prof god doesnt exist

Post Reply New Topic

may god strike me with a bolt of lightning.


/waiting

//still waiting

///no, seriously, this is scientific

////eff it, it ain't gonna happen

What does "Mu" mean?

God being omnipotent seems to be a central tenet of Christianity. I fail to see how any of my assumptions are incorrect.

Omnipotence is an illogical idea.

Last edited by corroonb on 11 Aug 2008, 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Gavin, your beliefs fit very closely with mine. So much so that I can't even improve this by adding on to it.

The question is badly formed.

A mountain so large an omnipotent being can't move it is a contradiction in terms. Therefore you are asking whether an omnipotent being can do something nonsensical. The question makes no sense. Many people interpret it as "an omnipotent being ought to be able to violate the laws of logic", but logic is not an inherent property of things but is something which is overlayed on things by humans; it is a construct which characterizes our understanding of the world. Therefore, the supposed contradiction inherent in omnipotency resolves itself.

It depends on what you think "omnipotence" means. To me, it means being all powerful, being able to do whatever he wishes.

Even the existence of human free will would tend to invalidate the concept of an omnipotent deity. If I have free will to do as I wish, then this imposes limit on the power of god. God can't force me to act against my own will and is thus not omnipotent.

I notice you omitted my second argument which cannot be answered.

I cannot prove that god doesn't exist but thus far nobody has proved that god does exist. It is an open question whether or not a deity of any sort exists and has not been proven.

And if God, as many religious people claim, has given free will (whatever that means) to people so that he does not interfere in their decisions and makes them responsible for their actions, what does it matter if God exists or not? Sending people to Hell for behaving in a particular way is definite interference in their decisions so that must be totally incorrect.

Plus, the idea of Hell smacks of fear-driven propaganda. I could never believe in any religion that purports Hell. Hell is too much of a human machination, created by human fear and the very human desire to control the behavior of other humans.

Last edited by patternist on 12 Aug 2008, 9:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Well, the issue is that very few people hold to that view of omnipotence. Theologians usually define it as the power to do logical things.


Well, the issue is that human free will does not preclude the divine capability of changing the mind of a previously free willed agent. Only if free will is held to be absolute it does that, and few theologians hold to such a notion of free will. I think even the strongest believers in both free will and omnipotence instead argue God won't force you to act against your own will, not that he cannot.

Sending people to hell for behaving in a particular way is described as God's judgment. Usually most theists who say free will exists do not claim that non-interference is complete, only that it is partial enough to allow freedom to choose or reject the moral claim.

If omnipotence is the power to do logical things then miracles, which, by definition, are illogical, are impossible.

If God has the power to make you want to do things he desires then that is a most peculiar twist on free will.

I take hell as a metaphore, I think it is the result of your actions, and this Mr. G doesn't really send you there more than your own actions did. Well, imho, using the bible or Christian believes to disprove God's existence coudl be considered a straw man.

It's not a matter of God sending you to Hell. If He created Hell, the very existence of Hell is a force controlling free will.

Doesn't this line of reasoning, carried to its extreme, lead to a negation of free will via outside influences? I mean, God created the world, and people make choices based on what's in the world... I don't see any reason to say Hell's special.


Miracles are not absolutely illogical, in the way that 1+1=3 is.

Miracles are not illogical, but unnatural.

mir-a-cle (mir-kl)n. 1. An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God:

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Nothing in that says "illogical", and many apologists argue that miracles do not defy logic at all. They only defy the laws of nature through the power of the supernatural.


I don't think that people deny the power, only claim that this is not done often. However, in Exodus, most agree that God changed the desires of Pharaoh, by "hardening his heart".

It's fairly obvious that no sane person would condemn himself to Hell if he really believed in it unless he was a total masochist or completely insane. So the existence of Hell i itself is a massive coercive influence. Carried to its logical conclusion the absolute knowledge of God is a very powerful coercive influence which might explain, if He does exist and desires free will in humanity, why He is so elusive.

Well, is ignorance a proof of coercion? I can be ignorant of the fact that a particular aircraft has mechanical problems, but I am not being coerced when the thing crashes and I die. The same if I buy a bunch of liquor and decide to drink all of it in a relative short period of time, I might not seek to die, but I did do so through my liquor consumption.

Carried to its logical conclusion, yes, we can argue that foreknowledge and free will exist in tension, for all "free" choices will be logical consequences of an action by God. One can argue that the knowledge of God is not as exhaustive though.

I'm not sure what you mean by ignorance. If a person is not aware of either God or Hell is there any sense in condemning him to Hell if he is not forewarned? On that basis God would be totally malevolent. Of course, I'm not concluding that He isn't.