Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[zippy2006]

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.

Here are some of your hidden premises:

1. God's purpose in communicating is precisely the thing that is undermined by the fact of various denominations and interpretations (i.e. the thing that God wishes to communicate and the thing that is not communicated are one and the same).
2. The lack of clear communication is caused by the giver rather than the recipient. (Related to ap's point here)
3. Scripture is God's sufficient and sole means of communication.

I'm not convinced that any one of those premises is true. Further, the overall theme of your argument relates to #2 and is as follows:

If not everyone is Christian, then God has not done his part.​

Yet Christians are more or less explicitly told that this is false. Simply conjoin 1 Timothy 2:4 with Matthew 7:13.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Here are some of your hidden premises:

1. God's purpose in communicating is precisely the thing that is undermined by the fact of various denominations and interpretations (i.e. the thing that God wishes to communicate and the thing that is not communicated are one and the same).
2. The lack of clear communication is caused by the giver rather than the recipient. (Related to ap's point here)
3. Scripture is God's sufficient and sole means of communication.

I'm not convinced that any one of those premises is true. Further, the overall theme of your argument relates to #2 and is as follows:

If not everyone is Christian, then God has not done his part.​

Yet Christians are more or less explicitly told that this is false. Simply conjoin 1 Timothy 2:4 with Matthew 7:13.

I think I've addressed (2) here. Knowing the best way in which to reach any individual recipient, we would expect him to be able to form a relationship with anyone, whatever their initial disposition. If they were created with a disposition that forever precludes them from forming a relationship with their creator, then who else is to blame for this other than their creator?

In relation to (3), I'm not sure whether Ana is committed to saying that scripture is the sole means of communication. It is simply the case in point at the moment.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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 can believe you used the Dude's famous "Well, that's like....your opinion, man."-defense! Classic! I never thought I'd see that pop up on these forums.

Sure, it's an opinion...let's be honest though, I've constructed logical arguments to support this opinion and I've provided evidence where necessary to bolster these logical arguments. To sum it up...

I've constructed a logical argument against god by starting with a threadbare definition of god using only two major characteristics (so you didn't spend all your time claiming that my definition is wrong).In this logical argument (and it's smaller components) I've explained why...

1. A perfect creator god only creates perfect creations.
2. A creation is not perfect if it contains flaws.
3. Flaws in god's creations exist. (Specifically, the flaw of inefficiency in the bible)

Therefore...

4.A. God isn't perfect.
4.B. God doesn't create.
4.C. Perfect creator gods don't exist (the most parsimonious explanation).

So it's not exactly as if my opinion and your opinion are on equal footing. You'd need to show the flaw in the logic of my argument...or create your own logical arguments in favor of your particular opinion.

Or you can keep doing this combination of misconstruing my argument into something that you can argue against and evading any sort of genuine rebuttal. You seem to be most comfortable doing that....

Let me ask you something though...

Why not just admit that you can't find a logical flaw in the argument I made? It's not like I'm going to throw that back in your face or anything. It's not like we all haven't been there at some point during our education.

 

[anonymous person]

I can believe you used the Dude's famous "Well, that's like....your opinion, man."-defense! Classic! I never thought I'd see that pop up on these forums.

Sure, it's an opinion...let's be honest though, I've constructed logical arguments to support this opinion and I've provided evidence where necessary to bolster these logical arguments. To sum it up...

I've constructed a logical argument against god by starting with a threadbare definition of god using only two major characteristics (so you didn't spend all your time claiming that my definition is wrong).In this logical argument (and it's smaller components) I've explained why...

1. A perfect creator god only creates perfect creations.
2. A creation is not perfect if it contains flaws.
3. Flaws in god's creations exist. (Specifically, the flaw of inefficiency in the bible)

Therefore...

4.A. God isn't perfect.
4.B. God doesn't create.
4.C. Perfect creator gods don't exist (the most parsimonious explanation).

So it's not exactly as if my opinion and your opinion are on equal footing. You'd need to show the flaw in the logic of my argument...or create your own logical arguments in favor of your particular opinion.

Or you can keep doing this combination of misconstruing my argument into something that you can argue against and evading any sort of genuine rebuttal. You seem to be most comfortable doing that....

Let me ask you something though...

Why not just admit that you can't find a logical flaw in the argument I made? It's not like I'm going to throw that back in your face or anything. It's not like we all haven't been there at some point during our education.

What is a perfect creation? I have no such commitment to the notion that there is a "perfect" possible world. I see no reason to think there is a "best possible world" or a ceiling to the range of good worlds which could stretch on ad infinitum.

It seems you're trying to argue more for a concept of God, i.e. a being that cannot create a world wherein malaria exists or a disputed text exists.

If this is how God is defined then your argument is nothing more than question begging. Of course your conclusion will be that such a God does not exist. I for one would heartily agree.

You've given no reason why God should be defined as "a being who cannot create a world wherein malaria or a disputed text exists". All you have said is that God is perfect. But why does being perfect preclude God from being able to create a world wherein malaria exists?

Explain why being perfect precludes one who is perfect from actualizing a world wherein Malaria exists or a world wherein this being ' s revelation to man is viewed by some as "unclear" or "inefficient".


As long as it is possible that God could have morally sufficient reasons for allowing Malaria to exist, your argument to show God and Malaria could not possibly coexist, fails.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What is a perfect creation? I have no such commitment to the notion that there is a "perfect" possible world. I see no reason to think there is a "best possible world" or a ceiling to the range of good worlds which could stretch on ad infinitum.

But you are committed to the notion that is there is a God who is "perfect"?

You've given no reason why God should be defined as "a being who cannot create a world wherein malaria or a disputed text exists". All you have said is that God is perfect. But why does being perfect preclude God from being able to create a world wherein malaria exists?

You were asked to provide your own definition several pages ago, but you declined.

As long as it is possible that God could have morally sufficient reasons for allowing Malaria to exist, your argument to show God and Malaria could not possibly coexist, fails.

You were asked about such "morally sufficient reasons" in another thread. You evaded the question.

 

[anonymous person]

But you are committed to the notion that is there is a God who is "perfect"?

You were asked to provide your own definition several pages ago, but you declined.

You were asked about such "morally sufficient reasons" in another thread. You evaded the question.

I do believe God is perfect. That does not mean I believe God can't possibly have morally sufficient reasons for creating a world wherein malaria exists, for example.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What is a perfect creation? I have no such commitment to the notion that there is a "perfect" possible world. I see no reason to think there is a "best possible world" or a ceiling to the range of good worlds which could stretch on ad infinitum.

It seems you're trying to argue more for a concept of God, i.e. a being that cannot create a world wherein malaria exists or a disputed text exists.

If this is how God is defined then your argument is nothing more than question begging. Of course your conclusion will be that such a God does not exist. I for one would heartily agree.

You've given no reason why God should be defined as "a being who cannot create a world wherein malaria or a disputed text exists". All you have said is that God is perfect. But why does being perfect preclude God from being able to create a world wherein malaria exists?

Explain why being perfect precludes one who is perfect from actualizing a world wherein Malaria exists or a world wherein this being ' s revelation to man is viewed by some as "unclear" or "inefficient".


As long as it is possible that God could have morally sufficient reasons for allowing Malaria to exist, your argument to show God and Malaria could not possibly coexist, fails.

So you're claiming here that a "perfect" god cannot exist?

 

[quatona]

I do believe God is perfect. That does not mean I believe God can't possibly have morally sufficient reasons for creating a world wherein malaria exists, for example.

As long as you don´t spell out what ,in your definition, it means for God to be perfect this is a completely empty statement which doesn´t deserve further contemplation.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I do believe God is perfect. That does not mean I believe God can't possibly have morally sufficient reasons for creating a world wherein malaria exists, for example.

And those "morally sufficient reasons" are?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

As a reminder, you were asked to elucidate these ostensibly "morally sufficient reasons" in two other threads (1, 2, 3).

 

[quatona]

And those "morally sufficient reasons" are?

...and "what are those morals based on?"

 

[Archaeopteryx]

...and "what are those morals based on?"

Seeing as Jeremy is an adherent of Divine Command Theory, it would appear that these "morally sufficient reasons" amount to "because God says so."

 

[anonymous person]

So you're claiming here that a "perfect" god cannot exist?

No.

I am telling you that you have given me no reason to think that God can't possibly create a world like ours. You know, a world containing malaria, or a world with texts that are "unclear" to some.

 

[anonymous person]

...and "what are those morals based on?"

Red herring.

Ref. Thread title.

 

[anonymous person]

Note*

I am under no obligation to provide a theodicy in order to rebut the argument of the logical incompatibility of the existence of God and the existence of this world.

If someone wants to start a separate thread on what morally sufficient reasons God might have for creating this world, then I will offer some responses there.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I do believe God is perfect. That does not mean I believe God can't possibly have morally sufficient reasons for creating a world wherein malaria exists, for example.

Just to be clear then...you're giving up on the lack of clarity in the bible and moving onto malaria?

I don't want to bother creating a logical argument against malaria only to have you ignore it once you realize you can't find fault in it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Note*

I am under no obligation to provide a theodicy in order to rebut the argument of the logical incompatibility of the existence of God and the existence of this world.

If someone wants to start a separate thread on what morally sufficient reasons God might have for creating this world, then I will offer some responses there.

As far as I'm concerned....morality has nothing to do at all with my argument. Im disproving a perfect creator god by showing flaws in his creations.

It is the purpose of a creation, not some moral explanation of it, that will be relevant to the flaws I'm listing.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Red herring.

Ref. Thread title.

But it's your red herring! You brought up "morally sufficient reasons."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Note*

I am under no obligation to provide a theodicy in order to rebut the argument of the logical incompatibility of the existence of God and the existence of this world.

If someone wants to start a separate thread on what morally sufficient reasons God might have for creating this world, then I will offer some responses there.

You make an assertion about God having "morally sufficient reasons" to do this or that, but when asked about those reasons, you bolt. No, sorry, insofar as your rebuttal depends on this assertion it remains relevant to the thread. So you can either retreat from your rebuttal and offer another one instead, or defend the rebuttal you've given.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You make an assertion about God having "morally sufficient reasons" to do this or that, but when asked about those reasons, you bolt. No, sorry, insofar as your rebuttal depends on this assertion it remains relevant to the thread. So you can either retreat from your rebuttal and offer another one instead, or defend the rebuttal you've given.

Are you surprised? His rebuttal of my argument so far has been..."I disagree".

He never showed a mistake in my logic, he never created a logical argument to explain away mine, ...he hasn't even given a reason to disagree with any of my premises.

No wonder he wants to start over with the flaws inherent in malaria.