God cannot exist: Proof

[psychopixi]

Proof that God cannot exist, and flaws in general ideas about the Christian God.

_______________________________________________

The Christian God is considered omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.

He is all powerful, all good, and all knowing.

He will know if there is evil in the world, he will want to stop it, he has the power to stop it.

And yet there is evil... therefore God cannot possess all three qualities.

________________________________________________

God is omnipotent. He is all powerful. There is nothing he cannot do.

Can he create something so heavy he cannot lift it?
Can he lift something which is supposed to be too heavy for him to manage?

He obviously can't do both, therefore he can not be omnipotent.

__________________________________________________

Use of the bible to justify a given course of action. If the bible says something is okay / not okay, then it must be true, right?

Wrong.

The bible says that eating meat from a pig is a sin.
The bible says that eating shellfish is a sin.
The bible says that wearing a linen / wool mix is a sin.
The bible says that lending money for interest is a sin.

You cannot pick and choose which bits to listen to! If the bible is the word of God, then it should be followed to the letter. If you're willing to admit that certain bits are out dated then you cannot make a case for the bits that you still think are relevant to be treated as divine law. Picking and choosing makes the whole idea of sin and morality completely arbitray.

_____________________________________________

God created everything on Earth. God is good, and would have wanted to create things that worked well.

Not everything works well, many animals have features which could be called "poor design" if we were to believe God created them.

Therefore either God did not create these creatures, God is not all good and didn't mind having flawed creations wandering around, or God is not omnipotent, and just couldn't do any better.

_____________________________________________

As many Christians tell me, God wants me to believe in him. God wants all humans to believe in him before they die, so they can go to heaven.

Not all humans believe in God, even though if he were all powerful he could ensure this happened.

Therefore either God does not exist, or he doesn't have the power to make us believe in him.

______________________________________________

Without further proof being offered from Christians, it makes more sense to not believe in the existence of God.

If there are two conflicting theories, you should always pick the less complicated option.

For example; There exists a creature called a flargh. A flargh is invisible, and intangible. I cannot see one, touch one, hear one, taste one, or smell one.

Or: There does not exist a creature called a flargh.

I could conduct all the research I wanted, and it would still fit both of the above options, so how am I to know that flargh's do not exist? Because it makes more sense not to believe in them.

_____________________________________________

God is perfect. God created the universe.

Being perfect entails no needs, or wants.

If God does not need, or want anything, why would he create the universe?

Either God did not create the universe, or God is not perfect.

_____________________________________________

A lot of these arguments end up with the idea that either God doesn't exist, or he doesn't exist in the way Christians claim. Even if God were real, surely his lack of perfection, and lack of omnipotence suggest that he too is fallible? Why put all your faith in something that might be wrong? Why expend so much effort in putting other people, and other people's religions down based on what God has said?


... Discuss...

[Euphoric]

I think you summed it up nicely :)

[psychopixi]

I think you summed it up nicely :)
Why, thank you. *bows*

[mrdevious]

Proof that God cannot exist, and flaws in general ideas about the Christian God.

_______________________________________________

The Christian God is considered omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.

He is all powerful, all good, and all knowing.

He will know if there is evil in the world, he will want to stop it, he has the power to stop it.

And yet there is evil... therefore God cannot possess all three qualities.

christians have a bottomless bag of excuses for this, usually about us learning lessons, testing faith, etc etc...

________________________________________________

God is omnipotent. He is all powerful. There is nothing he cannot do.

Can he create something so heavy he cannot lift it?
Can he lift something which is supposed to be too heavy for him to manage?

He obviously can't do both, therefore he can not be omnipotent.

the old "can god cook a buritto so hot even he can't eat it." This argument is only a literary paradox, not a practical one. all it's saying is "if god is omnipitant than he should be able to create limits for himself". the traditional christian concept of god's omnipitance is the ability to do anything at will. the only thing he's not capable of is not being capable of something, leaving infinite capability as his only capability. and besides, one could argue that he could, if he wanted to, create a being above himself, in your case, that being is some kind of super rock.
__________________________________________________

Use of the bible to justify a given course of action. If the bible says something is okay / not okay, then it must be true, right?

Wrong.

The bible says that eating meat from a pig is a sin.
The bible says that eating shellfish is a sin.
The bible says that wearing a linen / wool mix is a sin.
The bible says that lending money for interest is a sin.

You cannot pick and choose which bits to listen to! If the bible is the word of God, then it should be followed to the letter. If you're willing to admit that certain bits are out dated then you cannot make a case for the bits that you still think are relevant to be treated as divine law. Picking and choosing makes the whole idea of sin and morality completely arbitray.

This doesn't disprove god, it disproves one of the many texts that claim to be the word of god.
_____________________________________________

God created everything on Earth. God is good, and would have wanted to create things that worked well.

Not everything works well, many animals have features which could be called "poor design" if we were to believe God created them.

Therefore either God did not create these creatures, God is not all good and didn't mind having flawed creations wandering around, or God is not omnipotent, and just couldn't do any better.

This I agree with, though I'm sure there's some excuses out there.
_____________________________________________

As many Christians tell me, God wants me to believe in him. God wants all humans to believe in him before they die, so they can go to heaven.

Not all humans believe in God, even though if he were all powerful he could ensure this happened.

Therefore either God does not exist, or he doesn't have the power to make us believe in him.

nah, god's just weeding out the faithfull from the unfaithfull by only giving heavenly admittance to those who lack the critical thinking skills to question the flawed concept of god's existence.
______________________________________________

Without further proof being offered from Christians, it makes more sense to not believe in the existence of God.

If there are two conflicting theories, you should always pick the less complicated option.

For example; There exists a creature called a flargh. A flargh is invisible, and intangible. I cannot see one, touch one, hear one, taste one, or smell one.

Or: There does not exist a creature called a flargh.

I could conduct all the research I wanted, and it would still fit both of the above options, so how am I to know that flargh's do not exist? Because it makes more sense not to believe in them.


I agree with this 100%, and have used this argment myself.
_____________________________________________

God is perfect. God created the universe.

Being perfect entails no needs, or wants.

If God does not need, or want anything, why would he create the universe?

Either God did not create the universe, or God is not perfect.

essentially, your asking the meaning of life/existence, which is the endlessly debated and undecided upon argument. but to cop out in the traditional sense, god works in mysterious ways.

_____________________________________________






To be clear, I don't believe in god myself because there's not a single argument for the existence of god that doesn't come up short. it's simply illogical and lacking any credibility. but, I don't support fallable arguments simply because they support my side either. it drives me nuts when, for instance, people hear something against george bush and automatically believe it. I'm totally not a bush supporter, but I won't accept an argument against him unless it's critically analyzed and proves true, and the same goes with any other belief.

[jahjahjahjah]

gods a fag

[mrdevious]

gods a fag

then hypocite as well by the sounds of his policies ;)

[Oneironaut]

I think the most elegant argument against the existence of God is that offered by Mikhail Bakunin: "If God is, man is a slave; now, man can and must be free; then, God does not exist." But most Christians are for some reason comfortable being slaves to an imaginary dictator, even going so far as to admit they are sheep, since nobody but sheep would need a Lord that they call their "shepherd".

We can point out many other inconsistencies in the Christian conception of God. For example, the Christian God is claimed to be omniscient yet also granted us free will. Therefore, God already knows in advance every action I will take. How can I have free will if all my actions are already programmed into the knowledge of God?

God is also claimed to be omnipotent. If I truly have free will, then God does not have the power to override my choices, and therefore is not omnipotent. On the other hand, if he is indeed omnipotent, and chose not to override the choices that led to the Holocaust and 9/11, then he is complicit in these evil acts and thus is not omnibenevolent, and actually must logically be a complete asshole. Furthermore, the acts of the Holocaust were surely AT LEAST as evil as the slavery of the Hebrews by the Egyptians as mentioned in the Bible, yet the Nazis suffered no plagues. It took the power of man, not that of God, to defeat that evil. So why is God indifferent to evil these days? Why did the God of yesteryear care so much about the evils committed against the Jews, and then ignore their pleas and prayers during the Holocaust? Why would a perfect being change his mind about what should be done in response to evil, or change his mind about anything for that matter?

It only makes sense that if God has perfect knowledge, he cannot change his mind about anything since he already knows what is right and what is wrong. If he does not have the power to change his mind, then what good is prayer?

The Christian God supposedly cares whether or not we worship him. As you already mentioned, a perfect being has no wants or desires. Then why does he desire worship from us?

Then there is this argument, offered by Bertrand Russell in Why I Am Not A Christian (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell0.htm):

Kant, as I say, invented a new moral argument for the existence of God, and that in varying forms was extremely popular during the nineteenth century. It has all sorts of forms. One form is to say that there would be no right and wrong unless God existed. I am not for the moment concerned with whether there is a difference between right and wrong, or whether there is not: that is another question. The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are then in this situation: is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God's fiat, because God's fiats are good and not bad independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God. You could, of course, if you liked, say that there was a superior deity who gave orders to the God who made this world, or could take up the line that some of the agnostics ["Gnostics" -- CW] took up -- a line which I often thought was a very plausible one -- that as a matter of fact this world that we know was made by the Devil at a moment when God was not looking. There is a good deal to be said for that, and I am not concerned to refute it.

[psychopixi]

Respect++;

Point numero uno:
christians have a bottomless bag of excuses for this, usually about us learning lessons, testing faith, etc etc...
They need to work through those excuses though; is it a good idea to worship an entity that sometimes teaches those who are already faithful "lessons" through unbearable suffering, while letting the supposedly undeserving have an easy life?

________________________________________________

Point numero dos:
the old "can god cook a buritto so hot even he can't eat it." This argument is only a literary paradox, not a practical one. all it's saying is "if god is omnipitant than he should be able to create limits for himself". the traditional christian concept of god's omnipitance is the ability to do anything at will. the only thing he's not capable of is not being capable of something, leaving infinite capability as his only capability. and besides, one could argue that he could, if he wanted to, create a being above himself, in your case, that being is some kind of super rock.
This point I concede.
__________________________________________________

Point numero tres:
This doesn't disprove god, it disproves one of the many texts that claim to be the word of god.
Yep, well I did say at the top that I was gonna work at some of the flaws (as I see them).
_____________________________________________

Point numero five:
nah, god's just weeding out the faithfull from the unfaithfull by only giving heavenly admittance to those who lack the critical thinking skills to question the flawed concept of god's existence.
And I bet you just can't wait to get into heaven and meet them all.

______________________________________________

Point numero seven:
essentially, your asking the meaning of life/existence, which is the endlessly debated and undecided upon argument. but to cop out in the traditional sense, god works in mysterious ways.
I don't think this is about the meaning of life / existence.

We have two statements:

(1) It's postulated that to be perfect is to have no wants, needs or desires.
(2) Christians claim that God is perfect.

It's not about the meaning behind his life / existence, this point is just based on the fact that if both of the given statements are true, then there would be no reason for God to have created the universe. This holds true as long as the statements are true, irrespective of any meaning to God's existence.

_____________________________________________

And finally:
To be clear, I don't believe in god myself because there's not a single argument for the existence of god that doesn't come up short. it's simply illogical and lacking any credibility. but, I don't support fallable arguments simply because they support my side either. it drives me nuts when, for instance, people hear something against george bush and automatically believe it. I'm totally not a bush supporter, but I won't accept an argument against him unless it's critically analyzed and proves true, and the same goes with any other belief.
I don't believe in God because I cannot make myself. I don't like many aspects of the Christian religion (note; I said "many aspects" not "all aspects") and there is no way I could force myself to believe in God as they present him. The existence of a god / many gods, I'm fine with, provided they're not imbued with phenomenal my-god-is-better-than-your-god powers.

[psychopixi]

It only makes sense that if God has perfect knowledge, he cannot change his mind about anything since he already knows what is right and what is wrong.
This is actually another arguement against the existence of God in, and of itself. God cannot be omnipotent, and omniscient because if he knew everything, even what he would do in the future then he could not be omnipotent as he would not be able to change what he would do. If he could change what he would do, then he would not be omniscient, as he would not have seen himself changing his mind. (Something he ought not do anyway, as a perfect being.)


One form is to say that there would be no right and wrong unless God existed.
How many Christians believe that morality stems from religion? Anyone who does has evidently not thought well on the matter. If morality comes from what God has declared to be wrong, or right, then what would happen if he had decreed murder, rape and theft to be right? Do you suppose that police forces across the country would not have existed? Would you decide to wander into your neighbour's house, rape his wife, steal the TV and shoot him in the back as you were leaving?

How about morality before Christianity was the dominant religion. Was murder acceptable practise then? Why not, if morality comes from God, via the ten commandments?

[mrdevious]

Respect++;


Point numero five:
And I bet you just can't wait to get into heaven and meet them all.




lol, nah I have some more realistic plans. besides, only the mormons go to heaven, and god is a buddhist ;) .

I totally agree with the lessons thing, it seems "god" doesn't discriminate in teaching his "lessons" to the wicked and those who already pledged allegiance. but really, at least I think so, god or god's is just a way to explain what science couldn't at the time. however now that we can explain lightning, plagues, floods, mental illness etc. , we now just use god to explain the next step up of universal phenomena that science can't yet explain.

btw psychopixi, I don't know if I came off disrespectfull at any time, but that wasn't my intention. just straitening out my views of the facts :)

[psychopixi]

btw psychopixi, I don't know if I came off disrespectfull at any time, but that wasn't my intention. just straitening out my views of the facts :)
Nope, you didn't. Um - my "bet you can't wait to get into heaven and meet them" bit was sarcasm. That wasn't having a dig or anything. Sarcasm doesn't really transfer well to typing.

Seriously though, it was cool to have someone respond to / counter the points I made, in an intelligent fashion. That was what I was hoping for!

[beachguy in thongs]

LOL You all shall go to hell, LOL, You anti-God-ists, MonoNothingness', in fact, Y'all shall go, and Everybody shall go, when all y'all insist on taking your vitamins before smoking your bowl.

[MyAntiDrugIsAmy]

Proof that God cannot exist, and flaws in general ideas about the Christian God.

_______________________________________________

The Christian God is considered omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.

He is all powerful, all good, and all knowing.

He will know if there is evil in the world, he will want to stop it, he has the power to stop it.

And yet there is evil... therefore God cannot possess all three qualities.
an example of that is in the story of Jesus. in christianity, God sent his son, and saw him go through the earthly pain and suffering but God allowed it to happen because Jesus was a sacrifice for mankind so that there doesn't have to be the ritualistic approach to God as in Judaism. Jesus was sent to bring the holy spirit to earth which is what saves mankind and allows man into heaven. the idea is that God has other reasons for things to work out, and evil being allowed in the world is a result of mankind's free-will and the idea of original sin.


God is omnipotent. He is all powerful. There is nothing he cannot do.

Can he create something so heavy he cannot lift it?
Can he lift something which is supposed to be too heavy for him to manage?

He obviously can't do both, therefore he can not be omnipotent.
what are you saying is out of his control?


Use of the bible to justify a given course of action. If the bible says something is okay / not okay, then it must be true, right?

Wrong.

The bible says that eating meat from a pig is a sin.
The bible says that eating shellfish is a sin.
The bible says that wearing a linen / wool mix is a sin.
The bible says that lending money for interest is a sin.

You cannot pick and choose which bits to listen to! If the bible is the word of God, then it should be followed to the letter. If you're willing to admit that certain bits are out dated then you cannot make a case for the bits that you still think are relevant to be treated as divine law. Picking and choosing makes the whole idea of sin and morality completely arbitray.
the bible says that, true. those were the laws set up by the ancient Jewish societies. shellfish and pork - it is unlean because those animals don't eat foods rich in nutrients, so there are a lot of empty calories in those foods. plus they are high in fat and have contributed to heart disease and stuff. i don't eat any meat, and i think it's a good guideline that was put up.

the linen/wool thing is more symbolic. linen was a sacred fabric used in tabernacles and on priest clothing for worship to Yahweh. the idea of the passage is not to mix holy and unholy. if you used wool mixed with linen, that would cheapen the idea of sacredness. it applies today, like if someone killed someone and robbed them, then used that money on sunday for an offering of worship to God, that would be mixing holiness and unholiness.


God created everything on Earth. God is good, and would have wanted to create things that worked well.

Not everything works well, many animals have features which could be called "poor design" if we were to believe God created them.

Therefore either God did not create these creatures, God is not all good and didn't mind having flawed creations wandering around, or God is not omnipotent, and just couldn't do any better.
the food chain and unity of nature is an example. God may have created these animals for other purpose, and the "poor design" may not be. i can't really think of any animals as examples to use with poor design...




As many Christians tell me, God wants me to believe in him. God wants all humans to believe in him before they die, so they can go to heaven.

Not all humans believe in God, even though if he were all powerful he could ensure this happened.

Therefore either God does not exist, or he doesn't have the power to make us believe in him.

Firstly, that statement "God wants all humans to believe in him before they die so they can go to heaven" is kind of true, but in christianity the idea is more for a relationship with God (if i don't have a relationship with God, then it's that the bible at least taught me a way to talk to myself and give schizophrenic answers back that help me and calm me and somehow has transcended between other people, and gives me a calming relaxing feeling that makes living better)
God gave man free-will, thus allowing them to make the decision. maybe he wants us to make the decision ourselves. so if christians believe that God gave man free-will, then maybe he prefers we make the decision to acknowledge him ourselves, without divine intervention.


Without further proof being offered from Christians, it makes more sense to not believe in the existence of God.

If there are two conflicting theories, you should always pick the less complicated option.

For example; There exists a creature called a flargh. A flargh is invisible, and intangible. I cannot see one, touch one, hear one, taste one, or smell one.

Or: There does not exist a creature called a flargh.

I could conduct all the research I wanted, and it would still fit both of the above options, so how am I to know that flargh's do not exist? Because it makes more sense not to believe in them.

that statement goes against science. the less complicated theory is definitly NOT the true one. in primitive time, we didn't have very much evidence of the circulation of the planets or anything. the idea that the earth was the center of the universe was less complicated than the idea that the earth is amongst other planets all circulating around the sun by some mysterious force. someone had to test it, and that's how science always is. that's why there are scientific studies, the world is definitly not simple, and complicated ideas lead to reasoning.


God is perfect. God created the universe.

Being perfect entails no needs, or wants.

If God does not need, or want anything, why would he create the universe?

Either God did not create the universe, or God is not perfect.

in hebrew, the words for perfect used in the Bible connote wholeness, soundness, integrity, and often takes on ethical significance, divinity, completeness or aesthetic beauty. perfect is used to describe God's personality. it's in regards to his ethical qualities being justice and uprightness rather than selfishness.

[CocaCola]

Why bother?

[Polymirize]

I think the most elegant argument against the existence of God is that offered by Mikhail Bakunin: "If God is, man is a slave; now, man can and must be free; then, God does not exist." But most Christians are for some reason comfortable being slaves to an imaginary dictator, even going so far as to admit they are sheep, since nobody but sheep would need a Lord that they call their "shepherd".

Emphasis my own...

This is a horrible argument. You could drive a tractor through the holes in it. I wouldn't grant you either of the premises of the argument. It is not neccessary that if God is, than man is a slave. Rather it could be the case that God has been, I don't know, misinterpreted perhaps. Second, "man can and must be free", it's very poetic, but can it be supported? Do men in captivity cease to be men? I assume "free" implies freedom from control, but if this is the case, welcome to the social contract. You sold your freedom for a place in society, so obviously men must not be free. (ergo, God must exist?)

I'm with you in sympathy I think, but that's no excuse for shoddy logic. thoughts?

[psychopixi]

what are you saying is out of his control?
I'm saying he can't both lift the rock, and not lift the rock.


if christians believe that God gave man free-will, then maybe he prefers we make the decision to acknowledge him ourselves, without divine intervention.
Free will wouldn't be compromised if he just did something fantastic, a modern day miracle, and something that was worldwide. Say, turned the sky green and wrote "God was here 2k5". That would probably convince me.


that statement goes against science. the less complicated theory is definitly NOT the true one.
Not always, but it's a good theory to follow. Take my example with the flargh creature. If you have all of the empirical evidence that you're ever going to get, and it could support either one of two theories, it makes more sense to belive the simplest theory. With the example of the earth going around the sun, people didn't have all of the information needed to really compare theories:

(1) Sun goes round the Earth.
(2) Earth goes round the Sun.

If I had lived then, I would have believed that the sun went round the earth, because based on what we could observe, it made the most sense. Now we know more, we know it's the other way round. If someone can provide irrefutable evidence of God, then I will believe in him.

[P.E.N.G.U.I.N.]

Does the idea that God could actually be a little less than omnipotent and omniscent? Maybe God is only omniscent within our universe. Within Its universe It's just a bundle of thoughts about everything and nothing at once. How about we retool the definition for omnipotent to mean, able to do anything except for anything that would cause a paradox. As soon as God makes something so heavy that It can't lift it, It gets strong enough to lift it. It balances out. Did that ever cross your mind?

P.S. I had a much better argument ready but when I was almost done, my drunken father closed the window. It was a massive post so I really don't feel like typing it again :sadcrying

[beachguy in thongs]

I wonder if God has evolved, as Human Beings have evolved.

Or,

I wonder if the planets have changed as time has gone by?.

The answer behind God must be in the planets, or the universe as a whole.

[P.E.N.G.U.I.N.]

The answer behind God is that he created everything in the universe and set it into motion. Before you people flame me...

"How can something come from nothing?"
Nothing came from nothing. The only thing that makes the universe real is our ability to percieve it. The only thing that makes us think it's real, anyway.

"How could God have the power to create a whole universe?"
He doesn't have the power. This universe was created by a thought. That thought is just being played out, creating more thoughts. God's power (our power) relies in our ability to think.

[psychopixi]

The answer behind God is that he created everything in the universe and set it into motion. Before you people flame me...

"How can something come from nothing?"
Nothing came from nothing. The only thing that makes the universe real is our ability to percieve it. The only thing that makes us think it's real, anyway.

"How could God have the power to create a whole universe?"
He doesn't have the power. This universe was created by a thought. That thought is just being played out, creating more thoughts. God's power (our power) relies in our ability to think.

Maybe it's just 'cause I'm stoned that that didn't make much sense. Um, get back to you tomorrow.

[padro420kmk]

god gave man free will.

[Oneironaut]

Emphasis my own...

This is a horrible argument. You could drive a tractor through the holes in it. I wouldn't grant you either of the premises of the argument. It is not neccessary that if God is, than man is a slave. Rather it could be the case that God has been, I don't know, misinterpreted perhaps. Second, "man can and must be free", it's very poetic, but can it be supported? Do men in captivity cease to be men? I assume "free" implies freedom from control, but if this is the case, welcome to the social contract. You sold your freedom for a place in society, so obviously men must not be free. (ergo, God must exist?)

I'm with you in sympathy I think, but that's no excuse for shoddy logic. thoughts?
How can man ever be free with an omnipotent being of any sort in existence? How can freedom exist if any choice can be overriden at any moment by the whims of the totalitarian dictator of the universe? How can freedom exist if there is an entity that says "okay, you can do what you want, but if you don't do what I say I have a special place full of fire and smoke to torture you forever"? How can freedom exist within a Christian universe, where God clearly states in the Bible special rules for slave-owners, essentially condoning the practice and even saying it's okay to sell your daughter intno slavery? The whole idea of monotheism is submission. Unquestioning submission to a higher power. That is the exact opposite of freedom. You cannot contradict God's will. No matter what you decide is right or wrong, it doesn't matter because God already decided that for you, and you just have to agree or burn forever. And people have the nerve to call that free will. If God is, man is a slave, just as with any other totalitarian dictator. Does man have the power to democratically choose what morality is? No, God dictates that. Does man have the power to achieve freedom from this "shepherd"? No, the Lord is your shepherd and the Lord is all-powerful. The Lord is your master and you must do what the Lord says or suffer eternal damnation.

But when we look at the world today, we don't see people's choices being overriden. If there is an omnipotent deity that knows the difference between right and wrong, it certainly isn't doing anything about it. Why? Because man does indeed have free will, and in a universe where man has free will an omnipotent being is impossible. If I truly have free will that means there is nothing that can force me or threaten me to act in a way I don't choose to. It means, therefore, that there is no Hell, no Heaven, no God, no morality intrinsically woven into the fabric of the universe. We are free to choose for ourselves what we want to do with our lives. To embrace God is to reject freedom.

[Oneironaut]

I wonder if God has evolved, as Human Beings have evolved.
That is impossible. Evolution is a process of natural selection. Those creatures that have benefits for survival in their environment, and thus are more closer to the ideal of perfection, have a better chance of survival. How could God become more perfect if he was already perfect to begin with? And who would he have to outlive? How can natural selection happen in a single entity?

P.S. I just found another contradiction in the Christian conception of God. In Hebrews 6:18 it says "it was impossible for God to lie". Some omnipotent deity that is. But I guess I must just be interpreting that one wrong, right? It doesn't really say that. The Christian response is so predictable: "I think what God meant to say..." Or is that one of the parts of the Bible that doesn't count because you don't like it?

[beachguy in thongs]

You're looking at God in a religious manner, you should acknowledge that God created us to run amuck, instead of devoting our lives to worship, or anything but what God gave us for spiritual exposure to Him- Herb. Herb has three kids and works down at the laundrymat and discusses the Universe with his wife Julia. But that's another story. What's Hebrews? I'm not Hebrew.

I don't understand why someone would say it is impossible for God to lie. Well, maybe you're right, he does lie...

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

god = all of our "individual minds" (or egos) combined.
everything percieved = nothing
nothing = consciousness, or ability to percieve thought.


i hope that's simple enough to understand

[Polymirize]

How can man ever be free with an omnipotent being of any sort in existence? ... The whole idea of monotheism is submission. [Lets be fair here, technically speaking, the whole idea of montheism is actually one god. Nothing more. Although its interesting to see where you decide to take that...] Unquestioning submission to a higher power. That is the exact opposite of freedom... [That depends on whether or not its your choice to submit. I notice you haven't even actually addressed my argument from the previous post. I assume you're familiar with the social contract. What do you think? By submiting to it do we void our freedoms or is this merely an expression of choice?] No matter what you decide is right or wrong, it doesn't matter because God already decided that for you, and you just have to agree or burn forever. And people have the nerve to call that free will. [I believe that's called predetermination actually. You're confusing your terms. Not that many Calvinists around these days, at least not in my area. You have this amazingly christian intuition of thinking that God sees and judges all, and so would find it necessary to take actions at all. I don't share this particular intuition so you'll have to explain to me why this would be the case?]

If God is, man is a slave, just as with any other totalitarian dictator.
[I believe I've already discredited this, but you haven't addressed my earlier post at all really in this text, so if you can justify this premise, please do.]

But when we look at the world today, we don't see people's choices being overriden. [How would you even know? I mean, if we grant the concept of god as all powerful, couldn't he just change the way it appears to you? But that's aside the point, because I reject your entire notion of a godfigure in any way conflicting with free choice. If you can demonstrate why it would, I'd love to hear.] If there is an omnipotent deity that knows the difference between right and wrong, it certainly isn't doing anything about it. Why? Because man does indeed have free will...



Edits and all bold are my own, hopefully nothing's out of context...

Erminaut, you're so focused on destroying the christian paradigm you obviously haven't realised that I'm not christian, and so I find your arguments rather misplaced. You're not developing any points you're merely attempting to combat rhetoric with anti-rhetoric. but we could be having a mature and developed conversation instead... I look forward to hearing back on this.

[psychopixi]

Oneironaut

I understand better now what you were getting at before, but I still think there's a big leap you're making. I get what you're saying about how free will couldn't really exist if the Christian God did - free will isn't really free will if your actions are based on fear of punishment. I think it's a big jump between accepting that, and accepting that based on that idea, God can't exist.

The way I see it, if your actions are based on fear of punishment, that's not really free will. However, just because God is omnipotent doesn't mean to say that he will choose to intervene and force someone to make the correct decision. Nor does he apparently force them to believe in him (and hence in the reality of Hell).

We can have free will, and the Christian God could exist. One does not preclude the other. Even if God is omnipotent, that doesn't mean that he will force us to act in certain ways. If we can choose (even if the choices are not that great) then we have free will. We can choose to obey God's will, and go to heaven, or we can choose to disobey. Just because the second option is not appealing, doesn't mean that it's not an option.

[P.E.N.G.U.I.N.]

Maybe it's just 'cause I'm stoned that that didn't make much sense. Um, get back to you tomorrow.
Yeah, Let me rephrase what I said.

God indirectly created this universe and set everything into motion. I knew some people, probably Oneironaut, would flame me over it. So I defended myself against two things they could say about it.