Proof that the Christian god cannot exist

[SnakeLord]

My definition?

Try again.

[Godless]

And here comes wikipedia to the rescue;

Omnipotence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence)

Heck by reading the above link, not even theist can determine wether god is omnipotent or not :rolleyes:

First premise:

Does a god exist?

Second premise:

Can a questionable entity, with no identity by omnianything?

Third Premise:

Occam's razor, would suggest that such an entity with no identity, no evidence of it's existence, is more than likely non-existent. It's the only logical answer, given the "lack of evidence" of it's existence.

Godless

[SnakeLord]

Thanks godless, I suppose I should have just done that to start with :D

[draqon]

Does God exist? If you believe he exists, then he will exist.

[Medicine*Woman]

Does God exist? If you believe he exists, then he will exist.

*************
M*W: Do those people following you believe you exist?

[qwerty mob]

All gods are imaginary, mythological entities. Proof is between one's ears also. ;)

[Godless]

Does God exist? If you believe he exists, then he will exist.

By this analogy; The flying speghetty monster is god.
The PinkInvisibleUnicorn is god
There are green goblins on the other side of the moon. Though they consider themselves demons, not gods
Zeus says he's still god, Apollo says he's not as powerfull as zeus, but considers himself a god, and a hole bunch of Greek, Roman, demi-gods consider themselves to be gods throughout the ages. ;)

Godless

[qwerty mob]

Hail, the IPU! PBUH! *whicker*

[Mythbuster]

http://www.myth-and-fantasy.com/pegasus/pgallery/smoon/smoon6.jpg

[Mythbuster]

moving:

[cole grey]

My definition?

Try again.
I am saying that your definition of omnipotence includes performing a nonsense action and that nonsense is undefinable and therefore cannot be regarded as real. I can perform any nonsensical action as omnipotently as God can. Watch me hrjukl a giant trafgejsxik past the moon.

*cole grey hrjukls a giant trafgejsxik past the moon.*

We are all omnipotent in this sense. Please prove that I have NOT hrjukls'd that nonsensical object past the moon.
The definition that omnipotence includes all nonsensical actions is no good, it is meaningless.

[goliah]

RSS news feed today:

(PRWEB) February 16, 2006 -- Attracting considerable attention over the past year in discussion forums and momentum from a growing number of web sites is a new manuscript by an unknown author entitled: The Final Freedoms. But this continuing and growing interest is inevitably leading to a confrontation of David and Goliath proportions, as religious institutions rarely appreciate anyone subverting their foundations. And at stake are two thousand years of history.

What at first appears an utterly preposterous challenge to the religious status quo, on closer examination carries within its pages an idea so subtle and sublime, the combined intellectual histories of religion and science have dismissed it as impossible. An error of presumption which could now leave tradition staring into the abyss and humble the heights of scientific speculation. For if this material is confirmed, and there appears to be both the means and a concerted effort to authenticate it, the greatest unresolved questions of human existence may finally have been untangled.

Being distributed freely as a pdf download, made up of twenty nine chapters and three hundred and seventy pages is the first wholly new and complete interpretation for two thousand years of the teachings of Jesus the Christ and the Perfect Law. And this new teaching, more appropriately called a revelation to the modern world, has nothing whatsoever to do with any existing religious conception known to history. It is unique in every respect.

Using a synthesis of several thousand scriptural elements from the Old and New Testaments, the Apocrypha , The Dead Sea Scrolls,The Nag Hammadi Library, and some of the worlds greatest poetry, it describes and teaches a single moral LAW, a single moral principle and offers its own proof; one in which the reality of God responds to an act of perfect faith with a direct, individual intervention into the natural world; making a correction to human nature by a change in natural law, altering consciousness, human ethical perception, and providing new, primary insight and understanding of the human condition.

Also called the Gospel of the Resurrection, this new interpretation defines the moral foundation of all human conduct and finds expression within a new covenant of human spiritual union, the marriage between one man and one woman. It resolves the most intractable questions and issues of human sexuality and offers possibilities for peace, health and cultural development political process has yet to dream of.

This new teaching is pure ethics. It requires no institutional framework, no churches, no priest craft, no scholastic theological rational, costs nothing and requires only conviction and the necessary measure of self discipline to accomplish a new moral imperative.

As the first ever religious teaching able to demonstrate its own efficacy, the first ever religious claim to knowledge that meets both the ideal and criteria of the most rigourous, testable scientific method, this teaching represents a reality entirely new to human history.

The beginnings of an intellectual and moral revolution are unfolding on the web. And as this expression of insight called The Final Freedoms comes to bear, it will undoubtedly impact on the very future of our planet.

Download links: http://www.energon.uklinux.net
http://thefinalfreedoms.bulldoghome.com

[Mythbuster]

Reasoning:

If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.Stop right there - major problem. When talking about an eternal being and His relation to a world that is not, words like "before" do not belong. The closest thing you could say to express God's relation in terms of knowledge of states of affairs is that He always knows them (or knows them tenselessly).
Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.This does not follow - only if our actions come about through God's direct causal action does that mean they are predetermined in such a way that negates volition. In other words, any given human's salvation decision is predetermined iff 1) God does some specific act that causes the outcome of accepting or rejecting salvation or 2) salvation is not an act of choice and the saved are instead chosen by God. I reject the latter (which is Calvinism), and I see no reason to accept the former. Consequently, the rejection of Calvinism negates the "Question" section below as well, since Arminianists hold that God does not choose the elect: their fate is in their own hands.
Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.This also does not follow if God exists out of time and simply knows all the states of affairs tenselessly. He does not need to know them "in advance".

And another less related point - the definition of paradox seems somewhat incomplete. As it stands, it seems synonymous with "contradiction", which is erroneous; most accurately, a paradox is a true statement that is seemingly self-contradictory (like the statement "There is a set of all possible sets").

[qwerty mob]

The beginnings of an intellectual and moral revolution are unfolding on the web.


R0FL.

[SnakeLord]

I am saying that your definition of omnipotence includes performing a nonsense action and that nonsense is undefinable and therefore cannot be regarded as real.

Once again you make the mistake of assuming it to be my definition. It has nothing to do with me, it falls under the meaning of the word 'omnipotence'. Who are you to assign a "nonsense" label to anything? Just because to you something is seemingly nonsense, doesn't make it nonsense to an 'omnipotent' being. By the very definition of omnipotence, even that which to you seems nonsense, is fully doable by any being that has 'omnipotence'.

I can perform any nonsensical action as omnipotently as God can. Watch me hrjukl a giant trafgejsxik past the moon.

Give me your address and I will come and see if you can. I am willing, however, to bet down to my very last pound coin that you can't. The reason you can't has something to do with you not being omnipotent. If you were 'omnipotent', then you could.

We are all omnipotent in this sense.

Now, this is nonsense. You're about as omnipotent as my butthole, (unless you can prove otherwise). However, that has absolutely no consequence to any being that truly is omnipotent.

Please prove that I have NOT hrjukls'd that nonsensical object past the moon.

You made the claim that you could, so the onus is on you to prove it. Give me your address and I am willing to come and observe.

The definition that omnipotence includes all nonsensical actions is no good, it is meaningless.

Meaningless to your lowly human brain, (again this isn't an insult, just a point). Because something is "nonsensical" to you has absolutely no relevance to an omnipotent being. Show it to be otherwise and I shall retract my statement.

[Guilty_Biscuit]

Hi Cris (& everyone else on sciforums),

I stumbled across your post whilst trawling the net and after reading through all 39 pages (38 when I started - I have a job where nobody is sure what I do so I get a lot of time to read) I thought I'd throw in my own two pence.

Apologies for returning to the original topic of this thread - I know ~95% of the posts have moved way off it but no-one else has laid out the following argument - dan1123 and jay_7 nearly touched on it but nobody replied to their points. I should point out that I am totally and actively opposed to organised religion so it pains me to post in Christianity's defense.

I should point out that I am totally and actively opposed to organised religion so it pains me to post in Christianity's defense.

Your argument reasons that the Christian God's omniscience forms a paradox with human free will. What causes the paradox is not the omniscient God but the existence of facts about the future, even if there were no God there would still be a paradox if the facts exist, even if nobody had knowledge of the facts. This can be shown using your own logical structure.

Facts about the future vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.

Facts about the future: Facts about all future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.

Proposal:

Nobody can claim that there are facts about the future and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.

Reasoning:

If there are facts about the future then even before we are born there will be facts on every decision we are going to make.

Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of anything is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that there are facts about the future. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion.

Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined, then there cannot be facts about the future, since the facts would state in advance our decisions.

Conclusion:

As this argument has premises that are equatable to Cris' original premises and it has exactly the same logical strucure one of the following statements must follow:

(1) We must reject both my own and Cris' arguments as being unsound. Rejection of one of the arguments is inconsitent with accepting the other.

(2) We must accept both arguments and concede that humans do not have free will (where's the absolute determinism debate?).

(3) We must accept both arguments and concede that there are no future facts. If we accept this then the argument against an omniscient God vanishes because omniscience (knowledge of all facts) will not imply knowledge of future facts (as no future facts exist).

So in the end, whatever position you take Cris' original argument cannot be used to prove the paradox of an omniscient God and human free will. Unless you can prove that humans do not have free will - in which case there would be no need for Chris' proof in the first place.

A more eloquent diplay of these arguments can be found (along with many other arguments for theism, atheism and agnosticism) at:

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info

I'd recommend anyone interested in religious debate take a look there if they haven't already.

There - that's my first post over, I think I'll have a look around the sciforums now. (I hope someone improves Cris' arguement and proves the arguement from Future Facts wrong btw)

[Mythbuster]

Hi Cris (& everyone else on sciforums),

I stumbled across your post whilst trawling the net and after reading through all 39 pages (38 when I started - I have a job where nobody is sure what I do so I get a lot of time to read) I thought I'd throw in my own two pence.

Apologies for returning to the original topic of this thread - I know ~95% of the posts have moved way off it but no-one else has laid out the following argument - dan1123 and jay_7 nearly touched on it but nobody replied to their points. I should point out that I am totally and actively opposed to organised religion so it pains me to post in Christianity's defense.

I should point out that I am totally and actively opposed to organised religion so it pains me to post in Christianity's defense.

Your argument reasons that the Christian God's omniscience forms a paradox with human free will. What causes the paradox is not the omniscient God but the existence of facts about the future, even if there were no God there would still be a paradox if the facts exist, even if nobody had knowledge of the facts. This can be shown using your own logical structure.

Facts about the future vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.

Facts about the future: Facts about all future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.

Proposal:

Nobody can claim that there are facts about the future and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.

Reasoning:

If there are facts about the future then even before we are born there will be facts on every decision we are going to make.

Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of anything is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that there are facts about the future. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion.

Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined, then there cannot be facts about the future, since the facts would state in advance our decisions.

Conclusion:

As this argument has premises that are equatable to Cris' original premises and it has exactly the same logical strucure one of the following statements must follow:

(1) We must reject both my own and Cris' arguments as being unsound. Rejection of one of the arguments is inconsitent with accepting the other.

(2) We must accept both arguments and concede that humans do not have free will (where's the absolute determinism debate?).

(3) We must accept both arguments and concede that there are no future facts. If we accept this then the argument against an omniscient God vanishes because omniscience (knowledge of all facts) will not imply knowledge of future facts (as no future facts exist).

So in the end, whatever position you take Cris' original argument cannot be used to prove the paradox of an omniscient God and human free will. Unless you can prove that humans do not have free will - in which case there would be no need for Chris' proof in the first place.

A more eloquent diplay of these arguments can be found (along with many other arguments for theism, atheism and agnosticism) at:

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info

I'd recommend anyone interested in religious debate take a look there if they haven't already.

There - that's my first post over, I think I'll have a look around the sciforums now. (I hope someone improves Cris' arguement and proves the arguement from Future Facts wrong btw)

Maybe if you and cris use this:
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/CCCCP/againstfreewill2lu.gif

[cole grey]

Once again you make the mistake of assuming it to be my definition. It has nothing to do with me, it falls under the meaning of the word 'omnipotence'. Who are you to assign a "nonsense" label to anything? Just because to you something is seemingly nonsense, doesn't make it nonsense to an 'omnipotent' being. By the very definition of omnipotence, even that which to you seems nonsense, is fully doable by any being that has 'omnipotence'.
God can hujrkls anything anywhere, and so can I. What does that show? Nothing. A paradox has no more or less value as an actual action than hurjkls-ing. Although I believe any God worth God's salt could, through working on an alternate level, solve anything paradoxical to us - making a three dimensional triangle to make a square triangle would be an example. The problem of making a square triangle, which is impossible in two dimensions, is easy in three.

Perhaps in one dimension God cannot lift the rock God made and in another God can lift it. Please tell me whether or not God can lift the rock. Perhaps in two dimensions the rock is liftable, via cartesian (XY) movement in the positive "upward" direction, yet the rock cannot be lifted in three dimensions. God doesn't have to be able to lift the unliftable rock in three dimensions because God CAN lift the unliftable rock.
The whole "unliftable rock" problem shot to pieces. Let's move on. Hahaha.

Give me your address and I will come and see if you can. I am willing, however, to bet down to my very last pound coin that you can't. The reason you can't has something to do with you not being omnipotent. If you were 'omnipotent', then you could.
I would love that bet. Actually I performed that action fourteen times today. Who are you to say I did not, seeing as you don't even know what hjurkls-ing is? You don't do you? That's nonsense for you, you can do anything with it and you can't do anything with it.

Meaningless to your lowly human brain, (again this isn't an insult, just a point). Because something is "nonsensical" to you has absolutely no relevance to an omnipotent being. Show it to be otherwise and I shall retract my statement.
God is not required to make all nonsense sensible, that is ridiculous. But God could. Anyone can make nonsense sensible, just assign a meaning you prefer. This is a lowly feat.

[Guilty_Biscuit]

Mythbuster,

It does seem to state the argument rigorously (in my amateur opinion). The reason I set out the reply in the same format as Cris was to avoid people thinking the arguments were logically different. In the layout you have given (which is better for justifying each step) then you would simply replace proposition k with 'future facts exist' which leads to the same rejection of the original argument as a proof that the Christian god cannot exist.



"Semper in mira, solum profundum variat"

[SnakeLord]

Although I believe any God worth God's salt could, through working on an alternate level, solve anything paradoxical to us

Exactly my point, and the meaning of omnipotence. As explained before, just because you and I cannot figure out how an omnipotent being would do something paradoxical or seemingly "nonsensical", would not hinder that being if it was indeed omnipotent.

Perhaps in two dimensions the rock is liftable, via cartesian (XY) movement in the positive "upward" direction, yet the rock cannot be lifted in three dimensions. God doesn't have to be able to lift the unliftable rock in three dimensions because God CAN lift the unliftable rock.
The whole "unliftable rock" problem shot to pieces. Let's move on. Hahaha.

But then, as I'm trying to explain, any of these issues are instantly shot to pieces, because the answer is simply yes and yes. Ok, we cannot comprehend how exactly, but we're not omnipotent. If a god is omnipotent, it can do whatever it is, regardless to how paradoxical or impossible it sounds to us.

God is not required to make all nonsense sensible, that is ridiculous.

I never stated or implied that any omnipotent being was "required" to do anything. My entire argument is not that they must, but that they "can" - (by the definition of omnipotent).

[kziglu_bey]

...
yes , omnipotece does imply that it is possible for the omnipotent to do whatever seems impossible for us to do, like create matter (the world) ex nihilo, etc..., but the existence of paradoxes proves that omnipotence cannot exist, because paradoxes can be reduced to statements like
"(A) implies (non A)" and this cannot be possible without changing the structure of the argument A. If A by definition implies non A , the fact that it does so is actually a particular proprety of the argument A. Changing this changes the argument itself. A becomes B.
Ok. Now... you all percieve God to be a beeing. That might not be so.
But that is irrelevant here. The christian God cannot exist, in the christian form at least, because of the following argument:
The evolution of any system can be predicted if one knows all the data of that system, meaning all the characteristics of all the bodies in that system, and all the laws that govern the system, presuming the system to be totaly isolated, or not influenced by anything from the exterior. The Universe is such a system, without God`s intervention (miracles, etc...:))
So if one knew everything about the Universe, one could predict every event in the Universes future evolution, but that would also mean that the Universe has a specific evolution, every event beeing caused by one or more events in the past. This means that no event is spontaneous. And that if an event does not take place it was impossible for it to take place. And that if an event takes place it was impossible for it not to take place. And that man cannot do things without beeing obligated to do them. For example:
if some guy next to you in the bus starts to sing "E lucevan le stelle" by Puccini, you might be amused, irritated, or you might just like the music and listen captivated. But if you do any, you will do so because of the way you were brought up, because of the mood you were in, because of etc...,
And you were brought up in a particular way baceuse your parents were brought up in a particular way and you were in a good mood that day because you recieved a raise for example, and you recieved a raise because..., etc etc etc......
And if you agree at this point, you will be shocked to realise that these facts also imply that there can be no free will for man. Because every action is controlled by it`s predeccesors. So , (and you were wrong Chris), God cannot be as the christians think, not because he would be meen, but because he himself, as priciple of all things, would be the cause of all sins and of all the evil in the world.
So the christian God is himself a paradox.
This is something to talk about.. ;)
Dasvidania

[cole grey]

you people don`t really understand the things you are talking about.
This is a common response from people who don't understand what we are talking about.

What you said about omnipotence being impossible is snakelord's point in our discussion, you dumbass. So, since you are trying to make the same point, you also must not know what you are talking about. Chew on that.

I was taking the position that since omnipotence as described in this way is basically nonsense, unless (as snakelord and I have postulated), God can work around our ideas that seem to be paradoxical, as I have shown one simple possibility for doing so above, the idea of omnipotence described this way has no bearing on shit, because it is meaningless, and can be applied at will.

You are a pompous ass, and you are as much a paradox as your idea of the christian god, because a person like you cannot type and think at the same time obviously, yet somehow you manage to do those things (and not do them) all at once.

Sorry to be so blunt with you, but when you walk into a room re-stating things that have already been said a hundred times, acting as if you came in off of a cloud, and thinking you made the ideas up, you need to just stop.

[SnakeLord]

Sorry kziglu, but cole's right.

I mean seriously.. before you start talking about someone's parents, and making accusations concerning what they do or don't understand, it would help if you knew what the discussion was about. K?

[Godless]

And withall that said, welcome to sci-anyaways! :). We are a roudy bunch, we get a bit tic-off when someone comes and claims we don't know what the hell we talking about, when basically your a new comer, coming in page 39 of a thread, have you read all the pages? I doubt that you have, or else you might have avoided making an ass of yourself, next time do take the time and read throught the whole thread if you have too, before making a post, one that we wouldn't scruitinise so harshly. And don't let this scare you outofhere, you could have lots of meaningless discussions to pass the time. Cya!

Godless

[ghost7584]

Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

This is a revision and refinement of a post I made over a year ago but there are so many new members now that I felt it worth a revisit.

Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.

Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.

Cris

The bible does not claim that any human has freedom to choose without external coercion. Men do have freedom to choose, but there is coercion.
The bible plainly shows that external coercion does exist. The planet earth is populated by a large number of devils that have telepathic contact to the minds of men, and they are tempting men to do evil and disobey God. God is allowing them to have this power to test men to see if they will do good or evil, to see who is worthy to go to heaven and who is not worthy.
God is also trying to compel men to do what is right.
The bible speaks of definite coercion, on the minds of men.
Yet, men do have the right to choose which way they will go and what coercion they will follow, either good (obeying God) or bad (disobeying God).
Your definition of free will is in error, if you think there is no coercion.

[kziglu_bey]

ok,ok.
:p
... "sciforums.com intelligent community"...
you did not see what was, you saw what you wanted to see.
and you don`t get the point:
i didn`t insult you. you think i did.
you insulted me. one insults, when one has no arguments left.
you agreed to what i said, but you didn`t like the way i said it.
you think you`re smart. i think i`m smart.
so , as an old romanian proverb says, i`ll say "sorry".
now , could you please exclude the first paragraph of my first post here and comment in these conditions. you`ll notice that you will agree to my ideas.
"don`t criticise the man, but his ideeas." (Kogalniceanu)
oh, and i did make up these ideas .
i still didn`t read the whole tread yet... but, just in case this was not mentioned earlyer, you should study the dispute between Erasmus and Luther. it aplies here. to the talk on fatalism i meen.
and , come on guys, we are all "intelligent" people here , no ?
:m: :m:

[kziglu_bey]

well, ghost7584, you`re wrong.
you said "...God is allowing them to have this power to test men to see if they will do good or evil..."
this cannot be so because this would mean that god doesn`t know what those men are going to do. so god isn`t allknowing...
and the bibel tels us he is.
now , "God is also trying to compel men to do what is right". if god is omnipotent he doesn`t have to try to do something... he can just do it...
furthermore, free will does not exist. becouse every action one takes is dictated by the past. you cannot do anything spontaneously and you don`t even have a will.
everything you do , you do because something makes you do it. if you eat, you eat because you are hungry. etc.
you might say: yeh, but i can jump up from this chair i`m sitting in and start dansing Kazachiok and that would be spontaneous.
no it would not. you would only do so because you wanted to do something spontaneous ( that you thought is spontaneous) and you would choose to danse because this is the most accessible irational thing to do right now, for example.
and every cause has a cause of its own, et coetera.
plus the whole christian idea is stupid... the thing with god ,it`s like i would
create a very simple computer program, that i would perfectly understand ofcourse, and then i would run the program to see what it does., as if the program was completly unknown to me. If god knows everything he doesn`t have to find out or test anything...

[(Q)]

The planet earth is populated by a large number of devils that have telepathic contact to the minds of men, and they are tempting men to do evil and disobey God. God is allowing them to have this power to test men to see if they will do good or evil, to see who is worthy to go to heaven and who is not worthy.

Correction, your god created those mind manipulating demons. He also created those who were manipulated by the demons. And he knew all along what would happen, an afterlife of eternal damnation. He is omniscient and omnipotent, is he not?

So, is he just having a bucket o' sadistic fun, or what?

[Diogenes' Dog]

I don't know if I have free will or not. All I can say is it FEELS like I have, and I therefore cannot escape taking responsibility for the consequences of my decisions.

I therefore don't think Cris's argument disproves the existence of God at all, and is oversimplistic. Using the analogie of a book: If my life will be contained in a biography, someone in the future (or God) will know what I as the central character decide now. Even if my biography is mysteriously transmitted to someone in the past, it will not effect my apparent freedom to make decisions, provided we do not communicate. So, because I do not know, I still appear to have the freedom to make a choice now.

That's before you get into the "Many Worlds Interpretation" etc. :bugeye:

All this proves/disproves at best is a very anthropomorphic "Old Man in the Sky" type of God anyway. Such a God who claims to be loving and sends half his creation to Hell is clearly confused. You can disprove that sort of God fairly simply without having to invoke "free will".

[Diogenes' Dog]

In summary:
1) "Free will" is the ability to choose in the present, between any of several possibilities.

2) The existence of an omniscient entity who knows the past and the future, including what I will have decided, does not preclude my ability to choose any possibility now, provided they do not influence my decision.

3) An omnipotent entity can choose not to have an influence on my freedom to choose. Therefore the existence of an omnipotent entity would not in itself preclude my ability to choose any possibility now, provided they do not influence my decision.

Therefore the existence of an entity (i.e. God) who is omniscient and/or omnipotent does not preclude my ability to choose (free will). Equally, my apparent freedom to choose does not preclude the existence of an omniscient or omnipotent entity (God).

N.B. Free will only exists provided the decisions I take are not wholly determined by physical causality. However, this is not really relevant to the above argument.

[I don't know]

Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

This is a revision and refinement of a post I made over a year ago but there are so many new members now that I felt it worth a revisit.

Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.

Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.

Proposal:

Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.

Reasoning:

If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.

Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.

Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.

Question:

If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.

Conclusions:

If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.

If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.

If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.

Cris- If God is omnipotent he doesn't have to follow the rules of logic, i.e. you can't argue against the existence of God in any friggin way :D

And that is dodging the very interesting discussion on the nature of the free will that you might be having here :l

[TheVisitor]

If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster......Cris

You don't understand, Chris...
God came and died for humanity.....he didn't send his son, or someone else.
Jesus Christ is God.
And doing that, He alone has the right to the book of redemption.
He as any king is sovereign.
He knew by foreknowledge what you would do with the opportunities life has given you, and let you have your own way.
Some to honor and some to dishonor...so that the glory of the honored , His glory...the only glory there is, might be displayed in that day.
He with longsuffering and patience waited while they had their day first.
He gave them that chose not to believe in Him a time in the sun, with preeminence and a kingdom that persecutes believers and rewards unbelief, where the wicked and unrighteous flourish and laugh his little ones to scorn.
Soon it will be time for His kingdom to reign on earth, and having patiently waited for the pleasant fruits of the earth....those who stood for Him in the kingdoms of this world, will rule with Him as kings and priests.
God will rule the nations with a rod of iron.
The situation will be reversed, there is a reason it has been this way.

[KennyJC]

I demand TheVisitor be locked up (if he isn't already) in a padded room before the voices in his head tell him to kill someone.

[(Q)]

God will rule the nations with a rod of iron.

My rod of titanium can beat your gods rod of iron anyday.

I'll ram his rod of iron so far up his patootie that his pus-filled head will explode.

Bring it on, godboy!

[Diogenes' Dog]

Hey guys, you may be getting side-tracked! Isn’t this supposed to be the “intelligent” forum? :m:

I want to know - is there a flaw in this argument?
Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.

Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.

Proposal:
Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.

Statement 1: Freedom to choose between alternatives without coercion can only be eliminated by:
a) Elimination of the alternatives I have to choose from (i.e. by a change in the situation)
b) Elimination of my freedom to choose (i.e. by a change in my capability to decide).
c) Coercion (i.e. use of force or threat to compel a choice).
Statement 2: God’s perfect knowledge of past and future events does not in itself eliminate my freedom to choose in the present (i.e. it does not affect my capability).
Statement 3: God’s perfect knowledge of past and future does not eliminate the alternatives I have to choose from (i.e. it does not affect the situation).
Statement 4: God’s perfect knowledge of past and future does not constitute coercion (i.e. I am not compelled to a choice by force or threat).

Conclusion: Therefore God’s perfect knowledge of past and future events is not inconsistent or contradictory to my freedom to choose between alternatives without coercion.

Summary: The claim that God can be omniscient and also that humans can have free will does NOT form a paradox or a falsehood.

Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.
Reasoning:
If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.

Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.

Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.

Conclusions:
If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.

If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.

If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.


The error is in the confusion between prescient and pre-determined. Prescience of a decision does not mean it is pre-determined or coerced. To make it pre-determined or coerced involves an intervention to ensure a specific outcome. This may be e.g. to set up the conditions that make it inevitable.

Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

Question:
If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.
Cris

Well, that is a good question... and the obvious oxymoron that "a loving God creates individuals in order to damn them eternally" is a very good proof that God (if he exists) cannot be like this. QED :D

[TheVisitor]

Well......... :D obviously :D

How ridiculous..why not waste time theorizing about.....
"If God can do anything , can He create a rock to big for Him to lift....?
Or a "square circle ?", a "stupid smart man ?"....theres one that applies here.

Obviously. :mad:

[Teetotaler]

I find it funny when people try to disprove God. If God doesn't exist, then you are a worthless organism. If God doesn't exist, then the only choice you have is to pass away into non-existence.

If non-existence is your only outcome, then why in the hell are you wasting your time disproving what does not exist? Since you are finite and destined for non-existence, then your opinion does not matter; nothing matters.

So, all of you non-believers can kiss my round, lady-like ass.

[Tattooed Soul]

Cris,

I find your proof compelling.
It has a very salient corner post i.e. omniscient vs free will.

I must say that I agree with the argument but I will add these comments.

I think that the "Christian Idea" of God is seriously flawed and flawed more deeply than you reveal here. Quite simply the flaws are caused by the fact that the Christian idea of God is a construct of man. The Christian Idea of God, being a creation of man, can only be described by humans, in as much as their languages and thought can describe it. For this reason I think any Christian description of God will be inherently flawed, perhapse fatally so as you so aptly demonstrate.

I am not however ready to admit that there is no God, in some form. I am not ready to accept that there is no "Supreme Life Force". Whether or not it is / was the creative force for our reality or even concerned with our existance remains to be discussed. But I wonder still.

Yours is, All in all, a good argument thanks for posting it.

[Cris]

I Don't know,

If God is omnipotent he doesn't have to follow the rules of logic, Not true. If he possesses omniscience then he has no choice but to know everything. You could argue that he could remove his ability to be omniscient, but then he wouldn't be omnipotent since there would be something he couldn't do, i.e. he wouldn't be able to know everything.

Either way he has no choice but to be constrained by logic.

i.e. you can't argue against the existence of God in any friggin way Clearly I have.

[Cris]

Teetotaler,

I find it funny when people try to disprove God. I find it funny that no one has yet to show a god exists yet billions believe it regardless.

If God doesn't exist, then you are a worthless organism.Why? If he did exist wouldn’t your eternal life be equally worthless, whether in heaven or hell?

If God doesn't exist, then the only choice you have is to pass away into non-existence.Unless you find a way to avoid that.

If non-existence is your only outcome, then why in the hell are you wasting your time disproving what does not exist? I don’t accept that non-existence is inevitable.

Since you are finite and destined for non-existence, then your opinion does not matter; nothing matters.Expressed opinions may well survive forever whether you exist forever or not.

[Cris]

Diogenes Dog,

The error is in the confusion between prescient and pre-determined. Prescience of a decision does not mean it is pre-determined or coerced. To make it pre-determined or coerced involves an intervention to ensure a specific outcome. This may be e.g. to set up the conditions that make it inevitable. Not true. To prove your point you will need to show how foreknowledge is possible without the event having been predetermined. The two states are inextricably linked.

[Cris]

Diogenes Dog,

Statement 2: God’s perfect knowledge of past and future events does not in itself eliminate my freedom to choose in the present (i.e. it does not affect my capability). But yes it does. You have zero capability to make any choice other than what is already known. E.g. if you were to make a different choice then that would be reflected in God’s prior perfect knowledge and you are back to the original paradox.

Statement 3: God’s perfect knowledge of past and future does not eliminate the alternatives I have to choose from (i.e. it does not affect the situation).The number of alternatives is not relevant since only one will occur and that will have been predetermined.

Statement 4: God’s perfect knowledge of past and future does not constitute coercion (i.e. I am not compelled to a choice by force or threat).It is not necessary for you to realize that you are being coerced for it to occur.

[I don't know]

I Don't know,

Not true. If he possesses omniscience then he has no choice but to know everything. You could argue that he could remove his ability to be omniscient, but then he wouldn't be omnipotent since there would be something he couldn't do, i.e. he wouldn't be able to know everything.

Either way he has no choice but to be constrained by logic.

Clearly I have.- No no no, you're not getting it :D Omnipotence means that God can do everything, including breaking the rules of logic.

He can create a rock too big for Him to lift, and then lift it anyway!

[Diogenes' Dog]

Diogenes Dog,
Not true. To prove your point you will need to show how foreknowledge is possible without the event having been predetermined. The two states are inextricably linked. ...but not the same!

I think the problem is in trying to mess about with time, which leads to all sorts of apparent paradoxes. Ask yourself - by knowing (e.g. remembering) the outcome of a past choice, am I determining what it was? If not why would transferring that information (by strange means) to someone in the remote past cause that choice to become pre-determined?

Your assumption is that knowing the future would "fix" it like the past into a single inescapable track. However, this may not be the structure of time. Hence the "Many Worlds Interpretation" and other such hypotheses.

So, back to my perspective as the choice maker, it is irrelevant to my ability to choose whether someone else has (unknown to me) predicted the outcome of my decision - I still have as much ability to make a free choice as if they had not, or did not exist. Thus my choice is not pre-determined, nor am I coerced into making one choice.

If however they set up the conditions so I can only choose one alternative - then my choice is pre-determined.

[Sarkus]

Your assumption is that knowing the future would "fix" it like the past into a single inescapable track. However, this may not be the structure of time. Hence the "Many Worlds Interpretation" and other such hypotheses.In the idea of the infinite number of worlds, where all possible outcomes occur on one world or another, the decision / choice on all of them individually is fixed.
It is only by moving from one world to another that one can experience a change in decision and thus appear to be unfixed - but in reality this would not be the case - as the first decision and the apparent change are actually performed by distinct entities - i.e. not the same person.

So, back to my perspective as the choice maker, it is irrelevant to my ability to choose whether someone else has (unknown to me) predicted the outcome of my decision - I still have as much ability to make a free choice as if they had not, or did not exist. Thus my choice is not pre-determined, nor am I coerced into making one choice. But this is then only the appearance of free-will - which for most people is sufficient for them to conclude that it is actually freewill.

Does ignorance of coercion mean that you aren't coerced?
Does ignorance of the lack of freewill mean that you have it?
It depends, I guess, on the point of view:
The person who is ignorant of the coercion is, as far as they are concerned, free of coercion. And if they are unaware of someone being able to determine their choices then they are free to choose.

The person doing the coercion knows that the subject is being coerced - and would know that they lack free-will, even if the subject doesn't.

So are we talking subjective or objective reality?

[Diogenes' Dog]

In the idea of the infinite number of worlds, where all possible outcomes occur on one world or another, the decision / choice on all of them individually is fixed.
It is only by moving from one world to another that one can experience a change in decision and thus appear to be unfixed - but in reality this would not be the case - as the first decision and the apparent change are actually performed by distinct entities - i.e. not the same person.

But this is then only the appearance of free-will - which for most people is sufficient for them to conclude that it is actually freewill.

Yes, but the person to whom the future has been communicated may be forced to accompany the version of me that makes the decision that he predicts. I may choose to take another "branch" into another parallel world.

Does ignorance of coercion mean that you aren't coerced?
Does ignorance of the lack of freewill mean that you have it?
It depends, I guess, on the point of view:
The person who is ignorant of the coercion is, as far as they are concerned, free of coercion. And if they are unaware of someone being able to determine their choices then they are free to choose.

The person doing the coercion knows that the subject is being coerced - and would know that they lack free-will, even if the subject doesn't.

So are we talking subjective or objective reality?


There's some interesting paradoxes that occur if you assume that someone knowing the future restricts my freedom to choose.

1) Suppose this person communicates to me what my future decision is. I would undoubtedly change my mind and choose something else. Does that make his information NOT from the future, or can I NOT change my mind?

2) Suppose this person is told of a future decision of mine that I will take in 2 minutes time. However, this person is in a spacecraft 3 light-minutes from Earth. Will his knowing still restrict my freedom to choose?

[GeoffP]

- No no no, you're not getting it :D Omnipotence means that God can do everything, including breaking the rules of logic.

He can create a rock too big for Him to lift, and then lift it anyway!

...I hate to say it but this does make a certain sense. He can think of everything, and do it. Kind of fits the whole "infinite" bill.

Geoff

[Diogenes' Dog]

...I hate to say it but this does make a certain sense. He can think of everything, and do it. Kind of fits the whole "infinite" bill.
Geoff
I think it shows the futility of trying to understand God using logical statements concerning infinite values e.g. omniscience, omnipotence etc.

[Sarkus]

There's some interesting paradoxes that occur if you assume that someone knowing the future restricts my freedom to choose.No there isn't.

1) Suppose this person communicates to me what my future decision is. I would undoubtedly change my mind and choose something else. Does that make his information NOT from the future, or can I NOT change my mind?If you assume someone does know the future, then they will also be restricted by what they know. They know that what they are telling you is all part of the pre-destined plan - and that your response to what they tell you is what they saw. You can "second-guess" yourself, but the choice you make is what they saw. And the "future" that they saw was based on everything that occurred up to the point you make your decision - even them telling you what your future is.

2) Suppose this person is told of a future decision of mine that I will take in 2 minutes time. However, this person is in a spacecraft 3 light-minutes from Earth. Will his knowing still restrict my freedom to choose?Yes - but from your perspective you will have the feeling of choice - the illusion of choice - which some would argue is indistinguishable from choice and thus equates to choice.

[Diogenes' Dog]

If you assume someone does know the future, then they will also be restricted by what they know. They know that what they are telling you is all part of the pre-destined plan

I think this could be begging the question Sarkus. What we are debating is whether the "plan" becomes pre-destined or predetermined.

...and that your response to what they tell you is what they saw. You can "second-guess" yourself, but the choice you make is what they saw. And the "future" that they saw was based on everything that occurred up to the point you make your decision - even them telling you what your future is.

If at 11.30am you "know" that I will choose A at noon today, and give me this information truthfully, I can then at noon choose B or C instead, (unless I am magically restrained) and change what you "knew" was the future (unless you are magically restrained from telling me). It is irrelevant that you might also know you would tell me, but it does create a paradox. If you and I ARE restrained, you need to find a mechanism by which we would lose our freedom. The simplest way out is to rethink your hypothesis that the future is single and fixed.

Yes - but from your perspective you will have the feeling of choice - the illusion of choice - which some would argue is indistinguishable from choice and thus equates to choice.

If the man in a spacecraft 3-light minutes away, by suddenly knowing my future in 2 minutes, does affect me - then his effect on me is transmitted faster than light can travel. This contravenes the constancy of the speed light (and therefore the laws of causality). :eek:

I'm willing to entertain the hypothesis that we may NOT have free will, and that our seeming freedom of choice is in fact ruled by unbreakable chains of causation in our clockwork like brains.

However, that actually doesn't help you one bit to resolve the paradoxes I mentioned. :p

[Sarkus]

If at 11.30am you "know" that I will choose A at noon today, and give me this information truthfully, I can then at noon choose B or C instead, (unless I am magically restrained) and change what you "knew" was the future (unless you are magically restrained from telling me).

It is irrelevant that you might also know you would tell me, but it does create a paradox. If you and I ARE restrained, you need to find a mechanism by which we would lose our freedom. The simplest way out is to rethink your hypothesis that the future is single and fixed. Surely the simplest way is to say that an omniscient entity doesn't exist in our Universe? The above example is only a paradox with that assumption. Remove the assumption and you remove the paradox - as, in your example, I could not "know" that you would choose A. I could at best have an estimate of the probability that you would choose A - but I could never have absolute knoweldge that you would.

If the man in a spacecraft 3-light minutes away, by suddenly knowing my future in 2 minutes, does affect me - then his effect on me is transmitted faster than light can travel. This contravenes the constancy of the speed light (and therefore the laws of causality). :eek:I don't recall saying that the act of knowing the future (by the man in the space-craft) directly affects the actions of the other.
If I did - I apologise.
What I do say is that the knowing of the future by the man in the space-craft will have no bearing on the outcome - and hence the other man will do exactly what the man in the space-craft knew.
So - if the spaceman can not interact to make you change your mind (even if he could) then you WILL certainly make the choice he knew you would - and thus you had no real choice - only an illusion of choice.

I'm willing to entertain the hypothesis that we may NOT have free will, and that our seeming freedom of choice is in fact ruled by unbreakable chains of causation in our clockwork like brains. I'm in agreement with this. On one level (cause and effect) I don't think we do - but what we're left with is the illusion of choice - and that is good enough for me :)

[Mythbuster]

Reasoning:

If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.Stop right there - major problem. When talking about an eternal being and His relation to a world that is not, words like "before" do not belong. The closest thing you could say to express God's relation in terms of knowledge of states of affairs is that He always knows them (or knows them tenselessly).
Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.This does not follow - only if our actions come about through God's direct causal action does that mean they are predetermined in such a way that negates volition. In other words, any given human's salvation decision is predetermined iff 1) God does some specific act that causes the outcome of accepting or rejecting salvation or 2) salvation is not an act of choice and the saved are instead chosen by God. I reject the latter (which is Calvinism), and I see no reason to accept the former. Consequently, the rejection of Calvinism negates the "Question" section below as well, since Arminianists hold that God does not choose the elect: their fate is in their own hands.
Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.This also does not follow if God exists out of time and simply knows all the states of affairs tenselessly. He does not need to know them "in advance".

And another less related point - the definition of paradox seems somewhat incomplete. As it stands, it seems synonymous with "contradiction", which is erroneous; most accurately, a paradox is a true statement that is seemingly self-contradictory (like the statement "There is a set of all possible sets").

[Mythbuster]

Cris,

Here is the typical christian response, as I hear it.

"God is omniscent in that he knows every possible consequence of every possible decision you COULD make. In other words, he knows every POSSIBLE FUTURE that would result from every possible choice I might make. Think of the way god sees the world as a completely large "Choose your own adventure" book, wherein all the chapters are written in advance (and known to the Author) but it is still left up to you to choose which paths you will take. for every choice you make, god knows of all the possible results of that choice, and the next choice you make, god knows of all the possible results of making that choice, etc."

My response is that this absolutely fails to resolve the question. If god does not know which choice you will make (but only knows what all the 'possible futures' are for each choice you COULD make, then god is simply not omniscient, as he does not know all tha can be known!

Also, this is utter bull for another reason. There are many millions of people in the world and what my future looks like depends on an innumerable web of people making innumerable decisions (how much steak will cost tomorrow depends on the grocer's chosen markup, the importer's ease in gettiing it to land, the chosen price for gas for the boat, etc.)

Were he to know IN ADVANCE all the possible futures for every decision i make, he would have to know an innumerable number of choices from everyone else (as my possible futures also depend on their choices which affect me).

[Diogenes' Dog]

Surely the simplest way is to say that an omniscient entity doesn't exist in our Universe? The above example is only a paradox with that assumption. Remove the assumption and you remove the paradox - as, in your example, I could not "know" that you would choose A. I could at best have an estimate of the probability that you would choose A - but I could never have absolute knoweldge that you would.

I think the non-existence of God as an omniscient entity is what this thought experiment was designed to "prove"? One cannot use it as an assumption therefore Sarkus!

What I hope I have shown is:
1) That knowing the future does not eliminate the freedom to choose.
2) The original paradox (posed by Cris) is flawed because it was based on the questionable assumption that the future is single and fixed.
3) That prescience therefore does not mean pre-determination.
4) that an omniscient entity (God) is therefore not incompatible with free will.
QED

I don't recall saying that the act of knowing the future (by the man in the space-craft) directly affects the actions of the other.
If I did - I apologise. What I do say is that the knowing of the future by the man in the space-craft will have no bearing on the outcome - and hence the other man will do exactly what the man in the space-craft knew.
So - if the spaceman can not interact to make you change your mind (even if he could) then you WILL certainly make the choice he knew you would - and thus you had no real choice - only an illusion of choice.
I think you are confused in your thinking here Sarkus!

1) If the man in the spacecraft can constrain my freedom to choose (free will) by knowing "the future", there must be some (unknown) mechanism by which that happens.

2) It is not possible for anything to travel faster than light through a vacuum.

Conclusion 1: Therefore is it NOT possible for a man in a spacecraft, by knowing the future to effect me in any way (including constraining my free will) more rapidly than light can travel between us.

Conclusion 2: Therefore his knowing the future is not incomaptible with my free will in this instance.

[Diogenes' Dog]

Cris,

Here is the typical christian response, as I hear it.

"God is omniscent in that he knows every possible consequence of every possible decision you COULD make. In other words, he knows every POSSIBLE FUTURE that would result from every possible choice I might make. Think of the way god sees the world as a completely large "Choose your own adventure" book, wherein all the chapters are written in advance (and known to the Author) but it is still left up to you to choose which paths you will take. for every choice you make, god knows of all the possible results of that choice, and the next choice you make, god knows of all the possible results of making that choice, etc."

My response is that this absolutely fails to resolve the question. If god does not know which choice you will make (but only knows what all the 'possible futures' are for each choice you COULD make, then god is simply not omniscient, as he does not know all tha can be known!

Also, this is utter bull for another reason. There are many millions of people in the world and what my future looks like depends on an innumerable web of people making innumerable decisions (how much steak will cost tomorrow depends on the grocer's chosen markup, the importer's ease in gettiing it to land, the chosen price for gas for the boat, etc.)

Were he to know IN ADVANCE all the possible futures for every decision i make, he would have to know an innumerable number of choices from everyone else (as my possible futures also depend on their choices which affect me).

I think the point is Mythbuster that I retain the freedom to choose, and will experience a different choice as a result of my choice. My freedom is therefore not constrained by God knowing the choice I make. Perhaps I make (and experience) all choices, but am only aware of one at this moment!

[Sarkus]

I think the non-existence of God as an omniscient entity is what this thought experiment was designed to "prove"? One cannot use it as an assumption therefore Sarkus!It is not an assumption, but a logical conclusion.

What I hope I have shown is:
1) That knowing the future does not eliminate the freedom to choose.
If you are referring to your example of someone "knowing" at 11:30 and getting someone at 12:00 to change their mind / the future - then NO - you have not shown it.

If I claim to know the future - and know it "omnisciently" - then I surely know the outcome of every event - of every apparent "choice" - including my own actions.

If, at 11:30am I TRULY knew the future - then that future ALREADY takes into account EVERY ACTION I MAKE GOING FORWARD.
Otherwise you are claiming that the "knowing" isn't omniscience and that the person who is omniscient isn't bound by it.

So the person I tell will make the same choice that I knew they were going to make back at 11:30 - by the same chain of cause and effect that I knew was going to happen back at 11:30.

2) The original paradox (posed by Cris) is flawed because it was based on the questionable assumption that the future is single and fixed.How is the future not single or fixed? Please elaborate on this.

My view is that there may be multiple universes' where every possibility occurs - but on each of these, taken in isolation, the future is fixed and single.

3) That prescience therefore does not mean pre-determination.Again, please elaborate. At what point does prescience not mean pre-determination.

4) that an omniscient entity (God) is therefore not incompatible with free will. You will need to expand on all 4 of these points individually. I apologise if I have missed where in prior posts you have thought you have achieved each of these, so please could you lay out your thought process again?

1) If the man in the spacecraft can constrain my freedom to choose (free will) by knowing "the future", there must be some (unknown) mechanism by which that happens.

2) It is not possible for anything to travel faster than light through a vacuum.

Conclusion 1: Therefore is it NOT possible for a man in a spacecraft, by knowing the future to effect me in any way (including constraining my free will) more rapidly than light can travel between us.

Conclusion 2: Therefore his knowing the future is not incomaptible with my free will in this instance.You are the one confused, I fear.

In point (1) you are assuming that the very act of knowing the future constrains your actions. This is flawed.
You are going from a cause (Spaceman knowing the future) to effect (future actions). This is wrong.
It goes from cause (call it CAUSE 1 for sake of a better term) to 2 effects (your future actions and the spaceman knowing your future actions).

There is no direct cause / effect relationship between spaceman and your future actions.

I think the non-existence of God as an omniscient entity is what this thought experiment was designed to "prove"? You can not prove non-existence.

[Sarkus]

I think the point is Mythbuster that I retain the freedom to choose, and will experience a different choice as a result of my choice. My freedom is therefore not constrained by God knowing the choice I make. Perhaps I make (and experience) all choices, but am only aware of one at this moment!Again, it comes down to the experience / illusion of choice and the objective reality of the situation.

If you hold with cause and effect, then at it's logical extreme there is no free-will.

If you hold with an omniscient God, then there is no free-will.

In both instances there is a mighty good illusion of free-will. And this suffices us in everyday life when we consider "choice".

[Diogenes' Dog]

Sarkus, you might have to go back and look at some of the previous posts. I think we are stuck in a loop here.

It is not an assumption, but a logical conclusion.

It's NOT an assumption OR a logical conclusion. The only assumption made (originally by cris) is that the future can be known. This leads to the above paradoxes if you also assume the future is single and fixed.

If you are referring to your example of someone "knowing" at 11:30 and getting someone at 12:00 to change their mind / the future - then NO - you have not shown it.

If I claim to know the future - and know it "omnisciently" - then I surely know the outcome of every event - of every apparent "choice" - including my own actions.

If, at 11:30am I TRULY knew the future - then that future ALREADY takes into account EVERY ACTION I MAKE GOING FORWARD.
Otherwise you are claiming that the "knowing" isn't omniscience and that the person who is omniscient isn't bound by it.

So the person I tell will make the same choice that I knew they were going to make back at 11:30 - by the same chain of cause and effect that I knew was going to happen back at 11:30.

THAT IS THE PARADOX! How can someone know THE future, if (having told me what it is) I can then change it?

How is the future not single or fixed? Please elaborate on this.
Please see the above! THE = one only. The only ways out of the paradox is that there cannot be a single, fixed future that can be known.

In point (1) you are assuming that the very act of knowing the future constrains your actions. This is flawed.
You are going from a cause (Spaceman knowing the future) to effect (future actions). This is wrong.
It goes from cause (call it CAUSE 1 for sake of a better term) to 2 effects (your future actions and the spaceman knowing your future actions).

There is no direct cause / effect relationship between spaceman and your future actions.

OK, so what/who and when is this cause1? If it is situated in the future for both (i.e. after I make the choice), then cause1 cannot be said to have "determined" my choice, just as you do not determine a choice by remembering it. Similarly if it is an effect of the act making a choice (i.e. making the choice=cause1).

So, it resolves the "spaceman" paradox (2), but in both cases I retain the freedom to choose = free will. Therefore "free will" is not incompatible with an entity knowing the future (or being omniscient) in these instances.

If you are postulating an entity/mechanism that both constrains my freedom to choose, and sends it back through time, then I'd have to ask for your evidence for such an entity/mechanism. Could this be our Omniscient Deity perhaps?

Q. Why need this entity/mechanism constrain my freedom to choose (free will)?
A. Only so that you can cling onto the prejudice that the future is single & fixed and the illogical conclusion that free will must therefore be an illusion!

God moves in mysterious ways. :mad:

[Sarkus]

Your confusion seems to stem from your removal of the OMNISCIENT ENTITY.

If an entity KNOWS your future and doesn't tell you - you will think you are making a choice and choose A over B.

If an entity KNOWS your future and does tell you - and you change your mind - then you now choose B over A when he apparently KNEW you were going to choose A.
The only conclusion here is that the entity is NOT OMNISCIENT.

Having an unfixed future CAN NOT EXIST with an OMNISCIENT entity.
Having multiple futures is irrelevant - as the OMNISCIENT entity will either know the outcome of your choices or not (in which case he is not Omniscient)!

An OMNISCIENT entity is also bound by his own Omniscience - he can not do anything that he does not know he will do.
Therefore he knows when he will coerce and he knows when he will not - and his knowledge of outcomes will already have this taken into account.

But we are not talking about someone who can merely tell the future like in a fair-ground - or someone who has a hunch - we are talking about OMNISCIENCE.


If you create a paradox by having an Omniscient entity AND free-will then the only conclusion is that one or the other do not exist.

If you think, as you do, that multiple futures and / or unfixed futures resolve the paradox - CLEARLY explain your reasoning and how it doesn't also breach one of the initial claims of the existence of Omniscience and Free-will.

[Mythbuster]

G = The Judeo-Christian God exists
B = God is benevolent
P = God is omnipotent
N = There is no evil

P1. If G, then B and P
P2. If B and P, then N
P3. Not-N
C1. Therefore, not-B or not-P
C2. Therefore, not-G

Christian does not exist. :D

[Diogenes' Dog]

Your confusion seems to stem from your removal of the OMNISCIENT ENTITY.

If an entity KNOWS your future and doesn't tell you - you will think you are making a choice and choose A over B.

If an entity KNOWS your future and does tell you - and you change your mind - then you now choose B over A when he apparently KNEW you were going to choose A.
The only conclusion here is that the entity is NOT OMNISCIENT.

Having an unfixed future CAN NOT EXIST with an OMNISCIENT entity.
Having multiple futures is irrelevant - as the OMNISCIENT entity will either know the outcome of your choices or not (in which case he is not Omniscient)!

An OMNISCIENT entity is also bound by his own Omniscience - he can not do anything that he does not know he will do.
Therefore he knows when he will coerce and he knows when he will not - and his knowledge of outcomes will already have this taken into account.

But we are not talking about someone who can merely tell the future like in a fair-ground - or someone who has a hunch - we are talking about OMNISCIENCE.

No, what you have shown is that having a fixed future is incompatible with an omniscient entity. My original point was that Cris's paradox was based on that very assumption - and the future may not be fixed or single! As an example, I suggested the MWI.

The whole point of the "many worlds interpretation" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many_worlds) (MWI) is that you make ALL the choices, not just one. The future branches at the point of decision, and 3 nearly identical Sarkuses (assuming it was A,B and C to choose from) exist in 3 parallel worlds. An omniscient entity therefore correctly knows that you will choose ALL the options. If he tells someone you will choose A, it is because that person will meet you again in the future where you chose A. At the decision point however, you have total freedom to choose B or C and go off on another branch and another parallel world, and maybe never meet this A character. The omniscient entity is with you down all the branches. It is meaningless to ask this entity therefore what you will decide, because he will correctly say you will choose A,B and C. Suppose the you I'm addressing chose B yesterday. This "you" has lost sight of the other "you"s, and can only see yourself choosing B. Somewhere, in a parallel world it is possible that another "me" is addressing a "you" that chose A. However, as parallel worlds can never communicate, MWI is only an "interpretation", and we will never know.

If you create a paradox by having an Omniscient entity AND free-will then the only conclusion is that one or the other do not exist.

If you think, as you do, that multiple futures and / or unfixed futures resolve the paradox - CLEARLY explain your reasoning and how it doesn't also breach one of the initial claims of the existence of Omniscience and Free-will.
We are going round in a loop! Sarkus, you've worn me out. The original refutation I posted of Cris's proposition is on p40, with some subsequent posts and replies. HERE (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=3182&page=40&pp=20).

P.S. ALL proofs for the existence or non-existence of God are only playing with words. This one is no exception. There is a flaw in all of them - you just have to find it.

[Diogenes' Dog]

G = The Judeo-Christian God exists
B = God is benevolent
P = God is omnipotent
N = There is no evil

P1. If G, then B and P
P2. If B and P, then N
P3. Not-N
C1. Therefore, not-B or not-P
C2. Therefore, not-G

Christian does not exist. :D

This is an old one Mythbuster!

The flaw is in P2 which is FALSE. An omnipotent God may have benevolent reasons (R) for not intervening to erradicate the existence of "evil".

So it should read:
P1. If G, then B and P
P2. If B and P but not-R then N
P3. If B and P and R then not-N
P4. If not-G then not-N
P5. Not-N
C1. Therefore, not-G or G and B and P and R

OK ;) ?

[cato]

This does not follow - only if our actions come about through God's direct causal action does that mean they are predetermined in such a way that negates volition.
if god created all that exists, I would call that a causal action. if god created us, and knows our "future," or states, then god must have predetermined our states, after all god made the states.

This also does not follow if God exists out of time and simply knows all the states of affairs tenselessly. He does not need to know them "in advance".
you are correct to say that if we assume god is outside of time, then we can't define future or past in terms of god. however, the underlying theme still exists. if god knows the states, then the states can't be any other way, thus we can't "move through time" to any other state. ergo, our states (our future) is unchangeable.

[Mythbuster]

OK ;) ?

Why are you soo good ? :cool:

[cole grey]

question -
Is there anybody here who thinks that the future is going to be anything other than what it is?
I hope not.
Does anyone think that the future being guaranteed to be what it is, just as surely as the past is what it is, causes the future to be what it is?
I hope not.
Our future is guaranteed to be what it is whether or not there is any knowledge of what it will be because whatever happens will be the future.

I am going to pick up my cell phone.
I pick up the cell phone.
The cell phone, you may as well say, was pre-determined to do that, the same way everything on earth that happens was, and not many things actually are.

[Sarkus]

No, what you have shown is that having a fixed future is incompatible with an omniscient entity. My original point was that Cris's paradox was based on that very assumption - and the future may not be fixed or single! As an example, I suggested the MWI.

The whole point of the "many worlds interpretation" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many_worlds) (MWI) is that you make ALL the choices, not just one. This idea falls down right here!
If, under MWI, you make ALL choices - then there surely IS NO CHOICE. YOU WILL TAKE ALL CHOICES!
The fact that you "lose sight of" the other worlds where you have taken the other choice only leaves you with the illusion of choice.
If I give you an option of A, B, or C - and the MWI states that you will choose ALL options - this means it is as predetermined as if it were a single fixed future.

P.S. ALL proofs for the existence or non-existence of God are only playing with words. This one is no exception. There is a flaw in all of them - you just have to find it.While I agree that it is all playing with words, I don't hold that there is necessarily a flaw in all of them.
It all depends upon the definition of "God" being used.
If you set up a definition of "God" (which is after all merely a word being used for something that has no evidence of existence nor non-existence) then it is entirely possible to say whether or not it is logical, illogical, true or false.

[cole grey]

The fact that you "lose sight of" the other worlds where you have taken the other choice only leaves you with the illusion of choice.
If I give you an option of A, B, or C - and the MWI states that you will choose ALL options - this means it is as predetermined as if it were a single fixed future.

Using the word "pre-determined" is meaningless unless there is some other option by which events occur. If no choices are ever made in this type of reality, the word "pre-determination" as commonly defined becomes meaningless. This is a problem with my last post as well as your statement above.
A non-choice is not pre-determined at all, only an event that can have choice can have the choice removed from it.

Also, I agree that the definiton of the word "God" in any particular proof or idea will determine whether or not the idea can be logically followed. If you define God as an illogical thing and then say that that shows God can't exist - which is what this thread is all about from the start - you have merely shown that your idea of God is illogical.

[Sarkus]

Using the word "pre-determined" is meaningless unless there is some other option by which events occur. If no choices are ever made in this type of reality, the word "pre-determination" as commonly defined becomes meaningless. This is a problem with my last post as well as your statement above.
A non-choice is not pre-determined at all, only an event that can have choice can have the choice removed from it.Okay - semantics, possibly.
I mean Predetermined as in "absence of any choice". I do not mean "removal of choice".

[Mythbuster]

Been thinking about this and came up with the question.

Assumptions:
- Omnipresence is necessarily everywhere presence required.
- Omnipotence is capacity to do everything.

My question is, Why is it necessary for "Omnipotent & All powerful being" to be present everywhere?

Sure Omnipotent being can do anything, means, he can even be at point X location and still affect point Y location.

Thus by being omnipresent, God cannot do one thing, he cannot be present at particular X location and affect Y location without being there. A limitation to omnipotence?



Conclusion: God cannot affect any location, without being present there.

So this is an unneccessary attribute given to him by those who wanted an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-everything Super-God! They slipped up.

Question: Can god be at X location, and affect Y location from X?
Answer: He can't coz he is everywhere. NECESSARILY. He must have to be present at Y.



IN SHORT:

WHY IS OMNIPRESENCE ATTRIBUTED TO GOD WHEN HE IS OMNIPOTENT... WONT THAT BE A LIMITATION INSTEAD?

[cole grey]

Okay - semantics, possibly.
I mean Predetermined as in "absence of any choice". I do not mean "removal of choice".
I think you really hit on something when you brought up the illusion of choice.
We have to decide whether human consciousness must include the perception of choice. And we have to create a shared understanding of what the word "pre-determined" means and how it may be affecting us, with or without a God involved, before we can really get anywhere on solving the puzzle posed by the thread starter.

[cole grey]

mythbuster -
all you are saying, when you remove the details, is that it is impossible for God to be present everywhere and not be present everywhere. It is the same problem posed by saying God can't be a square and a circle at the same time, or make a rock he can't lift, saying, God can't be anything that we consider paradoxical.

This is very trusting of the infallible mind of the human - did I say "infallible" and "human" in the same sentence? Now that is an oxymoron.

[Mythbuster]

Did God create free will? How then does it itself have free will?

1. God created everything.
2. God created free-will.
3. Before creating free-will, obviously god didn't possess free-will then.
4. If God didn't create free-will, he isn't the ultimate creator.
5. If God created free will then God had no choice in doing so.


So It must have been predestined to create it.


If theist argue God had free-will since eternity, then wait a min, Free-will existed since eternity? God never created it? Or did he just add Evil to it?

This one is interesting, any comments?

[Godless]

God does not exist.

[ggazoo]

The idea that God is a made-up concept to soothe our fears makes no sense, since we reject the existence of other made-up figures that might, likewise, make us feel better. A comparison between the existence of God (a non-contingent being) and the existence of Santa Claus or invisible pink unicorns (contingent beings) fails on many levels, not the least of which is that their fundamental natures (non-physical vs. physical) are vastly different. The idea that there is no evidence to support the existence of God is clearly false. The evidence was clear enough for me to convert from agnosticism to deism in the absence of efforts by theists. Anthony Flew, a lifelong proponent of atheism recently became a deist on the basis of evidence for design. In subsequent interviews, Flew stated that he "had to go where the evidence leads." Philosophical arguments like invisible pink unicorns are great ways to avoid examining evidence, but such an approach is ultimately dishonest.

[Sarkus]

A comparison between the existence of God (a non-contingent being) and the existence of Santa Claus or invisible pink unicorns (contingent beings) fails on many levels, not the least of which is that their fundamental natures (non-physical vs. physical) are vastly different.And these differences are.... ?

The idea that there is no evidence to support the existence of God is clearly false.And this evidence is.... ?

The evidence was clear enough for me to convert from agnosticism to deism in the absence of efforts by theists.And this evidence is.... ?

Anthony Flew, a lifelong proponent of atheism recently became a deist on the basis of evidence for design.And this evidence is.... ?

In subsequent interviews, Flew stated that he "had to go where the evidence leads."One man's trip down the irrational is not evidence.
Unless there really is evidence. In which case...
The evidence is.... ?

Philosophical arguments like invisible pink unicorns are great ways to avoid examining evidence, but such an approach is ultimately dishonest.Claiming them (arguments such as invisible pink unicorns) as such is merely a (not-great) way of avoiding the issue they raise. And is thus ultimately dishonest.

[ggazoo]

Evidence, evidence, evidence... and therin lies the difference between atheists and Christans. Christians go on faith, whereas atheists need proof, and that's fine either way.

Atheists seem to go out of their way to disprove God. Instead of trying to prove God, Christians spend their time and effort just believing, which is difficult for non-believers to accept, and that's cool too, as everyone is different.

One of the arguments that I've found interesting is that "for thousands of years no one has found evidence or proof of God". Mostly true. But biblicaly, thousands of years in Gods eyes go by in a second.

But hey, that's just another theory.

[Sarkus]

Evidence, evidence, evidence... and therin lies the difference between atheists and Christans. Christians go on faith, whereas atheists need proof, and that's fine either way.Therein indeed. But there is still the fascinating question of what drives someone to accept something as true without any proof whatsoever.
And therein lies the interest.

Atheists seem to go out of their way to disprove God.No they don't. They merely do not have a belief in God.
Pick anything for which there is no evidence and then try and disprove their existence? You can't. So most don't try.
Those that do try and disprove God only succeed, possibly, in disproving the existence of a very specifically defined God (including in those definitions what that God might be bound by - such as logic.) But since the definition of "God" appears to be different (slightly or significantly) for each person, and that there are an infinite number of possible "God"s that might exist (all of which have the one same quality of lack of evidence) it is difficult to disprove them all. ;)

Instead of trying to prove God, Christians spend their time and effort just believing, which is difficult for non-believers to accept, and that's cool too, as everyone is different.Indeed. To each their own.
Atheists generally don't spend any time or effort in believing - and most couldn't give two hoots (let alone three or even a whopping four hoots) about religion. But some of us are strangely fascinated by what drives people to "believe" something as true in the absence of evidence.

One of the arguments that I've found interesting is that "for thousands of years no one has found evidence or proof of God". Mostly true. But biblicaly, thousands of years in Gods eyes go by in a second. And your evidence for this is...?
And how is this an argument for or against God?

But hey, that's just another theory.No it isn't as it can not be verified, falsified, measured, used for prediction..... etc.

[oxypunk101]

One key aspect of free will I have realized in my short life (only 18) is that people tend to think free will means absolute control over your life. I think free will is the ability to make you own choice given your current situation. For example you say someone stole something of yours(out of control) you can decide to do nothing or possibly call the cops. All I am trying to say is that free will only means you have the ability to make a choice given the situation which is often out of your control. This also leads to my particular view of heaven and hell. While alive, we have the ability to effect others lives. We can lead others into positive situations where they can exert their free will given the situation or negative ones. If our actions tend to place others in a good place hopefully after we die overall we will help contribute to placing future people in positive situations. An obvious example is Dr. Martin Luther King helps black be in better situations long after he died. My heaven in hell don't literally exist, rather they are the effects of our actions on the world after we die. So rather than believing in God, one I believe in the power of cause and effect. I choose to be what I consider good since out of my free will I desire for my effects to be what I consider positive. Being good to be accepted into Heaven should lead to condemnation, your not really being good assuming Christians are right a hell exist. The goodness that comes from people who are doing it to go to heaven is vain and not genuine, another argument against the principals of Christianity.

[(Q)]

oxypunk

You make very good points, especially for one of 18 years. Kudos!

Part of the problem is that the world is still run with religious thought in place. Our society has been and continues to be completely based on those thoughts and decision making processes, if you could label it such.

So, most believe their gods control their lives, hence they never have to take responsibilty for their actions. So, they can commit whatever crime they want and plead ignorance, since it is ignorance they rely upon to live their lives. Their "sins" will always be washed away with their confessions to their gods, and they can continue to go on committing those crimes.

An atheist must always take responsibility for his actions since he knows there are no gods controlling him. He will decide for himself whether or not criminal actions warrant the way of life he wishes to lead. He'll use reason to judge if doing harm to others is rational, since he would also have harm done to him if he thought it so.

The conclusion and decision is quite obvious.

[Woody]

Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

This is a revision and refinement of a post I made over a year ago but there are so many new members now that I felt it worth a revisit.

Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.

Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.

Proposal:

Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.

Reasoning:

If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.

Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.

Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.

Question:

If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.

Conclusions:

If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.

If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.

If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.

Cris

This form of Christian doctrine is called predestination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_%28Calvinism%29) accepted by calvinists, so your position does not prove a christian God can not exist -- unless you say say presbyterians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian) are non-christians.

from the source:

Predestination is a religious idea, under which the relationship between the beginning of things and the destiny of things is discussed. Its religious nature distinguishes it from other ideas concerning determinism and free will, and related concepts. In particular, predestination concerns God's decision to create and to govern Creation, and the extent to which God's decisions determine ahead of time what the destiny of groups and individuals will be.

Christians do not agree about this doctrine. The sects of christianity divide this way:

calvinism -- presbyterian (not sure about lutherans) - no free will ever -- God decides who will be saved and sticks with his plan.

salvation by grace: baptists, methodists -- free will until you get saved then God controls your will -- once saved always saved

arminian -- church of christ, christian church, pentacostal denominations -- always have free will -- once saved you can lose it.

[Mr Fide]

Woe to the believers of God! - You are only giving the highest insult to God. - Shame on you! - Belief, itself, cancels out the whole premise of God being real because noone would be forced to be only a believer if everyone already knew that God was real. - Knowing someone before you can trust them must apply to believing in God as well. - In fact, I have to know someone really well before I can believe in them and fully trust them. - Belief in God without ever getting to know God first is a futile effort that will never amount to anything worthwhile! - A real God would be the most visible character the world had ever seen and every single person would know everything that they ever desired to know from being taught directly by God with no ignorant person getting in God's way because that person could only teach a very limited personal opinion about God. - Noone in the world can ever know what God is thinking. - There is no telepathy power strong enough for anyone to do that. - Yet, religious people are telling the worst lies of all by telling lies in God's name while "they" ask believers to give them money. - Apparently, "Thou shalt not steal" doesn't mean that much to them anymore. - Think about it. - Televangelists are collecting and spending the money given to them by believers while telling lies and wanting people to believe that God will bless believers for giving money to televangelists. - God doesn't even care about money. - God already has everything. - Besides, money is only a symbol of trust that only has value between people. - Yet money cannot buy love or happiness, nor can anyone take money with them to the other side when they die. - The main reason that televangelists need to get all of their money from believers is to keep from earning their own. - Believers would make them very happy by giving them easy money so they would never have to work for a living. - Besides, ministries are really using most of the donations to pay for all of their expensive bills within the ministry like rent, broadcast airtime, satellite usage, etc... and to pay for all of their employees' wages as well as their own high salaries. - My name is Mr. Fide but you can call me Bona.

[I don't know]

God does not exist.- God does not have to exist :D

[Mythbuster]

- God does not have to exist :D

He exist only inside your mind, yes. Imaginary like the FSM. :D

[I don't know]

I'm not religious, I just enjoy the screwy logical possibilities of the concept of omnipotence.

[UncleChrist]

Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture, and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of six billion human beings.
The same statistics also suggest that this girl’s parents believe -- at this very moment -- that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?
No.
The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job. It carries with it an aura of petulance and insensitivity. It is, moreover, a job that the atheist does not want.

It is worth noting that no one ever need identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, “atheism” is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma. The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (eighty-seven percent of the population) who claim to “never doubt the existence of God” should be obliged to present evidence for his existence -- and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day. Only the atheist appreciates just how uncanny our situation is: most of us believe in a God that is every bit as specious as the gods of Mount Olympus;

no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that such a God exists; and much of what passes for public policy in our country conforms to religious taboos and superstitions appropriate to a medieval theocracy. Our circumstance is abject, indefensible, and terrifying. It would be hilarious if the stakes were not so high.

Consider: the city of New Orleans was recently destroyed by hurricane Katrina. At least a thousand people died, tens of thousands lost all their earthly possessions, and over a million have been displaced. It is safe to say that almost every person living in New Orleans at the moment Katrina struck believed in an omnipotent, omniscient, and compassionate God. But what was God doing while a hurricane laid waste to their city? Surely He heard the prayers of those elderly men and women who fled the rising waters for the safety of their attics, only to be slowly drowned there. These were people of faith. These were good men and women who had prayed throughout their lives. Only the atheist has the courage to admit the obvious: these poor people spent their lives in the company of an imaginary friend.

Of course, there had been ample warning that a storm “of biblical proportions” would strike New Orleans, and the human response to the ensuing disaster was tragically inept. But it was inept only by the light of science. Advance warning of Katrina’s path was wrested from mute Nature by meteorological calculations and satellite imagery. God told no one of his plans. Had the residents of New Orleans been content to rely on the beneficence of the Lord, they wouldn’t have known that a killer hurricane was bearing down upon them until they felt the first gusts of wind on their faces. And yet, a poll conducted by The Washington Post found that eighty percent of Katrina’s survivors claim that the event has only strengthened their faith in God.
As hurricane Katrina was devouring New Orleans, nearly a thousand Shiite pilgrims were trampled to death on a bridge in Iraq. There can be no doubt that these pilgrims believed mightily in the God of the Koran. Indeed, their lives were organized around the indisputable fact of his existence: their women walked veiled before him; their men regularly murdered one another over rival interpretations of his word. It would be remarkable if a single survivor of this tragedy lost his faith. More likely, the survivors imagine that they were spared through God’s grace.

Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved. Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God, while this same God drowned infants in their cribs. Because he refuses to cloak the reality of the world’s suffering in a cloying fantasy of eternal life, the atheist feels in his bones just how precious life is -- and, indeed, how unfortunate it is that millions of human beings suffer the most harrowing abridgements of their happiness for no good reason at all.

Of course, people of faith regularly assure one another that God is not responsible for human suffering. But how else can we understand the claim that God is both omniscient and omnipotent? There is no other way, and it is time for sane human beings to own up to this. This is the age-old problem of theodicy, of course, and we should consider it solved. If God exists, either He can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities, or He does not care to. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil.

Pious readers will now execute the following pirouette: God cannot be judged by merely human standards of morality. But, of course, human standards of morality are precisely what the faithful use to establish God’s goodness in the first place. And any God who could concern himself with something as trivial as gay marriage, or the name by which he is addressed in prayer, is not as inscrutable as all that. If He exists, the God of Abraham is not merely unworthy of the immensity of creation; he is unworthy even of man.

There is another possibility, of course, and it is both the most reasonable and least odious: the biblical God is a fiction. As Richard Dawkins has observed, we are all atheists with respect to Zeus and Thor. Only the atheist has realized that the biblical god is no different. Consequently, only the atheist is compassionate enough to take the profundity of the world’s suffering at face value.
It is terrible that we all die and lose everything we love; it is doubly terrible that so many human beings suffer needlessly while alive. That so much of this suffering can be directly attributed to religion -- to religious hatreds, religious wars, religious delusions, and religious diversions of scarce resources -- is what makes atheism a moral and intellectual necessity. It is a necessity, however, that places the atheist at the margins of society. The atheist, by merely being in touch with reality, appears shamefully out of touch with the fantasy life of his neighbors.

Sam Harris
This is an excerpt from An Atheist Manifesto, to be published at www.truthdig.com in December.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/there-is-no-god-and-you-_b_8459.html (Sam Harris Blog)

[Godless]

Ah! Good article Uncle, next time just give us the link and help save some bandwidth.
;)

Godless

[stretched]

Indeed, that is succinctly stated. For a moment I thought you wrote it Uncle.

[stretched]

Anyone want to get depressed? Read some of the rightous comments recieved re: Sam Harris Manifesto on Uncle`s link: http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/

The human mind is indeed like the Christian god. "Unfathomnable".

[usp8riot]

Some of you should grow up and stop being babies. Listen, evil happens for a reason. If we had no evil, what challenge would we have here on earth? Evil is nothing but challenge. When you go to work and faced with struggles, negative prospects that are abound, they are to overcome. When you play a game in God mode, what is there to do, where is the challenge without someone opposing you? You get bored, it is dull. There has to be evil in the world, there has to be someone to test you. You are here for a reason and you may not think it but more than likely before your present state we were all nothing more than likely, just a plan about to be drawn and now we have a chance at something. Would you blame your father/mother for bringing you in this world? Yeah, it sucks sometimes. Without them, you'd have no life, no shot at challenges to face, therefore, no reward in the afterlife, or no way to grow spiritually, but do you blame them once you have seen and experienced them and what they went through. You will also on your day of judgement see the pain in the eyes of God and will understand and forgive God for your blasphemy and other sins. When you die and redeemed with a new version of life which you couldn't conceive of here on earth. What a sad life to think we are here for nothing, are nothing, and nothing is to become of us if we do better or do worse to ourselves and/or others in the afterlife.
But evil has to happen. Without one, there can be no other. It is the way of the universe. Without a magnetic north, there can be no magnetic south. Without a 0, there can be no 1 or any # after it since 0 may not be a number but negates a positive number to show that it is a number. There has to be opposites in this universe. There is no force without a counter-force. No moving object without an object that pushed it to move. Without the afterlife, there is no life. Without good, there is no bad. Any energy derived to create life, there has to be an energy of equal or greater force in the universe, to create it. That is the way of the universe. Without an object/force to negate another object/force, you will have a nonexistant object/force. As in 0 + 0 = 0, you have nothing. But 1 + 0 = 1, you have an existant force/object with can be deduced. I think the math system is the gears of the universe. Every object can be declared by a num