Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[Ana the Ist]

I see no reason to think God being perfect necessarily entails Him being able to inspire a body of literature that is indisputable by free moral agents to whom this body of literature is given.

You would need to present arguments or reasons for this truth claim.

I already did.

I used a logical argument to show a perfect creator doesn't make any flaws. That's on page (57)...just scroll up.

I also used a logical argument to show that both a lack of clarity exists in god's message...and that lack of clarity is a logical flaw.

What's really troubling is the fact that you made almost the exact same statement just a few pages ago...and I responded with the arguments you asked for. You weren't able to refute them back when I originally posted them either.

Have you ever heard of early onset Alzheimer's? Did you know it can show symptoms as early as your 30s? If you can't remember what you said, and how I replied, just a few pages ago....perhaps it's time to get yourself checked out. I mean that seriously, I'm concerned for you.

 

[anonymous person]

I already did.

I used a logical argument to show a perfect creator doesn't make any flaws. That's on this page (57)...just scroll up.

I also used a logical argument to show that a lack of clarity exists in god's message...and that lack of clarity is a logical flaw.

It seems we are talking past one another.

I think your concept of "perfect" differs from mine.

When I think of God's perfection I don't think it means He can force everyone in the world to believe that the Bible is His word against their will.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It seems we are talking past one another.

I think your concept of "perfect" differs from mine.

When I think of God's perfection I don't think it means He can force everyone in the world to believe that the Bible is His word against their will.

I don't either...that's why it wasn't part of my definition of perfect or my argument for a lack of clarity in the bible.

 

[bhsmte]

It seems we are talking past one another.

I think your concept of "perfect" differs from mine.

When I think of God's perfection I don't think it means He can force everyone in the world to believe that the Bible is His word against their will.

Why would a perfect and flawless God have to force anyone?

 

[HitchSlap]

Why would a perfect and flawless God have to force anyone?

Or require something created to worship itself.

 

[anonymous person]

I don't either...that's why it wasn't part of my definition of perfect or my argument for a lack of clarity in the bible.

I don't really understand what you are trying to say.

 

[anonymous person]

Why would a perfect and flawless God have to force anyone?

He doesn't have to.

 

[anonymous person]

Or require something created to worship itself.

Red herring.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't really understand what you are trying to say.

You said you think we have different opinions of the word perfect...then you said some nonsense about god forcing people to agree with the bible. My definition of perfect that applies to my argument has nothing to do with forcing people to agree with the bible. You're arguing against a point that I'm not making explicitly or implicitly.

I created a logical argument for the lack of clarity in god's message as a flaw in his creation. You can...

1. Argue that there is a flaw in my logic. Point out the mistake in my logic, and argue against it. You cannot, however, argue against some point that has nothing to do with my argument (which is what you were doing). If you honestly believe some part of my argument means that god would need to force people to agree with the bible...then the burden is upon you to show that.

2. You can agree with my logical argument that lack of clarity in god's message is a flaw and rebut my argument elsewhere.

 

[anonymous person]

You said you think we have different opinions of the word perfect...then you said some nonsense about god forcing people to agree with the bible. My definition of perfect that applies to my argument has nothing to do with forcing people to agree with the bible. You're arguing against a point that I'm not making explicitly or implicitly.

I created a logical argument for the lack of clarity in god's message as a flaw in his creation. You can...

1. Argue that there is a flaw in my logic. Point out the mistake in my logic, and argue against it. You cannot, however, argue against some point that has nothing to do with my argument (which is what you were doing). If you honestly believe some part of my argument means that god would need to force people to agree with the bible...then the burden is upon you to show that.

2. You can agree with my logical argument that lack of clarity in god's message is a flaw and rebut my argument elsewhere.

Who is the Bible unclear to?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Who is the Bible unclear to?

Just christians and non-christians.

 

[HitchSlap]

Red herring.

One fish, two fish, blue fish...

BTW, have did I miss the post where you demonstrated god was real, Jesus was his son, and we should repent and worship him, or we're going to hell?

 

[anonymous person]

One fish, two fish, blue fish...

BTW, have did I miss the post where you demonstrated god was real, Jesus was his son, and we should repent and worship him, or we're going to hell?

Red herring.

 

[anonymous person]

Just christians and non-christians.

This is synonymous with saying the bible is unclear to everyone.

I think what you mean to say is that the bible is of such a nature that it is open to interpretation and that God cannot create a book open to interpretation.

That if He did inspire the authors to write what they did, then it is logically impossible for the scriptures to be open to interpretation.

I just see no reason to think that. You surely haven't given any reason to think this.

 

[HitchSlap]

Red herring.

You've completely given up, haven't you?

Merry Christmas!

 

[Davian]

Red herring.

Fallacy fallacy.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This is synonymous with saying the bible is unclear to everyone.

I think what you mean to say is that the bible is of such a nature that it is open to interpretation and that God cannot create a book open to interpretation.

That if He did inspire the authors to write what they did, then it is logically impossible for the scriptures to be open to interpretation.

I just see no reason to think that. You surely haven't given any reason to think this.

Again, this is one of those things that I felt was so obvious it didn't merit mentioning. Of course a perfect creator god could make a message open to interpretation...he could even do this by being unclear. The only situation where I can logically imagine a perfect creator god doing so is if the purpose of such a message is to be unclear. It's rather difficult, of course, to imagine a situation where lack of clarity is the purpose of a message from god...but I'll acknowledge the situation is logically possible.

In your post above...you're saying that you cannot imagine a reason to think a perfect creator god couldn't deliver a flawed message to mankind.

Is that really the case though? Is it really so difficult to imagine such a reason? Again...I thought this was such an obvious point (especially to your theology) that it didn't merit mentioning. Are you ready? Here it comes....

It's an important message. That's it...nothing fancy there...it just has to be important. That is what you believe...right? That god's message to mankind contained within the bible is rather important? I know christians who would argue that no "message" from god is more important...

So I'll amend my logical proof to include the obvious for you.

1. I'll submit that the primary purpose of any message is communication.

2. The message from god contained within the bible is one of importance...therefore communicating it to mankind is also of importance.

3. There is a lack of clarity present in the bible that inhibits effective communication. This is evidenced by multiple denominations and interpretations of the bible.

4. This lack of clarity is a flaw in god's creation (the creation being his message, of course). This flaw is one of inefficiency.

5. A god who is inefficient in creating a message to mankind is comparably worse (at creating) than a god who is efficient.

Therefore...

A. God isn't perfect.
Or
B. God didn't create the message contained within the bible.
Or
C. God doesn't exist. ( logical extension of conclusion B)

 

[anonymous person]

Again, this is one of those things that I felt was so obvious it didn't merit mentioning. Of course a perfect creator god could make a message open to interpretation...he could even do this by being unclear. The only situation where I can logically imagine a perfect creator god doing so is if the purpose of such a message is to be unclear. It's rather difficult, of course, to imagine a situation where lack of clarity is the purpose of a message from god...but I'll acknowledge the situation is logically possible.

In your post above...you're saying that you cannot imagine a reason to think a perfect creator god couldn't deliver a flawed message to mankind.

Is that really the case though? Is it really so difficult to imagine such a reason? Again...I thought this was such an obvious point (especially to your theology) that it didn't merit mentioning. Are you ready? Here it comes....

It's an important message. That's it...nothing fancy there...it just has to be important. That is what you believe...right? That god's message to mankind contained within the bible is rather important? I know christians who would argue that no "message" from god is more important...

So I'll amend my logical proof to include the obvious for you.

1. I'll submit that the primary purpose of any message is communication.

2. The message from god contained within the bible is one of importance...therefore communicating it to mankind is also of importance.

3. There is a lack of clarity present in the bible that inhibits effective communication. This is evidenced by multiple denominations and interpretations of the bible.

4. This lack of clarity is a flaw in god's creation (the creation being his message, of course). This flaw is one of inefficiency.

5. A god who is inefficient in creating a message to mankind is comparably worse (at creating) than a god who is efficient.

Therefore...

A. God isn't perfect.
Or
B. God didn't create the message contained within the bible.
Or
C. God doesn't exist. ( logical extension of conclusion B)

What is clear is a matter of opinion. The Bible is very clear to me on the issues that are important. What is efficient or not is a matter of opinion. I think the Bible is an efficient means of communicating God's revealed will to man. I have only benefited by following its clear and unambiguous teachings. I did what the Bible says do i.e. Ask, seek, and knock and I received what the Bible said I would receive, intimate fellowship with Jesus Christ.

Can one just pick up the bible and in one sitting completely understand it all? Of course not.

God's word is deep, marvelous, awe-inspiring, and wonderful and is a reflection of God Himself. We could spend a lifetime plumbing it's depths and this would be a mere scratching of the surface.

So I think you are presenting this argument to the wrong person. I am sure someone who viewed the bible the way you do would find it a lot easier to agree with you. I don't.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What is clear is a matter of opinion. The Bible is very clear to me on the issues that are important. What is efficient or not is a matter of opinion. I think the Bible is an efficient means of communicating God's revealed will to man. I have only benefited by following its clear and unambiguous teachings. I did what the Bible says do i.e. Ask, seek, and knock and I received what the Bible said I would receive, intimate fellowship with Jesus Christ.

By what measure can it be considered clear and efficient? Can you think of ways of communicating that are more clear and efficient, particularly if one's resources are not limited to inspiring the authorship of books?

God's word is deep, marvelous, awe-inspiring, and wonderful and is a reflection of God Himself. We could spend a lifetime plumbing it's depths and this would be a mere scratching of the surface.

I think it's marvellously overrated. There are books far more awe-inspiring.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Again, this is one of those things that I felt was so obvious it didn't merit mentioning. Of course a perfect creator god could make a message open to interpretation...he could even do this by being unclear. The only situation where I can logically imagine a perfect creator god doing so is if the purpose of such a message is to be unclear. It's rather difficult, of course, to imagine a situation where lack of clarity is the purpose of a message from god...but I'll acknowledge the situation is logically possible.

In your post above...you're saying that you cannot imagine a reason to think a perfect creator god couldn't deliver a flawed message to mankind.

Is that really the case though? Is it really so difficult to imagine such a reason? Again...I thought this was such an obvious point (especially to your theology) that it didn't merit mentioning. Are you ready? Here it comes....

It's an important message. That's it...nothing fancy there...it just has to be important. That is what you believe...right? That god's message to mankind contained within the bible is rather important? I know christians who would argue that no "message" from god is more important...

So I'll amend my logical proof to include the obvious for you.

1. I'll submit that the primary purpose of any message is communication.

2. The message from god contained within the bible is one of importance...therefore communicating it to mankind is also of importance.

3. There is a lack of clarity present in the bible that inhibits effective communication. This is evidenced by multiple denominations and interpretations of the bible.

4. This lack of clarity is a flaw in god's creation (the creation being his message, of course). This flaw is one of inefficiency.

5. A god who is inefficient in creating a message to mankind is comparably worse (at creating) than a god who is efficient.

Therefore...

A. God isn't perfect.
Or
B. God didn't create the message contained within the bible.
Or
C. God doesn't exist. ( logical extension of conclusion B)

I think Matt Dillahunty addresses this issue well (beginning at 20:18). I've also addressed it on CF (1, 2):

Considering his omniscience, God knows exactly the best way to reach each individual and establish a relationship. He does not need to rely on suboptimal methods that he already knows will fail to convince many people (e.g., the Bible). Given that, isn't it God who is without excuse for failing to form meaningful relationships?

Why is that a problem for God? Knowing the best way in which to reach any person means that, if he so desires, he is able to form a relationship with anyone, regardless of their current disposition. He doesn't need to rely on suboptimal methods for converting people because, for each individual, he already knows the optimal way to convert them.