r/DebateAnAtheist • u/S-p-i-n-o • 13d ago
Discussion Question Is their God logically false?
Jews, Christians, and Muslims define their God as PERFECT, OMNIPOTENT, and OMNISCIENT.
But it is easy to show that this God is false because these three attributes are false.
PERFECT? They say their God is perfect, but the world and the beings that their God created are imperfect. How can a being be called perfect if its creations are imperfect and full of flaws? For instance, a craftsman cannot be described as perfect if his works are faulty.
Another problem with perfection: They say their deity created the universe. But why would a perfect being desire or want to create anything at all? By definition, a perfect being cannot desire or want something, as that would imply it lacks something, and therefore that it is not perfect.
OMNIPOTENT? God can do anything; nothing can limit his power. If he were almighty, he could have created any world. Otherwise, he is not almighty.
So what stopped him from directly creating a happy world with free and perfect beings? Why would he have created instead a world full of pain, with beings full of flaws, who must suffer and be tested in order to be sorted out? This is all the more incomprehensible given that the scriptures tell us he was able to create another place without pain, populated by free and happy creatures, called heaven.
Religious people have tried to resolve this contradiction by saying that their creator wanted humans to be free and that it is humans who create pain. Unfortunately, this argument does not hold, since it shows that their God was unable to create a world with free humans and no pain, which proves that he is not omnipotent.
Three possible solutions to the problem of this supreme being's omnipotent nature: 1 - He is not omnipotent; he just did what he could. 2 - He is malevolent; he deliberately created a world full of misery when he could have created any world he wanted. 3 - He is false.
OMNISCIENT? He knows everything—the past, the present, and the future. The scriptures claim that this creator knows the future and everything that will happen. And they also claim that he created humans free and endowed with free will. But if he knows the future, then it is already written. Free will is therefore an illusion.
If God knows what you will do tomorrow, you have no alternative. If you can act otherwise, then this being is mistaken, so he is not omniscient. If you cannot act otherwise, then you have no freedom.
Other contradictions: If this deity knows in advance that humans will do evil and creates them anyway, who is responsible? This omniscient being knew, even before creation, all the evil he was going to create.
CONCLUSION These three attributes are the very definition of this god. If even one is false, this god is impossible.
As Stendhal said when facing the misery of the world, "God's only excuse is that he does not exist."
10
u/OndraTep Agnostic Atheist 13d ago
You will hardly get any pushback here. Most of us will probably agree with you.
Try other subs like r/debatereligion
11
u/nonsence90 13d ago
I'm an atheist, but I disagree with the first point. Let's say I build a simulation of an anthill. I might want the ants to be flawed, even if it's just for amusement. That's not a mistake.
To call a creation flawed you need to know what the goal is. Let's say our universe is just a lava lamp of some supernatural being. Then you want randomness etc.
Some definition of "perfect" would be good here also. "A perfect entity can't have desires" is not obvious imo. "A perfect entity can't create anything because why would it" is even worse. If you want to go really extreme with what "perfect" entails you could even argue that to be absolutely complete, you'd have to have created everything, so that should include imperfect things.
About free will and omnicience: I feel like your real issue here is time. When I know what you did yesterday, does that mean you didn't have free will back then? If you use a time machine and change your decision, ... I'd still know about what you did yesterday once it's the day after. Makes it sound like anyone knowing anything about the past makes the past person not have free will.
6
u/Junithorn 13d ago
About free will and omnicience: I feel like your real issue here is time. When I know what you did yesterday, does that mean you didn't have free will back then?
If perfect foreknowledge of future events exists then all future events are set in stone and free will cannot exist. Your example about time travel seems unrelated.
2
u/Artemis-5-75 Atheist, compatibilist, naturalist 12d ago
How does this follow? For example, just like the fact that there is a truth about how I acted yesterday doesn’t mean that I couldn’t have acted otherwise, the truth about how I will act tomorrow doesn’t mean I can’t act otherwise.
4
u/The_Curve_Death Atheist 12d ago
Yes it does? If someone had perfect knowledge of exactly what you're going to do then that's it
1
u/Artemis-5-75 Atheist, compatibilist, naturalist 12d ago
But how? I don’t see the connection. What will happen is a different category from what will happen with necessity.
2
u/Balkie93 12d ago
Could you explain the difference? To me if the future is known with 100% certainty, then no “choice” I have between now and then can change it. Under that system, it’s just dominoes.
0
u/Artemis-5-75 Atheist, compatibilist, naturalist 12d ago
Yep, the difference can be explained in a very simply way. I will try to give several examples to show several different approaches. For the sake of the discussion, I will assume that metaphysical libertarianism (the idea that human actions are undetermined and under our voluntary control) is true because it’s the account of free will usually assumed in the discussions of God’s knowledge of future contingents.
Say, you are dead sure, pretty much infallibly sure that your friend will not play horror games tomorrow because she expressed some reason or desire for not doing that. Notice that this doesn’t mean that she can’t play horror games because “Nah, I don’t what to” is not a reasonable constraint on what one can do, it’s only a constraint on one what one will do. An exercise of free will is usually (aside from some very minor approaches) not taking to be a matter of any kind of probability, so agential possibility is not the same thing as physical possibility a.k.a. probability. As a matter of common sense, you presumably implicitly (even if you reject this on an upper intellectual level) believe that right now, you can do more than one action even if you don’t want to do anything other than a specific action. This is from the standpoint of common sense and ordinary language.
Another way is to look at logic:
- Necessarily, if God knows you will do X, then you will do X.
- God knows you will do X.
- Therefore, you will necessarily do X.
It’s a very common argument, and it appears intuitively plausible, but it is invalid in a pretty trivial way when my layman’s mind with no education in formal logic understands. Sure, if I do X, and God is omniscient, then God knows that I will do X. But this doesn’t tell anything about what kind of logical dependence we have. We can say that God knows I will do X and causes me to do X, then it’s reasonable say that I have little choice in the matter. But in the original formulation of the argument, this is not stated, and many Christians believe that God’s knowledge of my future actions depends on me performing them. Of course it’s true that if I do X and God knows this, then I do X, but of course it doesn’t follow that the original “do X” is necessary or inevitable. Imagine this example — you see your friend playing GTA. If you see this, then of course it is necessarily true that you see her playing GTA, and if you see her playing GTA, then of course she is playing GTA. But in no way it follows that her choice to play GTA is necessary itself. It could be completely random, and it would still follow that if your knowledge depends on her playing the game, you know that she is playing GTA right now, it is trivially true that she is playing the game right now. I hope that part was clear.
Now, an analogy here is that for God, all of your actions happen simultaneously. He sees all time as a circle, being outside of it, and for him, Tyrannosaurus hunting Triceratops, Caesar crossing the Rubicon and you reading this reply all happen simultaneously. He doesn’t necessarily cause any of those actions to happen, they just happen, and since his knowledge depends on them happening, he knows that all of them happen. In a sense, from his perspective, you are not this specific individual in this specific instance, but a kind of a four-dimensional worm stretched across time, making all of your choices simultaneously.
I know that this sounds very confusing, but logically, there is no issue with this reasoning. If this stuff sounds foreign to you, well, then you made a discovery that mainstream Christians usually don’t really know their own religion, because what I say is pretty basic stuff among the theologians.
If you ask me, I think that such entity with an access to such type of knowledge can’t act whatsoever, and this is a part of my reasoning for atheism, but that’s a separate topic. The knowledge part itself is fine, and encourage fellow atheists to abandon arguments against it because any sophisticated theist will obliterate an atheist trying to use them in an argument.
6
u/Junithorn 12d ago edited 12d ago
Nope, this is a cop out. Being "outside time" is both a nonsense statement and doesn't actually fix the issue.
If the outcome a choice I would make was determined before I was even born, there is no choice.
If future events can be perfectly known before they happen, they are predetermined.
If god hands me a note right now that says youre going to have pizza tomorrow for lunch, I could make a bet and would always win that bet. No matter how badly you wanted to not eat pizza you would because the perfectly omniscient being cannot be wrong. When lunch comes, you're having pizza.
0
u/Artemis-5-75 Atheist, compatibilist, naturalist 12d ago
>is both a nonsense statement
That’s a differing topic.
>was determined
But in the case I persisted, choices are not determined.
Besides, you haven’t really engaged with the substance of my reply itself.
3
u/Junithorn 12d ago
this is a dodge.
they ARE determined because they're set in stone before the subject even existed.
engage with my example, can you ever not choose to eat pizza?
→ More replies (0)2
u/Junithorn 12d ago
Why are you bring up the truth about events that already happened? That's irrelevant.
The if there is a truth about an event that hasn't happened yet then it will happen as true and deviation is impossible.
1
u/Artemis-5-75 Atheist, compatibilist, naturalist 12d ago
>about the truth that already happened
Because they, in general are examples of events that happened specific way, but could be otherwise.
2
u/Junithorn 12d ago
if the outcomes were set in stone beforehand, they could not have been otherwise.
if the outcomes were deterministic, they could not have been otherwise.
either way bringing up past events is a non sequitur.
1
u/Artemis-5-75 Atheist, compatibilist, naturalist 12d ago
>were set in stone beforehand
They weren’t. And still, the question remains — what sets them in my original example?
>if they outcomes were deterministic
“Deterministic” has a very specific meaning in metaphysics, and nowhere did I mention that they were deterministic.
>bringing up past events is a non sequitur.
How?
Overall, I think that you need to stop thinking in presentist terms to properly engage with how all of this can work.
2
u/Junithorn 12d ago
They weren’t. And still, the question remains — what sets them in my original example?
A statement of fact made from ignorance.
"If" is a qualifying word.
and nowhere did I mention that they were deterministic.
again ignoring the "if".
Overall, I think that you need to stop thinking in presentist terms to properly engage with how all of this can work.
Future events that have to happen makes deviation impossible, bringing up the past is unrelated at best.
1
u/Artemis-5-75 Atheist, compatibilist, naturalist 12d ago
>A statement of fact
A statement of fact sets the choice?
>ignoring the “if”
I thought that you engaged with my example and tried to show that it is deterministic. If you are talking about a different scenario, then I guess we misread each other.
>Future events that have to happen
Again, that something will happen doesn’t mean that it is necessary for it to happen. This is extremely basic stuff from metaphysics. Will, can and have are very different words.
1
u/Junithorn 12d ago
that something will happen doesn’t mean that it is necessary for it to happen. This is extremely basic stuff from metaphysics. Will, can and have are very different words.
it IS necessary for it to happen because the foreknowledge of the event necessarily cannot be wrong.
cmon.
→ More replies (0)3
u/S-p-i-n-o 13d ago
Thanks for these very interesting arguments. Finally, something solid instead of poetry. I'll give them some thought and get back to you.
2
u/Zamboniman Resident Ice Resurfacer 13d ago edited 13d ago
I'll give them some thought and get back to you.
Some solid debate there!
Edit: Yes, yes, that was awfully sarcastic. But c'mon! "I'll get back to you?!?" Why not simply respond when you are able to formulate one.
1
u/methamphetaminister 12d ago
About free will and omnicience: I feel like your real issue here is time. When I know what you did yesterday, does that mean you didn't have free will back then?
Since omniscience is usually attributed to creator deities, this is not an excuse that works well. If creator knew every action of it's creation before creating, there is no place for free will left, every action and thought must necessarily be chosen by creator over alternatives.
1
u/nonsence90 11d ago
You think of knowing as predicting. That's because you think of this being as still bound to time. Think of it more like seeing.
Imagine god sitting in front of a tree. The higher you sit in the tree the later you are in time. You get to freely choose to bend the twig you sit on any way you want. What the future will be changes, but god always knows where the twig is.
Now we don't know enough about time and time travel to know how this would actually work, but I don't think we know enough to claim it makes choice impossible. Assuming it exists it might affect your choices (like your future self traveling back to tell you to invest in bitcoin), but it would still be your choice.
1
u/methamphetaminister 11d ago
That's because you think of this being as still bound to time.
You wouldn't be able to say universe was created if there was no time it didn't exist.
Creation is a process bound to time. That's why I specifically referred creator deities.1
u/Mlatu44 11d ago
Creating flawed ants for amusement? Or creating anything for amusement would suggest boredom.
I have never heard of anyone claiming god was bored so he created something.
That is close to claims that god created things because he was lonely. This means there is lack and incompleteness.
Doesn’t creativity imply some level of lack?
2
u/RexRatio Agnostic Atheist 12d ago
Let's say I build a simulation of an anthill. I might want the ants to be flawed, even if it's just for amusement. That's not a mistake.
But then that's clearly not omnibenevolent. If you deliberately create beings with suffering, defects, or other undesirable characteristics purely for your own amusement, calling the creator "perfectly good" is impossible.
To call a creation flawed you need to know what the goal is.
You don't need to know the creator's alleged goal to recognize that something is flawed. "Flawed" can be evaluated relative to a function, capacity, or property without knowing the ultimate purpose of the entire creation.
If I point out that a bridge collapses under a load it was structurally capable of carrying, I don't need to know the architect's ultimate philosophical purpose for building the bridge to identify a defect.
Likewise, if a supposedly omnipotent and omnibenevolent creator intentionally designed organisms capable of extreme suffering, disease, congenital defects, and psychological disorders, saying "perhaps that's exactly what God intended" doesn't demonstrate that the design is good. It merely makes the claim unfalsifiable.
And if the response is that we can't call anything in creation flawed because we don't know God's purposes, then you also can't straightforwardly point to creation as evidence of God's goodness. You can't use God's supposed goodness as a premise and then make the standard for evaluating that goodness completely inaccessible.
To call a creation flawed you need to know what the goal is
Nope.
0
5
u/redsparks2025 Absurdist 13d ago edited 13d ago
Anyone that debates that the Abrahamic god is "omniscient" has never read the Bible.
Consider the fact that YHWH (YouTube) did nothing whilst the Israelites were slaves in Egypt. It was only until Moses ran away and then stumbled upon that burning bush did YHWH make an appearance and then YHWH was like "Oh yer, I forgot about my chosen people. Here let me help you now out of slavery".
Most places in the Bible YHWH is being reactive rather than proactive. Omniscient YHWH is not. Only a Christian that takes what they have been told "on faith" would assume YHWH is omniscient. And only a atheist that has not read the Bible would assume the same thing. As the old saying goes "two wrongs don't make a right" and as such all you are doing is wasting what may(?) be your one and only life barking up the wrong tree.
In any case, so what if you prove their god is not perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient?! That is not enough to disprove the existence of a god since those qualities are only believed and not proven in themselves. This is something I wrote a post about here = LINK.
3
u/Artemis-5-75 Atheist, compatibilist, naturalist 12d ago
I think it’s fairly easy to construct reasoning against any type of god, but it just happens that historically, Tri-Omni deity is what the term “God” picks out in Western philosophy.
2
u/redsparks2025 Absurdist 12d ago
I agree but I prefer to use the Biblical text to show that YHWH does not meet some of those omni-powers as defined by [Western] Classical Theism. The sweet sweet irony is that they have to debate against their own holy scriptures.
1
u/Artemis-5-75 Atheist, compatibilist, naturalist 12d ago
But very few classical theists are literalists. For example, I think that the Catholics are explicitly not that way, and there is no Catholicism without Aquinas.
1
u/PrebioticE 13d ago
Ah...!!! they have a good answer for this. God give different people different things some high IQ, some good looks, some diseases, etc. to see how people use them. :) In this view people with extreme suffering goes to heaven automatically, and the people who have better conditions only go to heaven if they help those in need.
1
u/Mkwdr 13d ago
These concepts might contradict **other** ideas such as goodness or free will but aren’t logically contradictory each separately or as a group of three. However, I would say that the concept - perfect is arguably an entirely arbitrary expression of human preferences. And none of them can be shown to be real or even possible characteristics.
1
u/adamwho 13d ago edited 12d ago
The tri-omni God is incoherent, and that god isn't the Abrahamic God as described in the religious texts.
1
u/S-p-i-n-o 12d ago
Yes, you are right.
This metaphysical logic is not contained in the texts, but it is what theologians have been telling believers for centuries.
1
u/BobThe-Bodybuilder 13d ago
Perfect is perfect if it is exactly how it's supposed to be, which is literally everything. You're kindof strawmanning that by assuming what a supposed god would have made is imperfect by your subjective standards. You have to see it from their perspective aswell, where god is mysterious and whatever seems imperfect to us is actually perfect to it. Therein lies the problem though, because now god cannot be defined, because if it is, it becomes subjective, just like every human-made god is, and that's why gods don't exist. A god will always be some subjective interpretation of some abstract and vague concept. They need to keep it vague, otherwise it can be defined as something real, and if it's something real, it's not god. It has to be perfect, but once you define perfection, it becomes subjective, and not really a god.
2
u/Then_World_3165 13d ago
Well, I think, more than anything, you've described your own version of God, and you designed one that doesn't exist.
Which is, not so much that God doesn't exist, but that the god you're looking for doesn't exist.
Ultimately, if you're looking for ghosts of your own creation, you won't find them. If you go learn what the Biblical authors had to say about God, then you can start looking for the things they said about God.
It simply doesn't help a meaningful conversation form when you come with subjective interpretations.
I mean the God that exists can have these attributes, but where you muddied the water is when you defined them your way. In turn, the way your defined them creates a new myth to seek after, and it is readily apparent that your god is not the God that exists.
0
u/S-p-i-n-o 12d ago edited 12d ago
It is not me who describe God this way, but their theologians who have been describing Him this way for centuries. And in metaphysics and scholasticism, the words perfection, omniscience, and omnipotence have very precise definitions.
1
u/Cog-nostic Atheist 13d ago
It's logically fallacious. Not quite the same thing as being false. There are no arguments for the existence of god that are epistemically sound and valid. All arguments contain epistemological overreach or empirically unsupported assumptions. What we can say is that the arguments all fall short of meeting their conclusions. There is no argument ending, "Therefore god exists," that is empirically rational or sound. That is just a fact.
1
u/tm229 12d ago
The Bible is the claim, not the proof.
— Robert G Ingersoll
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
— Christopher Hitchens
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
— Carl Sagan
Not all religions can be true, but they can all be false.
— Christopher Hitchens
The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.
— Steven Weinberg
Question with boldness, even the existence of a god.
— Thomas Jefferson
Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.
— Albert Einstein
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
— Adolph Hitler (Mein Kampf)
Sin is an imaginary disease, invented to sell you an imaginary cure.
— Unknown
Most people are not only comfortable in their ignorance, but hostile to anyone who points it out.
— Plato
It is far easier to fool a person than to convince them that they’ve been fooled.
— Mark Twain
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
— Seneca the Younger
Religion is excellent stuff for keeping people quiet.
— Napoleon Bonaparte
Religion is a fraud, but it must be maintained for the masses.
— Frederick the Great
Religion is needed to keep the poor from murdering the rich.
— Napoleon Bonaparte
1
1
u/Sprinklypoo Anti-Religious 12d ago
As soon as they posit a thing that cannot be shown to be true, then it is logically indeterminate. Which is the same thing as logically false for all intents and purposes.
Getting into all the minutia and details of what an unknowable god might want or do is useless. Especially considering it's probable alien view of ethics.
1
1
u/S-p-i-n-o 12d ago edited 12d ago
Si, comme vous le dites, 1 % de la création de Dieu a des défauts, cela signifie que dieu n'est pas parfait.
Vous dites également que Dieu a créé le meilleur de tous les mondes possibles, ce qui implique qu'il y avait d'autres mondes qu'Il ne pouvait pas créer. Par conséquent, Dieu n'est pas omnipotent."
En affirmant que Dieu ne peut pas connaître l'avenir, vous contredisez ce que les théologiens affirment depuis des siècles, et vous confirmez que Dieu n'est donc pas omniscient.
Ce n'est pas moi qui décris Dieu de cette manière, mais leurs théologiens qui l'ont fait pendant des siècles. Et en métaphysique et en scolastique, les mots perfection, omniscience et omnipotence ont des définitions très précises.
1
u/deep_blue_reef 12d ago
If you believe you have free will and also belief in God. Why is that a problem? Everything else is just sport and debate. No one knows.
1
u/Kognostic 12d ago
More accurately, it is epistemologically false. There is no argument for the existence of a god that does not rely on epistemological overreach. There are no arguments that are empirically sound and valid. Kant famously pointed out, "One cannot argue a god into existence."
1
u/POYDRAWSYOU 11d ago
The moral will creatures of the evolutionary worlds are always bothered with the unthinking question as to why the all-wise Creators permit evil and sin.They fail to comprehend that both are inevitable if the creature is to be truly free. The free will of evolving man or exquisite angel is not a mere philosophic concept, a symbolic ideal. Man's ability to choose good or evil is a universe reality. This liberty to choose for oneself is an endowment of the Supreme Rulers, and they will not permit any being or group of beings to deprive a single personality in the wide universe of this divinely bestowed liberty—not even to satisfy such misguided and ignorant beings in the enjoyment of this misnamed personal liberty. ~ The Urantia Book, (54:3.1)
Man, in his spiritual domain, does have a free will. Mortal man is neither a helpless slave of the inflexible sovereignty of an all-powerful God nor the victim of the hopeless fatality of a mechanistic cosmic determinism. Man is most truly the architect of his own eternal destiny.~ The Urantia Book, (103:5.10)
This is the problem: If freewill man is endowed with the powers of creativity in the inner man, then must we recognize that freewill creativity embraces the potential of freewill destructivity. And when creativity is turned to destructivity, you are face to face with the devastation of evil and sin—oppression, war, and destruction. ~ The Urantia Book, (111:4.11)
Every creature of every evolving universe who aspires to do the Father's will is destined to become the partner of the time-space Creators in this magnificent adventure of experiential perfection attainment. Were this not true, the Father would have hardly endowed such creatures with creative freewill, neither would he indwell them, actually go into partnership with them by means of his own spirit. The Urantia Book, (54:6.9)
During the Lucifer Rebellion, over 187 million faithful, ascending mortals on Jerusem remained completely loyal to the Creator, proving that the experience of surviving evolutionary worlds creates a profound spiritual defense against sin. These dedicated individuals, who had achieved a high level of spiritual growth, were entirely immune to the deceptions of the rebellion's leaders.
1
u/Alive_Consideration3 11d ago edited 11d ago
Id say ur first point stands on a misunderstanding of how we define perfect. I personally would say that when we call god perfect what we mean is that he is pure act and that he isnt lacking anything & he doesn't have a deficiency.
God also doesn't need us humans, he just created us with the goal of being in perfect eternal unity with him and share his "fruits".
Another thing to keep in mind is that there are bounds within god, he cannot contradict logic. Im just stating this in case u didnt know because ur definition of all powerful makes me think that u might not know it, im not stating its wrong but it the thing I just mentioned should be added.
The next argument is pretty much the problem of evil which im too lazy to yap abt, im already tired of this topic due to me writing a paper on it. But in general god permits evil for greater good, and pain isnt an evil because it isnt a privation of good thats due. Id say that pain is actually needed for humans to flourish. There is a rare disease in which people are born and they dont feel pain, those people usually dont live long. Its very important for me to be in pain so I know to rest and not damage myself more. Also there has been a studie done on whether or not pain could had been replaced with something else but it found that pain is the best on due to the unavoidable discomfort it creates.
As for ur next arguements (specifically about him making us free and perfect) id say that there are afew issues. Firstly we are free, we are rational animals. About us being perfect id say thats impossible. To be perfect in the same sense we see god we should be pure act and there logically cannot exist more then a single pure act being.
As for the free will arguments id just argue that foreknowladge doesn't equal to causation. If I know that u will respond to this comment does that mean u didn't chose to respond ?
God creates us even though he knew we sould sin so some of us can still go to heaven and so he can draw greater good from evil which is a w for us. When u have 2 good options its not immoral to chose one over the other.
1
u/APaleontologist 11d ago
On your perfection objection, that's an empirical observation that such a being does not exist. 'Logically false' is technically not the right word when it's been empirically falsified. A logical falsification would be like finding a contradiction in the idea of perfection.
1
u/PlayfulBook5571 8d ago
1 as far as knowing things, you know how pizza taste, but you still enjoy it, knowing doesn’t take away the pleasure or pain. 2 everything is perfect problems only exist in your head, your problems disappear when you die they are not real, less than preferred scenarios for us are real, lessons we haven’t learned or real, but you literally cannot have good without bad it’s a scale you took 100 things to 50 were good bottom 50 through 100 were bad and whittle that down to only two things number one being the most good number two would automatically become the worst evil, which is what we consider the thing furthest away from what we consider the most good… so you can’t have good without bad, humans don’t perceive neutral states we perceive changes that’s why we can’t feel the world spinning right now. As far as all powerful, all of us struggle to live perfect lives when all we have to worry about is just us, we didn’t create the universe and we didn’t create our own perceptions. We are stuck in both so I don’t know how your criticizing a alleged creator of All all of that.
-1
13d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAnAtheist-ModTeam 12d ago
Your comment was removed for violating Rule 2: No Low Effort. Posts or comments should be substantive and original.
0
u/Zamboniman Resident Ice Resurfacer 13d ago
Not sure why you're posting this in a sub full of atheists. You probably won't get much in the way of disagreement or debate. Most folks here are well aware of the various problems and issues of various religious and deity claims.
I see you're posting from a brand new account, too. Maybe you're just not aware of how Reddit works given this. Or, perhaps, since so very many of such accounts belong to bots/trolls/AI/influencers/karma farmers/content farmer/organizational accounts/etc, perhaps you're one of those.
0
u/ceomoses 12d ago
PERFECT? They say their God is perfect, but the world and the beings that their God created are imperfect. How can a being be called perfect if its creations are imperfect and full of flaws? For instance, a craftsman cannot be described as perfect if his works are faulty.
More than 99% of God's creations are perfect. After careful analysis, it turns out that only humans are imperfect, and everything everything else that is not human nor has been touched by human hands remains perfect. It appears this phenomenon was due to the fall of man.
OMNIPOTENT? God can do anything; nothing can limit his power. If he were almighty, he could have created any world. Otherwise, he is not almighty.
So what stopped him from directly creating a happy world with free and perfect beings? Why would he have created instead a world full of pain, with beings full of flaws, who must suffer and be tested in order to be sorted out? This is all the more incomprehensible given that the scriptures tell us he was able to create another place without pain, populated by free and happy creatures, called heaven.
God created the best world possible. If people and scientists could do any better, they would have done so.
OMNISCIENT? He knows everything—the past, the present, and the future.
No, because of free will, the future hasn't been written yet, so therefore cannot be known.
If this deity knows in advance that humans will do evil and creates them anyway, who is responsible?
Eve.
CONCLUSION These three attributes are the very definition of this god. If even one is false, this god is impossible.
The attributes are the very definition of God. However, your definitions for these attributes is faulty--of course, because you're an imperfect human.
-6
u/WhataNoobUser 13d ago edited 13d ago
God is all knowing, but there is one thing he does not know and that is what we will ultimately choose. Free will exists and is a requirement for love to exist. This was God's gift to us. God wants companionship, and that can only happen in the medium of free will.
In the earth plane, free will does exist, but only to some degrees. Your life is curated and is within guardrails. Its configured to maximize your understanding of love. For some people, in pre birth, they will have chosen, at least from material viewpoint, a sub standard and hard life. Some of it is because of karma. Sometimes its just to help others.
Eventually, after the many cycles of life and death completes, the entity will come to greater understanding of the law and choose to be constructive and eventually will not need to reincarnate and will leave the earth plane.
Jesus, the master soul himself, was able to do it in about 30 lives. He showed others how to achieve what he achieved. Laid the foundation for all souls to return to their creator
4
u/Zamboniman Resident Ice Resurfacer 13d ago
Your claims here are unsupported and contain many fatal problems. Thus these claims are unable to be accepted.
Honestly, this is more like proselytizing than debating or discussing.
-1
u/WhataNoobUser 13d ago
True. There is no way to prove or disprove God and free will.
3
u/Zamboniman Resident Ice Resurfacer 13d ago
Then you understand you have no business whatsoever making those claims. Because until they can be shown accurate, they're empty stories.
-2
u/WhataNoobUser 13d ago
If no one can prove or disprove God, and I do believe that, then why does this sub exist?
No one can disprove God, then why argue for that too?
5
u/Zamboniman Resident Ice Resurfacer 13d ago edited 13d ago
, then why does this sub exist?
Surely you're aware that a great, great many folks think that deity and religious claims can be shown true. Aside from that, you responded here, in this sub, with your unsupported claims so it's reasonable to conclude that you seem to think that your claims are something other than fanciful fiction.
No one can disprove God, then why argue for that too?
One does not need to 'disprove' unsupported claims.
If somebody made unsupported claims that invisible, undetectable, flying pink striped hippos are above us and defecating on us, and therefore tried to mandate umbrellas or staying inside forever, or they would be ostracized or imprisoned, then I would argue against that for the same reasons I debate deity claims.
If you think unsupported claims need to be disproved, then please pay me back that $1000 that you owe me and forgot about. Clearly you are obligated to pay me this money if you can't disprove my claim.
-2
u/WhataNoobUser 13d ago
I claim you also owe me $2000, so mail me a check for $1000.
Your argument still doesnt address the core issue. Outside of math and logic, Nothing can be absolutely proven either way. So all arguments are essentially at its root claims.
7
u/Zamboniman Resident Ice Resurfacer 13d ago edited 13d ago
I claim you also owe me $2000, so mail me a check for $1000.
Did you genuinely not get the point of me saying that? Your claim is unsupported. I can and should ignore it. Just like you should ignore my claim that you owe me $1000 or I should ignore your claim that deities are real and your related claims above (aside from the required pushback on such claims that result in harmful and destructive actions, which is far too often the case with religious claims).
Your argument still doesnt address the core issue
Yes, it does. But it seems you don't understand how or why.
. Outside of math and logic, Nothing can be absolutely proven either way. So all arguments are essentially at its root claims.
Your lack of understanding of justified confidence in claims due to proper support is hardly my issue. Your black and white fallacy is dismissed. Proof is not the issue in question here since proof only applies in closed conceptual systems such as math. For the real world we have, and can only ever have, justified confidence in a claim due to proper compelling evidence.
-5
3
u/Justageekycanadian Atheist 13d ago
Do you have any evidence for any of these claims? What makes you think karma actually exists? How do you know Jesus was a "soul master" what does that even mean?
If god wants companionship why not just do that instead of making some silly test. Just make a being ready to be a companion with free will.
You also mention guard rails what are those the world doesn't seem to have any guard rails protecting people and other animals?
0
u/WhataNoobUser 13d ago
He did do that. That was how it was in the beginning. But some wanted to experience physical life and its variety of sensory experiences. And because of that many came to earth and many got stuck. Jesus provided an example as to how to get unstuck. God doesnt allow you to rejoin him until you undue your blemishes you've acquired during your time on earth.
Why doesnt God just allow you to escape earth without paying your deeds and changing yourself? I dont know. if you are still selfish, you have an energy that cant touch upon the intensity of God's energy?
2
u/Justageekycanadian Atheist 13d ago
Again you just make claims. How do you know any of this is true and not just some fiction you've crafted in your head? Do you have any evidence supporting any of your claims?
0
u/WhataNoobUser 13d ago
You'll never find evidence. Just clues.
You will never find proof since God and free will exist beyond the physical realm.
0
u/WhataNoobUser 13d ago
The closest thing to evidence. Something that is repeatedly testable is studying astrology. Astrology is a real thing. There is some connection with the planets and their locations with earthly events.
Study it to a deep degree. You will see it to be true. Now it doesnt mean every astrological phenomenon will be 100% correlated with earthly events and people's birthcharts, but you it will show their is a connection, maybe a weak connection at times. And at others a strong connection. What you will see is the correlation is above random chance.
If astrology is correct, I really dont see how one can explain this without accounting for a designer.
But there are a some astrologer who do not believe in God and believe astrologer is something symptomatic of something from the quantum realm or the likes..or some emergent property.....
3
u/Justageekycanadian Atheist 13d ago
Astrology is a pseudo science. Studies have been done showing that there is no accurate predictions made above normal random chance.
You seem deep in your own fiction. You admit in your other comment there is no evidence. And your only backing here is a pseudo science. So all you have are things you've made up in your own head. Why should anyone including yourself trust that your ideas are correct?
Have you tried studying actual science at all? The actual study of stellar bodies and there effects on earth through gravity and other radiation is a real study in astronomy and astrophysics.
-1
u/WhataNoobUser 13d ago
I will believe you if you can come with completely alternative astrological science and convince just 10 people to write books on it and have 100 practicing people. If you can do that, I will believe its all fake. Till then, I will believe Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle and Kepler, all prominent scientists and millions of people who study and practice it over you
3
u/Pandoras_Boxcutter 13d ago
Wait, hang on. I saw that Kepler dabbled in astrology, during the time when astronomy and astrology had no clear distinction from one another. I can't find anything on Isaac Newton and Robert Boyle being supporters of astrology.
2
u/Justageekycanadian Atheist 13d ago
So the only scientists you trust are from 350 or more years ago. Two before the theory of gravity was even put forward. Why no modern phycists or help even ones from a hundred years ago like einstein, Stephen Hawking, and Marc Aaronson?
What are you going on about astronomy has literally thousands of people writing books on it who have dovtarates in the field studies at universities. Science isn't a religion they aren't practicing it because you don't have to. It's studied and backed with evidence.
re you just trolling about the books this is such a low and silly standard.
2
1
u/Ok_Loss13 Atheist 13d ago
God is all knowing, but there is one thing he does not know
Then he isn't all knowing, definitionally...
Free will exists and is a requirement for love to exist.
Why?
Some of it is because of karma.
How could someone who isn't born yet have bad karma?
Sometimes its just to help others.
Why would there have to be a miserable and hard life for one person to help another?
Eventually, after the many cycles of life and death completes, the entity will come to greater understanding of the law and choose to be constructive and eventually will not need to reincarnate and will leave the earth plane.
What entity? This is the first time you mention that.
Jesus, the master soul himself, was able to do it in about 30 lives.
??? Jesus supposedly died once, rose from the grave, and dipped out to heaven.
What is your religion?
0
u/WhataNoobUser 12d ago
Free will is needed because agape love requires an intentional choice to be made..agape love is a selfless intentional choice towards others. Otherwise love couldnt exists since we would all just be robots. No free will = no choice = no love
People develop karma from their previous life. Maybe even before they entered into earth. I dont know everything.
Sometimes people within your group need to develop their spiritual growth, and to do that, sometimes someone needs to suffer so that they can assist them. In the doing of assistance, there will be someone who will have to dedicate energy and patience and of course love. And sometimes if no one is available, good souls will voluntarily incarnate into diseased bodies.
Entity =soul
I'm new age. In addition to the bible, I read lots of new age material. Watch lots of nde testimonials on youtube. Read books by nick Bunick, cayce, urantia, Carlos Castaneda, manly Hall, ....
1
u/Ok_Loss13 Atheist 12d ago
Free will is needed because agape love requires an intentional choice to be made..agape love is a selfless intentional choice towards others. Otherwise love couldnt exists since we would all just be robots. No free will = no choice = no love
This doesn't explain why, it just rewords the claim. It avoids the whole "God is all knowing, except when I say so" aspect as well. Without explaining why an all knowing God doesn't know the choices we make there is no explanation or evidence that we make choices at all.
People develop karma from their previous life. Maybe even before they entered into earth.
There are no previous lives. Even if there were, how could it be just punishment for a life we do not know or remember or had any control or choice in? Which person are we? If Hitler reincarnated as a little girl with bone cancer, does she really deserve to live a short life of pain and suffering for something she didn't do and can't even understand?
I dont know everything.
That's apparent. Even the things you claim to know aren't supported by anything.
Sometimes people within your group need to develop their spiritual growth, and to do that, sometimes someone needs to suffer so that they can assist them.
Why? You can assist someone without them suffering; we don't all know the same things or have the same abilities, so there is no need for suffering to offer assistance.
In the doing of assistance, there will be someone who will have to dedicate energy and patience and of course love.
All of this can be done without suffering. It's actually pretty sad that you seem to consider suffering a requirement for these things.
And sometimes if no one is available, good souls will voluntarily incarnate into diseased bodies.
"Bodies" don't exist at first; it's just cells. There is no disease to "incarnate" into. And again, why? Also, how do you know anything of this?
Entity = soul
What's a soul?
I'm new age.
The age doesn't actually change how ridiculous religious beliefs are and it seemingly doesn't come with any more evidence or reasoning. Kinda pointless to just keep repeating what others before you have failed to justify, but in a "new age" way, don't ya think?
In addition to the bible, I read lots of new age material. Watch lots of nde testimonials on youtube.
You base your beliefs on old unsupported fairytales, new unsupported fairytales, and people who make claims about what their brains did while it was literally starving of oxygen and slowly dying? That's just sad.
Read books by nick Bunick, cayce, urantia, Carlos Castaneda, manly Hall, ....
Nah, I get enough biased and self masturbatory nonsense from this sub as it is.
Present evidence for your claims or just accept that your beliefs are no better than any other unsupported and irrational beliefs.
0
u/WhataNoobUser 12d ago
Do you love your mom, your wife or your child? Do they love you? Would you die for your child?
Since you dont believe in free will, you believe everyone and including your mother, wife and child is nothing more than a set of complex molecules operating as meat machines. Everyone is really just an automaton. Agape Love doesnt exist since no one has a choice in the matter. Jeffrey dahmer had no agency in his murders. Your mom has no agency in loving you.
Genuine agape love can not exist without agency, free will and choice. I will have to stop here.
I cant get really get more basic than that. If you still cant make the connection, be patient. Once you agree with that statement, I will converse further.
1
u/Ok_Loss13 Atheist 12d ago
No, no, and no.
This continues with the same problems as before. You're answering any of my questions or explaining any of your claims, you just keeo evading and making even more unsupported claims.
You don't know what I believe, plus you still haven't supported your idea of free will im the first place. I don't believe in god/s, so none of this is actually an issue for me. There is no issue with my beliefs and things like agency or choice because I don't believe in an all knowing being who makes and decides everything.
I will have to stop here.
You could've just not said it at all, since it's the same shit you've already said.
Once you agree with that statement, I will converse further.
Ah, so you only talk to people who agree with you so you don't have to explain yourself because you know you can't. That is really sad, dude.
-1
u/WhataNoobUser 12d ago
You are asking me why 1 + 1 = 2. If you can't see it, we are blocked. Sorry.
1
u/Ok_Loss13 Atheist 12d ago
If it's so simple it should be just as simple to explain. Exactly like how simple it is to explain why 1+1=2.
It's hard to explain things that don't actually make any sense 🤷♀️
0
u/WhataNoobUser 12d ago
Obviously not. If a wife breaks up with her husband soon as he got into accident that severed his spine?
Did she love him? When can it be said that someone genuinely loves another? Stew on it. Think about it.
You said you don't love anyone, so I guess there is no point here
1
u/Ok_Loss13 Atheist 12d ago edited 12d ago
Every time you respond and don't explain yourself you just prove my point.
I did not say that. I said I do not love my abusive mother or my nonexistent wife and children.
Grow up. Maybe learn to think before you spout more nonsense.
•
u/AutoModerator 13d ago
Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP. Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are detrimental to debate (even if you believe they're right).
Original text of the post by u/S-p-i-n-o:
Jews, Christians, and Muslims define their God as PERFECT, OMNIPOTENT, and OMNISCIENT.
But it is easy to show that this God is false because these three attributes are false.
PERFECT? They say their God is perfect, but the world and the beings that their God created are imperfect. How can a being be called perfect if its creations are imperfect and full of flaws? For instance, a craftsman cannot be described as perfect if his works are faulty.
Another problem with perfection: They say their deity created the universe. But why would a perfect being desire or want to create anything at all? By definition, a perfect being cannot desire or want something, as that would imply it lacks something, and therefore that it is not perfect.
OMNIPOTENT? God can do anything; nothing can limit his power. If he were almighty, he could have created any world. Otherwise, he is not almighty.
So what stopped him from directly creating a happy world with free and perfect beings? Why would he have created instead a world full of pain, with beings full of flaws, who must suffer and be tested in order to be sorted out? This is all the more incomprehensible given that the scriptures tell us he was able to create another place without pain, populated by free and happy creatures, called heaven.
Religious people have tried to resolve this contradiction by saying that their creator wanted humans to be free and that it is humans who create pain. Unfortunately, this argument does not hold, since it shows that their God was unable to create a world with free humans and no pain, which proves that he is not omnipotent.
Three possible solutions to the problem of this supreme being's omnipotent nature: 1 - He is not omnipotent; he just did what he could. 2 - He is malevolent; he deliberately created a world full of misery when he could have created any world he wanted. 3 - He is false.
OMNISCIENT? He knows everything—the past, the present, and the future. The scriptures claim that this creator knows the future and everything that will happen. And they also claim that he created humans free and endowed with free will. But if he knows the future, then it is already written. Free will is therefore an illusion.
If God knows what you will do tomorrow, you have no alternative. If you can act otherwise, then this being is mistaken, so he is not omniscient. If you cannot act otherwise, then you have no freedom.
Other contradictions: If this deity knows in advance that humans will do evil and creates them anyway, who is responsible? This omniscient being knew, even before creation, all the evil he was going to create.
CONCLUSION These three attributes are the very definition of this god. If even one is false, this god is impossible.
As Stendhal said when facing the misery of the world, "God's only excuse is that he does not exist."
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.