An idea that invalidates all religions.

Shabonkerz
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
An idea that invalidates all religions.

While I am unable to prove or contradict the existence of a god, I can however prove that all religions are either false, or unworthy of our attention. So here goes.

Suppose that there is a god, worthy of worship, thus meaning said god is omnipotent, never unwilling, never incapable, always good, and is all intelligent.

Now suppose that said god is the creator of everything. In order to be the creator of everything, and at the same time a god worthy of worship, then there is only one scenario that logically fits. God would have to be able to, willing to, and intelligent enough to create everything in one action. Any further action would be a revision on the previous action, and a revision would indicate gods inability, unwillingness, or lack of intelligence. As all religions claim that there is a god that will take action based on the actions of us humans, such a god is unintelligent, unwilling, or incapable. Thus such a god is not omnipotent, and therefore not worth worship.

Do you see any flaws in my logic here? If so, yell at me.


GW SKEPTIC
GW SKEPTIC's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-01-24
User is offlineOffline
 You could always say that

 You could always say that there was a reason in which a god created things in an order. If you cannot think of a good reason why this would be the case, a theist may point to their "god works in mysterious ways" or "it is beyond our understanding" argument.

SKEPTIC: Science & Knowledge Empowering People to Intelligently Choose
A Student Organization at The George Washington University


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3965
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Shabonkerz wrote: Do you see

Shabonkerz wrote:
Do you see any flaws in my logic here? If so, yell at me.

No, But you're preaching to the atheist choir.

Religion is the drug that tells people it's OK to be illogical and ignorant. So faith protects them from any rational arguments.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Shabonkerz wrote: Suppose

Shabonkerz wrote:
Suppose that there is a god, worthy of worship, thus meaning said god is omnipotent, never unwilling, never incapable, always good, and is all intelligent.

Don't think 'all intelligent' quite covers omniscient, which would fit nicely, as an addition in the sentence above. Omnipresence wouldn't be a bad addition either.

 

 

Shabonkerz wrote:
God would have to be able to, willing to, and intelligent enough to create everything in one action. 

Some religions would likely counter your argument with a couple of different things such as, "never unwilling is not an attribute of our god" or "she (god) could change her mind/whatever regarding initial creation, not because she suddenly had a better idea, but just for the sake of variety"  etc etc.

I've heard application of both of these so be prepared for similar 'reasoning'.

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
In some religions

In some religions (especially polytheistic ones) the gods are not necesarrily omniscient, omnipotent or omnibenevolent.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
The letters G-O-D make me

The letters G-O-D make me laugh, until I hear and see what the people say and do. Shezzzz , what is not the "force, or gawed". As far as worshiping goes; honor truth, life, and simply existence,  as all is connected as ONE. Feel the grandness of the "eternal awe".

               Fear not god (the force), fear dogma.


Shabonkerz
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
You could always say that

"You could always say that there was a reason in which a god created things in an order."

That reason would have to be that god was incapable of reducing the order to 1 task. I am aware of the argument that "god works in mysterious ways", which is a concession of their knowledge of god on their part. And yes I understand this may come off as preaching to the choir, but I just wanted to sharpen my argument by subjecting it to criticism and revising as needed.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
The god of religions is a

The gods of religions are wimps ....


GW SKEPTIC
GW SKEPTIC's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-01-24
User is offlineOffline
 But not that the god was

 But not that the god was incapable of doing it, but wanted it in a certain order in time. For example, wanting birds to exist before the land animals

 

Your argument also can get wrapped up into the debate on omniscience. Say that a god did create everything in one task. The god is also omniscient. In this case, the god already knew what you were going to do and decided everything at the moment of creation. Because of this, the god would not need to revise its plan.

SKEPTIC: Science & Knowledge Empowering People to Intelligently Choose
A Student Organization at The George Washington University


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
"omniscience, omnipotence,

"omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence"

    Famous words of dog ma lovers !  ....  ma dog  ,  my god ...    


V1per41
V1per41's picture
Posts: 288
Joined: 2006-10-09
User is offlineOffline
You can't really use one

You can't really use one string of logic to invalidate all religions.  Each religion (and in my opinion every individual person) worships a god with different attributes.  Isn't is shocking out each person's god shares views that are exactly in line with that individuals??

Anyway, I digress.... Not all gods are omnipotent or omniscient.  Like Shizzle said, many of the polytheist religions have gods that don't have these attributes.  The one attribute that 99+% of gods do have though, is that they are supernatural, or posses supernatural powers.  Such a phrase is complete nonsense and uninterperable.  If something exists then it's natural by definition.  You can't have a supernatural, the word itself is just completely non-sensicle.

If you do want to go the omnicient, omnipotent, etc... route, you can always use the riddle of epicuris:

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 able and willing?  Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?  Then why call him God?

 

In any event when ever you discuss religion/god with someone it's important to get what their individual definition of god is so you don't get accused of making straw man arguments.

 

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Shabonkerz wrote:While I am

Shabonkerz wrote:
While I am unable to prove or contradict the existence of a god, I can however prove that all religions are either false, or unworthy of our attention. So here goes. Suppose that there is a god, worthy of worship, thus meaning said god is omnipotent, never unwilling, never incapable, always good, and is all intelligent. Now suppose that said god is the creator of everything. In order to be the creator of everything, and at the same time a god worthy of worship, then there is only one scenario that logically fits. God would have to be able to, willing to, and intelligent enough to create everything in one action. Any further action would be a revision on the previous action, and a revision would indicate gods inability, unwillingness, or lack of intelligence. As all religions claim that there is a god that will take action based on the actions of us humans, such a god is unintelligent, unwilling, or incapable. Thus such a god is not omnipotent, and therefore not worth worship. Do you see any flaws in my logic here? If so, yell at me.

God didn't want to take away their free will, that's why. 

/christian

 

 

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Shabonkerz wrote:While I am

Shabonkerz wrote:
While I am unable to prove or contradict the existence of a god[...]

I bet you can.  Any god that can't exist, doesn't exist.  In this category we have any god that contains contradictory characteristics as well as any god that's supposed to transcend all that exists... those annoying gods that are supernatural or any equivalently broken concept.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Gamage90
Gamage90's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
GW SKEPTIC wrote: You could

GW SKEPTIC wrote:

 You could always say that there was a reason in which a god created things in an order. If you cannot think of a good reason why this would be the case, a theist may point to their "god works in mysterious ways" or "it is beyond our understanding" argument.

 

Its not exactly an argument, more so the backtracking of a false idea with clear flaws. If I were to say "Gods exist isn't logical" i'd meet the reply "God's existence defies all logic" which is basically what I just said but reworded and given an alternate meaning. Most so called contradictions are wordplay. As for God works in mysterious ways, thats a clear example of a theist finding clear flaws in their belief and using an illogical escape clause.

"Faith means not wanting to know what is true"
(Friedrich Nietzsche)


GW SKEPTIC
GW SKEPTIC's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-01-24
User is offlineOffline
Gamage90 wrote:GW SKEPTIC

Gamage90 wrote:

GW SKEPTIC wrote:

 You could always say that there was a reason in which a god created things in an order. If you cannot think of a good reason why this would be the case, a theist may point to their "god works in mysterious ways" or "it is beyond our understanding" argument.

 

Its not exactly an argument, more so the backtracking of a false idea with clear flaws. If I were to say "Gods exist isn't logical" i'd meet the reply "God's existence defies all logic" which is basically what I just said but reworded and given an alternate meaning. Most so called contradictions are wordplay. As for God works in mysterious ways, thats a clear example of a theist finding clear flaws in their belief and using an illogical escape clause.

It can be your belief that it is a "backtracking of a false idea with clear flaws" but it's still an argument. Also, to make the argument you did, you would have to first prove it is a false idea and that it has clear flaws. This example isn't just "wordplay" as you were attempting to show in your example. When you say the theist finds clear flaws in their belief, what you are really saying is that you see flaws in their belief, and they're using an argument against you that is within their domain of options but not in yours. This isn't "fair." Nonetheless, it's an argument they can and will use, and I think it best to avoid arguments that have this vulnerability.

If you want a more "fair" response, I posted one earlier regarding omniscience.

 

SKEPTIC: Science & Knowledge Empowering People to Intelligently Choose
A Student Organization at The George Washington University


Shabonkerz
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
"But not that the god was

"But not that the god was incapable of doing it, but wanted it in a certain order in time. For example, wanting birds to exist before the land animals"

With said 1 action, god could have achieved this by allowing the universe arrange itself.


Shabonkerz
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
"I bet you can. Any god

"I bet you can. Any god that can't exist, doesn't exist. In this category we have any god that contains contradictory characteristics as well as any god that's supposed to transcend all that exists... those annoying gods that are supernatural or any equivalently broken concept."

My bad, I meant I am unable to contradict the existence of a god, although able to contradict several proposed versions of god.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
The Riddle of Epicuris Is

The Riddle of Epicuris
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 able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

               


GW SKEPTIC
GW SKEPTIC's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-01-24
User is offlineOffline
Shabonkerz wrote:"But not

Shabonkerz wrote:
"But not that the god was incapable of doing it, but wanted it in a certain order in time. For example, wanting birds to exist before the land animals" With said 1 action, god could have achieved this by allowing the universe arrange itself.

 

People could say that's exactly what their god did. Or, you can still say that the god could have done that, could have done it in many ways, but it was done in this way. You can argue that some alternate way is more efficient, but since we're not omniscient, we can't say for certain. Maybe humans are easier to create once birds have been created. It doesn't matter the excuse given, there would be know way to know and no way to nail it down. I don't think there is a way to make this argument valid.

SKEPTIC: Science & Knowledge Empowering People to Intelligently Choose
A Student Organization at The George Washington University


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
 here is your flaw.  you

 here is your flaw.  you are assuming that god did not create everything in one action.


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:The

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

The Riddle of Epicuris
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 able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

               

it could be argued that god is able but not willing because out of benevolence he granted humanity free will and therefore the capacity to do evil.  therefore evil came from man, not god.  

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:it could be

Shitrock wrote:

it could be argued that god is able but not willing because out of benevolence he granted humanity free will and therefore the capacity to do evil.  therefore evil came from man, not god.  

It is obvious you did not read the rules for the Freethinking Anonymous forum.

Theists are not to post in the Freethinking Anonymous forum

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
What created that god who

What created that god who created?  Think just maybe maybe, these dogmatic "religious" god concepts we entertain are silly ?

Imagine other big bangs out there, beyond our entire "Big Bang",  a decillion to the decillionth power in "light yrs" away. How about a mere trilliion to the trillionth power ?!!!!

trillion - 10 add 12 zeros: 1,000,000,000,000

decillion - 10 add 33 zeros -

1 decillion x 1 decillion =   !!!!!!!!!! =   

approx: 1 Light yr in miles ? 1 year  =  31,556,926 seconds, multiplied by 186,000 (miles per sec)  =  the distance light travels in ONE yr.  =  6 trillion miles per year.

Do some basic math ! Who would assume our "Big Bang" is unique, or BIG ???

Names of large numbers  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_large_numbers

ummm, what was that bull shit about some dogmatic god again ?!!

     well !?    ..... and "time", whats that , and when did it start ?

Truth, in matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived.
Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) -- The Critic as Artist (1891)

"Those afraid of the universe as it really is, those who pretend to nonexistent knowledge and envision a Cosmos centered on human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts of superstition. They avoid rather than confront the world. But those with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos, even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and prejudices, will penetrate its deepest mysteries."  ~ Carl Sagan

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan

 


Future Indefinite
Future Indefinite's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2008-05-28
User is offlineOffline
they are supernatural

V1per41 wrote:

You can't really use one string of logic to invalidate all religions.  Each religion (and in my opinion every individual person) worships a god with different attributes.  Isn't is shocking out each person's god shares views that are exactly in line with that individuals??

Anyway, I digress.... Not all gods are omnipotent or omniscient.  Like Shizzle said, many of the polytheist religions have gods that don't have these attributes.  The one attribute that 99+% of gods do have though, is that they are supernatural, or posses supernatural powers.  Such a phrase is complete nonsense and uninterperable.  If something exists then it's natural by definition.  You can't have a supernatural, the word itself is just completely non-sensicle.

If you do want to go the omnicient, omnipotent, etc... route, you can always use the riddle of epicuris:

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 able and willing?  Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?  Then why call him God?

 

In any event when ever you discuss religion/god with someone it's important to get what their individual definition of god is so you don't get accused of making straw man arguments.

 

............................................................

"Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition". - Isaac Asimov


V1per41
V1per41's picture
Posts: 288
Joined: 2006-10-09
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:I AM GOD AS

Shitrock wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

The Riddle of Epicuris
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 able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

               

it could be argued that god is able but not willing because out of benevolence he granted humanity free will and therefore the capacity to do evil.  therefore evil came from man, not god.  

 

Which makes no sense since, an all-knowing/powerful god made man with the knowlege that man would perform such evils.  Using this logic is like saying that if I throw a rock through a window that it's the rocks fault the window broke, not mine.

Of course human actions have no effect on the evils of natural disasters.

 

Well that's 2 ways the theists remark has been rebuted, can anyone else point out something else wrong with it?

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
The theologians' ( and the

The theologians' ( and the theists' ) dilemma is that the more they claim to understand god's rationale the more they lose ground in their denial that god is made in man's image. It's pathetic, and would be hilarious as a spectator sport if there weren't so many political implications riding on their discomfort. These guys have been ruling the roost for so long they have forgotten that rationale leads to a place very scientific, and very irreligious. They bring their god into that territory and he's dead. This, when they realise it belatedly, leads to the bulk of the so-called theological debate that pertains today. It's backtracking, obfuscation, obscuration and - plainly said - shite talking.

 

If god is there, and behaves as they describe, then he's a mean, vindictive fucker. And for all their assertions, that's one inescapable conclusion that theologians have yet to refute.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann , Thanks. Your

NordmannThanks. Your "sword" is sharp ! The power of words ! The truth is thunderous , and still so many cannot hear ?!?!  Turn it up !  There are parables about that, in many ancient books ....

   umm, and what was that the atheist story Jesus said !?! Something about not being silent, and using your talents, spreading the atheistic "good word", regarding no dogma superstition, that all is ONE, Equal .....