(New) Logical Proof Against God?

Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:38 am

atheod wrote:

infidelguy wrote:

atheod, why would you lump all atheists in with him? and weren't you banned from here?

Sorry, all atheists don't want me killed. I shouldn't have lumped you all in with him. And why would I have been banned from here?

If you wasn't nevermind. I just thought you were.

Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:10 am

In the matter of loving gods, or a person for that matter: It seems as though we talk about being able to love or not love so easily. I do think that love is an overrated word. We associate love with actually admiring much or liking a person's quality/ies.

Let's use the xtian God here. I use to love the character because I was given nothing but qualities to "love" (admire and like) about God. As I read more and more, 2 years ago barely, I saw the MANY qualities, values, responsibilities, and duties I did not "love" (admire and like) about such god. Ultimately, the scale tilted towards the not loving God side (I do not like most of his qualities, standards, policies, laws, etc.) So, ultimately I do not want to associated with that god (primarily because there are no gods) because the reasons I was brought to "love" him for where overshadowed by reasons not to "love" him or where simply not there to begin with.

Take a "loved" one. We "love" a person for vaious reasons. We keep "loving" them because they keep gaining new qualities (a son/daughter/etc.) and or because of many pleasant memories as well (parent/grandparent/teacher/etc.) and/or because how they make us feel about ourselves or what they teach us (IG, Ingersoll, Dan Barker, James Randi, etc.). If our son became a Jeff Dahmer mixed in with a KKK, would we still "love" that once adorable, innocent child that no longer exists?

Once those qualities we "love" so much begin to go away or we learn were mistaken (a girlfriend/the Bible/your once loving pet pitbull that tears your leg off/etc.) then we no longer and suddenly "love" them anymore. How can we keep hanging on and force ourselves to like them more than we do not, right? The same with the xtian God.

Example: Once I began to grow up and think, I realized my father was abusive to my mom and others, suddenly the reasons for "loving" him where not there.

I respect what Darwin provided us with, but I also do not respect him for being a racist (if indeed he was, I have heard he was). I keep looking for qualities of him, and ultimately I weight them out and see if I "love" him or not. It boils down to whether we like a person/thing/place more or not. The more we do not like a person anymore, the more we avoid him/her and finally we part ways and take from them the positive we learned.

Let me end on a positive note. I "love" you all because all I know about you is that quality that brings you to a forum to argue in order to learn, grow, teach, etc. Knowing that quality about yourself and no other, how can I not "love" you? I'm sure many here, as they have, will sure as hell give me reasons not to Smile

. I suppose that for many of us, if not most of us, it takes a lot more than just one quality before we begin to actually feel attracted (for obvious reasons) to that person/person's "gifts".

Would somebody be kind enough to summarize and interpret what I just said, I'll love you even more. Wink

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:27 am

"We assume God..."

Why? There is no reason to assume existence for that which cannot exist.

It is an irrefutable fact that consciousness is awareness of reality . In order for consciousness to obtain, reality must first exist. By reality existing, I mean the set of all that is instantiated having attributes. Without existence, there can be no awareness of any instantiated thing with an attribute and consequently no consciousness.

To assume God, is to assume it responsible for existence such that consciousness alone with no reality of which to be aware obtained as meta-consciousness aware of only itself. This is a contradiction in terms. For meta-consciousness to obtain there must first be consciousness. In order for consciousness to obtain there must first be awareness of reality. Existence must precede in temporal priority consciousness. There is no way around this, for consciousness as awareness of reality is an irreducible primary brute fact.

It is impossible for a consciousness to be responsible for existence as creator. Thus there is not a creator God, and hence no reason to assume God.

Newbie First Class Joined: Mar 29, 2008 Posts: 48

architecto wrote:

I don't know if this one has been done before exactly like this, and it needs refinement, but it may be somewhat convincing.

Argument from Perfect Teacher.

We assume God to be maximally great (perfect, omniscient, omnipotent) and wants a relationship with humanity. So, a Xian God at least, perhaps more.

1. A perfect teacher is able to teach any topic and make it understandable to any student. No mater how complex the subject, or how dumb or unwilling the student - a perfect teacher teaches to all, enagages all. To neglect ONE student is to be a flawed teacher.

2. God wants humans to know God, to learn of God and his ways.

3. Not all humans know God, or are clear about His ways. God has not taught His lesson perfectly or it would be clearly understood by all students.

:.Therefore, God is not a perfect teacher. But being maximally great this is impossible, so God does not exist.

Perhaps some of you guys could tighten it up a little, but I think the point is made.

I often get two different responses from Xians about non-belief.
1. You have to be willing to learn God message of Love, or some such thing. You have to have Faith before you understand Gods message and see that he wants a relationship.
2. You can't comprehend God's Plan (for example, why there is Suffering/Evil, etc.)

This Argument stops all that nonsense, since the Xian will put it upon the persons failings, sin or imperfection that we can't understand the Bible the same way, or can't know God's Plan (because it "would be like a Scientist explaining Nuclear Fission to a Dog")

But, we see in life that a good teacher can teach even the most challenged students. God would be a perfect teacher - better then that "Stand and Deliver" guy, and he taught the "dregs" when others failed - and so it's not our imperfections that limit us. It's the teacher.

As a former Christian, I can assure you that this argument will have no effect on Xtians. They would argue that were god to choose to he could just imprint the knowledge of god and the knowledge good and evil in every human brain. Instead he gave every human (they would argue) free will: the ability to choose for themselves. Every human has the ability to interprete the evidence of god's existence in accordance with their nature: a good man will make good choices and an evil man will make evil choices. I, as an agnostic, honestly could care less whether or not they are correct; none-the-less this is what they would argue.

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:41 pm

MrsSmith,
The gist of it is that god doesn't want to create slaves outright. He wants people to volunteer to be slaves.

I don't know of any converts I've made pointing this out, but I have made a lot of Christians very uncomfortable with it.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore