Logical Improbabilities of a god

1.   Predeterminism and free will.

   The concept of god has a huge impossibility in that the scriptures claim “All things are predetermined by god” at the same time as claiming that man is responsible for his actions by having “Free Will”. Whereas a person who has already been predestined to ascend to heaven supposedly has the freedom of choice. This in and of itself is a logical impossibility as the concept of free will is supposedly the reason for man’s fall from grace in original sin, but if all things are predetermined then man’s choice to defy the will of god was predetermined, hence not the will of man. Rather the choice of this god which in turn logically defies the concept of “free will”.

2.   Omniscience, scriptural inaccuracies, omnibenevolence, and divine authorship or inspiration.
   
   The scriptural explanation for almost anything follows the understanding and knowledge of mankind during the authoring of the respective books, and an omniscient  god being the author or divine inspiration for said books is a logical improbability. An all knowing god could not have authored or inspired the author to place inaccuracies being an omnibenevolent, omniscient god.

3.   Commandments, the breaking of, and god.
   
   The ten commandments are broken literally hundreds of times as being the will of god, whereas the will of god commands that none of these acts are to be committed. Murder, Theft, and Lies are commonplace in ancient times, many times as the will of god. This is a logical improbability due to god placing rules upon mankind, yet breaking them within the same scripture due to god’s will, where he willed that these acts are not committed and the circle continues....

4.   God’s anger, omnipotence, and Predeterminism.

   In general, Anger is the emotion felt when something happens that we do not want to. For a god to become angry at man logically is impossible due to the fact that what angered him was due to his will and was predetermined.

5.   Predeterminism, god’s will, punishment, and a god whom is “all good”

   In general punishment is an act that is performed for correction of a wrong.
   This is a logical impossibility to say that god punishes evil doers when god willed them to be in the first place, where as an all loving god would not create something to be evil, then punish it for doing exactly what he wanted in the first place.

You should stress that you are only referring to the Christian God.

Maybe for this post, I should.

Thanks for the enlightenment.

Wow, you read my mind and wrote the post I was thinking of!

+God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

+Stuff "refuted" here http://godandscience.org/apologetics/nogod.html


Also, make sure to check out the video Queerer Than We Can Suppose on Google Video (I made a topic about it)... it includes a useful argument involving "brain software" and "thrashing cars."

+Stuff "refuted" here http://godandscience.org/apologetics/nogod.html

Wow, what a complete load of crap. Using the extra dimensions theorized by string theory as evidence of a dwelling place for god outside of our universe?
WTF
Is this site for real? I see why you put "refuted" in quotes. I have to say, as bullshit goes the "information" on this page ranks up there with Scientology.

The Christian God has been attacked so many times now with those same reasons that instead of interesting, it's boring.  We know there's tons of inconsistancies and logical fallacies.  Is the concept of "God" so offensive?

I really can't see why this would be posted this over and over again unless one was diametrically opposed to a god, which is rather silly considering we have no say in the matter.  The concept of god could easily be able to encompass any sort of explanation for reality.  Conversely, one could refute that just as easily.

When it comes down to it, its simply a choice.

it's boring.

frak you

The Christian God has been attacked so many times now with those same reasons that instead of interesting, it's boring.  We know there's tons of inconsistancies and logical fallacies.  Is the concept of "God" so offensive?

I really can't see why this would be posted this over and over again unless one was diametrically opposed to a god, which is rather silly considering we have no say in the matter.  The concept of god could easily be able to encompass any sort of explanation for reality.  Conversely, one could refute that just as easily.

When it comes down to it, its simply a choice.

Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion explains very well why we should oppose religion.  He gives a number of reasons, but the one that I agreed with the most is the fact that religion relies on unquestioning faith.  This means that people are prepared to do all kinds of things, with no mental illness, and be absolutely sure that what they're doing is right.  One of the strong evolutionary theories as to why we believe in religion (in general) is because children who believe what they're told (such as, don't go too close to the cliff) are more likely to live longer.  Unfortunately that survival instinct has been corrupted and manipulated such that now the majority of people in the world believe in some kind of religion.  Unquestioning faith obviously means not asking questions.  It essentially stops us from thinking.  When a girl thinks to herself "I want to have sex with Beast, but I can't because God says I shouldn't have sex before marriage" that's an indication of just how EVIL religion is.  There are thousands of quotes, both from the Bible and from religious figures that state very clearly how asking too many questions (being an 'intellectual') is a bad thing, and indeed, that religion stops people from asking questions and can be used to make people believe whatever you want.

One of the greatest dividers in conflicts in our lifetime, and obviously prior to that as well, is religion.  I'm not saying that all these conflicts are being fought over religion, but it is having a different religion that separates the people.  Ultimately, what's the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'ite?  A Palestinian and a Jew?  A Protestant and a Catholic?

If we are to look at the question of religion objectively, with the question "Is religion a good thing for society today?" - I think we have to answer with a resounding no.  With that in mind, if we can see that the world would be better off without something, don't we have a social obligation to try to make that happen?  Isn't it better to aim for utopia than to accept a substandard world?

Quote from: "Mephistopheles"

The Christian God has been attacked so many times now with those same reasons that instead of interesting, it's boring.  We know there's tons of inconsistancies and logical fallacies.  Is the concept of "God" so offensive?

I really can't see why this would be posted this over and over again unless one was diametrically opposed to a god, which is rather silly considering we have no say in the matter.  The concept of god could easily be able to encompass any sort of explanation for reality.  Conversely, one could refute that just as easily.

When it comes down to it, its simply a choice.

Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion..............

why dont you just marry dawkins beast?  

Beast, you have far more patience than I.

That's because I'm a man.  :lol:

Beast, I agree that a faith unquestioned is potentially very dangerous.  However, I believe that religions provide something very important to humanity--a sense of community through a ritual-emotion cycle.  Therefore, I would not like to see religions simply abandoned.

I agree with the importance of philosophical inquiry (asking questions).  I believe that once a person stops asking questions and becomes dogmatic in their religious belief, a potential problem has arisen and needs to be carefully supervised.  

I believe the best solution to the problem, in order to please both the side that you and Dawkins represent and the side that I currently represent, is the education of the people.  I think Dawkins is actually doing a good job doing that, as are many others.  I further believe that philosophy should be mandatory in all public schools (at least in the United States) in order to give students a true look at what is going on in their churches.  To abandon the sense of community and ritual-emotional cycle that religions offer might prove to be too much of a loss for religions, and would thus end almost surely in defeat.  Yet to continue working to educate the people, while maintaining the rituals and sense of community, would probably work better.

I propose that anybody wanting to work on this problem of (dangerous) religious fundamentalism read books pertaining to this very subject.  A few examples of the ones I plan on reading are The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris, books by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and others (feel free to add).  Debates should be welcomed, and religions themselves should not be met with hostility on behalf of your side.  Instead, make it clear that you are hostile only against (dangerous) religious fundamentalism (if indeed you are).  In this sense, I think the majority of both sides can compromise and come to a peaceful solution.

Moderate belief is awful and frustrating as well. It's just watered-down fundamentalism most of the time.

Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion explains very well why we should oppose religion.  He gives a number of reasons, but the one that I agreed with the most is the fact that religion relies on unquestioning faith.  This means that people are prepared to do all kinds of things, with no mental illness, and be absolutely sure that what they're doing is right.  There are thousands of quotes, both from the Bible and from religious figures that state very clearly how asking too many questions (being an 'intellectual') is a bad thing, and indeed, that religion stops people from asking questions and can be used to make people believe whatever you want.

One of the greatest dividers in conflicts in our lifetime, and obviously prior to that as well, is religion.  I'm not saying that all these conflicts are being fought over religion, but it is having a different religion that separates the people.  Ultimately, what's the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'ite?  A Palestinian and a Jew?  A Protestant and a Catholic?

If we are to look at the question of religion objectively, with the question "Is religion a good thing for society today?" - I think we have to answer with a resounding no.  With that in mind, if we can see that the world would be better off without something, don't we have a social obligation to try to make that happen?  Isn't it better to aim for utopia than to accept a substandard world?

It's hard to argue that religion hasn't been a motivation for atrocities in the past, and conflict in the present, but saying that "religion is evil" is taking things too far. There have certainly been good things that come out of religion as well as the bad, and it's a powerful positive force in the lives of many of its followers. Furthermore, one could argue that many of the worst atrocities done in the name of religion were done despite the actual teachings of the religion, and not because of them, and that some religions if properly practiced would never be guilty of any of the evil things done in the name of religion (Quakerism especially comes to mind, but many others as well). Certainly questioning ones religion is not a bad thing, and questioning ones religious leaders is very important (as is questioning all authority, and holding it accountable for its decisions). However, religion is not the unambiguous evil that the Church of Dawkins holds it to be, and by putting it in these terms, he is guilty of exactly the same intolerance that he blames religion for spreading.

When a girl thinks to herself "I want to have sex with Beast, but I can't because God says I shouldn't have sex before marriage" that's an indication of just how EVIL religion is.

This is perhaps the best example I've seen yet of how religion can protect its followers by saving them from their own destructive impulses. Just consider the emotional scarring that could be avoided by keeping young impressionable women away from beast.

Moderate belief is awful and frustrating as well. It's just watered-down fundamentalism most of the time.

Ubuntu, I assure you, I hate dangerous religious fundamentalism as much as you do.  I despise the fact that people think their god wants them to fly planes into buildings and kill as many people as they can.  However, I do not see any problem whatsoever with non-dangerous religion.  I think having people hear about and even praise the story of Jesus Christ (true or not) can be quite beneficial in the encouragement of having people live better and more ethical lives.  The problem here is not the genuinely good people who strive to be more Christ-like, but it's the people who are so extremely fundamentalist that it borders on the dangerous.  We need to eliminate that danger, and I believe that education is probably the best way.

Ubuntu, I assure you, I hate dangerous religious fundamentalism as much as you do.  I despise the fact that people think their god wants them to fly planes into buildings and kill as many people as they can.  However, I do not see any problem whatsoever with non-dangerous religion.  I think having people hear about and even praise the story of Jesus Christ (true or not) can be quite beneficial in the encouragement of having people live better and more ethical lives.  The problem here is not the genuinely good people who strive to be more Christ-like, but it's the people who are so extremely fundamentalist that it borders on the dangerous.  We need to eliminate that danger, and I believe that education is probably the best way.

Hear hear!

skeptical scientist, proud but tolerant atheist

the fact that religion relies on unquestioning faith.

That is no such fact.

How do you describe Buddhism with that?

Beast, I agree that a faith unquestioned is potentially very dangerous.  However, I believe that religions provide something very important to humanity--a sense of community through a ritual-emotion cycle.  Therefore, I would not like to see religions simply abandoned.

I used to agree with this and then I realised that I'm as strong as atheist as it is really possible to be and I have a very strong sense of morals and of community.  This idea that you need religion to have these things is false, and there are plenty of examples beyond myself of this.  Religion is a way of building community, but it's a replaceable way and there are plenty of alternatives.

I believe the best solution to the problem, in order to please both the side that you and Dawkins represent and the side that I currently represent, is the education of the people.  I think Dawkins is actually doing a good job doing that, as are many others.  I further believe that philosophy should be mandatory in all public schools (at least in the United States) in order to give students a true look at what is going on in their churches.  To abandon the sense of community and ritual-emotional cycle that religions offer might prove to be too much of a loss for religions, and would thus end almost surely in defeat.  Yet to continue working to educate the people, while maintaining the rituals and sense of community, would probably work better.

This idea that the two sides of the argument are equal is a fallacy.  There are no benefits from religion that you can't get elsewhere.  There is no reason to believe any literal part of religion.  People believe in religion essentially the the same reason that moths fly into candle flames - it's the misfiring of evolutionary survival skills.  I agree that philosophy should be taught in all schools.  I'm unsure why you'd suggest that it should only be mandatory in public schools.  How different do you think people born in the US are to other people in the world.  Perhaps the fact that they have access to education makes them a minority, but we're all people.

I propose that anybody wanting to work on this problem of (dangerous) religious fundamentalism read books pertaining to this very subject.  A few examples of the ones I plan on reading are The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris, books by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and others (feel free to add).  Debates should be welcomed, and religions themselves should not be met with hostility on behalf of your side.  Instead, make it clear that you are hostile only against (dangerous) religious fundamentalism (if indeed you are).  In this sense, I think the majority of both sides can compromise and come to a peaceful solution.

You are mistaken if you think Dawkins and Harris are attacking "religious fundamentalists."  It is clear that the religious problems in the world are not created by "fundamentalists" but by religion in general.  Anybody who holds a belief about the world that isn't backed up by evidence is a "fundamentalist".  There's no difference between the 9/11 suicide bombers and anybody who believes there is life after death.  There is nothing crazy or psychotic about these people, they just have faith.

It's hard to argue that religion hasn't been a motivation for atrocities in the past, and conflict in the present, but saying that "religion is evil" is taking things too far. There have certainly been good things that come out of religion as well as the bad, and it's a powerful positive force in the lives of many of its followers. Furthermore, one could argue that many of the worst atrocities done in the name of religion were done despite the actual teachings of the religion, and not because of them, and that some religions if properly practiced would never be guilty of any of the evil things done in the name of religion (Quakerism especially comes to mind, but many others as well). Certainly questioning ones religion is not a bad thing, and questioning ones religious leaders is very important (as is questioning all authority, and holding it accountable for its decisions). However, religion is not the unambiguous evil that the Church of Dawkins holds it to be, and by putting it in these terms, he is guilty of exactly the same intolerance that he blames religion for spreading.

What are the teachings of Islam?  What are the teachings of Christianity?  You can back up any decision based on the teachings of those religions.  They put forward conflicting views with in their own text.  Do you honestly think that the people who kill in the names of those religions just don't understand the book, that they're wrong and the peaceful people are right?  The Koran and the Bible justify everything.  There is no doubt that evil acts still occur, regardless of religion, but there also can be doubt that there are many evil acts that occur because of religion.  Religion separates people and it stops them from thinking.  What Dawkins claims is completely different to what religion claims.  He does not oppose religion because he thinks something tells him to and he doesn't advocate anything other than verbal debate against religion.  He puts forwards the reasons to oppose religion rationally and eloquently.  He doesn't, at any point, rely on faith.  It's not intolerance that he sees as the biggest problem with religion, it's the way it suppresses thought.  It's not what people do in the name of religion that is the problem, it's the fact that people do things in the name of religion.  The other issue is the incredible, unjustified standing that religion has in the world.  Imagine a debate on TV about abortion.  Lets say there are three panellists.  Who would you pick?  Does it sound unreasonable to have a religious figure on that panel?  We live in a society where that seems entirely acceptable.  Yet think about this, what qualifications does a priest have on the topic of abortion?  What qualified study on the topic has this person done?  They have not studied philosophy or ethics, they have not studied biology, the have not studied psychology.  What possible qualifications would they have compared to a random person picked off the street?

Statistics show that there is a direct inverse relationship between religious belief and intelligence.  Not only does scientific evidence show this, but even the Bible admits as much.  With this in mind, can you name one politician who has stated that he or she is an atheist?  I'm sure you can name plenty off the top of your head who have stated that their religious.  Why is this?

That is no such fact.

How do you describe Buddhism with that?

I don't really accept Buddhism as a religion, or at least, I'm talking about theistic religions.  Albert Einstein called himself religious and if people are to hold those "religious" beliefs then I'm happy to tolerate them, in fact I feel the same way about the world.  I'm sorry that wasn't clear to you.  If you want to argue that "religions" where you don't believe in anything supernatural in some way validate supernatural views then put that argument forward, but otherwise I think your point is completely irrelevant.

No denominational affiliation (this I am not sure about, but these guys did not even list a religion)

Abraham Lincoln
Andrew Johnson
Ulysses Grant
Rutherford Hayes


Deist (In early 18th century, this is aboput the closest thing without completely stepping into the atheistic realm)

Each of these presidents except lincoln have been raised episcopalian if I remember correctly)

George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
John Tyler
Abraham Lincoln (disputed)

Quote from: "beast"

the fact that religion relies on unquestioning faith.

That is no such fact.

How do you describe Buddhism with that?

To question the word of god, is punishable by death in the old days if I remember correctly, and it is punishable by enternity in hell in modern times.

Budhism is not a religion in relation to a deity, and therefore is not included in this particular topic.

The problem with Atheism is that it has no inherent reason for morality, other thanh evasion of punishment. While for example Christianity preaches eternal hell fire for sinners, which is perhaps as reprehensable. It is still important for there to be an "incentive" for morality.

And on the subject of fundamentalism, you are using different meaning of the word. Fundamentalism as oposed to evidence is different to Fundamentalism as oposed to Liberalism.

I myself am a Liberal Christian, and i take philosophy and actively question my religion. Religion in itself is not wrong, i feel. It is only certain fundamental (as oposed to liberal) groups that give it a bad name.

With the belief that existance ends after death, a person might as well be as bad as he likes, since it wont effect him.

Global Warming (if it does actually exist) is not a true atheists problem. An atheist wont be around when the world freezes, and wont be punished for being irresponsible.

edit: argh fuck my computer.  Wrote a looooooong reply and it deleted it.  I will respond again tomorrow

Quote from: "beast"

the fact that religion relies on unquestioning faith.

That is no such fact.

How do you describe Buddhism with that?

Buddhists still need faith that they can acheive Nirvana through meditation.

The problem with Atheism is that it has no inherent reason for morality, other thanh evasion of punishment. While for example Christianity preaches eternal hell fire for sinners, which is perhaps as reprehensable. It is still important for there to be an "incentive" for morality.

Religions don't exactly give consistent moral codes, either. People interpret it anyway they want. Believe gay marriage is right? Interpret the Bible to say it is. Believe it's wrong? Interpret the Bible to say it's wrong. Atheists do just fine on morality, and we have the advantage that we can be convinced about a moral issue by rational argument. If two people of different religions have a different moral code on an issue, the conversation ends; there's no hope of compromise, because both are based on an unyielding (though interpreted) 'law'.

With the belief that existance ends after death, a person might as well be as bad as he likes, since it wont effect him.

Except atheists don't act as a badly as they like. Maybe your preconceived notions about the lack of atheist morality aren't true after all?

Global Warming (if it does actually exist) is not a true atheists problem. An atheist wont be around when the world freezes, and wont be punished for being irresponsible.

Hurr? Global Warming is not going to freeze the world, it's going to warm it  (duh), and most likely to dangerous levels within our lifetimes or our children's lifetimes. You think we don't care what happens to others?

Hurr? Global Warming is not going to freeze the world, it's going to warm it  (duh), and most likely to dangerous levels within our lifetimes or our children's lifetimes. You think we don't care what happens to others?

That coupled with the fact that many climatologists (the people trying to warn you about global warming in the first place) are atheists pretty much blows that particular argument all to water.

The problem with Atheism is that it has no inherent reason for morality, other than evasion of punishment. While for example Christianity preaches eternal hell fire for sinners, which is perhaps as reprehensible. It is still important for there to be an "incentive" for morality.

Doesn't that mean there is a problem with Christianity too?

I HATE people who say that athiests dont have a scence of moral values, or they have no reason to. What about the satisfaction you get out of being a good person? Also, if i decide it woudl be fun to kill a bunch of people, i most likely wont because then i would go to jail (and in some parts of the world, be executed). This woudl be the worst thing that could happen, if i think there is nothing after death.
There are MANY people who are athiests who have a strong set of moral values.

Quote:
Global Warming (if it does actually exist) is not a true atheists problem. An atheist wont be around when the world freezes, and wont be punished for being irresponsible.


Hurr? Global Warming is not going to freeze the world, it's going to warm it (duh), and most likely to dangerous levels within our lifetimes or our children's lifetimes. You think we don't care what happens to others?

im goign to point out that my city got a SNOWFALL record this year. The most i has ever snowed ever (scince they started keeping track, probaly about 200 years ago). (of course, we also got a rainfall record, and a drout record this year)

I HATE people who say that athiests dont have a scence of moral values, or they have no reason to. What about the satisfaction you get out of being a good person? Also, if i decide it woudl be fun to kill a bunch of people, i most likely wont because then i would go to jail (and in some parts of the world, be executed). This woudl be the worst thing that could happen, if i think there is nothing after death.

People who think like that are selfish.  "I'm not going to do bad because I will be punished," and is just the same as believe in God because if you don't, you'll go to hell.  Same deal as Pascal's Wager.

I do not do bad because it will hurt others.  Respect for the common man is something that seems to be missing from people today, religious or otherwise.  Just remember, Christians--Love thy neighbor as thyself.

im goign to point out that my city got a SNOWFALL record this year. The most i has ever snowed ever (scince they started keeping track, probaly about 200 years ago). (of course, we also got a rainfall record, and a drout record this year)

Are you really trying to disprove Global Warming? That's almost like trying to prove the Earth is flat...

Global Warming means OVER ALL things are getting warmer; the climate changes are supposed to create severe weather, which would include heavy snowfall and rain.

The inate reaon for morality is from our upbringing, and our desire to not have these things done to us. Not from some magical being threatening us with eternal torture and eternal hell.

It is greed of an eternal paradise, and fear of an eternal punishment that motivates Christians, Islam, and all other monotheistic religions to be good. This shows just how evil people are at heart.

Our golden rule is the prime example of how we can be moral, as it says, to to others that which you would have done to you. It is just a philosophy but it is powerful in that it is actually true.

To be a good person in the name of a god is a cop out. If people cannot be morally sound for the reasons depicted above then those people are truely a sorry ass bunch of people.