God cannot exist: Proof

**psychopixi** · 11-08-2005, 08:16 PM

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...

psychopixi Reviewed by psychopixi on 11-08-2005. God cannot exist: Proof 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. Rating: 5

**Euphoric** · 11-08-2005, 08:33 PM

I think you summed it up nicely

**psychopixi** · 11-08-2005, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by Euphoric

I think you summed it up nicely

Why, thank you. *bows*

**mrdevious** · 11-08-2005, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 11-08-2005, 08:38 PM

gods a fag

**mrdevious** · 11-08-2005, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by jahjahjahjah

gods a fag

then hypocite as well by the sounds of his policies

**Oneironaut** · 11-08-2005, 08:45 PM

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:

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** · 11-08-2005, 08:56 PM

Respect++;

Point numero uno: