Quote 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.