Logical Disproof of God?

[Paranormal Inquirer]

Is there any valid logical disproof of the tri omni God? I know that there isn't a logical proof of one, but I want to hear arguments that try to disprove a God logically.

Btw, I'm an atheist.

[Robin]

Is there any valid logical disproof of the tri omni God? I know that there isn't a logical proof of one, but I want to hear arguments that try to disprove a God logically.

Btw, I'm an atheist.
Robin's First Law - Any argument which seeks to prove or disprove the existence of God is valuable only for the practice it affords in finding fallacies.

[bobhope2112]

There's a well-worn argument that God's omniscience and our free will are a logical contradiction. I have yet to see a satisfactory resolution to that apparent conflict. (Most quibble by characterizing omniscience is something other than perfect knowledge.)

If you accept that if God, as defined, cannot logically contradict itself, then the above, if proven, should disprove at least that definition of God.

[Gate2501]

In a world where those of "faith" in their various gods, will pass off any literalism in their holy books as metaphor if challenged scientifically, this question becomes ridiculous.

It is also ridiculous due to the logical burden of proof being on the one who posits the extraordinary.

The question eventually degenerates into " HAHA TRY TO DISPROVE THAT AN ENTITY THAT CANNOT BE OBSERVED DOES NOT EXIST! ".

[dglas]

You can prove or disprove anything logically with the proper axiom set.

[Aitch]

Doesn't matter what proof you have come up with, the answer will be, in my experience, one of the following:

1. God is above human logic.
2. Oh, that's an old argument (followed by a change of subject)
3. You have been touched by the devil.

[MarkCorrigan]

Yes.

God is omnibenevolent.

God is omniscient.

Therefore god knew that mankind would fail, and that he would have to punish a great number of us, yet he went ahead and created us anyway.

This is not a sign of omni benevolence, as the creation of a being with the express knowledge you will have to destroy it and punish it against it's wishes is not, generally speaking, a sign of love.

Either god does not love us, or god does not know everything.


Also, god is omnipotent, and therefore can, if he so chooses, let us all into heaven, which is good. He (apparently) chooses not to, meaning that he willingly condemns the things he supposedly loves to eternal punishment. Again, not exactly most people's definitions of loving there.

[arthwollipot]

Epicurus:
Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both willing and able? Then whence comes evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?

That's the closest thing I can think of.

[slingblade]

You want we should prove you a negative? And you wants us to do it logically?


Floggings at the Reason Post are at 6. Do be prompt. My current avatar will adminster.

[The Atheist]

Is there any valid logical disproof of the tri omni God?

No.

I know that there isn't a logical proof of one, but I want to hear arguments that try to disprove a God logically.

Why?

Btw, I'm an atheist.

Me too.

[MarkCorrigan]

Ahh, my reading of others posts suggests you mean disprove god as a being?

No, then. You can show that certain things that are said about him are logically inconsistent, and therefore logically cannot be true (see my post, for example) but you can't logically disprove anything, but you can show elements of it to be logically inconsistent, which is about as close as you can get.

[Undesired Walrus]

1: God is the greatest thing imaginable.
2: The greatest thing imaginable must include greatness of virtue.
3: Virtue is overcoming adversity.
4: If God faces adversity, he is not the greatest of all.
5: Therefore, God does not exist.

[Mister Agenda]

That's a good one, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, there are lots of qualities humans can have that are not possible for God, including virtues defined as overcoming fear or hardship, like courage.

Omni-God as commonly defined cannot: grow, make mistakes, know fear, learn, feel guilt, be sorry, be hurt, suffer, feel helpless, be uncertain, be embarassed, feel shame, be surprised...being all-powerful necessarily isolates you from the human experience.

[Piscivore]

3: Virtue is overcoming adversity.
What?

[Undesired Walrus]

What?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virtue

[A Christian Sceptic]

1: God is the greatest thing imaginable.
2: The greatest thing imaginable must include greatness of virtue.
3: Virtue is overcoming adversity.
4: If God faces adversity, he is not the greatest of all.
5: Therefore, God does not exist.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/virtue
Virtue = Moral excellence and righteousness; goodness.

[JoeEllison]

Define "God".

[linusrichard]

Only by logical contradictions. I don't know about the omniscience/free will supposed contradiction, but there's always the omnipotence "can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" contradiction. An omnipotent God should be able to make a rock so heavy he can't lift it. He should also be able to lift that rock. But he can't do both. Or another way to look at it is the Unstoppable Force and the Immovable Object. If one exists, the other can't exist in the same universe. But an omnipotent God should be able to create both in the same universe. So, omnipotence, defined in this way, is itself a contradiction, and any being defined as being omnipotent can't exist.

But it's easy to get around by saying something like "God is omnipotent, but only to the extent that is logically possible."

The short answer is no.

[Undesired Walrus]

A Christian skeptic, it also involves courage and strength. A being can only be accurately described as virtuous if it can suffer pain. One that can suffer pain is not one than which no greater being can be thought.

Thus, God does not exist.

[Tricky]

3: Virtue is overcoming adversity. Suppose you want to unleash a biological weapon on a community, but the community keeps foiling you by coming up with cures as fast as you can invent plagues. But finally, you overcome this adversity and find a plague that kills them all.

Are you then virtuous?

[Undesired Walrus]

If you choose to define being foiled by the community as 'overcom[ing]... adversity', then yes, in one definition of the word.

[A Christian Sceptic]

A being can only be accurately described as virtuous if it can suffer pain.


In what definition of virtue is the above? Is that simply your opinion of what virtue is?


One that can suffer pain is not one than which no greater being can be thought.


How do you know that? And how do you know a God couldn't suffer pain?

[Don At Work]

Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED"
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
-- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book one of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series), p 50

[Paranormal Inquirer]

No.
Okay.



Why?
It would be a lot easier to show theists "the light" when they see logical inconsistencies in their most loved being.

Me too.
Clearly.

[westprog]

That's a good one, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, there are lots of qualities humans can have that are not possible for God, including virtues defined as overcoming fear or hardship, like courage.

Omni-God as commonly defined cannot: grow, make mistakes, know fear, learn, feel guilt, be sorry, be hurt, suffer, feel helpless, be uncertain, be embarassed, feel shame, be surprised...being all-powerful necessarily isolates you from the human experience.

I wonder if there have been any religions which allowed God to live as a human, and experience overcoming fear and hardship. Anyone heard of such beliefs?

[Paranormal Inquirer]

1: God is the greatest thing imaginable.
2: The greatest thing imaginable must include greatness of virtue.
3: Virtue is overcoming adversity.
4: If God faces adversity, he is not the greatest of all.5: Therefore, God does not exist.

Facing adversity would be a negative for an omnipotent being. That would be like using the old pseudo logical question "Can God make a rock that He cannot lift?" That's akin to asking if He could make a four sided triangle. These are simply not things, if you see what I'm getting at.

[Paranormal Inquirer]

Define "God".

I already stated the tri omni God.

[Paranormal Inquirer]

Only by logical contradictions.
Yeah, sorry that's what I meant.
I don't know about the omniscience/free will supposed contradiction, but there's always the omnipotence "can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" contradiction. An omnipotent God should be able to make a rock so heavy he can't lift it. He should also be able to lift that rock. But he can't do both. Or another way to look at it is the Unstoppable Force and the Immovable Object. If one exists, the other can't exist in the same universe. But an omnipotent God should be able to create both in the same universe. So, omnipotence, defined in this way, is itself a contradiction, and any being defined as being omnipotent can't exist.
I believe that is not a valid question. It'd be like asking "Can God make a four sided triangle?" These are not things.
But it's easy to get around by saying something like "God is omnipotent, but only to the extent that is logically possible."

I don't think that's getting around it. That's pretty much the only way.

[Paranormal Inquirer]

That's a good one, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, there are lots of qualities humans can have that are not possible for God, including virtues defined as overcoming fear or hardship, like courage.

Omni-God as commonly defined cannot: grow, make mistakes, know fear, learn, feel guilt, be sorry, be hurt, suffer, feel helpless, be uncertain, be embarassed, feel shame, be surprised...being all-powerful necessarily isolates you from the human experience.

Again, those are all negative attributes. If God is all knowing, wouldn't it be redundant if He were to learn? Therefore, He cannot learn. That doesn't necessarily make it illogical.

[X]

I already stated the tri omni God.


Unfortunately, that doesn't actually define God.
It merely says father, son and spirit are one. The Christian belief, in other words.
The terms father, son and spirit are not defined.

So, not a definition, just a re-labeling.

[Paranormal Inquirer]

;3660399']Unfortunately, that doesn't actually define God.
It merely says father, son and spirit are one. The Christian belief, in other words.
The terms father, son and spirit are not defined.

So, not a definition, just a re-labeling.

What? Omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent...

[westprog]

Robin's First Law - Any argument which seeks to prove or disprove the existence of God is valuable only for the practice it affords in finding fallacies.


I don't think that RFL can be proved or disproved, but there is some supporting evidence in the subsequent posts.

[X]

What? Omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent...


The three of which together represent a nice host of contradictions.

[Paranormal Inquirer]

;3660443']The three of which together represent a nice host of contradictions.

Proof?

[X]

If omnipotent, God can do anything.
If omniscient, God know everything.

God cannot be both.
If God was truly omniscient, then God would know everything God would ever do. In that case, God cannot do anything that is not pre-determined, and thus is not omnipotent.
If God was truly omnipotent, then God could do whatever god wanted, but then God could not know everything God would ever do, and thus is not omniscient.

You can also see the quote by Epicurus from Arthwollipot, and the post by MarkCorrigan for more examples.

Or you could go with the old standard of God making rocks so big God cannot lift them.

[Undesired Walrus]

In what definition of virtue is the above? Is that simply your opinion of what virtue is?

No, it is the definition of what it is to be a being of great virtue.

How do you know that? And how do you know a God couldn't suffer pain?

Because if something can cause him pain, he is not all powerful.

[Piscivore]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virtue

Yeah... "overcoming adversity" is not in there.

[Undesired Walrus]

Why do you need it to be spelled out for you? The dictionary definition describes it all in as many words.

As I said before, a being can only be accurately described as virtuous if it can suffer pain.

[Nick227]

There's a well-worn argument that God's omniscience and our free will are a logical contradiction. I have yet to see a satisfactory resolution to that apparent conflict. (Most quibble by characterizing omniscience is something other than perfect knowledge.)

If you accept that if God, as defined, cannot logically contradict itself, then the above, if proven, should disprove at least that definition of God.

How can you prove you have free will? How do you know, say, that it is not "God" pulling the strings and making it seem as though you are moving?

Do you suppose that there is some little being somewhere inside of your head called bobhope2112 who is deciding stuff?

Nick

[Egg]

Only by logical contradictions. I don't know about the omniscience/free will supposed contradiction, but there's always the omnipotence "can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" contradiction. An omnipotent God should be able to make a rock so heavy he can't lift it. He should also be able to lift that rock. But he can't do both. Or another way to look at it is the Unstoppable Force and the Immovable Object. If one exists, the other can't exist in the same universe. But an omnipotent God should be able to create both in the same universe. So, omnipotence, defined in this way, is itself a contradiction, and any being defined as being omnipotent can't exist.

But it's easy to get around by saying something like "God is omnipotent, but only to the extent that is logically possible."

The short answer is no.

If you're suggesting that the "logically possible" thing is getting around the problem, and that to be truly be omnipotent would mean being able to do the logically impossible, then there's no possibility of contradictions. God could make square circles, lift a rock he can't lift, be God and not God at the same time...there's no reason any of it would make sense to us.

[The Atheist]

If one exists, the other can't exist in the same universe.

Uh, no.

First off, you're falling into the trap of ascribing that the laws of physics decide how god behaves, but since he created them, he has the ability to change them at will.

It would be a lot easier to show theists "the light" when they see logical inconsistencies in their most loved being.

Yes it would, but their god's as cunning as an outhouse rat and no argument made from logic works. There is the odd christian who realises that rational analysis says "no god", but I strongly suspect that even most of those ones hold the belief because they want to rather than believe it.

I dunno what the recovery rate from christianity os, but I imagine it's close to alcoholism - once hooked, very hard to let go of. How many atheists are there?

All a logical inconsistency does is show how much cleverer god is than people, because he does stuff we just don't understand.

Clearly.

Most people get that quite fast!

:bgrin:

As I said before, a being can only be accurately described as virtuous if it can suffer pain.

Sorry mate, but you've lost here. Give this one up.

If you're suggesting that the "logically possible" thing is getting around the problem, and that to be truly be omnipotent would mean being able to do the logically impossible, then there's no possibility of contradictions. God could make square circles, lift a rock he can't lift, be God and not God at the same time...there's no reason any of it would make sense to us.

Precisely.

The equivalent would be us trying to ask a bacteria why it preferred toast to oranges.

[Third Eye Open]

What caused god to create the universe? If he is perfect, he shouldn't want or need anything. What, other than an outside source, would cause a perfect thing to do anything other than continue to be perfect?

[slingblade]

From what I understand, he was lonely. So he made us, and then removed himself from us so we'd have to come to know him through faith alone.

This type of behavior goes a long way to explaining god's six failed marriages, and why the kids don't come round no more.

[Undesired Walrus]

Sorry mate, but you've lost here. Give this one up.


A being can only be accurately described as virtuous if it can suffer pain. It's quite simple.

[Nick227]

What caused god to create the universe? If he is perfect, he shouldn't want or need anything. What, other than an outside source, would cause a perfect thing to do anything other than continue to be perfect?

A perfect being lacks the experience of being imperfect. What do you give the God who has everything...the experience of not being God, not having everything. He wouldn't be whole otherwise. Why else do you think Jesus was born at Xmas?!

Nick

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is there any valid logical disproof of the tri omni God? I know that there isn't a logical proof of one, but I want to hear arguments that try to disprove a God logically.

Btw, I'm an atheist.Repeating what I have posted on this before, there are two lines of evidence against the Biblical god. One is there are many things in the Bible which are so off on the physics, just claiming, "the people writing the Bible were interpreting the magical knowledge and that's why it is wrong" does not suffice.

For example, why claim banning pork had a health benefit, as Bible apologists do, when a sacred rule on hand washing would have been so much more effective? Why would there be no mention of the other people inhabiting the world? It could have provided knowledge that the people living in the area the Bible couldn't have known about and suggested magical knowledge. There are hundreds of examples such as these, there are contradictions, there is just a ton of evidence suggesting no real god influenced the Biblical texts.

The second line of evidence is that all the evidence points to god beliefs as myths. So if you start with no assumption there is or is not a god, and follow the evidence of the origin of god beliefs, the evidence overwhelmingly supports god beliefs as being a human generated myths. This includes lots of evidence there were myths the Biblical texts were based on that preceded those texts.

[Third Eye Open]

A perfect being lacks the experience of being imperfect. What do you give the God who has everything...the experience of not being God, not having everything. He wouldn't be whole otherwise. Why else do you think Jesus was born at Xmas?!

Nick

So god wasn't perfect at first, and then became perfect by being imperfect....

I thought Jesus was perfect, and that was the whole point of killing him.

[Nick227]

So god wasn't perfect at first, and then became perfect by being imperfect....

I thought Jesus was perfect, and that was the whole point of killing him.

I figure the crucifixion is symbolic. It didn't actually happen to JC. Classical heroes usually go through a phase of deep purgation, or death-rebirth, on their journey to spiritual individuation. Of course, claiming that Jesus died for our sins was a good way to lay a mind**** guilt trip on humanity by the Church.

God, if you take God as Brahman, Shunyata, or the "ground of being", is essentially an unconscious whole. He's perfect, he has all possibilities within himself, but he doesn't have self-knowledge. To develop self-knowledge he needs first to develop self-awareness on a limited scale, as a human being, then create the possibility to transcend mere knowledge of himself as human, to know himself as he really is.

Maybe!

Nick

[Robin]

If you're suggesting that the "logically possible" thing is getting around the problem, and that to be truly be omnipotent would mean being able to do the logically impossible, then there's no possibility of contradictions. God could make square circles, lift a rock he can't lift, be God and not God at the same time...there's no reason any of it would make sense to us.
A square circle is easy - it is a regular four sided polygon in plane geometry where all points on the shape are equidistant from a fixed point in the same plane, to the extent that this is logically possible.

[Silentknight]

Here are a couple that I mentioned in my "Fun With Logic" thread.

Ontological Argument:

1) An omnipotent God could overcome any conceivable obstacle.
2) Non-existence is the greatest conceivable obstacle.
3) Therefore God does not exist.

Cosmological Argument:

1) Everything that exists has a cause.
2) God is exempt from the rule because he doesn't have a cause.
3) This implies that God is not accommodated by the set of all existent things.
4) Therefore God does not exist.

Some apologists have tried to get around #1 by changing it to "That which begins to exist" but it doesn't really alter the meaning, since it's easy enough to prove that, according to their own logic, God began to exist as well. Never mind that "begins to exist" is kind of, well, meaningless.

[The Atheist]

What caused god to create the universe? If he is perfect, he shouldn't want or need anything. What, other than an outside source, would cause a perfect thing to do anything other than continue to be perfect?

Boredom?

Who can resist poking a stick in an ants' nest? First, you need the ant nest...

A being can only be accurately described as virtuous if it can suffer pain. It's quite simple.

Repeating a prior mistake doesn't make it any less a mistake.

Repeating what I have posted on this before, there are two lines of evidence against the Biblical god.

Just as well that wasn't the question then.

[Third Eye Open]

Seems to me that boredom would imply that something is lacking.

Maybe we should define 'perfect'...

[linusrichard]

Uh, no.

First off, you're falling into the trap of ascribing that the laws of physics decide how god behaves, but since he created them, he has the ability to change them at will.

It's not really physics - it's just logic. If an Immovable Object exists, then no Force exists that can move it. A Force that could move all Objects could move an Immovable Object. So, if an Immovable Object exists, a Force that can move all objects can't exist. Nothing to do with physics. Just like a Splark that can quonk every Deent can't exist in the same universe as a Deent that can't be quonked by any Splark.

But even accepting for the sake of argument that I'm ascribing laws of physics to God - can God create an Unstoppable Force and an Immovable Object in the same universe without changing the laws of physics as we know them? Well, okay, that's something God can't do.

If you're suggesting that the "logically possible" thing is getting around the problem, and that to be truly be omnipotent would mean being able to do the logically impossible, then there's no possibility of contradictions. God could make square circles, lift a rock he can't lift, be God and not God at the same time...there's no reason any of it would make sense to us.
I'm not saying that to be truly omnipotent would mean being able to do the logically impossible. I'm saying that if you consider omnipotence as being able to do anything, including the logically impossible, then no one or nothing can be omnipotent. And if someone insists that God is omnipotent in that sense, then I am a Dawkins 7 with respect to that God. But if you consider omnipotence as being able to do anything to the extent it is logically possible, then you can't disprove God that way.

Not even God can make a square circle - see Robin's excellent comment above. Not even God can lift a rock God can't lift. Not even God can be God and not God at the same time Actually, I don't feel comfortable saying this last one for some reason.

[bobhope2112]

How can you prove you have free will?
I don't know of any way to do that.

How do you know, say, that it is not "God" pulling the strings and making it seem as though you are moving?
I don't know that it isn't God, or some entirely deterministic natural process for that matter.

Do you suppose that there is some little being somewhere inside of your head called bobhope2112 who is deciding stuff?
No, I don't suppose that.

Are you rebutting some sort of positive statement that you suspect I've made?

[arthwollipot]

I wonder if there have been any religions which allowed God to live as a human, and experience overcoming fear and hardship. Anyone heard of such beliefs?Most of them, actually.

From Odin's Rune-Song, in the Elder Eddas:

140. I know that I hung, on a wind-rocked tree, nine whole nights,
with a spear wounded, and to Odin offered, myself to myself; on that
tree, of which no one knows from what root it springs.
141. Bread no one gave me, nor a horn of drink, downward I peered,
to runes applied myself, wailing learnt them, then fell down thence.
142. Potent songs nine from the famed son I learned of Bolthorn,
Bestla's sire, and a draught obtained of the precious mead, drawn from
Odhraerir.
143. Then I began to bear fruit, and to know many things, to grow
and well thrive: word by word I sought out words, fact by fact I
sought out facts.This is merely one example. The idea of deities suffering, and having human qualities in general, pervades most belief systems.

[slingblade]

A being can only be accurately described as virtuous if it can suffer pain. It's quite simple.

So am I, then. Could you explain that, and in more than just a couple of terse sentences? None of the definitions I checked included "the ability to suffer pain." What do you mean by your statement, and what is the proof of it?

[arthwollipot]

I think that the idea is that a being cannot be described as virtuous if it doesn't suffer pain, but that suffering pain is not the only thing that makes a being virtuous.

An animal cannot be a chicken unless it has feathers, but not all feathered animals are chickens.

[Undesired Walrus]

Repeating a prior mistake doesn't make it any less a mistake.



This is not a mistake.

It's a well known argument from Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier. Given your name, I thought you'd at least be familiar with it.

[The Atheist]

This is not a mistake.

It's a well known argument from Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier. Given your name, I thought you'd at least be familiar with it.

Doesn't really bother me who said it or when; plenty of people repeat others' mistakes. To be honest, I've never heard of those two - I tend not to read atheist literature. Can't see the point.

(Appeal to [presumed] authority doesn't wash with me, either.)

[arthwollipot]

To be honest, I've never heard of those twoCan't say that I have, either.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Has it been mentioned yet that science outperforms prayer by a long shot?

[Egg]

Has it been mentioned yet that science outperforms prayer by a long shot?

In roughly the same way as geometry outperforms having a phone call with one's mother?

[slingblade]

I think that the idea is that a being cannot be described as virtuous if it doesn't suffer pain, but that suffering pain is not the only thing that makes a being virtuous.

An animal cannot be a chicken unless it has feathers, but not all feathered animals are chickens.

Quite. I think I've found the argument in question:


Douglas Walton’s essay, “Can an Ancient Argument of Carneades on Cardinal Virtues and Divine Attributes Be Used to Disprove the Existence of God?” uses an argument based on virtue to disprove God’s existence. The argument presented here is as follows: If a perfect, divine Being can be said to exist, this Being must be all-virtuous. One of those virtues must be courage. Courage necessarily involves the potential for being vexed as well as overcoming pains and dangers because “only for a being who can suffer or be destroyed are there pains and dangers” (37). If, however, God can be vexed and thus change for the worse, then God can’t be both virtuous and perfect.

http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/necessity.html

The presentation of this argument in this thread is woefully incomplete, according to the above.

A being can only be accurately described as virtuous if it can suffer pain. It's quite simple. is actually too simple and not accurate. To be able to suffer means a being can possess one virtue: courage. But there are others. At any rate, the argument is flawed, as is shown in the paragraph that follows the one quoted above:

This is not a decent “definitional disproof.” First, we know that some virtues emerge as a result of living in a fallen world; for example, the willingness to ask forgiveness when one has done wrong. This virtue, however, isn’t required of a supremely great God, who is without sin. Second, what is courage anyway? Aristotle defined it as the “golden mean” between foolhardiness and cowardice. This balancing act applies to human beings, who face danger, but not to God, who does not. Walton’s question-begging argument makes a category mistake, suggesting that God must somehow be subject to all the conditions that bring about virtues in humans (e.g., that God must face danger or destruction in order to be courageous).

Now that that's settled, who wants pie?

[Robin]

In roughly the same way as geometry outperforms having a phone call with one's mother?
You seem to be somewhat uninformed about the claims made for prayer by the major religions.

[dogjones]

I know the omnibenevolence/problem of evil/free will/omnipotence/omniscience ones are well worn but I like them.


If God is omnibenevolent, then why is there so much evil in the world?
Because God gave us free will, and without the possibility of evil there is no free will.
But if God is omnipotent, then he should have been able to create a world where free will could coexist with the absence of evil.
Therefore, God is either not omnibenevolent, or not omnipotent, and if he is neither one of those, He does not exist (as we define him.)

Regarding free will:

Free will is the ability to forge one's own future.
For true free will to exist, the future must not be pre-determined
If God is omniscient, then he is outside of time and knows all, past, present and future.
If God knows the future, then the future is pre-determined.
If the future is pre-determined then free will does not exist.
If free will does not exist, then free will does not work for explaining the existence of evil.
Therefore, God is not omnibenevolent, and therefore does not exist (as we define him.)

The standard answer to both of these is "God... he's a mysterious dude."

[Nick227]

Are you rebutting some sort of positive statement that you suspect I've made?

Hi Bob,

I was trying to answer your post earlier...

There's a well-worn argument that God's omniscience and our free will are a logical contradiction. I have yet to see a satisfactory resolution to that apparent conflict. (Most quibble by characterizing omniscience is something other than perfect knowledge.)

If you accept that if God, as defined, cannot logically contradict itself, then the above, if proven, should disprove at least that definition of God.

As I perhaps didn't make very clear, God can be omniscient and we can experience free will. As free will cannot be proven the statements are not necessarily inconsistent with each other.

Nick

[GreyICE]

Here are a couple that I mentioned in my "Fun With Logic" thread.

Ontological Argument:

1) An omnipotent God could overcome any conceivable obstacle.
2) Non-existence is the greatest conceivable obstacle.
3) Therefore God does not exist. They're good humor. But they fail.

For instance, this one. Non-existence is not the greatest obstacle. Physical impossibility is. For instance, at one point in time, I did not exist. It proved to be merely a minor obstacle to my current existence.



Cosmological Argument:

1) Everything that exists has a cause.
2) God is exempt from the rule because he doesn't have a cause.
3) This implies that God is not accommodated by the set of all existent things.
4) Therefore God does not exist.

Problem with principle. Observe:

1) Everything we observe in this universe has a cause.
2) Therefore this universe is causal
3) Since the universe is causal, it has to have had a first cause
4) God is the first cause

Problem is, we observe that we merely may have made insufficient observations, and furthermore quantum uncertainty suggests a high degree of non-causal events (to drag physics into this, kicking and screaming).

Some apologists have tried to get around #1 by changing it to "That which begins to exist" but it doesn't really alter the meaning, since it's easy enough to prove that, according to their own logic, God began to exist as well. Never mind that "begins to exist" is kind of, well, meaningless.
I observe that God is proposed to have created the universe, and therefore defined the meaning of the term 'exist.' Barring a meaning to a term, the term is meaningless, and therefore inapplicable to him.

As an atheist? Your arguments suck and are full of flaws. You only really have a hope of having them work on theists, since their logic circuits are damaged.

[The Atheist]

Now that that's settled, who wants pie?

Settled it is.

Make mine with cream.

[bobhope2112]

God can be omniscient and we can experience free will. As free will cannot be proven the statements are not necessarily inconsistent with each other.

So, you're saying that if we don't really have free will, but merely an illusion of it, indistinguishable from the real thing, then there's no conflict with an omniscient god? I would go along with that, but don't think it would satisfy those that insist on an omnimax god that has granted us/is bound by our free will.

Does anyone know the source of the Christian theological justification for free will?

[Robin]

So, you're saying that if we don't really have free will, but merely an illusion of it, indistinguishable from the real thing, then there's no conflict with an omniscient god? I would go along with that, but don't think it would satisfy those that insist on an omnimax god that has granted us/is bound by our free will.

Does anyone know the source of the Christian theological justification for free will?
Yes, but nearly every Christian theological justification of free will entails that "free will" is strictly deterministic.

Examples would be St Augustine's and Monina's treatment of the subject.

[Silentknight]

Non-existence is not the greatest obstacle. Physical impossibility is. For instance, at one point in time, I did not exist. It proved to be merely a minor obstacle to my current existence.
But you weren't the one who overcame the obstacle yourself. :rolleyes:
Problem is, we observe that we merely may have made insufficient observations, and furthermore quantum uncertainty suggests a high degree of non-causal events (to drag physics into this, kicking and screaming).
I know, I've said the same thing myself before. Regardless, logically speaking, the set of uncaused things must accommodate more than just God, in order to avoid begging the question.
They're good humor. But they fail.
(snip)
As an atheist? Your arguments suck and are full of flaws. You only really have a hope of having them work on theists, since their logic circuits are damaged.
Yes, the sarcasm was supposed to be obvious. The premises of those arguments are actually ripped off directly from theist apologetics. In other words, they were deliberately flawed. I'm well aware of the counters to the original arguments because I've had to debunk them myself several times in past debates. Had I been serious, I would have asked the same thing others have, which is, "Define God."

[Robin]

OK, here is my shot at a logical disproof of God:

1. If God exists He is necessarily omniscient, immanent and perfectly just
2. Peter sins at time t
3. If God is perfectly just then the possibility existed before time t that Peter would not sin
4. If God is omniscient and immanent then he could have caused to exist in the world at some time before t an infallibly true statement that Peter would sin at t
5. If an infallibly true statement could have existed in the world at some time before t that Peter would sin, then the possibility did not exist before time t that Peter would not sin
6. (3) and (5) are a contradiction, therefore a being cannot be all three of omniscient and immanent and perfectly just
7. Therefore God does not exist.

Say, was that a puff of logic I just saw in the sky?

[slingblade]

So, you're saying that if we don't really have free will, but merely an illusion of it, indistinguishable from the real thing, then there's no conflict with an omniscient god? I would go along with that, but don't think it would satisfy those that insist on an omnimax god that has granted us/is bound by our free will.

Does anyone know the source of the Christian theological justification for free will?


Not officially, but as a child I was told we obviously have free will because we can choose to serve god or not.

Of course, every kid knows "claen your room or you'll get a spanking" isn't really a choice....any more than "worship me or I'll burn you forever."

[GreyICE]

But you weren't the one who overcame the obstacle yourself. :rolleyes:Irrelevant. The fact that something does not necessarily an obstacle to its future existence. In fact, its virtually a prerequisite.

I know, I've said the same thing myself before. Regardless, logically speaking, the set of uncaused things must accommodate more than just God, in order to avoid begging the question. Or we accept that without a definition of time, which was undefined prior to the creation of the universe, a definition of cause is impossible, and therefore neither the universe nor God would require a cause. (Of course we have plenty of evidence for the universe existing...)

Yes, the sarcasm was supposed to be obvious. The premises of those arguments are actually ripped off directly from theist apologetics. In other words, they were deliberately flawed. I'm well aware of the counters to the original arguments because I've had to debunk them myself several times in past debates. Had I been serious, I would have asked the same thing others have, which is, "Define God." Yeah, I know they were, which is why I didn't post this in the original thread. But seeing them pop up in a serious thread is a little, well, out of context (hence 'only be convincing to theists'... okay, my brand of sarcasm is a little too dry... :( )

As for a definition of God, I observe that we do not logically have to define something completely to observe it exists. We are reasonably sure gravity exists, while we still fail in a good definition of it.

Since we can logically demonstrate a partial definition is therefore acceptable (gravity is the attractive force between two bodies caused by their mass) a partial definition of God is also acceptable (God is that which created the universe and gives our lives purpose).

There's very few ways to actually completely disprove something, and no way to logically disprove something that by definition would be undefinable, leave it be.

[The Atheist]

OK, here is my shot at a logical disproof of God:

Tip: stick to materialism. I think you have a much better handle on that.

[Silentknight]

As for a definition of God, I observe that we do not logically have to define something completely to observe it exists. We are reasonably sure gravity exists, while we still fail in a good definition of it.
But gravity is testable and we can observe its effects, despite not fully understanding the mechanisms behind it. I think this is a case of comparing apples and kumquats.
Since we can logically demonstrate a partial definition is therefore acceptable (gravity is the attractive force between two bodies caused by their mass) a partial definition of God is also acceptable (God is that which created the universe and gives our lives purpose).
If the analogy is to hold, then God ought to be measurable. Theists do in fact claim that God that intervenes in human affairs in some meaningful way. Your definition of God above still has plenty of problems, but I know what you were trying to demonstrate with that example, so that's beside the point and I won't get into it.
There's very few ways to actually completely disprove something, and no way to logically disprove something that by definition would be undefinable, leave it be.
Technically you could prove a negative, since all negatives have corresponding positives. The obvious problem though is that there is no such thing as a proof for God (that works) or a concrete definition. Personally, I never concern myself with disproving God; it's only a matter of concern when someone comes along claiming to be able to prove God's existence.

On a related note, defining God to be something that is virtually indistinguishable from not-God doesn't work either. One could define God to be the universe, but what's the point?

[Robin]

Tip: stick to materialism. I think you have a much better handle on that.
Ah, advice from someone who thinks UndercoverElephant is a closet Dawkins Disciple - that is really valuable.

What, in your opinion, is wrong with it?

[GreyICE]

But gravity is testable and we can observe its effects, despite not fully understanding the mechanisms behind it. I think this is a case of comparing apples and kumquats. Theists claim to have the same observations about God. I might quibble about the universality of the experiences with gravity versus the very personal nature of the observations of God, but that is a quantity problem, not a quality problem.

If the analogy is to hold, then God ought to be measurable. Theists do in fact claim that God that intervenes in human affairs in some meaningful way. Your definition of God above still has plenty of problems, but I know what you were trying to demonstrate with that example, so that's beside the point and I won't get into it.
Oh sure, it has plenty of problems. And that definition of gravity has plenty of problems too.
Technically you could prove a negative, since all negatives have corresponding positives. The obvious problem though is that there is no such thing as a proof for God (that works) or a concrete definition. Personally, I never concern myself with disproving God; it's only a matter of concern when someone comes along claiming to be able to prove God's existence.
Eminently sensible.
On a related note, defining God to be something that is virtually indistinguishable from not-God doesn't work either. One could define God to be the universe, but what's the point?
Piggy tried that approach, but the problem is that God can include some things that are (or seem to be) not-God without being not-God. As an analogy, the specific attraction of my body to the earth due to gravity is part of the overall theory of gravity, and in fact seems quite different than my attraction if I was standing on the surface of the moon (or seemingly floating in space, so much for the universal, eh) without in any way negating the theory of gravity, or suggesting that the earth's gravity is somehow separate from the concept of gravity.

God could be the universe, and also beyond the universe, without being indistinguishable from the universe.

[The Atheist]

What, in your opinion, is wrong with it?

It requires you to second-guess god. Who's deciding what is sin and what it constitutes?

[Robin]

It requires you to second-guess god. Who's deciding what is sin and what it constitutes?
I can't see why that is relevant. Presumably if there is a God then God decides what is sin and what it constitutes. What does that have to do with the argument?

[arthwollipot]

You seem to be somewhat uninformed about the claims made for prayer by the major religions.The key word is claims. The claims made for prayer by the major religions do not stand up to rigourous scientific investigation.

[The Atheist]

I can't see why that is relevant. Presumably if there is a God then God decides what is sin and what it constitutes. What does that have to do with the argument?

You made the statement. You're ascribing human emotion and judgement to god. A god may decide no such thing as sin exists and everything is done for a greater purpose. Your premise fails.

[Robin]

You made the statement. You're ascribing human emotion and judgement to god. A god may decide no such thing as sin exists and everything is done for a greater purpose. Your premise fails.
Which statement, precisely, are you referring to???

Which premise, precisely, fails???

Where, precisely, did I ascribe human emotion and judgement to god???

[The Atheist]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3665592#post3665592

[Robin]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3665592#post3665592
Which part of the word "precisely" did you have the most trouble understanding?

[Nick227]

So, you're saying that if we don't really have free will, but merely an illusion of it, indistinguishable from the real thing, then there's no conflict with an omniscient god? I would go along with that, but don't think it would satisfy those that insist on an omnimax god that has granted us/is bound by our free will.

Does anyone know the source of the Christian theological justification for free will?

Not so sure about source but I could try to give an interpretation from orthodox Christian and more mystical Christian. I guess to the first then free will gives us the option to "Choose God," or risk an eternity in Hell. To the latter, certainly from the Gnostic stream, then our experience of free will is essentially the work of the demi-urge - the alienated and corrupted "God" that rules over the physical realm, and that in some ways resembles the orthodox "God." Through correct choice we learn more who we are and can thus begin to ascend to deeper awareness.

Something like that.

Nick

[Robin]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3665592#post3665592
Still, thanks for at least clarifying that you were referring to my argument.

[Skeptic Ginger]

In roughly the same way as geometry outperforms having a phone call with one's mother?Don't get that one. Sorry.

[reverebison]

God is natural and inevitable. God is normal. God should not be hated.

God is part of evolution.

God should not be laughed at.

I suspect that every life that evolves to the point of knowing his own mortality at first believes in a God. It takes time for science to develop and big questions to be answered. There also exists a long transition to complete atheism. Its difficult.

We are in that transition, and it is natural.

[arthwollipot]

God is natural and inevitable. God is normal. God should not be hated.

God is part of evolution.

God should not be laughed at.I don't laugh at god. I laugh at people who take god too seriously.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well I got to use my evidence there is no god yet again today. Two young Mormon men came knocking at my door this morning. I think I won the debate. :D

They argued they were happy because of their god beliefs. I argued I was happy and science was successful where god beliefs were not.