cumulative so we know more (at least about certain things though not necessarily "smarter" in terms of brain power) than did our previous generations. Since that is the case, our successive generations will have more knowledge than we do (again, not necessarily smarter in terms of raw brain power). Therefore, our power to reason, logic, think, etc will improve (hopefully) over time. Our great-great grandchildren can build on what we have discussed and perhaps arrive at a clearer conclusion.

Whew.. that was long.

4) I will post more of my own thoughts over time, but wanted to quickly mention a couple of new books. I am sure many of you are familiar or have already read, "The Reason for God" by Tim Keller or "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. Keller's book came out less than a year ago. I haven't read the entire book, but have read excerpts of it here and there. There are youtube videos of Keller talking about his book. Go to video.google.com and search "The Reason for God Google". He gave a talk at Google. I think he provides a new approach to the "problem of evil and suffering." Again, I am not saying he provides THE answer, but it's an interesting take on a century-old debate.

So that's it for now, but I will most definitely visit periodically to provide my perspective on things. I am a "closet" philosopher/theologian and would definitely enjoy a healthy dialog within the context of mutual respect. By the way, when I say respect, I am referring to the respect for the person and not for the beliefs. After all, if you disagree with my beliefs, you shouldn't respect it. From your perspective, it's wrong. If our lives are governed by our beliefs, then you should pity (maybe that's a bit strong word) me for operating under my wrong beliefs. :)
 
Cris,

Something you are missing here is that the concept of God is by the Christian point of view believed to exist within yet exceed the physical universe. The concept is meant to govern as well as encompass all that exists, including the fundamental science of mathematics. Because the idea exists outside the limits of math, it is deemed undefinable.

Your argument exists within the realm of mathematics which requires certain parameters of the concept in question. A big one which is missing in your case is the need of a definition of the concept. You cannot disprove that which has no definition and thus your argument is flawed, any claims or proofs you make past that point are irrelevant because the idea in question does not adhere to necessary parameters.

Also, according to the Christian point of view, free will is relative, and although man may seemingly make his own decisions, his entire existence is predetermined as the post above by foxer demonstates. Thus your you condition that christians belive in free will is false and your argument is further flawed.

On a side note, it is ignorant to call religion deviod of complexity. Although not necessarily verifiable, monotheistic religions serve as a tool to instill values and preach a humble life where the primary concern of one's life is the betterment of society and not just one's self. It gives people a purpose and allows them to identify themselves as more than meaningless projections of complex mathematical equations as our current understanding of science tells us. It is a concept which is necessarry for the development of civilization, without it biological influence would take over and man would be reduced top small groups of competetive, selfish factions driven by pure genetics.
 
Religion can no longer defend itself as it is losing ground all over the world .
Religion also is the only topic where people can say literarily anything with no proof or evidence whatsoever . Religion did not . does not and will not define a god or gods .
 
Alighieri said:
Although not necessarily verifiable, monotheistic religions serve as a tool to instill values and preach a humble life where the primary concern of one's life is the betterment of society and not just one's self. It gives people a purpose and allows them to identify themselves as more than meaningless projections of complex mathematical equations as our current understanding of science tells us. It is a concept which is necessarry for the development of civilization, without it biological influence would take over and man would be reduced top small groups of competetive, selfish factions driven by pure genetics.
Click to expand...

Complete utter bullocks!

Scores of passages from a variety of scriptures will demonstrate the Abrahamic god to be one of the most vile, murderous entities ever described, certainly far from anything moral or ethical.
 
The underlying message is the same in the Torah, Bible, and Qu'ran; lead a humble life devoted to the betterment of man. Violence is occasionally mentioned as a punishment for those who deviate from from this path and thus serves as a means to an end, much like the threat of imprinsonment or death for a crime. Controversial violent preachings derived from scriptures to promote actions such as genocide and terrorist attacks are highly manipulated lies far removed from the actual message presented in the holy books.
 
mike47 said:
Religion can no longer defend itself as it is losing ground all over the world .
Religion also is the only topic where people can say literarily anything with no proof or evidence whatsoever . Religion did not . does not and will not define a god or gods .
Click to expand...

Thus making proof or disproof of any God or Gods logically impossible, which is why these things are best left up to faith. To each their own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top