The Case Against God: God's Nature

[Lancaster]

I've heard often that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God in any way. While this may be true simply because we have a hard time proving anything either way, we can show that God does not exist to a high degree of certainty. Many of the examples and explanations I offer borrow heavily from George Smiths The Case Against God and Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion.

 

Firstly, I would like to examine, and then refute, the nature of God. God is usually defined as having these three major attributes, they are his "nature."

 

1. Omnipotence-God is all powerful. He can do anything, and there are no obstacles to his will. He can do all.

 

2. Omniscience-God knows everything. Past, present, and

future. He can see you when you're sleeping and knows "every hair on your head."

 

3. Omnibenevolence-God is all good. He is the most perfect and morally just being in existence. He does no evil.

 

 

Omnipotence

In a nutshell, Omnipotence is power without limitation. To quote modern Christian dogma, "nothing is impossible with God." Unfortunately for the big guy, Omnipotence creates some serious problems. By being all powerful, can God create a square circle? Can God make a computer turn into a fruit bat and do the macarrana? If not, he is not all powerful. A square circle does not exist because, by its very nature, it is a logical contradiction. If God cannot create such a contradiction, he is a contradiction because he denies his own nature, just like a square circle, and just like a square circle, he does not exist. And if he can do the impossible, he himself is logically impossible, and therefore, does not exist.

 

A theist may counter this proof of God's nonexistence by saying that God is not truly omnipotent, he is only omnipotent in the sense that he can do anything we can imagine. He can, for instance, make a computer turn into a fruit bat. But God would still be asking a computer to deny its nature and do something that is not scientifically possible. And if God can defy science, then an rational thought about the world around us in pointless.

 

But an omnipotent being defies logic even past that. If a being is truly omnipotent, there can be no obstacles to his power. He can make anything happen at any time, without anything being able to stop him. If God's will is sufficient to make anything happen at any time, God does not need a means to accomplish anything because the use of means to meet an end shows that the user of the means has limited power. If God uses any means, such as an angel to deliver his word, he is not omnipotent, and therefore, does not exist as he is known to us.

 

Which means that God cannot act, because acting in any way would require the usage of means to accomplish his will. If God acts, he cannot be omnipotent, and does not exist.

 

Looking farther into the nature of God, we can see that he has no purpose, because the possession of purpose implies unfulfilled desires or goals. If God has unfulfilled desires, he is not omnipotent, and does not exist.

 

So now, if we visualize God, we must see a being who has an unfounded power to do anything, who does not employ means, does not act, and has no purpose.

 

 

Omniscience

The Christian God is said to be omniscient, he has knowledge without limits. He sees and hears everything. He knows everything that has ever happened and ever will. The first issue that contradicts Christian dogma outside of Calvinism (what a horrible outlook on life!) is the evaporation of free will. According to modern Christianity, we have the choice to do what we wish. But if God knows the future with infallible certainty, the future has already been decided, we we do not posses free will. I'm certainly not going to waste time on predestination, it has to be one of the most ludicrous philosophies I have ever heard of.

 

Another problem with omniscience is that it contradicts omnipotence. If God knows the future with complete certainty, he cannot change it. If he can, then he does not know the future with utmost certainty, and he is not omniscient. This raises another problem, if God knows the future, does he posses free will? If he knows his future actions, how are they free? And if God does not make his own choices, he is not omnipotent, etc.

 

Also, for knowledge to be possessed by any entity, that knowledge must be obtained through observation. And if knowledge is obtained by God, he must not have had the knowledge at some point, which would mean his is not omniscient. So, for God to possess knowledge that was not obtained or observed, he does not possess knowledge in any sense of the word, and omniscience loses all meaning.

 

Omnibenevolence

The notion that God is all-good creates some serious issues for the Christian. For one thing, the God of the Bible is one of the most morally corrupt and detestable characters in all of fiction. He ordered the killings of thousands and personally killed thousands, including innocent children. The "word of God" found in the Bible is tainted with the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocents who were recorded as murdered by the God of the Hebrews and of the Bible.

 

Many modern theologians argue that the God of the Old Testament is different, he changed for The New Testament. Unfortunately, the God of the New Testament can be considered much worse then the old one. At least the old God punished sinners and innocents by killing them, the new, just God sentences them to agony and suffering for all eternity. It is very difficult for the modern Christian to explain Jesus' message and the idea of a merciful God that those who insult God's might will burn in torturous flame forever.

 

And this view of the evil God is enhanced by the attributes of omnipotence and omniscience. Because God knows the future, he knows exactly what we are to do in our lives, so he creates multitudes of people who have no purpose but to burn in hell. Also, why would God create hell, unless he finds pleasure in watching his creations suffer? There is no reason for a hell for an omnipotent God.

 

The problems of Omnibenevolence extend into the philosophical. For God to be all good, we assume that he never commits evil. We also assume that, because he is omnipotent, he has the ability to commit evil, but always chooses good.

 

So, why is there evil in God's creation? If God knows that there is evil, can prevent it, and chooses not to, he is not omnibenevolent. If you observed a little old lady being beaten, and had the ability to prevent it, wouldn't you? If so, you are morally above God.

 

Ignoring that fact, most Christians proclaim that God did not create evil, but gave us a choice. We brought evil into the world. But this contradicts God's omnipotence. If God is omnipotent, his will is fulfilled without conflict, nothing can stop it. So, if God is omnipotent, we must assume that he wants evil in the world, and any evil that exists is exactly what he wants. And if God knows all, we have to assume that he created evil men with full knowledge of what they would do, and that he desired for those atrocities to occur.

 

The Christian may argue that these evil events are for the greater good. Unfortunately, this in no way reduces the moral incorrectness of these actions. Just because God may save the child that walked into the road by wrecking and killing the driver of the car that would have hit him does not mean that killing that driver is ok. It is still wrong. The same can be applied to natural disasters. Why does God inflict these tragedies? The Christian may argue that they are merely part of his plan to make things better, but, like the murder of the driver, that does not make the thousands of lives taken by God in a disaster "a ok."

 

 

 

If the three main attributes of God are so obviously in contradiction with each other and with Christian dogma, the God of Christianity can be made to dissipate in a puff of logic.

[Boerseun]

Yep, that about wraps it up. But a devout Christian's normal response to the above is that the Nature of God is a Divine Mystery, and that the inherent contradictions in it simply goes to illustrate how powerful God is; he can transcend even logic! A Christian will say "True, it is paradoxical. But you should simply believe. Salvation comes through blind faith!" which, of course, doesn't sell anything to me.

[Queso]

god's like light, man.

[Lancaster]

Yep, that about wraps it up. But a devout Christian's normal response to the above is that the Nature of God is a Divine Mystery, and that the inherent contradictions in it simply goes to illustrate how powerful God is; he can transcend even logic! A Christian will say "True, it is paradoxical. But you should simply believe. Salvation comes through blind faith!" which, of course, doesn't sell anything to me.

 

 

If belief in God can be reduced to "I don't know" or "We cannot fathom God" then it's nothing more than agnosticism with some fancy trimmings.

[BEAKER]

It's amazing how well created beings are able to use the "logic" God has allowed them to posess in an attempt to eradicate Him from from their thoughts.

[CraigD]

1. Omnipotence-God is all powerful. He can do anything, and there are no obstacles to his will. He can do all.

 

2. Omniscience-God knows everything. Past, present, and

future. …

Since my youth, I’ve found these 2 standard characteristics of God paradoxical: if God knows the future – a single future – then he knows His own future actions. If He knows His future actions, he cannot “do anything”, but only those actions.

 

I’ve never received a satisfying explanation of this paradox. As a result, I don’t accept this list of characteristics of God. (Full disclosure: I am an atheist – but being so does not preclude thinking about the nature of God)

 

Although the alternative – a God lacking or limited in these characteristics – seems inescapable, this in not in my experience acceptable to most theists.

[Boerseun]

It's amazing how well created beings are able to use the "logic" God has allowed them to posess in an attempt to eradicate Him from from their thoughts.

First of all, you presuppose that humans were created by God. Secondly, you pressupose that these humans were given the priviledge of logic, once again by God. Then you pressupose that God, in his Almighty wisdom, have been kind enough to allow the humans to actually use the logic he gave them. Fourthly, you pressupose that there is an actual, conscious attempt to 'eradicate' God.

 

On all four counts, presupposition don't work too well. But on the last count I must add that humans aren't consciously trying to 'eradicate' God from the equation, God wrote Himself out of the play when he decided to give humans brains, which they use to great effect (sometimes, at least). Humans don't decide on the rules of logic. Logic is a scientce unto itself, with written rules. What you're saying is that 1+1=2, because humans have decided the outcome. When in truth, whatever humans might have to say on the matter, 1+1 will always equal 2, because the rules exist outside of the human mind. Humans just follows the rules and methods of maths. Same with logic. The fact that logic discounts God is no intentional, conscious human decision. It's the logical conclusion that God doesn't exist based on the rules of logic, which once again exist outside of human interference. Them rules are them rules. And if you follow the flow of logic as dictated by these extra-human rules, and God disappears in a puff of smoke and mirrors, it's no human's fault. It's cold, crisp, hard logic that examined the case for God as presented by His representatives (the Churches et al) down here on Earth, and found it to be logically inconsistent. The fact that God doesn't exist, is no single human's fault. And there's no big co-ordinated attempt at getting rid of God, neither. If God did indeed create the universe, he committed suicide when he created logic, - it is very abstract, but cut in stone like 1+1.

[pgrmdave]

Since my youth, I’ve found these 2 standard characteristics of God paradoxical: if God knows the future – a single future – then he knows His own future actions. If He knows His future actions, he cannot “do anything”, but only those actions.

 

Let us suppose that God is a being for whom time (in our universe) has no meaning. He can "view" all times as the present, and alter anything in any time. This means that he is all powerful - he can alter anything. He is also omniscient - he can see all time equally. He can see something in the 'future', go back to the 'past' and change something, and then revisit an altered 'future'.

 

And this view of the evil God is enhanced by the attributes of omnipotence and omniscience. Because God knows the future, he knows exactly what we are to do in our lives, so he creates multitudes of people who have no purpose but to burn in hell. Also, why would God create hell, unless he finds pleasure in watching his creations suffer? There is no reason for a hell for an omnipotent God.

 

This has bothered me, and many, many theologians in the past. If God is all powerful, and God is perfectly good, why is there any suffering? I wish I knew the answer, but the best I can do is guess. Maybe we do have free will, and he wants us to have free will, and it is our mistakes that cause us to suffer. Similar to how parents will allow their children to make mistakes, because keeping them perfectly safe is worse. Maybe he isn't all good - I don't recall any referrences to that in the bible (although I rarely read it, and even then I don't put too much stock into it). Maybe there is a heaven, and there is a hell, and we all go to both. Maybe there is no heaven and no hell. Really, the only thing I have to go on is my faith. I have faith in God. I trust him. I trust that he knows what he's doing. That's not to say that when I drive I don't wear my seatbelt, though :D

[CraigD]

Let us suppose that God is a being for whom time (in our universe) has no meaning. He can "view" all times as the present, and alter anything in any time. This means that he is all powerful - he can alter anything. He is also omniscient - he can see all time equally. He can see something in the 'future', go back to the 'past' and change something, and then revisit an altered 'future'.

This scheme requires a “supertime”. Because God sees all times as the present - that is, sees the universe as a static 4-dimensional object (assuming for the sake of discussion that there are only 3 space-like dimensions) - but changes them/it (constrained by the rule that a change to the past also change the future), in some sequence. As the old saying goes – “time exists so that everything doesn’t happen at once” – such a sequence must be defined on a time-like axis, “supertime”.

 

The question arises, then, does God’s omniscience extends to the now 5-dimensional spacetime+suppertime. That is, can He see all states of a changing 3-d spacetime, “superpast”, “superpresent”, and “superfuture”. If this question’s answer is yes, the paradox arises afresh, with one additional dimenension. If resolved by the “He can ‘view’ all ‘supertimes’ as the present, and alter anything in any ‘supertime’”, the same question arises, ad-infinitum.

 

I’m acquainted also with a scheme in which a version of the many-worlds interpretation is true, and that God is aware of all of its worldlines. In this scheme, omnipotence is a semantic null – by definition, nothing, not even God, can effect the totality of the many worldliness. This scheme is unsatisfying, however, because it in it, God is a completely static entity, what one might called “infinite awareness”.

 

In many decades of pondering the “omniscience precludes omnipotence” paradox, I’ve been unable to find a satisfying resolution. My conclusion is that it’s more satisfying to believe that God is omniscient only of the past and present, and His omnipotence excludes any loophole such as perfectly extrapolating the future. This scheme seems consistent with descriptions of God such as in the Book of Job, in which God appears uncertain of how the story will turn out.

[pgrmdave]

I would say that God's omniscience, as far as we need be concerned, is limited to our universe. THat is not to say that I know this to be true, but that I do not think that, should such a being exist, we could really understand anything beyond that. Keep in mind that there are many things which are well understood in modern science that would have seemed illogical thousands of years ago. That paradoxes would arise from a being outside our possible scope of knowledge is only to be expected. Again keep in mind that I don't believe that we can know these things, any more than we can imagine any paradox.

[Lancaster]

I would say that God's omniscience, as far as we need be concerned, is limited to our universe. THat is not to say that I know this to be true, but that I do not think that, should such a being exist, we could really understand anything beyond that. Keep in mind that there are many things which are well understood in modern science that would have seemed illogical thousands of years ago. That paradoxes would arise from a being outside our possible scope of knowledge is only to be expected. Again keep in mind that I don't believe that we can know these things, any more than we can imagine any paradox.

 

 

I would certainly hope that my magical being that I choose to worship would not be paradoxical or illogical. Because, as logic dictates, if something, by it's very nature, is a self-contradiction (square circle) it cannot exist.

[Boerseun]

Let's assume that a universal omnipotent and omniscient God exist. In the vastness of the universe, why would such a fantastic being bother itself with the trivial affairs of a few paltry tiny bipeds on a small planet third in line from an inconspicuous star in a remote corner of a galaxy, one of billions? Why would he meddle with their lives? Is it telling of His character, or telling of how desperately humans want it to be so?

[ughaibu]

Maybe god uses Earth and it's inhabitants for practice, then the real creation will take place elsewhere after research on various minor planets has ironed out the flaws.

[arkain101]

I know this is long. But I had to share it in this way to illustrate what I've learned. Give it a try. ;)

 

The summery:

 

I share a perspective that is one that humbles one to more vigourously and fairly investigate this experience. It is pro-god, and pro-science, but the reader should conclude which provides answers that satisfy the perspective they take with them.

 

I like to bring up this perspective to create something to think about.

 

When we observe, and we claim what we observe is real, what exactly are we doing?

 

I think that when we claim that we prove something, when we do, all we have done is state the obvious, and by doing this we are restricted to state anything profound.

 

For example, everything science claims, dawkings, or anything on this manner is a statement of the obvious, and in a sense is a dilusion of having wisdom on the universe.

 

For example. Using a comman statement like, we are made of stardust. A bunch of compiled atoms that form multiples of cells and we consider that this creates an answer, I think it has done nothing but state what is, state the obvious.

 

It is the same thing as pointing at a tree and saying. The tree stands. Or looking at a mountain and saying the mountain is tall. Or pointing at a rock and saying look the rock sits still.

 

This is not anything profound. This is not anything that is an answer. It is a statement of what is, what was, and will be. An obvious statement that is by all means like taking a picture and saying, this picture contains the answer.

 

So when we define our experience of consciousness, life, the universe, or anything in that matter by explaining it by what is there in material, has done nothing more than a young child walking up to you and saying:

 

DID YOU KNOW! you have shoes and they are brown and they have laces.

 

To the young child with his continous discovering mind considers he has made an amazing discovery and he has created an answer to the item of which you walk on. He has defined your sole that you walk on.

 

To you the child has proved nothing new, nothing profound, he has simply stated what has been there all along, and is something obvious.

 

Now as we move up the levels of describing, into expertise science, what has changed from what the child has done and what the adult does?

 

The vocabulary, and the complexity and detail of discovery. But, we continue to state what is obvious. The new discovery may not be obvious to the ignorant investigator at first because we have not discovered it, described it, and defined it before.

 

So once we get that perspective in our minds we can find a way to humble ourselves by realising that we are just children pointing at a shoe of a giant.

 

If we can accept that, then we can learn about perception and reason and further this perspective I am sharing and furthermore expand our minds to new eyes and understanding.

 

Perception and Reasoning.

 

A comman argument a person of faith will bring forward to an athiest is this one;

 

"Okay so if you do not believe in god, how did all of this get here?" As the person of faith points his finger out and sways it around in a circle and says "the moutains the stars, the trees, you, me?"

 

The comman answer is along the lines of -from the athiest- big bang, evolution, science etc.

 

Now, the rather unheard of and unknown 3rd answer is; It isnt there. None of it is there. It is all in your head. The colors, the textures, etc, they are not "out" there they are "in there" in your mind.

 

We percieve. But with no reason the perception has no meaning. What is red? if you have no word for it? We give it a statement of the obvious when we create a word for it. We say "that is red". But it is not red, it is not there, it is a word, a reasoning, applied with a logic, and word to validate the perception all to state the obvious, but truly give no answer.

 

You see, as we pick apart what is new and eventually becomes obvious to us, we have learned it becomes newer and stranger things. What is quantum wave-particle charge electromagnetic fluctuations? (if you get my point). It isnt a tree. It isnt a rock.

 

 

So when I subject myself to this perspective, I find myself humbled by a perculiar answer that pours through me. Not with logic, not with stating the obvious, not with my mind, but with mystery and the non material.

 

I feel a state of magic, a sense of a mircale, just to realise that I am, and that I observe, and that the universe is, and I have reasoned it, and I understand how to point and gibber gabber words at it. And although I can do those things, I can not answer where this experience pours out from. All my senses. All these things I can not see or inspect or prove and they flow through a thing called me, which is even more elusive and stranger yet.

 

So in this humble perspective I learn to say, although this universe has structure I learned to define it and by doing so I created it, and it is what I can call it. But the tools I use to do this come from a nature deeper than all the obvious statements I can make.

 

And humbly so with this perspective I know god is.... but!.... that is only again my statement of the obvious.

 

I can not describe it, but I can define it. I can express it, but I can not expose it. I can experience it but I can not reason it. We use the word god, but that our child pointing at a shoe and limiting its properties to brown,shoe,and laces. Where we clearly know it can be described levels beyond that.

 

The nature of god becomes entirely possible when you allow yourself to accept that all that makes you feel superior by understanding. All that makes you beleive you are closer to the answer by explaining what is there. All of that, is truly where the deception is, it is truly where the delusion is.

 

The only location that we know and can claim to prove that exists, is the location within us that we can not see or prove.

 

The thing I think that scares so many away from diving head first into this is the religious dogma that has confused and muggled up the whole purpose.

 

In all my studies of faith and religion the summery is; Love. The Message: Please I ask you to listen to me, -like a stranger who loved a person on drugs to heed their advice so they can take them home and save them-, because I love you and want you to save you but I can't unless you learn what I am teaching you, for if I take you in my arms your source of being will burn. But I want you with me so dearly, but your drug addiction will burn you if I take you home and take care of you.

 

There is only good flat out practical knowledge in all the messages related to god and faith, and all they do is try to get us to learn to get off the drugs. (We have to read between the lines a little these days because of the use of text) but, just like good manners and survival smarts, and how to become successful, that is basically all the morals of the stories are.

 

But we continue to be blind if we do not accept a perspective. We continue to confuse the purpose when we do not investigate the messages. Then we end up copy catting the lifestyle, and not putting the knowledge into action.

 

I believe religion is a confusion and exists today because people needed to group together when they were thought to think different, act different and get attacked.. But at this time and at this age we have the ability now, the freedom now, the chance now, to relax, and put all the good intentions into action so we can learn there is a perspective we can learn that we will never want to turn back from when we achieve it.

 

Everythig else, including describing the nature of god is a distraction, a waste of time. Very much Like children arguing if santa has 10 reigndeer or 9reigndeer during christmas. Neither of them will be right, because well santa isnt material, he is the feeling of magic we want to share on christmas, a time that teaches us how wonderful things can be when we give, love, share, cooperate, etc...

 

I needed to share this post in the way I did and expose a perspective otherwise it would of blown by like wind, invisible and it would all of been missed if I didnt include the windmill to spin in the wind so it would appear.

[ughaibu]

Arkain101: As you said, your post was long, so, my apologies, I only read up until you began discussing creation myths, ie the big bang, these things dont interest me very much but I apologise if I missed something pertenant in your exposition. From the earlier part, I would like to point out that observation on it's own isn't the point, human beings are social animals, so relevant observations need to be common. A human being has both private and public components, the confusion of these separate components, seems to me, to be the point at which religion becomes problematic and anti-social.

[arkain101]

Just as a note:

 

The above post I made is not that cliche perspective that the universe exists because I percieve it.

 

Of course it chugs along as it does with or without me.

 

But what is it if no one describes it?

 

Which viewpoint do we apply or accept when all life is hypothetically removed?

 

Is it tiny particles? No because that requires my mind.

 

Is it, invisible electric and magnetic fields? what do the look like...

 

It surely microscopically continues, but what is the microscopic..

 

but, Macroscopically it is generated by and relative to the observer.

 

Become a lone electron in your mind, and define the difference between being part of a star, or a rock, or an atom in space...

 

See.. the universe with all observers removed is any possibility your imagination can allow, but more respectively, an unconscious purpose..

[arkain101]

Ughaibu, I gave it a summery for the reader to decide the worth of reading it.