Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Logical Disproof of God (A.K.A. God is an Idiot)

Logical proof time. God can't think. Think about it. An omniscient being would know everything and as such could consider nothing. To think about something means asking questions. Something that knows everything has no questions to ask – it knows already. Ergo it cannot consider. The result of its consideration would already be known.

This basically means that god can't decide. If god can't decide there's no point in asking it do anything. This also means that god has no free will. It knows in advance what it will choose and so it can't choose. It just follows a preset pattern of action.

Of course, these things that god can't do also mean that god is not omnipotent. In fact god is powerless, completely so, because god has no free will.

Face it guys – your gods are all fantasies. You all believe in an idiot, when just a single one of the properties you assign it requires it to be a mindless automaton. What does that make you? Wake up and get on with your lives. We don't respect your shit because it's genuinely stupid. Stop trying to force it into schools, using it to limit science, and causing wars over it, etc, etc, there are so many etc's. If you want to love thy neighbour then a good way to start would be to stop being such utter twats and start determining your morality on what makes happy people in this life and not on what makes a happy sky faerie in the fictional next.

Do you get it? Simple message – grow up!

YOU ARE HURTING PEOPLE.

People suffer for medical science held back. People suffer for stupid prejudices against what hole or which sex they want to stick their willies in. Kids suffer for pointless fears of fictional hells and shameful guilt for the non-existent fantasy crimes – the crimes that hurt nobody. Masturbation is good. Try it. Sex is nothing to be ashamed of between consenting adults and it's a very good idea to use a condom. Basically, if what someone does hurts no one then you've got absolutely no reason not to wish them all the best and let them get on with it. Victimless crimes are not crimes at all. But you fill the world with victims – victims of tribal myths from ignorant times and places, grown huge like the Godzilla of all cancers, killing freedom, respect, reason and free choice but especially attempting to stranglehold knowledge so that it can survive a little longer, growing fat on the body of the society that is sick and suffering from it.

Just look above – your god is a fiction. The definition disproves itself. Stop pretending you have an argument because you don't. Try a little intellectual honesty.

If you enjoyed this article please feel free to digg it down below.

19 comments:

MothandRust said...

So, it's another thing God can't do... suprise himself.

Eternal life must be so boring for him. He's already read the last Harry Potter novel. He's seen all the Batman movies that will ever been made. He's watched all the solar systems collide that will ever collide.

He's seen it and he says, "Meh, been there done it.

Rhology said...

A little correction from the other side of the aisle...

An omniscient being would know everything and as such could consider nothing.

Correct. God knows everything and thus never learns.
OTOH, His "consideration" is an eternal thing. One could say that God's thinking is about all things at all times.

This basically means that god can't decide.

"Deciding" requires options. God Himself decrees everything; He has no "options."
His plan is from eternity past.
His freedom is that *He* was the one who decreed it. Just b/c He doesn't choose at the spur of the moment doesn't mean He isn't free. He is far freer than any human.

In fact god is powerless, completely so, because god has no free will.

I don't call creating the universe and everythg in it, holding it together at every moment, and decreeing and working His will and plan from eternity past to eternity future "powerless." But that's just me.

Face it guys – your gods are all fantasies.

I wouldn't imagine that everyone who reads your blog believes in an omnipotent God. Unless they're Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, any other religion's god(s) is/are finite and thus not omnipotent.

We don't respect your shit because it's genuinely stupid. Stop trying to force it into schools, using it to limit science, and causing wars over it, etc,

Of course, you as an atheist making these absolute value statements is pretty funny. What, *you* say so?

Peace,
Rhology

chooseDoubt said...

Hi Rhology,

OK, ok, I get it. You agree with the logic to try and make yourself look reasonable and then make arguments that are already defeated by said logic to try and squeeze a little bit more life out of your ridiculous nonsense. Sorry Rhology, but it's just pure nonsense. Get over it. Let's look at why.

You say:

<"Correct. God knows everything and thus never learns.
OTOH, His "consideration" is an eternal thing. One could say that God's thinking is about all things at all times."


So how does that consideration work exactly then? How can God consider? If he knows everything then there is no considering to be done and for that matter know considering that can be done. The conclusion of the consideration pre-empts the considering.

You say:
"His plan is from eternity past.
His freedom is that *He* was the one who decreed it. Just b/c He doesn't choose at the spur of the moment doesn't mean He isn't free. He is far freer than any human."


Erm, if it's from eternity past that means it has always been and so "He" (as you like to call it) decreed nothing as there was never a transition between no decree and decree. In fact you are quite keen on mentioning that your god had no beginning and has always been and that means that there was never an instant between god being and god being with its plan. That means there was never a moment in which it did not know everything and that means it never took a decision or had an option. The only way you can get around that is to say that there was a time when god didn't know everything and had to decide what he/she/it was going to do.

You say:
"I don't call creating the universe and everythg in it, holding it together at every moment, and decreeing and working His will and plan from eternity past to eternity future "powerless." But that's just me."

As we keep coming back to, you have absolutely no reason to believe that god created the universe and above you have a very strong reason to believe that no such thing ever happened since your god is obviously a logical fallacy. Also, even if somehow a god did exist with the property of being omniscient then it would logically follow, that since god can make no decisions, that it has not been working the plan – it is rather that the plan has been working god. Your god cannot work its will because it has none – omniscience = no free will and as a Calvinist I understand that the absence of free will is part of your belief anyway. You just have to extend that to your fictional god thanks to its alleged omniscience.

As I said, your god would have to be an automaton, strictly and absolutely bound by the "plan", or rather the knowledge of the future, and so has absolutely no power whatsoever as it has no capability to do anything other than that which is predetermined.

Your beliefs are stupid and you can call that a value judgement all you like but it doesn't change the fact that the simplest logic demonstrates clearly that you're wasting your life dedicated to the rantings of long dead halfwits and their easily invalidated theories of the universe they knew next to nothing about. If you say "1+1 = 967.157726537" then it's not a value judgement to point out that your statement is stupid and verifiably wrong. It's a simple matter of applied logic. The same is true for your logical fallacy of a god – "omniscience + free will = false" – the two are mutually exclusive.

Please feel free to come up with a real argument the next time you comment. The only argument you seem to have is your own belief and you've found no way yet to demonstrate that belief to be anything but worthless.

Peace,

CD

Rhology said...

Hey CD,

So how does that consideration work exactly then? How can God consider?

I'm not sure. I *did* use the word "eternal" several times. God is quite a bit unlike time-bound humans, as He is outside time.
It sounds like you're trying to apply time to a timeless being, which would be an illogical thing to do.

He decreed nothing as there was never a transition between no decree and decree.

No, as I said, He has decreed everything *from eternity past*. There was never a time when He was not thinking all of His thoughts. The decree is from eternity past and is worked out both timelessly and in time.

That means there was never a moment in which it did not know everything and that means it never took a decision or had an option.

Right, and I had said that in my last comment.

you have absolutely no reason to believe that god created the universe and above you have a very strong reason to believe that no such thing ever happened since your god is obviously a logical fallacy.

My God is a logical fallacy? Strictly speaking, now, what specific law of logic does God's existence violate? Maybe you could even do a whole post on it.

even if somehow a god did exist with the property of being omniscient then it would logically follow, that since god can make no decisions, that it has not been working the plan – it is rather that the plan has been working god.

A "plan" is not intelligent, whereas God is intelligent. God works His plan. You're intentionally overcomplicating.
Why does it follow logically that a God that makes no decisions but has an eternal plan can't then act?


as a Calvinist I understand that the absence of free will is part of your belief anyway.

I'm a moderate Calvinist. And my belief is that HUMANS lack a completely free will. The reason for that belief is that God Himself is the only free being.

it has no capability to do anything other than that which is predetermined.

But since He predetermined EVERYTHING, fortunately that's not a problem that applies to God.

Your beliefs are stupid and you can call that a value judgement all you like

Well, it sounds like my beliefs are stupid and I like chocolate pie. But I guess we can take care of that in the blogalogue.

If you say "1+1 = 967.157726537" then it's not a value judgement to point out that your statement is stupid and verifiably wrong.

I agree on that level, but it's up to you to prove that the existence of God is logically impossible. I'm not saying "1+1=anything other than 2."

Please feel free to come up with a real argument the next time you comment.

Do your normal readers really go in for juvenile smack talk such as this?

Peace,
Rhology

chooseDoubt said...

Hi Rhology,

OK, you've just agreed that god made all its decisions an eternity ago and for that sam eeternity has been omniscient. That means that god can change its mind, ergo god is not omnipotent as there is something it can't do.

That means the Christian version(s) of god, which includes, amongst others, two stated properties – omniscience and omnipotence – is a logical false. Since you are a Christian that means your god is logically impossible. That is a proof. You'll say it isn't but that's because your faith is more important to you than your intellectual honesty.

It's not smack down talk to request that you come up with an argument that goes beyond “I believe”. I'm going to go into this in some detail on the next blogalogue post. But to be perfectly honest your beliefs require smacking down. People that share similar beleifs to yours, also based on nothing, push policy and adapt social attitudes due to those beliefs and if the beleifs are unjustifiable, which they are, then so are the consequences of mixing those beliefs into the lives of others.

I've stated it very clearly, and you've quoted me on this, faith is irresponsible and equivelant to a disease. I can accept that you are not an idiot but I cannot accept that your belief is not idiotic without a coherent argument to demonstrate so. So please don't confuse these two. You have my respect, your beliefs will receive no respect here beyond what they merrit and up to date they are right up there with the Tooth Fairy Theory of Lost Teeth.

Peace,

CD

Rhology said...

Hi CD,

OK, here I think you've made a good faith effort at a logical proof so I commend that.

Here's where you go wrong:

god made all its decisions an eternity ago and for that same eternity has been omniscient.

Again, you're confusing God w/ a timebound being. He *created* time. He is not inside it. Thus to speak of Him "having made all His decisions an eternity ago" is a mistake.
I said several times that He is *currently* thinking all the thoughts He's ever thunk. The decree of His will and plan have been from eternity past and exist as much in the present moment as they will in 2 gazillion years, since they are outside time.

So basically your attempt at a proof boils down to a misunderstanding of God. At this point you're falling victim to the same thing Dawkins does in his 747 Gambit - attacking a strawman. You might wish to rephrase the proof or something, but if you continue to argue w/ THIS proof then you're not arguing against the God of the Bible, who is the God I believe in. I'd join you in making an effort to disprove other conceptions of god.

And this last, I just can't resist:

People that share similar beleifs to yours, also based on nothing, push policy and adapt social attitudes due to those beliefs and if the beleifs are unjustifiable, then so are the consequences of mixing those beliefs into the lives of others.

Sure it's justifiable. It's my preference, my flavor of pie.


Peace,
Rhology

chooseDoubt said...

Hi Rhology,

What a marvellous thing for your imaginary dictator in the sky that he just happens to have a get out of jail free card for every conceivable cell that can be constructed from logic or reason. One could be forgiven for wondering what is actually left for you to believe in since any attempt to examine the biblical definition results in a god that scuttles immediately, like a cockroach, from the light of inquiry. As an atheist I often hear the certainty with which believers profess their personal relationship with this entity. It seems an extravagant use of the term “personal” since this entity seems to defy any fixed definition as soon as the definition requires logic that autodestructs the being to which it is supposed to apply.

You argue that me “confusing god with a time bound being” somehow negates the validity of the logical proof I have already provided, but it does not. Whether god is time bound or not makes no difference since in any time or “outside of time”, as you put it, omniscience is still a constant and that certainly does have the fatal problem for your omniscient god that it therefore cannot at anytime or outside of time second guess itself. It cannot change its mind and it cannot think because to think is to consider and thus to generate knowledge or ask questions. Both are outside the capabilities of an omniscient being and thus it is logically true that this being cannot also be omnipotent.

You have previously said that you believe in limited human free will. Well, this too is an absolute impossibility if your god is omniscient as for your god to be omniscient the result of absolutely every decision you will make is already known to the omniscient being and as such you have no power to violate that knowledge and as such you are also nothing more than an automaton. Here are two logical disproofs of your god and they are valid regardless of what special time travelling/avoiding properties you see fit to bestow upon your definition so long as omniscient remains one of the properties already defined.

Lastly, it seems that my pie example has not been clearly understood. I will cover this in my response to the morality blogalogue.

All the best,

CD

Rhology said...

Hey CD,

One could be forgiven for wondering what is actually left for you to believe in

Well, what I believe in is that which the Bible teaches either explicitly or by good and necessary inference. You're acting like I'm ad hoc'ing my way around, and yet my worldview has been well developed for over 1500 years.
If you build a strawman and I point it out, it's not my fault. If I were scared of the light of inquiry, I probably wouldn't be blogging. Nor would I comment on your blog (I commented on yours 1st, after all). Nor would I agree to a blogalogue. Such an accusation is just silly.

Whether god is time bound or not makes no difference since in any time or “outside of time”, as you put it, omniscience is still a constant

Agreed.

omniscience is still a constant and that certainly does have the fatal problem for your omniscient god that it therefore cannot at anytime or outside of time second guess itself.

Now your problem is that you are confused over the definition of "omniscience." Omniscience = knowing all there is to know. It so happens that God knows everythg there is to know b/c He decreed it from eternity past and then created it. And He can see it all.
If you're omniscient, how could it be possible to second-guess yourself? If you *could*, then *that* would indeed be a problematic point for an allegedly omniscient being. But God can't, and it's not.

It cannot change its mind and it cannot think because to think is to consider and thus to generate knowledge or ask questions.

Cannot change His mind, agreed.
Cannot ask questions, agreed.
Cannot "generate" (whatever that means) knowledge, except in that He has created the universe, which act would add to the aggregate of possible "knowledge" available at any one time (though He Himself knew it all from eternity past), agreed.
Cannot think...well, certainly not like humans think, b/c we have to weigh options based on our time-bound state and limited knowledge among other things. God doesn't have those limitations. It looks to me like you're setting up a human next to God and saying, "This God doesn't think like humans do. Your God doesn't exist!" I fail to see why I would judge the Creator by the creation, logically. You might be able to explain why you took that tack.

Both are outside the capabilities of an omniscient being and thus it is logically true that this being cannot also be omnipotent.

An omnipotent being can do whatever is possible to do. That should clear that up.

this too is an absolute impossibility if your god is omniscient as for your god to be omniscient the result of absolutely every decision you will make is already known to the omniscient being and as such you have no power to violate that knowledge and as such you are also nothing more than an automaton.

Not if God's eternal decree has been for certain human actions/thoughts/feelings to be based on that human's free will.
If I Tivo the SuperBowl and then watch it w/o knowing the outcome, I don't thereby decide the outcome b/c I'm watching it after the fact.

it seems that my pie example has not been clearly understood. I will cover this in my response to the morality blogalogue.

Good deal.

Peace,
Rhology

chooseDoubt said...

Hi Rhology,

I was referring to god scuttling away from the light of inquiry, not you. Whilst god scuttles, you merely remain in its shadow. Please understand that I do find your beliefs absurd and ridiculous but it is not going to be my intention at anytime to suggest that you are an idiot or intentionally dishonest. It is my argument that your beliefs are idiotic and that they severely weaken ones ability to be intellectually honest, which is why I have described faith as a disease and written such snippets as the below quote, which you have previously quoted:

"They ignore fact to support it. They champion ignorance to defend it. And worst of all they teach their children to do the same."

My point is that this is not new ground and that the attack is against your beliefs and not against you personally.

However, you have just agreed to a number of things that god cannot do but this time you have redefined omnipotence as the ability to do everything possible as opposed to the general ability to do absolutely anything. I find this interesting. I'm not aware of any proviso in the bible where Gods power is described as limited to only that which is possible and I also think it is worthwhile to contrast this "possibility" proviso with your own arguments on other posts against the possibility of the universe simply existing. This caveat of "possibility" seems to be an afterthought added by theologians and not "God's word". It's also a bit of a ridiculous limitation.

Let's see.

God is omnipotent - he can do absolutely anything that is possible for him to do.

Surely that definition of omnipotence applies to absolutely anything.

The Squirrel is omnipotent – it can do anything that it is possible for it to do.

The new Dell Dimension 9200 is omnipotent – it can do anything that it is possible for it to do.

Do you see this issue here? By turning omnipotence (which means absolute power to do absolutely anything) into omnipotence-light (power to do only that which it can do) then you have simply redefined a word and contradicted the original definition of God as provided in Psalms 115:3, amongst - I'm sure - other places. It's exactly what I'm referring to when I talk about scuttling from the light of inquiry. You claim an absolute and then the absolute is nowhere to be found. It becomes an ever changing variable – an unknown – and as such it is not knowledge. It is not something you can base a certainty on.

You try the same with omniscience, but I'm not sure why on this occasion since if "all there is to know" is not "everything", which is what it is, then you've changed nothing. Since the definition of god is logically incoherent then you try to reduce the scope of those properties but in doing that you are also reducing the scope of your definition and thus reducing your god. Can you honestly say that this does not allow you to entertain at least some doubt as to the validity of the original definition?

As for the Tivo example, that's a straw man. And furthermore the resolution of that straw man actually favours my argument anyway. If you record the Super Bowl but don't watch it until later no it doesn't mean that you decide the outcome, but it does mean that the outcome is decided and so not one play in the entire game will be any different from the fact already stored in the memory of your Tivo. So with God/Tivo, let's call it Givo, if Givo knows everything and so your actions are already recorded on Givo then it does mean that you can't change any of your plays from what is already recorded. That means no free will and an absolutely predeterministic Rhology.

I'm sure that you have thought a great deal about your beliefs and I credit you for this. But I think what needs to be pointed out is that there is a great deal you don't believe in, such as evolution, that carries massive evidence, no contradictory evidence, and faultless logical consistency and that your only reason to deny such knowledge is this logically dubious god of the gaps. I believe this may be because much of your thinking starts with a conclusion – god is real – and since this is the most important conclusion for you then all other conclusions are necessarily avoided when they contradict that Alpha-Omega conclusion you are already lumbered with.

To think clearly you must accept that the conclusion is unknown and even when you accept a conclusion, even when you are prepared to state it as a fact and certainty (as I am with my atheism), you must still intellectually allow doubt. I am a strong atheist. I lose absolutely no sleep over betting my eternal suffering on there being no god. I have educated my children to the absurdity of religion and so I am certain enough to bet their eternal suffering on it also. Yet all it would take would be one argument from you or any other theist that shows a single hole in that conclusion and I would reject atheism immediately. I myself examine and re-examine every argument I can think of, and I deliberately try to undermine my own atheism everyday. I have to do that to be honest – to think first and conclude later. I, many other atheists, billions of independent observations, studies and even our own record of history (predating a young earth) have offered you countless holes in your conclusion. Not just one science, but every science and field of studying the past discredits a young Earth and yet you begin thinking with your conclusion already set.

Anyway, I'm done with this particular discussion for now. Above you have logical disproof of god and the only way you can escape those disproofs, even partially, is to reduce your god to fit in the gaps or wedge new gaps with caveats. I don't have to know what caused the Big Bang to know that this Christian version of a god is logically impossible and I think that highlights exactly the issue here which is that theists claim certainty where there can be none and in doing so disable intellectual honesty with a predetermined conclusion based on that false certainty. In opening yourself to Jesus you have closed yourself to understanding.


All the best,

CD

Rhology said...

Hi CD,

Please understand that I do find your beliefs absurd and ridiculous but it is not going to be my intention at anytime to suggest that you are an idiot or intentionally dishonest.

Fair enough.


It is my argument that your beliefs are idiotic and that they severely weaken ones ability to be intellectually honest,

Which is what I say about yours, so again, fair enough.

you have redefined omnipotence as the ability to do everything possible as opposed to the general ability to do absolutely anything.

Here you propose the correct definition (following what I said) of "omnipotence" but you'll then redefine it in a second. Doing so obscures the topic at hand.
And to suggest that "omnipotence" encompasses the ability to do the following:
1) make square circles
2) make a three-dimensional geometric line
3) make 2+2=5
4) cease to exist
5) cease to be omnipotent
6) microwave a burrito so hot that He couldn't eat it

is not very good thinking. That's why I say that God can do anything that is possible.
Which links very closely to the fact that the laws of logic, for example, are expressions of God's attributes; that is, they flow out of who He is. They are neither arbitrary nor really contingent.

God is omnipotent - he can do absolutely anything that is possible for him to do.

The careful reader will note that this is not what I said. I agree - this strawman is absurd.

(you subvert the meaning of) Ps 115:3

Ps. 115:3 - Our God is in the heavens;
he does all that he pleases.

OK, perhaps you could tell me how you've extrapolated from this verse the idea that God would be "pleased" to perform any of the 6 things I listed above.


You claim an absolute and then the absolute is nowhere to be found.

Again, it's not my fault that you continue to assault strawmen. I'm still here. Before mounting an attack against a strawman like you have now at least twice, you could just ASK me what I believe and I'd be happy to defend it.

if Givo knows everything and so your actions are already recorded on Givo then it does mean that you can't change any of your plays from what is already recorded.

Oh, OK, so just b/c it's recorded means that the players on the field never had any free choice to run an end-around versus a slant. I don't see how that makes any sense.

That means no free will and an absolutely predeterministic Rhology.

To be fair, many atheists such as Dan Barker would argue against any kind of human free will on the basis of their naturalistic worldview. Even if it were proved that I logically had to follow a rigid predeterministic position, I'd have my counterparts on your side.


such as evolution, that carries massive evidence, no contradictory evidence, and faultless logical consistency and that your only reason to deny such knowledge is this logically dubious god of the gaps.

I deny that my reason to disbelieve in Darwinian evolution is b/c of a 'god of the gaps' idea. That's an assertion you'd need to argue and prove.

I believe this may be because much of your thinking starts with a conclusion – god is real

Which is similar to your starting point(s) of:
Logic is the way we reason.
Reason is a good/useful way to discover truth.
Evidence is necessary to know truth.

In your worldview, you have no way to acct for these presuppositions, so again, I'm not alone. One of the differences, however, is that there is alot of evidence for God's existence (my presupposition).


I am a strong atheist.

Does that mean that you believe that there is no god?
(As opposed to not believing in a god?)


I have educated my children to the absurdity of religion and so I am certain enough to bet their eternal suffering on it also.

Jesus had something to say about that.

all it would take would be one argument from you or any other theist that shows a single hole in that conclusion and I would reject atheism immediately.

I don't believe that for one minute.

I, many other atheists, billions of independent observations, studies and even our own record of history (predating a young earth) have offered you countless holes in your conclusion.

Which are all based on your borrowing reason from the Christian worldview.



I'm done with this particular discussion for now.

After throwing out two more strawmen in your latest offering? OK, suit yourself.

I don't have to know what caused the Big Bang to know that this Christian version of a god is logically impossible

Are you, then, content w/ either logically impossible hypotheses on the origin of matter and energy or complete agnosticism on the question?

Peace,
Rhology

Anonymous said...

Isa 55:6-9

6 Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:

7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
KJV

G-man said...

"He is far freer than any human."

I have a couple thoughts to add, if I may.

Of course, calling God 'all-powerful' is a bit of a misstatement. As Rhoblogy noted, God can't make a circle square. In fact, omniscience is probably out of the question too, as I doubt that God can comprehend why exactly He can't create a stone too big for Him to pick up.

Omniscience, I guess, means unlimited in knowledge, and omnipotence means unlimited in action. However, there is an area in which humans are more free than God, right? The real logical difficulty involves omnibenevolence. God is unable to perform an evil action, but humans are. In fact, if what Jesus said is true, God is not even allowed to think an evil thought.

This is limiting to action. If the set of all actions God can perform is only "those actions which are good," and the set of all actions humans can perform includes "those actions which are both good and bad," then which is more limited?

This has further implications for those who solve the problem of evil by saying that God gave humans the free will to perform evil. If humans were unable to choose between good and evil, would they really be 'mindless automatons?' Well, not unless God is. If, on the other hand, God can freely love humans, but can do so without the option of performing evil action, then He could have created humans the same way.

All of that to say that for a number of reasons, the Christian God's greatest weakness lies in the claimed trait of omnibenevolence.

Rhology said...

hi G-man,

calling God 'all-powerful' is a bit of a misstatement. As Rhoblogy noted, God can't make a circle square. In fact, omniscience is probably out of the question too, as I doubt that God can comprehend why exactly He can't create a stone too big for Him to pick up.

Begging the question. The definitions of "omnipotence" and "omniscience" are precisely what are in question here. But ask any educated Christian these questions and you'll get the same answer.
You may think I'm wrong but I'm not making stuff up.

Omniscience, I guess, means unlimited in knowledge, and omnipotence means unlimited in action.

G-man, you're very nice and I appreciate that, but you're jumping in here and reduxing everythg. We've been over all this before in this same combox.


God is unable to perform an evil action, but humans are.

The ability to perform evil is not freeing, but enslaving. Biblically, 'free' is not defined that way.
OTOH, even if I granted what you said, God can do alot more than humans can, so He's still freer.
Here's a short list:
1) Never sin
2) Be 100% holy
3) Create a universe
4) create a real human from nothing
5) create a real human from a rib
6) create animals from nothing
7) make objective, universal laws

etc.
That took about 30 seconds to think of and type, and that's only 7 things that God is free to do against the one thing (sin) that God is "not free" to do.

if what Jesus said is true, God is not even allowed to think an evil thought.

It's not that He's not "allowed" to, as if He were subject to anyone or any law. It's that He *doesn't* b/c that's contrary to His nature.
This is why my position has been that omnipotence = the ability to do anything possible. The statement "God, who is 100% holy, sinned," is exactly like the statement "God microwaved a burrito so hot that He couldn't eat it," that is, it's nonsensical.

the Christian God's greatest weakness lies in the claimed trait of omnibenevolence.

Part of your problem of understanding no doubt lies in the attributing of omnibenevolence to the God of the Bible. I for one do not do so, just FYI.

Peace,
Rhology

G-man said...

Wow, well aren't you just something else! Here I go creating all these strawmen and false assumptions. It's so freakin' difficult to understand Christianity as it seems to encompass a vast compendium of ideas and beliefs. But I should see it coming... I've complained before about Christianity being very similar to subjective relativism in that no two are alike in beliefs or values.

"The definitions of "omnipotence" and "omniscience" are precisely what are in question here."
_Haha, I drop the point.

"The ability to perform evil is not freeing, but enslaving."
_If you say so. I'm just used to Christians justifying the problem of evil by saying God gave humans free will - the ability to perform evil actions.

But you don't seem to believe there is a problem of evil. You don't attribute omnibenevolence to God. I must admit, my curiosity is piqued. If God is not all-good, then is God just a little bit good? Is God good at all? Why do you argue a set of right and wrong conduct laid down by God if God doesn't even abide by right and wrong conduct?

"Part of your problem of understanding no doubt lies in the attributing of omnibenevolence to the God of the Bible."
_Again, forgive my unwarranted assumption. I learn something new everyday - I guess the future of this discussion lies in your response to the last paragraph. I'm extremely curious.

Rhology said...

G-man,

Sorry, I got lost and forgot about this combox.

you don't seem to believe there is a problem of evil.

Well, I do, but the problem is all on the non-theist side.

You don't attribute omnibenevolence to God.

Correct. Don't even know what that would mean.

If God is not all-good, then is God just a little bit good?

"Omnibenevolent" and "all-good" are not identical.
God is all good; indeed, He is the One from Whom all good flows. We know good by His character and there's no other possibility for a definition of "Good".

Why do you argue a set of right and wrong conduct laid down by God if God doesn't even abide by right and wrong conduct?

Your question does not make any sense. It would make sense if you added "conduct as He has commanded humans to follow" to the last sentence.
And therein lies the answer, of course - God does whatever He pleases and works all things after the counsel of His will. His commands are for humans to follow. His law is holy, righteous, and good.

Does that help?

Peace,
Rhology

Anonymous said...

I am going to be honest with everyone here. I do not believe in any notion of a God-like being nor was there a supernatural being because if it were real, then religious apologists wouldn't have to scour the earth for any little phenomenon that science has explained yet. It should be powerfully obvious that a creator exists; so much so that I shouldn't have to doubt its existence. Anyhow, I wanted to say that I am going through a rough patch in my life right now and I thought I would look up help on online and all I could find was a bunch of Christian bullshit that offers help on the tags, but then throws religion in your face as soon as you go to their site. If there lifestyle is the answer, then why the hell would they need a self-help page? And why the need to throw their dumbass beliefs in my face? Well, my point to all of this is that I was extremely relieved to see this topic and discussion. It is like a breath of fresh air to see someone call out these blind-faith idiots harping about some God that most can't even agree on. Face it: Your book was written by a bunch of retard fishermen (dont you think would have chosen better writers anyhow?) thousands of years ago with which you idiots use to dispute science because it isn't in their writings. Complete insanity. Use that damn brain of yours before it rots from stockpiles of dogma and backwards-beliefs.

Anonymous said...

--I do not believe in any notion of a God-like being nor was there a supernatural being because if it were real, then religious apologists wouldn't have to scour the earth for any little phenomenon that science has explained yet.--

I did not have to search the earth long to find this:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe must have a cause.

The phenomenon of existence is powerful evidence supporting God.
From there another powerful problem I would point to is the origin of life such as the DNA-design problem among others.

--If there lifestyle is the answer, then why the hell would they need a self-help page? And why the need to throw their dumbass beliefs in my face?--

I would also like to say I'm sorry that you feel like you have been pressed by religion in your search for self-help, it can definitely seem like a stranger in a car offering you candy just to bait you in. I would just attribute it to the nature of Christianity. Christians are called to behave immaculately and often fail in the quest for Christ-like lives and seek self-help just as you do. However many Christians are happy people and promote their beliefs in the hope of having other people come to them as well and also become happy (while of course keeping in mind I am not promoting any sort of ignorance).

--Face it: Your book was written by a bunch of retard fishermen (dont you think would have chosen better writers anyhow?) thousands of years ago with which you idiots use to dispute science because it isn't in their writings.--

Luke was a doctor btw. Multitudes of scholarly research has been conducted to measure the accuracy of the Bible (esp. the new testament) and it has yielded data heavily in favor of its legitimacy. While there are people on both sides of this issue objective reading has led me to think that it is extremely historically accurate.

I would also be very willing to hear your conflicting issues that arise between science and religion.

ps. sorry i ranted im new at blogging and not extremely concise yet. i hope i sounded smart and polite. if my argument isn't sufficient ask rhology cuz he knows whats up

Andy said...

If god is omniscient, then in creating the world he knew there would be great suffering and injustice.
If he was morally perfect then he wouldnt create life, just to see it suffer.

If god created us in his image, then who created fat people. Or black people. Or ugly people?

If god is timeless, then whyd it take him 6 days to create the earth?

Why are the only people who claim to have spoken to god, also schizophrenic or otherwise crazy?

If there is only one god, then who gave the aztecs the idea of human sacrifice?

And if the aztecs were wrong, then what makes christianity any more believeable? Or Krishna..?

Anonymous said...

God. IT didn't approve of me, so I approve of no idea, whatsoever that
I can still 'testify' to being happy without being myself, on the other hand, whatever IT exists or not, my good news is just a symbol & a repetition of my fact that I still do well to 'testify(!)' to being happy to exist as an honest man, forever to be, my honesty that just requires me to start by being honest with myself, so I can find out & so on, Happy New Year, greetings, guitartie@yahoo.ie, there to be concluded, note: Any suggestion of mine is just & bit by bit an honest case, liars, please take an f. hike.