god is impossible

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Lifted from infidelguy.com




PERFECTION/CREATION INCOHERENCE ARGUMENT
1.) God, by definition, is a perfect being.
2.) God, by definition, deliberately created the universe.
3.) So, if God were to exist, then he would be a perfect being who deliberately created something.
4.) To be perfect, one cannot have any needs or wants.
5.) To deliberately create something, one must have at least one need or want.
6.) Thus, it is impossible for a perfect being to deliberately create anything.
7.) Therefore, God cannot exist. - Ted Drange
(Comments: P4 could be denied, however once we look at what the definition of what perfection is the argument holds: Perfection: 'The quality or state of being perfect or complete, so that nothing requisite is wanting.. entire development, consummate culture, skill, or moral excellence...' - Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)






ON GOD'S IMMUTABILITY - Unchangingness
1.) If God exists, then he is immutable.
2.) If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3.) An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention.
4.) For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at a later time, after the creation, no longer have the intention to create it.
5.) Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4).
6.) Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5) - Theodore M. Drange






Does God know his own future decisions? If God is all-knowing he actually shouldn't have any decisions to make at all. Nor can he choose anything over something else. For that would mean that he is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. In fact, he can't even think if this is the case. Since he can't DO anything, he might as well not exist. - IG






ON GOD`S LIMITATIONS
1.) God knows infallibly what will occur in the Universe before it occurs.
2.) God cannot change the future because he knows everything absolutely.
3.) God has no Free-will.
(Who's driving?)

 

[geni]

The mistake that you are making is that you think you can understand god.

 

[pgwenthold]

The mistake that you are making is that you think you can understand god.

But don't theists claim the same? When they say, "God moves in mysterious ways," isn't that a claim about understanding god?

Is it ok to think that you can understand god only if you are a believer?

 

[geni]

But don't theists claim the same? When they say, "God moves in mysterious ways," isn't that a claim about understanding god?

Is it ok to think that you can understand god only if you are a believer?

Ok so If I've got this right saying that we don't understand god is a claim about understanding god.
Hmmm....

So how about we may or may not understand god but because we don't know if we understand him we don't understand him?

 

[Andonyx]

Actually I would say that the problem with all of these arguments is that they are ultimately semantic. They all define a working definition of God which they then demonstrate to be false...any half assed biblical nut could in fact alter his definition of God.

After all....maybe God is only slightly superior.

 

[annadee]

Perhaps your assumptions of "God by definition" are wrong. You have only shown that one view of God is illogical.

 

[Faithkills]

"The mistake that you are making is that you think you can understand god." - geni

Why should we presume that we cannot? History has shown that many things that were once thought to be results of divine or infernal purpose are simple matters of material causation.

Knowlege and science have proceded apace since they were concocted. Things that were said to be incomprehensible have been comprehended at a geometric rate.

While there may be incomprehensibles, why assume this is one. Why assume ANYTHING is one? And what benefit would that assumption have?

As one must assume one way or the other.. why not asume optimistically? This has shown to be of benefit in the past. The worst that can come of it is that we come to more clearly understand our limits.. which is a good thing surely?

Moreover and I do hope this is the case.. if we shine enough light on the workings of the universe we may find evidence of a God. But we will never find it if we don't look. Deductive logic is the surest tool. As we learn, we know what isn't god. Continue this process and with luck we may eventually find what is.

FK

 

[geni]

By the difinitions of god used to make that list I think it is imposible to understand god. Where we could understand god in the futer is irelivent that list has been produced now. If the future we "find a god" then perhaps we will be able to judge items on the list but intill then I sticking with we may or may not understand god but because we don't know if we understand him we don't understand him.

 

[geni]

ON GOD`S LIMITATIONS
1.) God knows infallibly what will occur in the Universe before it occurs.
2.) God can’t change the future because he knows everything absolutely.
3.) God has no Free-will.
(Who's driving?)

I don't get this one. when I'm playing chess I can sometimes severel move ahead bu this does not destory my free will or my ability to decide which move I make.

 

[Corey]

I want no part in this argument, because it's unanswerable semantic mental masturbation.

However...Geni, the point you are missing (the analogy you made about chess) is that if god is omniscient and knows EVERYTHING that will ever happen (including everything said god will do) then it has no free will because it already knows what it will do. If it does what it knows it will do, it's not a choice, if it doesn't know what it will do, it is not omnisicient. It's a simple logical contradiction. However, if you believe in god or don't, a logic game isn't going to change your mind. It's not proof, it's just a mental exercise based upon definitions of words and predefined terms of what's being discussed. If god isn't omniscient or some other state or quality of being that isn't currently in the problem is introduced, it changes the observation and may remove the contradiction.


To answer your question in simple terms, if you knew what the other player was going to do ahead of time, and you knew what you were going to do, it's not a free choice and if you don't do what you knew you were going to do or the other player doesn't do what you knew they were going to do, you didn't really know. It's just a simple paradox.

 

[Thanz]

Perhaps the biggest assumption in all of these semantic arguments is that God would experience time in a linear fashion as we do. There is no reason to believe that an omniscient, omnipresent God would experience anything in a linear fashion.

 

[T'ai Chi]

re: 'god is impossible'.

The atheist faith...?

4.) To be perfect, one cannot have any needs or wants.

I don't agree with that.

1.) If God exists, then he is immutable.

Many religions don't agree with that.

3.) An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention.

I don't agree with that.

If God is all-knowing he actually shouldn't have any decisions to make at all. Nor can he choose anything over something else.

I don't agree with that.

2.) God can’t change the future because he knows everything absolutely.
3.) God has no Free-will.

I don't agree with those.

The problem with all of these atheist & skeptic arguments, is that they are about as silly as the arguments for God by believers. They all argue from a human perspective and human understanding of things. If a God exists, I doubt we could know about the specifics of him; how he works and what he thinks, etc.

 

[T'ai Chi]

But don't theists claim the same? When they say, "God moves in mysterious ways," isn't that a claim about understanding god?

They are probably guideposts as to what they think God is like.

 

[Johnny Pneumatic]

4.) To be perfect, one cannot have any needs or wants.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't agree with that.





you don't have to; just be wrong.






"The problem with all of these atheist & skeptic arguments, is that they are about as silly as the arguments for God by believers. They all argue from a human perspective and human understanding of things. If a God exists, I doubt we could know about the specifics of him; how he works and what he thinks, etc."

how can we argue from non-human understanding?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Lifted from infidelguy.com




PERFECTION/CREATION INCOHERENCE ARGUMENT
1.) God, by definition, is a perfect being.
2.) God, by definition, deliberately created the universe.
3.) So, if God were to exist, then he would be a perfect being who deliberately created something.
4.) To be perfect, one cannot have any needs or wants.
5.) To deliberately create something, one must have at least one need or want.
6.) Thus, it is impossible for a perfect being to deliberately create anything.
7.) Therefore, God cannot exist. - Ted Drange
(Comments: P4 could be denied, however once we look at what the definition of what perfection is the argument holds: Perfection: 'The quality or state of being perfect or complete, so that nothing requisite is wanting.. entire development, consummate culture, skill, or moral excellence...' - Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)

2, 4 and 5 are false.

 

[Yahweh]

Personally, I didnt like the immutable one... here's a few that I like better.

Argument from Evil:

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

That this argument is valid is perhaps most easily seen by a reductio argument, in which one assumes that the conclusion -- (7) -- is false, and then shows that the denial of (7), along with premises (1) through (6), leads to a contradiction. Thus if, contrary to (7), God exists, it follows from (1) that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. This, together with (2), (3), and (4) then entails that God has the power to eliminate all evil, that God knows when evil exists, and that God has the desire to eliminate all evil. But when (5) is conjoined with the reductio assumption that God exists, it then follows via modus ponens from (6) that either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil. Thus we have a contradiction, and so premises (1) through (6) do validly imply (7).

(Source: Stanford)

The Arguement From Evil is usually rebuttled with "God isnt omnibenolent" (obviously, havent you read the bible), it sounds very semantics-y to me.

The Freethought Library (specifically this document) gives you plenty of "proofs" (they are written in paragraph form, a little editting and you can put them in proof syntax) to work with.

 

[lifegazer]

2, 4 and 5 are false.

Ian, I'd be interested to know why - given that you're an idealist - you think 'creation'
(reason 2), was not deliberate.

 

[T'ai Chi]

"The problem with all of these atheist & skeptic arguments, is that they are about as silly as the arguments for God by believers. They all argue from a human perspective and human understanding of things. If a God exists, I doubt we could know about the specifics of him; how he works and what he thinks, etc."

how can we argue from non-human understanding?

I don't know, but that isn't my problem. It is a problem for the atheists who make these 'disproving' arguments that seem to me as silly as the believers' proofs.

 

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Interesting Ian quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
Lifted from infidelguy.com




PERFECTION/CREATION INCOHERENCE ARGUMENT
1.) God, by definition, is a perfect being.
2.) God, by definition, deliberately created the universe.
3.) So, if God were to exist, then he would be a perfect being who deliberately created something.
4.) To be perfect, one cannot have any needs or wants.
5.) To deliberately create something, one must have at least one need or want.
6.) Thus, it is impossible for a perfect being to deliberately create anything.
7.) Therefore, God cannot exist. - Ted Drange
(Comments: P4 could be denied, however once we look at what the definition of what perfection is the argument holds: Perfection: 'The quality or state of being perfect or complete, so that nothing requisite is wanting.. entire development, consummate culture, skill, or moral excellence...' - Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



2, 4 and 5 are false.









Wrong Ian.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Personally, I didnt like the immutable one... here's a few that I like better.

Argument from Evil:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Yahwah, how little evil in the world would there need to be before being compatible with such a definition of God? None whatsoever? If so could you explain what evil is? Is being melancholy evil for example?