Why The Christian God Is Impossible

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

Why the Christian God is Impossible
by Chad Docterman


Introduction

Christians consider the existence of their God to be an obvious truth that no sane man could deny. I strongly disagree with this assumption not only because evidence for the existence of this presumably ubiquitous yet invisible God is lacking, but because the very nature Christians attribute to this God is self-contradictory.


Proving a Universal Negative


It is taken for granted by Christians, as well as many atheists, that a universal negative cannot be proven. In this case, that universal negative is the statement that the Christian God does not exist. One would have to have omniscience, they say, in order to prove that anything does not exist. I disagree with this position, however, because omniscience is not needed in order to prove that a thing whose nature is a self-contradiction cannot, and therefore does not exist.


I do not need a complete knowledge of the universe to prove to you that cubic spheres do not exist. Such objects have mutually-exclusive attributes which would render their existence impossible. For example, a cube, by definition, has 8 corners, while a sphere has none. These properties are completely incompatible: they cannot be held simultaneously by the same object. It is my intent to show that the supposed properties of the Christian God Yahweh, like those of a cubic sphere, are incompatible, and by so doing, to show Yahweh's existence to be an impossibility.


Defining YHWH


Before we can discuss the existence of a thing, we must define it. Christians have endowed their God with all of the following attributes: He is eternal, all-powerful, and created everything. He created all the laws of nature and can change anything by an act of will. He is all-good, all-loving, and perfectly just. He is a personal God who experiences all of the emotions a human does. He is all-knowing. He sees everything past and future.

God's creation was originally perfect, but humans, by disobeying him, brought imperfection into the world. Humans are evil and sinful, and must suffer in this world because of their sinfulness. God gives humans the opportunity to accept forgiveness for their sin, and all who do will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven, but while they are on earth, they must suffer for his sake. All humans who choose not to accept this forgiveness must go to hell and be tormented for eternity.


One Bible verse which Christians are fond of quoting says that atheists are fools. I intend to show that the above concepts of God are completely incompatible and so reveal the impossibility of all of them being true. Who is the fool? The fool is the one who believes impossible things and calls them divine mysteries.


Perfection Seeks Even More Perfection


What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete--it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible.


Perfection Begets Imperfection


But, for the sake of argument, let's continue. Let us suppose that this perfect God did create the universe. Humans were the crown of his creation, since they were created in God's image and have the ability to make decisions. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God.


What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, and yet this "perfect" God created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans. The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible.


The Freewill Argument


The Christians' objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.


Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.


Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.

Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?


The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.



All-good God Knowingly Creates Future Suffering


God is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans. He heard the screams of the damned. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the Bible says this very thing), and surely this all-compassionate deity would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering. A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible.



Infinite Punishment for Finite Sins



God is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment. God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely more unjust than this punishment. The absurd injustice of this infinite punishment is even greater when we consider that the ultimate source of human imperfection is the God who created them. A perfectly just God who sentences his imperfect creation to infinite punishment for finite sins is impossible.


Belief More Important Than Action


Consider all of the people who live in the remote regions of the world who have never even heard the "gospel" of Jesus Christ. Consider the people who have naturally adhered to the religion of their parents and nation as they had been taught to do since birth. If we are to believe the Christians, all of these people will perish in the eternal fire for not believing in Jesus. It does not matter how just, kind, and generous they have been with their fellow humans during their lifetime: if they do not accept the gospel of Jesus, they are condemned. No just God would ever judge a man by his beliefs rather than his actions.


Perfection's Imperfect Revelation


The Bible is supposedly God's perfect Word. It contains instructions to humankind for avoiding the eternal fires of hell. How wonderful and kind of this God to provide us with this means of overcoming the problems for which he is ultimately responsible! The all-powerful God could have, by a mere act of will, eliminated all of the problems we humans must endure, but instead, in his infinite wisdom, he has opted to offer this indecipherable amalgam of books which is the Bible as a means for avoiding the hell which he has prepared for us. The perfect God has decided to reveal his wishes in this imperfect work, written in the imperfect language of imperfect man, translated, copied, interpreted, voted on, and related by imperfect man.


No two men will ever agree what this perfect word of God is supposed to mean, since much of it is either self- contradictory, or obscured by enigmatic symbols. And yet the perfect God expects us imperfect humans to understand this paradoxical riddle using the imperfect minds with which he has equipped us. Surely the all-wise and all-powerful God would have known that it would have been better to reveal his perfect will directly to each of us, rather than to allow it to be debased and perverted by the imperfect language and botched interpretations of man.


Contradictory Justice


One need look to no source other than the Bible to discover its imperfections, for it contradicts itself and thus exposes its own imperfection. It contradicts itself on matters of justice, for the same just God who assures his people that sons shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers turns around and destroys an entire household for the sin of one man (he had stolen some of Yahweh's war loot). It was this same Yahweh who afflicted thousands of his innocent people with plague and death to punish their evil king David for taking a census (?!). It was this same Yahweh who allowed the humans to slaughter his son because the perfect Yahweh had botched his own creation. Consider how many have been stoned, burned, slaughtered, raped, and enslaved because of Yahweh's skewed sense of justice. The blood of innocent babies is on the perfect, just, compassionate hands of Yahweh.


Contradictory History


The Bible contradicts itself on matters of history. A person who reads and compares the contents of the Bible will be confused about exactly who Esau's wives were, whether Timnah was a concubine or a son, and whether Jesus' earthly lineage is through Solomon or his brother Nathan. These are but a few of hundreds of documented historical contradictions. If the Bible cannot confirm itself in mundane earthly matters, how are we to trust it on moral and spiritual matters?


Unfulfilled Prophecy


The Bible misinterprets its own prophecies. Read Isaiah 7 and compare it to Matthew 1 to find but one of many misinterpreted prophecies of which Christians are either passively or willfully ignorant. The fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible is cited as proof of its divine inspiration, and yet here is but one major example of a prophecy whose intended meaning has been and continues to be twisted to support subsequent absurd and false doctrines. There are no ends to which the credulous will not go to support their feeble beliefs in the face of compelling evidence against them.


The Bible is imperfect. It only takes one imperfection to destroy the supposed perfection of this alleged Word of God. Many have been found. A perfect God who reveals his perfect will in an imperfect book is impossible.



The Omniscient Changes the Future


A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient God who is all-powerful and freewilled is impossible.


The Omniscient is Surprised


A God who knows everything cannot have emotions. The Bible says that God experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger, sadness, and happiness. We humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. A man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. In contrast, the omniscient God is ignorant of nothing. Nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may emotively react.


We humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. The perfect, omnipotent God, however, can fix anything. Humans experience longing for things we lack. The perfect God lacks nothing. An omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect God who experiences emotion is impossible.


The Conclusion of the matter


I have offered arguments for the impossibility, and thus the non- existence, of the Christian God Yahweh. No reasonable and freethinking individual can accept the existence of a being whose nature is so contradictory as that of Yahweh, the "perfect" creator of our imperfect universe. The existence of Yahweh is as impossible as the existence of cubic spheres or invisible pink unicorns.


Should any Christian who reads this persist in defending these impossibilities through means of "divine transcendence" and "faith," and should any Christian continue to call me an atheist fool, I will be forced to invoke the wrath of the Invisible Pink Unicorn:


"You are a fool for denying the existence of the IPU. You have rejected true faith and have relied on your feeble powers of human reason and thus arrogantly denied the existence of Her Divine Transcendence, and so are you condemned."

If such arguments are good enough for Yahweh, they are good enough for Her Invisible Pinkness.

As for me and my house, we shall choose reality.


What do you all think of these arguments? Any Christians care to refute them?

[tombstonequeen]

Woooooooooooooooooo
awsome
keep ur thoughts goin

[japanman]

yep thats why i calll it "it" seriously i dont know how i can bielive his name is god when if he created us how can we name him b/c if we call him god who gave him the name god so on your post basically explains why im not full christian.

[Zephyr]

Yuri, you are amazing = )

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

Thanks guys :) I hope I can get some Christians to refute these arguments :D

[Uranus]

Keeping in mind that we are not trying to bash Christians we are only trying to prove that most religions have some degree of irrelevency behind them correct?

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

Of course, I just presented solid, polite arguments in debate form, and am now waiting for a refutation

[Shiver]

The Christians' objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.


Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.


Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.

Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?


The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.

This is what doesn't make sense to me God didnt' give us freewill just for happiness he gave it to us so that we could decide our own paths in life.

Also when it talks about the bible it doesn't take into account of mistranslations(both intentional and unintentional) and also that The New Testament debunks alot of The Old Testament purposefully.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

This is what doesn't make sense to me God didnt' give us freewill just for happiness he gave it to us so that we could decide our own paths in life.

Also when it talks about the bible it doesn't take into account of mistranslations(both intentional and unintentional) and also that The New Testament debunks alot of The Old Testament purposefully.

My argument says that god supposedly gave us free will so we would have the POSSIBILITY to experiance happiness, not the certainty.

Why should It take into account the supposed mistranslations? The Bible is what Christians follow, regardless of mistranslations. if they follow the mistranslations, so be it.

And how does the New testament debunk MY arguments? I dont see any refutations here, what are you arguing?

[Shiver]

Yuri I'm tired of hearing things from articles you found around the net I want to hear it in your own words why you think there isn't a god

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

I post the articles because I believe they are correct, and I am in agreement with them, i dont see a problem.

Its pretty simple why I dont think there is a god. A) There is no real proof B) Faith isnt enough for me C) I dont believe in ghosts, spirits, or the supernatural

[Shiver]

I know I'm just curious to here your full account to of it all.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

Those three points in my post are it DT :)

[Shiver]

Man of few words I guess but anyway I'm like the complete opposite of all three of those.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

LoL, yea, I figure most religious people have to be the complete opposite, lol

[Andrew56]

All my answers will be based on faith and the Bible, but perhaps you would still like to hear? I'll take sometime studying my Bible looking for what my beliefs state about all of your very intriguing and logically valid points.

Please let me know if you would like possibly the world's largest reply, based on the Bible and faith, so it's not a waste of my time typing it up.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

I would love to hear what you have to say Andrew :) (Although, as you may have gathered, I strongly dislike the idea of faith)

[Shiver]

please type it all of it is welcome

[japanman]

All my answers will be based on faith and the Bible, but perhaps you would still like to hear? I'll take sometime studying my Bible looking for what my beliefs state about all of your very intriguing and logically valid points.

Please let me know if you would like possibly the world's largest reply, based on the Bible and faith, so it's not a waste of my time typing it up.
Go for it. :D

[Andrew56]

Excellent, I'll have it up tomorrow morning sometime.

And, I'm just saying this up front; Let's make sure we keep it a friendly, upbeat debate. I love a good spirited discussion.

You're really 14? That's remarkable. You know what your IQ is?

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

Great, I cant wait :)

And I have absolutely no problem with keeping everything nice, friendly, and upbeat. This should be fun

And yes, Im really 14:D I dont know what my IQ is, most tests are unreliable :P

[*Dissident*]

Well, uh, God is like, uh, God can do, umm, Anything, so, uhm THERE!

Good post man. But what have you to say of the eastern interpretation of the divine?

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

What do you mean eastern interpretation? Allah?

[*Dissident*]

Nah, I'm thinking more like the Tao or Zen Buddhism or Vishnu. I havent done much study but I do know that they are MUCH different than what we like to think of as God. Not so much benevolent dictators than regular people who are just really big.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

hmm, well, anything that is supernatural is BS.... xD

Taoism, and Buddhism, I see nothign wrong with those. Those are just about finding true peace inside yourself

[Celeritas]

I must say Hauptmann...
I admire you...
I thank you for bringing FSM into my life...

But it seems that you are looking for trouble now. It would've been smarter to put it in your diary.

But anyways...
w00t... go... was your name Yuri? God so many names... (lol... God) sorry if this is wrong


Anyways, I like the whole idea of Buddhism, though I've tried living a Buddhist's life for one day and couldn't do it.

Nice post.

*Tries to give rep but can't because already gave you rep recently*

P.S., Check out my purple face... lol.

[LxNearxHunny]

That was an amazing argument. My family, everytime I talk to them about religion, they just say im a heathen for not believing in god. Next time I talk to them, I will be sure to bring up some of these points!

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

Thanks Mzor, and Im not looking for trouble. As long as I am polite and respectful it should be fine. And yes, Its Yuri :) Nice face xD

Well Near Hunny, Thanks for the complements, but sadly it sounds that if your family calls you a heathen, I doubt they would listen to these points, and even if they did they would just brush them off, even though they are valid.

[Dolphus Raymond]

This is one of the best arguments for atheism (versus the Christian God, at least) I've ever read. It essentially avoids scarecrows and goes for a priori conclusions. Pretty neat. Thanks for posting it.

I'm sure there are some Christian apologists who could find "faults," especially in the Biblical interpretations. But the only devil's-advocate argument I can make, is that the Bible's imperfection does not necessarily disprove the existence of a Christian God under one construct: if we assume that a God who lies to us about His nature can still be a "Christian God."

I doubt many Christians like that view, though.

[Andrew56]

Introduction

Christians consider the existence of their God to be an obvious truth that no sane man could deny. I strongly disagree with this assumption not only because evidence for the existence of this presumably ubiquitous yet invisible God is lacking, but because the very nature Christians attribute to this God is self-contradictory.


Well, firstly, he's starting off by generalizing Christians. I do NOT believe a sane man couldn't deny God. I have numerous highly intelligent friends who deny it. I believe it's wrong to do so, but sane people can lack wisdom and understanding.

Proving a Universal Negative

It is taken for granted by Christians, as well as many atheists, that a universal negative cannot be proven. In this case, that universal negative is the statement that the Christian God does not exist. One would have to have omniscience, they say, in order to prove that anything does not exist. I disagree with this position, however, because omniscience is not needed in order to prove that a thing whose nature is a self-contradiction cannot, and therefore does not exist.

I do not need a complete knowledge of the universe to prove to you that cubic spheres do not exist. Such objects have mutually-exclusive attributes which would render their existence impossible. For example, a cube, by definition, has 8 corners, while a sphere has none. These properties are completely incompatible: they cannot be held simultaneously by the same object. It is my intent to show that the supposed properties of the Christian God Yahweh, like those of a cubic sphere, are incompatible, and by so doing, to show Yahweh's existence to be an impossibility.

Defining YHWH

Before we can discuss the existence of a thing, we must define it. Christians have endowed their God with all of the following attributes: He is eternal, all-powerful, and created everything. He created all the laws of nature and can change anything by an act of will. He is all-good, all-loving, and perfectly just. He is a personal God who experiences all of the emotions a human does. He is all-knowing. He sees everything past and future.

God's creation was originally perfect, but humans, by disobeying him, brought imperfection into the world. Humans are evil and sinful, and must suffer in this world because of their sinfulness. God gives humans the opportunity to accept forgiveness for their sin, and all who do will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven, but while they are on earth, they must suffer for his sake. All humans who choose not to accept this forgiveness must go to hell and be tormented for eternity.

I do not believe that you must suffer while you are on earth. I don't know how that came about. Our sins took perfection out of this world, and filled it with sin. We're all just living in the world we infected. No life will be pure pleasure, and that is suffering because of sin, but my life is at least 85% pleasure. Christ encourages us to have a good time and enjoy ourselves, we just need to stay within His guidelines.

I also happen to believe my God is indescribable, but I can do better then the single paragraph he provided. And no I didn't write this part. It's in the Bible.

He's the King of Righteousness, He's the King of the ages, He's the King of Heaven, He's the King of Glory, He's the King of Kings and He's the Lord of Lords!

David said the Heaven's declare the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork. My King is a sovereign King. No means of measure can define His limitless love, no far seeing telescope can bring into visibility the coastline of His shore-less supply, no barrier can hinder Him from pouring out His blessings
He's enduringly strong, He's entirely sincere, He's eternally steadfast, He's immortally graceful, He's imperially powerful, He's impartially merciful.

He's the greatest phenomenon that has ever crossed the horizon of this world! He's God's son, He's the sinners Savior, He's the centerpiece of civilization, He stands in the solitude of Himself, He's august and He's unique! He's unparalleled, He's unprecedented, He's the loftiest idea in literature, He's the highest personality in philosophy, He's the supreme problem in higher criticism, He's the fundamental doctrine of true theology, He's the miracle of the age, He is the superlative of everything good that you choose to call Him, He's the only one who qualified to be an all sufficient Savior.

He supplies strength for the weak, He's available for the tempted and the tried, He sympathizes and He saves, He strengthens and sustains, He guards and He guides, He heals the sick, He cleansed the lepers, He forgives sinners, He discharges debtors, He delivers the captives, He defends the feeble, He blesses the young, He serves the unfortunate, He regards the aged, He rewards the diligent and He beautifies the meek.

My King is the key to knowledge: The wellspring of wisdom; the doorway of deliverance; the pathway of peace; the roadway of righteousness; the highway of holiness, and the gateway of glory!

His office is manifold: His promise is sure. His light is matchless. His goodness is limitless. His mercy is everlasting. His reign is Righteous. His yoke is easy, and His burden is light.

You can't get Him out of your mind or off your hands! You can't out-live Him and you can't live without Him! The Pharisees couldn't stand Him, but they found out they couldn't stop Him. Pilate couldn't find any fault in Him. The witnesses couldn't agree. Herod couldn't kill Him. Death couldn't handle Him, and the grave couldn't hold Him!

I hope you don't skim that.

That's my King.

One Bible verse which Christians are fond of quoting says that atheists are fools. I intend to show that the above concepts of God are completely incompatible and so reveal the impossibility of all of them being true. Who is the fool? The fool is the one who believes impossible things and calls them divine mysteries.

It's not really mysteries. it's unfathomable.

Perfection Seeks Even More Perfection

What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete--it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible.

Wrong. That is a definition of perfect created by something admittedly imperfect. We don't know what compelled Him to do as He did. Until we can wrap our finite minds around the fact that He simply always existed, we cannot question what made Him create us when He did.

Also, let's say your IQ is 200. You are unbelievable smart. You can get into any school you want, you can achieve amazing goals. God's IQ in infinite. He holds absolutely all the knowledge of the universe. All that was, all that is, all that will be, all we know, and all we don't. His reasoning and timing is so far beyond our comprehension. You may think you understand, but all your standards are far too low. It's impossible for you or me, to have a high enough bar to see the meaning and reason of His actions and His will.

Perfection Begets Imperfection

Perfection's reasoning and logic is also flawless, so even if we don't understand it and it doesn't follow the guidelines of what we imperfectly define as perfect, who are we to say?

And also if you say that, then good begets evil, and therefore there is a single and strict set of moral rules that is they same for everyone. Which I believe there is, but you can't pick to believe one and ignore the other.

But, for the sake of argument, let's continue. Let us suppose that this perfect God did create the universe. Humans were the crown of his creation, since they were created in God's image and have the ability to make decisions. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God.

What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, and yet this "perfect" God created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans. The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible.

I'm 6'1". Tall by most standards. I can create something short if I like. Why would I make something as tall as me?

God chose to create us with freewill. The ability to choose. He created the angels with freewill as well. That's why 2/3 of them decided to rebel against Him, and He kicked them out of Heaven and sent then to Hell and the earth as fallen angels, aka demons. These creatures were pure evil as they used their freewill in an attempt to gain power against a Holy Creator God. Now all they want to do is keep others from learning how to get into Heaven, and destroy lives and Christian testimonies. And Satan did a good job when he convinced Eve to eat some fruit.

And good trees can bear terrible fruit.

The Freewill Argument

The Christians' objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.

God had no control over this decision? Are you kidding? He let freewill play out, He could have stepped in and done anything He wanted.

Love and happiness is a tiny part of what freewill grants you. Personalities, stories and inventions just to name a few. . . all of this come from freewill.

Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.

Nothing is impossible for a perfect and omnipotent God. Well, nothing except sin.

Having perfect happy robots is exactly the same thing as nothing existing in the first place.

Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.

That's exactly how He did create them. They were created perfect. The inability to choose is an imperfection though. And the ability to choose evil is an imperfection. Kind of a paradox, eh? They were living perfect lives, until they made a choice to sin. God wasn't surprised. God knew they would. But it's all part of His perfect plan.

It sounds like a typical Christian safety net to say it, but there is no way we can understand something so vastly superior. Take a ant for example. Have it watch a group of humans build a car from scratch, drive it to a store, buy food, cook the food, and eat it. Would the ant grasp and understand it? At all? All the ant MIGHT be able to understand is that we were doing SOMETHING. But that's about it. We can't try to use our human reason and understanding to fathom why a omnipotent, omniscient God does what He does.

Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?

The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.

Something perfect can make something imperfect if it wants. We are created in the image of God, not His nature.

Sin is literally carried on through the man's seed. So Jesus was born of a virgin and a sinless God, so it is not within His ability to sin.

All-good God Knowingly Creates Future Suffering

God is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans. He heard the screams of the damned. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the Bible says this very thing), and surely this all-compassionate deity would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering. A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible.

We all have a choice to go to Heaven. No one has to go to Hell. God didn't write the future, He made all the parts, and set it in motion and knew what the end result would be.

He is perfectly compassionate, but is is also wrathfully just. He has no problem sending someone who rejects His sacrifice to Hell. If you reject His sacrifice and trod it underfoot, it should not be too hard for you to understand that the same God who sacrificed His beloved Son will cast your rebellious spirit into hell and the lake of fire.

Infinite Punishment for Finite Sins

God is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment. God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely more unjust than this punishment. The absurd injustice of this infinite punishment is even greater when we consider that the ultimate source of human imperfection is the God who created them. A perfectly just God who sentences his imperfect creation to infinite punishment for finite sins is impossible.

Not even close. We've no say in what is just and fair. We made up our own finite rules and systems based on human reason.

Lets say we don't believe in the afterlife. If a man kills someone, does he deserve life in prison or the death sentence? Because that is his eternity. And that's the rest of his existence gone, for a sin that could have taken just seconds to commit.

Again, if you reject His sacrifice and trod it underfoot, it should not be too hard for you to understand that the same God who sacrificed His beloved Son will cast your rebellious spirit into hell and the lake of fire.

Belief More Important Than Action

Consider all of the people who live in the remote regions of the world who have never even heard the "gospel" of Jesus Christ. Consider the people who have naturally adhered to the religion of their parents and nation as they had been taught to do since birth. If we are to believe the Christians, all of these people will perish in the eternal fire for not believing in Jesus. It does not matter how just, kind, and generous they have been with their fellow humans during their lifetime: if they do not accept the gospel of Jesus, they are condemned. No just God would ever judge a man by his beliefs rather than his actions.

Yes He would. He does. Living a good life without surrendering yourself to Christ is the ultimate offense. It's rejection of the fact the a SINLESS Christ died for you.

Again, if you reject His sacrifice and trod it underfoot, it should not be too hard for you to understand that the same God who sacrificed His beloved Son will cast your rebellious spirit into hell and the lake of fire.

He tells us to go out to those regions and learn those languages and tell those people about Him. That's what Christians are supposed to do.

And the Bible mentions lesser levels of Hell for those who were uninformed. And less rewards for Christians who didn't spread the Word.

Perfection's Imperfect Revelation

The Bible is supposedly God's perfect Word. It contains instructions to humankind for avoiding the eternal fires of hell. How wonderful and kind of this God to provide us with this means of overcoming the problems for which he is ultimately responsible! The all-powerful God could have, by a mere act of will, eliminated all of the problems we humans must endure, but instead, in his infinite wisdom, he has opted to offer this indecipherable amalgam of books which is the Bible as a means for avoiding the hell which he has prepared for us. The perfect God has decided to reveal his wishes in this imperfect work, written in the imperfect language of imperfect man, translated, copied, interpreted, voted on, and related by imperfect man.

No two men will ever agree what this perfect word of God is supposed to mean, since much of it is either self-contradictory, or obscured by enigmatic symbols. And yet the perfect God expects us imperfect humans to understand this paradoxical riddle using the imperfect minds with which he has equipped us. Surely the all-wise and all-powerful God would have known that it would have been better to reveal his perfect will directly to each of us, rather than to allow it to be debased and perverted by the imperfect language and botched interpretations of man.

God does not allow His word to be corrupted. He does not allow anything to be lost in translation.

Nothing in His inspired Word is self-contradictory.

It cannot be understood by the finite human mind. The only way to understand the Word is with your Spirit. An unsaved person will never grasp anything beyond the surface of the Scripture. And the only way a Christian can comprehend any of it is by praying that the Holy Spirit will teach and help his spirit to understand and learn.

Many people agree on what the Bible means too. I don't know where the assumption, "No two men will ever agree what this perfect word of God is supposed to mean" came from.

And if we understood what the Bible told us the time we heard it, it would be about 3 or 4 pages long.

Contradictory Justice

One needs look to no source other than the Bible to discover its imperfections, for it contradicts itself and thus exposes its own imperfection. It contradicts itself on matters of justice, for the same just God who assures his people that sons shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers turns around and destroys an entire household for the sin of one man (he had stolen some of Yahweh's war loot). It was this same Yahweh who afflicted thousands of his innocent people with plague and death to punish their evil king David for taking a census (?!). It was this same Yahweh who allowed the humans to slaughter his son because the perfect Yahweh had botched his own creation. Consider how many have been stoned, burned, slaughtered, raped, and enslaved because of Yahweh's skewed sense of justice. The blood of innocent babies is on the perfect, just, compassionate hands of Yahweh.

Again, we can only comprehend the justice system our tiny little minds can make up and call "fair". We have the skewed sense of justice.

And babies cannot understand anything, and therefore are protected by the age of innocence.

Contradictory History

The Bible contradicts itself on matters of history. A person who reads and compares the contents of the Bible will be confused about exactly who Esau's wives were, whether Timnah was a concubine or a son, and whether Jesus' earthly lineage is through Solomon or his brother Nathan. These are but a few of hundreds of documented historical contradictions. If the Bible cannot confirm itself in mundane earthly matters, how are we to trust it on moral and spiritual matters?

Confusing, perhaps but contradictory no. I'm only 17, I'm young in the Spirit. It would take a biblical scholar to correctly explain what may confuse you. If you study the Bible and find a "historical contradiction" for yourself, I will get it cleared up for you.

Unfulfilled Prophecy

The Bible misinterprets its own prophecies. Read Isaiah 7 and compare it to Matthew 1 to find but one of many misinterpreted prophecies of which Christians are either passively or willfully ignorant. The fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible is cited as proof of its divine inspiration, and yet here is but one major example of a prophecy whose intended meaning has been and continues to be twisted to support subsequent absurd and false doctrines. There are no ends to which the credulous will not go to support their feeble beliefs in the face of compelling evidence against them.

The Bible is imperfect. It only takes one imperfection to destroy the supposed perfection of this alleged Word of God. Many have been found. A perfect God who reveals his perfect will in an imperfect book is impossible.

Omnipotent = nothing is impossible.

However that is plain and simply wrong. If you read and compare those for yourself, we may continue in that stream of discussion if you like.

I could provide you with a stunning plethora of prophecies that have been fulfilled if you wish.

The Omniscient Changes the Future

A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient God who is all-powerful and freewilled is impossible.

Yea, He can. He do what He wants. He's omnipotent. He uses His freewill, and doesn't change it. But He could.

The Omniscient is Surprised

A God who knows everything cannot have emotions. The Bible says that God experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger, sadness, and happiness. We humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. A man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. In contrast, the omniscient God is ignorant of nothing. Nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may emotively react.

We humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. The perfect, omnipotent God, however, can fix anything. Humans experience longing for things we lack. The perfect God lacks nothing. An omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect God who experiences emotion is impossible.

Not true at all.

You are informed that at the end of the year, you will receive a brand new car of your choice. Guaranteed. That will make you very happy, yes? Well will you experience ANY other emotion during the year? Yes. The fact you're getting a car will not ease the pain of say, you parents dying. You will still be sad and upset about it. But when you get the car, given it was immediately after their death, it will make you happy. Even though you knew it was coming, and you knew it would please you.

Aaaand . . . nothing is impossible for an incomprehensible omnipotent supreme Being.

The Conclusion of the matter

I have offered arguments for the impossibility, and thus the non-existence, of the Christian God Yahweh. No reasonable and freethinking individual can accept the existence of a being whose nature is so contradictory as that of Yahweh, the "perfect" creator of our imperfect universe. The existence of Yahweh is as impossible as the existence of cubic spheres or invisible pink unicorns.

Should any Christian who reads this persist in defending these impossibilities through means of "divine transcendence" and "faith," and should any Christian continue to call me an atheist fool, I will be forced to invoke the wrath of the Invisible Pink Unicorn:

"You are a fool for denying the existence of the IPU. You have rejected true faith and have relied on your feeble powers of human reason and thus arrogantly denied the existence of Her Divine Transcendence, and so are you condemned."

If such arguments are good enough for Yahweh, they are good enough for Her Invisible Pinkness.

I cannot feel the presence of the IPU. I cannot see her move the hearts, and change the lives of those around me. I do not see a prefect inspired book, written through her will. I see no fulfilled prophecies from her. I see no ultimate sacrifice she has made that would cause our rejection of her existence to be a sin.

And we all have tremendous amounts of faith. You have faith in the Christian God being impossible. You have faith in gravity. Why shouldn't gravity give out? You don't know, but you have faith that in every step you take you will be firmly anchored to the planet by gravity.

As for me and my house, we shall choose reality.

Well holy crap is that blasphemous.

As for me and MY HOUSE we will sevre the Lord!

[Dolphus Raymond]

Andrew,

I found myself replying to several of your paragraphs repetitively. Basically, every time you used the argument "we can't know that because God's knowledge is infinite and ours isn't." Then, how can you - unless your knowledge is akin to God's - know that God exists? Logically, you cannot. You can only presume. On what basis do you presume? Empirical evidence? Your post doesn't really provide any. Unless you automatically believe things until they're disproven, your argument has a massive blind spot.

So, you are asking us to believe in something without empirical evidence simply because flawed human thought cannot be sure it does not exist? That seems to fall flat to me.

I've also not replied to the paragraphs where you're writing odes or just explaining your beliefs. I'm sure you understand why that is.

Here are some of the individual quibbles I have with your reasoning that don't relate to this central point:


I do not believe that you must suffer while you are on earth. I don't know how that came about. Our sins took perfection out of this world, and filled it with sin. We're all just living in the world we infected. No life will be pure pleasure, and that is suffering because of sin, but my life is at least 85% pleasure. Christ encourages us to have a good time and enjoy ourselves, we just need to stay within His guidelines.

You can't simultaneously say we live in a world infected by sin and that you don't believe we must suffer. As far as I know, the Christian Heaven is such because it is perfect and without suffering, and that the purpose of sifting between Heaven and Hell is insuring that Heaven remains God's perfect kingdom. I don't think the paragraph claims that life is wretched suffering. "Not all of life is suffering" doesn't contract the paragraph.

It's not really mysteries. it's unfathomable.

What's the distinction?

I'm 6'1". Tall by most standards. I can create something short if I like. Why would I make something as tall as me?...

That analogy does not make any sense; "tall" and "perfect" have totally different relative properties. Perfection is defined as the absence of flaw. The writer is questioning why a perfect being would create imperfection in an already perfect existence. It's a question of inertia, essentially.

We all have a choice to go to Heaven. No one has to go to Hell. God didn't write the future, He made all the parts, and set it in motion and knew what the end result would be.

Really? Being that our existence is essentially a product of genetics and chemical reactions in our brain, it all seems rather pre-determined to me. Unless we have some sort of "soul power" that overcomes all of this but, again, I don't see the evidence.


He is perfectly compassionate, but is is also wrathfully just. He has no problem sending someone who rejects His sacrifice to Hell. If you reject His sacrifice and trod it underfoot, it should not be too hard for you to understand that the same God who sacrificed His beloved Son will cast your rebellious spirit into hell and the lake of fire.

Considering that he has nothing to lose from not being worshipped, since he's perfect and all, that doesn't seem "perfectly compassionate" to me.


God does not allow His word to be corrupted. He does not allow anything to be lost in translation.

Nothing in His inspired Word is self-contradictory.

It cannot be understood by the finite human mind. The only way to understand the Word is with your Spirit. An unsaved person will never grasp anything beyond the surface of the Scripture. And the only way a Christian can comprehend any of it is by praying that the Holy Spirit will teach and help his spirit to understand and learn.

Many people agree on what the Bible means too. I don't know where the assumption, "No two men will ever agree what this perfect word of God is supposed to mean" came from.

And if we understood what the Bible told us the time we heard it, it would be about 3 or 4 pages long.

What is the point of an uncorrupted word if the human interpretation is corrupted? It's irrelevant whether the word is corrupted if our understanding is corrupt. The very point is that we cannot be expected to follow a gospel that we interpret incorrectly, so it is our perception - not the actuality - that is important.

Not true at all.

You are informed that at the end of the year, you will receive a brand new car of your choice. Guaranteed. That will make you very happy, yes? Well will you experience ANY other emotion during the year? Yes. The fact you're getting a car will not ease the pain of say, you parents dying. You will still be sad and upset about it. But when you get the car, given it was immediately after their death, it will make you happy. Even though you knew it was coming, and you knew it would please you.

But God already knows how it will please Him, what it will feel like in exact terms, etc. Everything you've argued here is true because man is not omniscient, so again your analogy falls flat. Experience is only new expeience because it is new; to us, the car experience is predicted but still new. To God, it is not.


I cannot feel the presence of the IPU. I cannot see her move the hearts, and change the lives of those around me. I do not see a prefect inspired book, written through her will. I see no fulfilled prophecies from her. I see no ultimate sacrifice she has made that would cause our rejection of her existence to be a sin.

And if you lived in, say, Saudi Arabia, I doubt you would see any of the same in Christianity. No moved hearts, no changed lives around you, nothing emotive to sustain your faith. And since you would have nothing emotive, and you've essentially shown that you have nothing empirical currently, you'd probably be a good Muslim. Nothing wrong with that, but hardly corroboration of the correctness of your faith.

And we all have tremendous amounts of faith. You have faith in the Christian God being impossible. You have faith in gravity. Why shouldn't gravity give out? You don't know, but you have faith that in every step you take you will be firmly anchored to the planet by gravity.

Gravity I can prove as a universal, scientifically verifiable human experience. Religion may seem verifiable to some, but this appears to be a regionalized phenomenon. You can "see" nearly anything if you have the correct faith. Gravity seems to transcend socioeconomic class, religious belief, and geography. If it did not, as an empiricist thinker, I'd have less faith in it.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

Excellent refutations Raymond, stole the words right out of my mouth :P Rep + Man!:D

[LxNearxHunny]

Argument from a member (mathewlow) of PlayTCGForums:

Why the Christian God is Impossible

by Chad Docterman

Introduction

Christians consider the existence of their God to be an obvious truth that no sane man could deny. I strongly disagree with this assumption not only because evidence for the existence of this presumably ubiquitous yet invisible God is lacking, but because the very nature Christians attribute to this God is self-contradictory.

>> I disagree, because evidence for the existence of God has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt through science, history, philosophy, and personal testimony. However, we shall continue. <<

Proving a Universal Negative

It is taken for granted by Christians, as well as many atheists, that a universal negative cannot be proven. In this case, that universal negative is the statement that the Christian God does not exist. One would have to have omniscience, they say, in order to prove that anything does not exist. I disagree with this position, however, because omniscience is not needed in order to prove that a thing whose nature is a self-contradiction cannot, and therefore does not exist.

I do not need a complete knowledge of the universe to prove to you that cubic spheres do not exist. Such objects have mutually-exclusive attributes which would render their existence impossible. For example, a cube, by definition, has 8 corners, while a sphere has none. These properties are completely incompatible: they cannot be held simultaneously by the same object. It is my intent to show that the supposed properties of the Christian God Yahweh, like those of a cubic sphere, are incompatible, and by so doing, to show Yahweh's existence to be an impossibility.

>> I agree with this logic. This is the same kind of logic that I commonly use as well. <<

Defining YHWH

Before we can discuss the existence of a thing, we must define it. Christians have endowed their God with all of the following attributes: He is eternal, all-powerful, and created everything. He created all the laws of nature and can change anything by an act of will. He is all-good, all-loving, and perfectly just. He is a personal God who experiences all of the emotions a human does. He is all-knowing. He sees everything past and future.

>> Good so far. <<

God's creation was originally perfect, but humans, by disobeying him, brought imperfection into the world. Humans are evil and sinful, and must suffer in this world because of their sinfulness. God gives humans the opportunity to accept forgiveness for their sin, and all who do will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven, but while they are on earth, they must suffer for his sake. All humans who choose not to accept this forgiveness must go to hell and be tormented for eternity.

>> We also suffer due to other people's sinfulness, and through circumstances and situations that don't exactly make sense. However, I firmly believe that He has a plan for every situation. He has made that completely clear for me in the past as I have had mentors who have gone through similar rough time to care for me when I went through them.
As for "rewarded", I don't think that is the best word. Here we need to get into the understanding of two important words: grace and mercy.
GRACE - something given to use that we do not deserve
MERCY - something taken away that we do deserve
In this case, mercy refers to hell, eternal punishment. God is a perfect being that requires perfection to be in heaven with him. We will establish later that He is perfect, so likewise, that means perfection. Now let's think logically, try baseball. Say you're some monster hitter and you start off the season with 20 straight hits. And your 21st at-bat, you ground out. But then you go back onto your hitting tear. However, there lies the problem. You grounded out once. You are no longer perfect, and cannot ever be. That out will never be erased. We can do all the good deeds we can think of (hits), but if we sin (out) just once, we're no longer perfect and cannot be in the presence of a holy (set apart) God. Everyone falls into this situation, somehow or another.

Here's where mercy and grace comes in. God's standards are plain and clear: perfection for heaven, or imperfection for hell. We have a choice. And it seems we cannot reach perfection. So God sent His perfect Son to die for us and to clean us from our sins, so that we would be seen perfect in his eyes. In His MERCY, He takes away our sins, past and future, dying in our place so that we can be seen perfect in front of a holy God. In GRACE, He allows us in Heaven, even though His standard is perfection, something we cannot reach but gives to us anyway.

All humans who choose not to accept this forgiveness, this grace, this mercy, choose to go to Hell. We go back to the topic I briefly touched in an earlier post: you can take a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. Christians are called to tell others about this forgiveness, but NOT to make them them accept it (that's the Holy Spirit's job, BTW). A holy God does not SEND us to hell, but rather, honors our choice to go there. He is, out of His genuine love for us, giving us a way out to be with His Father. But for those who do not want to be with a holy God in this life do not want to be in one in the afterlife, and He lets them choose so.

Keep in mind that Hell is just a place where there is no holy God, just as the inhabitants desire while on Earth.
<<

One Bible verse which Christians are fond of quoting says that atheists are fools. I intend to show that the above concepts of God are completely incompatible and so reveal the impossibility of all of them being true. Who is the fool? The fool is the one who believes impossible things and calls them divine mysteries.

>> The fool is the one who denies truth, yet truth is what sets you free. <<

Perfection Seeks Even More Perfection

What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete--it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible.

>> God is perfect. He wants to share that perfection, that love, with His own children. So in other words, if a newly wed couple are having a perfect life, it's wrong for them to have children and share their love with their kids? The kids could be rebellious. But that's not the matter. God wants to share His love with His children (people on earth) and that's exactly what He's done. <<

Perfection Begets Imperfection

But, for the sake of argument, let's continue. Let us suppose that this perfect God did create the universe. Humans were the crown of his creation, since they were created in God's image and have the ability to make decisions. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God.

What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, and yet this "perfect" God created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans. The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible.

>> God created people with the ability to choose. He made things, and saw that they were good. BUT He also allowed us to choose. This is like saying that it is the parents' fault for what a child does. Parents can tell their kids right and wrong (just like God did, don't eat from the tree), but if the child (Adam/Eve) still disobey, it's the child's fault.
God initially made us perfect, without sin. However, we choose to disrupt that. That part is not God's fault, but instead, our fault entirely. Let us not blame others for our faults. <<

The Freewill Argument

The Christians' objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.

>> Yup. I'd like to say having freewill is necessary for us to choose. What is the use of God making us to be robots? Our love would be superficial. God enjoys true sacrifice, not of the superficial kind. That can only happen out of choice. <<

Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.

>> I'd rather think of the idea I presented earlier: free will is necessary to give God true glory (happiness). Glory from robots not so much.
God is not ruining His own happiness. Rather, He's instead giving us what we ask for in our free will, and allowing us to choose (heaven or hell, accept Jesus or reject the Savior). If we don't choose Him, of course that will make Him sad. But that's our decision, and He gives us that choice. <<

Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.

>> We all have the ability to not choose evil (think "conscience"). The problem is, we still do. We'll eventually run into some situation where there's a bad choice, and someday, we'll pick it. We are not perfect, else we'd be God. That's not to say that there aren't situations with multiple good options, because there are. There are bad ones though. <<

Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?

>> Humans are miniature images of God, made in the likeness. Jesus was tempted like a human, lived like a human, felt pain like a human, but yet did not sin. We, however, sin. We aren't perfect. A perfect God will not choose evil, but a human is not perfect. That's the difference. He did not make miniature gods, but miniature humans.
Occupants of heaven are in, well, heaven. Heaven is a place where sin is absent. So likewise, they don't made imperfect decisions. Here on earth sin is rampant, and easily able to corrupt our decisions. <<

The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.

>> You can't blame the teacher for the student's mistake. <<

All-good God Knowingly Creates Future Suffering

God is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans. He heard the screams of the damned. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the Bible says this very thing), and surely this all-compassionate deity would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering. A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible.

>> God created Pharoah in Exodus for a purpose. He used this evil man to show the Israelites His power and sovereignty over their lives. God will use evil and morally corrupt people in His plan. Although some people may use sin to harm us, God uses it for good. The 9/11 attacks were in essence evil. But God spun it and used it to unite the people of America, and to share stories of love and awaken the need for God in many lives.
God lets us choose. Those "doomed to suffer" choose to be disobedient. God uses those peoples' decision to help others grow stronger and understand and love Him better. <<

Infinite Punishment for Finite Sins

God is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment. God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely more unjust than this punishment. The absurd injustice of this infinite punishment is even greater when we consider that the ultimate source of human imperfection is the God who created them. A perfectly just God who sentences his imperfect creation to infinite punishment for finite sins is impossible.

>> The sin that we're committing that is infinite is the rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ to cover our sins. We're saying, "We don't want a loving God who wants to forgive us." In that case, our choice is honored, which is hell, where God does not exist.
Besides, there's no in-between. It's either perfection, or imperfection. A finite sin is still a sin, no matter how you look at it. Who are we to judge what is supposedly a limited offense and what is not? Keep that in mind as well. That is for God to decide, not us. <<

Belief More Important Than Action

Consider all of the people who live in the remote regions of the world who have never even heard the "gospel" of Jesus Christ. Consider the people who have naturally adhered to the religion of their parents and nation as they had been taught to do since birth. If we are to believe the Christians, all of these people will perish in the eternal fire for not believing in Jesus. It does not matter how just, kind, and generous they have been with their fellow humans during their lifetime: if they do not accept the gospel of Jesus, they are condemned. No just God would ever judge a man by his beliefs rather than his actions.

>> Those that do not know about Christ are judged based on their conscience. They will know inherently right and wrong, and judged that way. This is the same idea for children who die before they're able to understand. Hence the urgency to spread the Word to those countries. <<

Perfection's Imperfect Revelation

The Bible is supposedly God's perfect Word. It contains instructions to humankind for avoiding the eternal fires of hell. How wonderful and kind of this God to provide us with this means of overcoming the problems for which he is ultimately responsible! The all-powerful God could have, by a mere act of will, eliminated all of the problems we humans must endure, but instead, in his infinite wisdom, he has opted to offer this indecipherable amalgam of books which is the Bible as a means for avoiding the hell which he has prepared for us. The perfect God has decided to reveal his wishes in this imperfect work, written in the imperfect language of imperfect man, translated, copied, interpreted, voted on, and related by imperfect man.

>> The essential parts of the Bible in regards to salvation don't seem so indecipherable to me. Those who want to know are given the ability to understand. Seek and you will find, knock and it will be open. God has mercifully given us the Bible (I like to think of it as the instruction manual for being a human being). While He's not responsible for our sinful actions, He's still given us the message of love and how He will never leave us in times of trouble.
God could have eliminated all our problems. Sure. Why hasn't He? To do that, it would require to eliminate free will (problems as a result of others' sins), and some problems occur based on our mistakes and some are used to teach us. God has NOT promised a perfect life. He HAS promised that He will be with us throughout it. To quote some random saying: Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger. He uses situations to grow us and teach us.
And whoever said the Bible is imperfect: Incorrect. The Bible is the single most corroborated (back checked, proven historically) document in history to correctness. And even if you wanted to ignore the few minor discrepancies, none of them make any impact on the core message of salvation through faith alone in Christ alone. So either way it would be a moot point. <<

No two men will ever agree what this perfect word of God is supposed to mean, since much of it is either self- contradictory, or obscured by enigmatic symbols. And yet the perfect God expects us imperfect humans to understand this paradoxical riddle using the imperfect minds with which he has equipped us. Surely the all-wise and all-powerful God would have known that it would have been better to reveal his perfect will directly to each of us, rather than to allow it to be debased and perverted by the imperfect language and botched interpretations of man.

>> Self-contradictory? Where?
His perfect will cannot be comprehended by imperfect people. He is infinite, we are finite. We cannot possibly understand something beyond us. We can, however, know that He is in control and He wants the best for His children. His will that we can understand is given to us in the form of the Bible, and that's all we really need. He knows that's what we need. Do not, however, allow the Bible to be misinterpreted, as many people read into things and incorrectly use words out of context. <<

Contradictory Justice

One need look to no source other than the Bible to discover its imperfections, for it contradicts itself and thus exposes its own imperfection. It contradicts itself on matters of justice, for the same just God who assures his people that sons shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers turns around and destroys an entire household for the sin of one man (he had stolen some of Yahweh's war loot). It was this same Yahweh who afflicted thousands of his innocent people with plague and death to punish their evil king David for taking a census (?!). It was this same Yahweh who allowed the humans to slaughter his son because the perfect Yahweh had botched his own creation. Consider how many have been stoned, burned, slaughtered, raped, and enslaved because of Yahweh's skewed sense of justice. The blood of innocent babies is on the perfect, just, compassionate hands of Yahweh.

>> There are so many things wrong with this paragraph it's...
Let's take a story from Acts 5. Ananias and Sapphira are both Christians, and sold a piece of property to give the money to the church. However, when asked about the gift, each said separately that they had given the entire amount to the church. Each time, they were struck dead instantly. This spread a ripple effect in the church, as they had kept some of it for themselves.
This SHOULD make you go O_O. So they lied. Is that worth death? God was using this situation to prove a point; lying to the church is something that is not taken lightly. However, I believe both were Christians. So in other words, upon death, they were taken into Heaven. God was like this: "OK you two, stop introducing sin into my church. Your work is done on earth. Come to live with Me now." And they were taken up into Heaven.
The death of Christians like Stephen (first martyr) as well as the other disciples should not shock you. We are willing to die for truth, as we know that we will go to heaven. God knows this too. Those innocent people that die, God will save. He is Mighty to Save. He's just saying to those: Your time is up on earth. Come to me and live with me forever.

I find that trade-off not too bad. Hence why my life here on this earth is a not my own. I live my life for Christ, as I know He has the future in-store.

And as for the death of His Son - you're missing the point. GOD crushed His Son so that our sins would be forgiven. The uninformed would think that the world won because they killed the Messiah. That's incorrect. God crushed His Son. Remember, Jesus could have easily called down hundreds of angels to stop the crucifixion. But He didn't, because He KNEW that God's will needed to be done to save the world. And thus, that's what was done. What the world and Satan THOUGHT they were doing that would defeat Christianity ended up being exactly in God's plan, and when He rose from the dead on the third day, He defeated death, thereby turning an evil deed into a holy result. <<

Contradictory History

The Bible contradicts itself on matters of history. A person who reads and compares the contents of the Bible will be confused about exactly who Esau's wives were, whether Timnah was a concubine or a son, and whether Jesus' earthly lineage is through Solomon or his brother Nathan. These are but a few of hundreds of documented historical contradictions. If the Bible cannot confirm itself in mundane earthly matters, how are we to trust it on moral and spiritual matters?

>> I fail to find any historical error in the Bible. There exists none. Instead, I find that history heavily corroborates that the Bible is true, and that such care is put into making earthly matters true that we can trust it on moral and spiritual matters.
Keep in mind that just because something SEEMS to be incorrect, you need to be careful. When generations are done in the genealogies, some are not single generations but instead many.
Matthew 1:6-7 - Solomon was Jesus' ancestor.
Mark 3:31 - Nathan was Jesus' ancestor.
Both are David's son. ??
Simple. Matthew details the father's ancestors (Joseph). Mark details the mother's ancestors (Mary). Matthew wrote to the Jews, so Jesus was shown as a descendant of their father, Abraham. Luke wrote to the Gentiles, so he emphasized Jesus as the Savior of all people.
<<

Unfulfilled Prophecy

The Bible misinterprets its own prophecies. Read Isaiah 7 and compare it to Matthew 1 to find but one of many misinterpreted prophecies of which Christians are either passively or willfully ignorant. The fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible is cited as proof of its divine inspiration, and yet here is but one major example of a prophecy whose intended meaning has been and continues to be twisted to support subsequent absurd and false doctrines. There are no ends to which the credulous will not go to support their feeble beliefs in the face of compelling evidence against them.

>> I fail to see where any discrepancy occurs here. Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23 both are fine. A virgin (Mary) will be with a child (Jesus) and He will be called Immanuel. It happened. The intention is clear; the foreshadowing of the Messiah that saves. What's the issue?
I see perfect proof and strong legs to stand on. Where the feeble belief and lack of evidence is coming from I don't see it, because there doesn't seem to be any of that anywhere close.<<

The Bible is imperfect. It only takes one imperfection to destroy the supposed perfection of this alleged Word of God. Many have been found. A perfect God who reveals his perfect will in an imperfect book is impossible.

>> None have ever stood up. I stake my life and eternity on that statement. <<

The Omniscient Changes the Future

A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient God who is all-powerful and freewilled is impossible.

>> He can change the future because after all He's the one who made it (rather, He could just make it as the way it should be). He chooses not to. <<

The Omniscient is Surprised

A God who knows everything cannot have emotions. The Bible says that God experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger, sadness, and happiness. We humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. A man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. In contrast, the omniscient God is ignorant of nothing. Nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may emotively react.

>> Why can't He? I don't see why not. Humans were made in the image of God, except God cannot sin. He is sad when we do not follow Him. He is angry when we turn away. Seems natural to me. He just does not sin. <<

We humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. The perfect, omnipotent God, however, can fix anything. Humans experience longing for things we lack. The perfect God lacks nothing. An omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect God who experiences emotion is impossible.

>> The perfect God may lack nothing. However, we do. We lack God. And that's what God's been trying to tell us, yet we do not listen. <<

The Conclusion of the matter

I have offered arguments for the impossibility, and thus the non- existence, of the Christian God Yahweh. No reasonable and freethinking individual can accept the existence of a being whose nature is so contradictory as that of Yahweh, the "perfect" creator of our imperfect universe. The existence of Yahweh is as impossible as the existence of cubic spheres or invisible pink unicorns.

>> I have offered thoughts for the flaws in these arguments. No reasonable or freethinking individual can accept the non-existence of a God who cares for us that He would send His Son to die for us so that we could live in Heaven forever. I believe that more faith is needed to say that there is no God vs that there is one. <<

Should any Christian who reads this persist in defending these impossibilities through means of "divine transcendence" and "faith," and should any Christian continue to call me an atheist fool, I will be forced to invoke the wrath of the Invisible Pink Unicorn:
"You are a fool for denying the existence of the IPU. You have rejected true faith and have relied on your feeble powers of human reason and thus arrogantly denied the existence of Her Divine Transcendence, and so are you condemned."
If such arguments are good enough for Yahweh, they are good enough for Her Invisible Pinkness.

>> I don't call you a fool. I think you're confused. <<

As for me and my house, we shall choose reality.

>> As for me and my house, we shall also choose reality. Reality is Jesus Christ. <<

What do you all think of these arguments?
>> I think you should rethink your position. That is all. I'm not going to argue to beat this into anyone's head. I will say that it is foolish to pass this off as impossible when you haven't looked into it completely.

Seek the truth, and the truth will set you free. <<



I still personaly don't believe in any sort of supernatural being, but I wanted to see how you would respond to this refutation.

[japanman]

The christian god is impossible (my opnion) becasue who NAMED HIM uh humans did i rest my case lol and why would you name something you cant see *shrugs* desu ka? thats why i have made my own religion lol

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

LoL, Dolphus Raymind is in the process of properly refuting these arguments, just be patient:P (The one just above Near Hunny posted)

[Vindication]

I am really interested, why specify that the CHRISTIAN god is impossible, does that mean the muslim and jewish god is possible?

[Dolphus Raymond]

Again, ignoring the parts that are just testimony of belief (which I can't really respond to, because they aren't logical constructs, just statements of opinion).

Again, here, we have a repeated theme of mis-applied logic. There are repeated analogies to explain why you can't blame God for his creations' mistakes. Parents can't be blamed for their children; teachers can't be blamed for their pupils. But since neither parents or teachers are omniscient and omnipotent, so they can't predict the outcome and control it like God can, this is not much of a rebuttal.

A better analogy is "you can't blame a parent for getting pregnant with a child predestined to ruin a perfect existence." Still a bad one, but in this situation, can't you blame them?

(I've discluded the repeated replies that related to this flawed construct.)

I disagree, because evidence for the existence of God has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt through science, history, philosophy, and personal testimony. However, we shall continue.

Eh? I'm not sure how history and philosophy "prove" the existence of God, since neither of them set out to do so. "Personal testimony" is ridiculous; anecdotal evidence is great, except when you consider that some testify about the Virgin Mary, others about Allah, etc. My uncle says he saw monkeys regularly when he was drunk.

And unless he mentions how science disproves God "beyond a shadow of a doubt" (why then are scientists so much more likely to be non-theists?) that's pretty impossible to reply to.

Quibbles:

God created people with the ability to choose. He made things, and saw that they were good. BUT He also allowed us to choose. This is like saying that it is the parents' fault for what a child does. Parents can tell their kids right and wrong (just like God did, don't eat from the tree), but if the child (Adam/Eve) still disobey, it's the child's fault.
God initially made us perfect, without sin. However, we choose to disrupt that. That part is not God's fault, but instead, our fault entirely. Let us not blame others for our faults.

This rebuttal makes no sense. Parents are not perfect or omniscient. The argument this is responding to relies on the assumption that God is perfect and omniscient.

If we were perfect, we wouldn't have chosen sin. God may have made man without sin, but definitionally this isn't "perfect." Perfect things do not gravitate toward evil. That makes them imperfect.

I'd rather think of the idea I presented earlier: free will is necessary to give God true glory (happiness). Glory from robots not so much.
God is not ruining His own happiness. Rather, He's instead giving us what we ask for in our free will, and allowing us to choose (heaven or hell, accept Jesus or reject the Savior). If we don't choose Him, of course that will make Him sad. But that's our decision, and He gives us that choice.

So, God doesn't want glory from robots, because that's just too masturbatory.

But God does want to create an entire race and existence to worship him, and punish them if they don't, because apparently the former is insulting to a perfect being, and the latter is really important...and you've lost me.

The sin that we're committing that is infinite is the rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ to cover our sins. We're saying, "We don't want a loving God who wants to forgive us." In that case, our choice is honored, which is hell, where God does not exist.

I don't? Really? Because I really, really do! More than virtually everything. The idea of a universal creator who safeguards us and punishes the wicked -- totally awesome. But my desire for that reality, and my belief in it, are not the same thing...

Those that do not know about Christ are judged based on their conscience. They will know inherently right and wrong, and judged that way. This is the same idea for children who die before they're able to understand. Hence the urgency to spread the Word to those countries.

And a child who was raised, say, a Jew, and has a compassionate heart and faith in his religion, but doesn't convert immediately when she hears of Christianity...straight to hell? Is that any more fair than the baby thing?

The essential parts of the Bible in regards to salvation don't seem so indecipherable to me.

Argument from "God got the important parts right"...?

As I said with the other post, why does it matter if God's gospel is perfect when our interpretation of it is imperfect? By that argument, the Quran could be totally accurate too, we just don't totally understand it.

Why can't He? I don't see why not. Humans were made in the image of God, except God cannot sin. He is sad when we do not follow Him. He is angry when we turn away. Seems natural to me. He just does not sin.

But, if he knew this before he created us, why would he be surprised/sad/whatever? He'd have already felt the emotions. Either he is not omniscient, he has an imperfect memory, or this is not true.

The perfect God may lack nothing. However, we do. We lack God. And that's what God's been trying to tell us, yet we do not listen.

There's a lot of these in this post - sentences that are testimony, not actually replying to the prior point. Why bother?

have offered thoughts for the flaws in these arguments. No reasonable or freethinking individual can accept the non-existence of a God who cares for us that He would send His Son to die for us so that we could live in Heaven forever. I believe that more faith is needed to say that there is no God vs that there is one.

I really wish the original author was here to defend statements like this and the science one. It seems odd to me that he wouldn't elaborate in the original post, because these are pretty controversial statements.

think you should rethink your position. That is all. I'm not going to argue to beat this into anyone's head. I will say that it is foolish to pass this off as impossible when you haven't looked into it completely.

Which is, as far as I can tell, the same thing this post is doing. It's very easy to encourage an open mind when your opponent is in closed-minded disagreement with you; harder, then, when it is your mind that is to be opened.

[Prince Jellyfish]

I am really interested, why specify that the CHRISTIAN god is impossible, does that mean the muslim and jewish god is possible?

They're technically the same god.:rolleyes:

[japanman]

lol i think religion is confusing so i say bieleve in wat you want and yuri he already refuted those postsd lol

[Dolphus Raymond]

I am really interested, why specify that the CHRISTIAN god is impossible, does that mean the muslim and jewish god is possible?

Well, most of us Westerners are familiar with the Christian God as being omniscient, omnipotent, perfect etc. There are other Gods who share these characteristics, but many Eastern Gods do not. I guess using "Christian God" is shorter than making a laundry list of properties each time. Although "Judeo-Christian God" would be just as accurate...

If this was written for a Middle Eastern audience, I'm sure it would be the "Islamic God." You're right in that it's playing to cultural assumptions - I can't totally blame it, though. Especially since Christianity, Judaism and Islam all claim to have the same God.

The christian god is impossible (my opnion) becasue who NAMED HIM uh humans did i rest my case lol and why would you name something you cant see *shrugs* desu ka? thats why i have made my own religion lol

I'm not sure what you mean. A flower doesn't exist because humans named it? I don't see why a synthetic system of naming makes for non-existence.

[Vindication]

They're technically the same god.:rolleyes:


I know that is what I was thinking. They are extraordinarily similar in so many ways its ridiculous, yet you point out the christian God? hmm. Just found that odd. sorry.

[japanman]

Well, most of us Westerners are familiar with the Christian God as being omniscient, omnipotent, perfect etc. There are other Gods who share these characteristics, but many Eastern Gods do not. I guess using "Christian God" is shorter than making a laundry list of properties each time. Although "Judeo-Christian God" would be just as accurate...



I'm not sure what you mean. A flower doesn't exist because humans named it? I don't see why a synthetic system of naming makes for non-existence.
B/c god told his prophets to write the bible why say that srsly if god was gonna make a bible he could make it himself
and wat im saying why name something you dont fully understand no one understands god we can only comprehend him

[Prince Jellyfish]

I know that is what I was thinking. They are extraordinarily similar in so many ways its ridiculous, yet you point out the christian God? hmm. Just found that odd. sorry.

They aren't just similar, they're actually one and the same.
Jews=Torah (Old testament)
Christians=Old Testament, New Testament
Muslims=OT, NT, Quran

[Vindication]

and its funny that you listed them in chronological order. lol. It all really revolves around who the messiah is. Whether it is Jesus, mohammad, or hasn't come yet.

[Prince Jellyfish]

and its funny that you listed them in chronological order. lol. It all really revolves around who the messiah is. Whether it is Jesus, mohammad, or hasn't come yet.

Exactly.;)

[Shiver]

Muslims are almost nothing like christians I know a few muslim americans and here are a few of their beliefs
1. Woman’s Inferiority. Islam teaches that wives are a possession, and women are inherently inferior to men. The Qur’an says in Suras 2:228 and 4:34(2), “Men are superior to women.” Stating his belief in the inadequacy of the woman’s mind, Muhammad, the premier Messenger of Allah, not only reminded women that their witness is “equal to half that of a man” (Sura 4:11), but also that he had “not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion. (Hadith 2.54). {A hadith refers to written collections of the ancient Muslim oral traditions.}

One flaw the church has continually failed to remove is their view of women from preconceived functions rather than from anointing to justify a non-existent scriptural mandate for a “chain-of-command.”

In her contribution to Voices Behind the Veil on the “Daughters in Islam,” Suzanne Lea Eppling states the complementarian(3) position by saying “men and women are different in function yet equal in essence before God.” Really? Do Christian women buy the theory of male headship in the Body of Christ? Yes! The Bible teaches equality of men and women. Recent scholarship has clarified Paul’s intent in the few passages where he appears to limit women. Unfortunately, the women who take a serious look at the original language and make their judgment based solely on what the Word says in its undiluted form without the trappings of the “doctrines of men” are few and far between.

Did Jesus really mean for the church to be dominated by males with women in subjection not only to their husbands but to male leadership in the church as well? Of course not. Jesus never intended to side with traditional patriarchy but clearly demonstrated His positioning with biblical equality. See the brief chapter on “Jesus, Friend of Women” from Sue Hyatt’s book, In the Spirit We’re Equal.

2. Female Circumcision Such established inferiority is used to justify female circumcision(4). Sometimes called genital mutilation, it not only denies sexual pleasure but also makes intercourse painful and childbirth more dangerous. The importance of this horrific act is underscored by the fact that some 135 million girls and women worldwide have been subjected to female circumcision, of which Ayaan Hirsi Ali is one. Some Muslims believe female circumcision is mandated by Islam, but the practice predates Muhammad and is also common among some Christian communities.

One of the stated reasons is that a woman would not be able to control herself and would end up in prostitution. Such twisted logic takes the focus off the male, who was given permission for polygamy because one wife just wasn’t enough to protect the Muslim man from committing adultery. Therefore, to suppress his desire for sex, he was allowed up to four wives; and he could also add concubines and slaves to his satisfaction.

3. Female Infanticide(5) Although the practice of female infanticide was birthed out of ancient tradition, it is based on the warped notion of their inferiority. Female infants were simply laid facedown in the desert sand or buried in a waiting grave as soon as they were born. Although Muhammad banned the practice of female infanticide when he wrote, “killing them is a great sin” (Sura 17:31), yet he did little more than grant them the right to live.

Female infanticide is a greater problem in India and China, but it has never completely stopped in Muslim nations. Are you aghast that infanticide is found in Islamic practice? Then, surely you are aghast as well that many in the United States are FOR partial-birth abortion. At least females born in the Muslim faith, yet targeted for a “waiting grave” following birth, receive more recognition than an aborted baby in the Western world. Somehow a “waiting grave” has more dignity than a trash can.

If you are one who in the past has yielded to an abortion, remember that God said, “I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely.” (Hosea 14:4). When you ask for His forgiveness, He indeed forgives and promises to love you freely. His ways are never meant to crush but to lift you.

4. Women and Education. Since Muslims believe that women possess an inferior mentality to men, one can see how that logic easily leads to women not being encouraged to seek an education. After all, Muslims view the major function of a woman as fulfilling her designated role as wife and mother (Sura 2:233; 7:189). Never mind that Muhammad supported the right of equal education of men and women. With males firmly in charge of the educational system in Islamic countries, their culture is “safeguarded” from supposed female inferiority. When women are educated or simply able to read, they are more likely to question and reject the cultural and religious systems that limit their influence. The fact that the power to read is denied Muslim women in India is proved by their illiteracy rate of 98 percent. Sadly, most of the Muslim world is ignoring the fact that a large body of research has established a strong correlation between literacy and social development with the greatest social benefits accruing from the extension of basic education to girls and women(6).

5. Women’s Identity in Marriage. A Muslim woman’s identity is largely anchored in her role as wife and child bearer. The duty of the wife is to give her husband comforts in his bed whenever he wants her (Qur'an 61). Christians believe that one’s identity, male or female, is our being bound to our Savior, Jesus Christ. Beyond that relationship, some of us, whether we admit it or not, limit our identity to marriage and motherhood. Whether Muslim or Christian, neither denies that the strength of a people comes from the strength of the family.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali left Somalia for the Netherlands to escape a forced marriage. In many circumstances, the bride and groom do not meet until the day the wedding contract is signed. Muslim culture dictates that a father has the right to marry his daughter to anyone he wishes without her consent, one reason being that marriage is as much a joining of two families as two individuals. Where is a woman’s right to choose her own mate? Surely that question was asked by Ayaan.

Just for the record, the marriage of child brides is alive well in the present century with “child” being a girl younger than fourteen years old. The only requirement is that her menstrual cycle should have started. Eppling concludes her chapter with these words regarding young, Muslim girls: “While they wait for someone to tell them of Jesus, many are brutalized physically, married off young, and left to live in ignorance . . . We as Christians cannot sit back and let feminist groups and secular child advocates fight alone for the plight of millions of girls behind the veil of Islam.” Well said, Suzanne!

6. Women and Abuse. According to the Qur’an, the man has the responsibility to admonish his wife, to desert her sexually, and to beat her to correct any rebelliousness in her behavior. This beating is the husband’s unquestionable right. The Qur’an ties righteousness to a wife being obedient to her husband as well as assuring her the key of Paradise. Should a Muslim woman fear rebelliousness in her husband, she should resort to diplomacy; yet when the husband fears rebelliousness in his wife, the Qur’an commands abuse and sexual desertion.

Beating the wife is the last resort before divorcing her, and that beating must not result in injury (Qur’an 59). Men can divorce their wives in Islam, but the wife does not have that right (Sura 2:228). Muslim women will endure tremendous abuse in an attempt to stay in a marriage. Why? Divorce often means she will lose her children and be left with no means of support.

In a study that goes beyond, but includes, Muslims and Christians, a Harvard study concluded that “globally men’s violence against women causes more deaths and disability among females age 15-44 than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents or war.” Another writer determined that globally, one-third to one half of all women report being abused. Although Christianity does not condone the physical, emotional, or spiritual abuse of women, it happens anyway, the church being no exception.

Christians in America have abdicated their responsibility to stand up for persecuted Christians worldwide. With all the tremendous resources at our disposal, the plight of persecuted Christians overseas is largely ignored. That being the case, why should we identify with the persecution of women, especially Muslim women? When we carry the heavy load of our “complementarian” baggage around and fail to see the second-class status of women in our own churches, our vain attempt is likely our own failure to see biblical equality between men and women.

[Vindication]

Okay, I read it, but that doesnt really talk to how the God's are different. This just talks about morals. And no offense, but just throwing it out there, because the quran was written in arabic of course, translations for all the above may be slightly misconstrued. But yes, on the morals of the cultures, we are different.

[Shiver]

I doubt that there would be huge mistranslations because if you would look at the cultures in Iraq and other middle eastern countries you can tell that these are incredibly similar to how their women are forced to act.

[Vindication]

True, but then again there are extremes, in cities like baghdad, women aren't always forced to wear a burqa, while in rural, more extremist places, it is required or death. But that is enough about that. Back on subject please.

[Andrew56]

Wow this is getting very convoluted, so don't think I'm backing out of anything, I just don't have the kind of time it would take to sort this out and refute. So, pm or direct a specific question if you wish to continue on about something I mentioned myself.:D

[Shiver]

Click here for more info about the diffrences (http://www.biblicalrecorder.org/content/news/2006/09_11_2006/ne110906islamic.shtml)
Come on
Andrew post it we want as much involvement as possible

[Dolphus Raymond]

Most Muslims are much more moderate than some of their fundamental religious teachings.

Women's inferiority - Islam does teach that women are subservient. To Westerners, this looks horrible. Then again, there are many countries where Christian attitudes toward homosexuals are seen as backwards. Besides, the Judeo-Christian Bible has lots of rather sexist stuff (Eph. 5:22-24, I Cor. 14:34-35).

Female circumcision - This horror is fortunately outlawed in most Middle Eastern countries, and progress is being made in Africa too. As the article says, circumcision - male and female - is a cultural practice in the Middle East that some assume has religious origins. It doesn't. Hopefully that will make it easier to end it.

I won't go through the rest due to time limits, but essentially it's the same deal.

That's not to say that Islam is as moderate on women's right as Christianity is. But Muslims would argue that it is part of their religion, even if it rationally seems somewhat cruel, as most American Christians would argue when it comes to denying homosexuals marital rights, and other stuff.

I'm not saying I approve of any of this...but there are some decent, moderate Muslims, and most of these items are believed by a minority of Muslims and even some Christians too.

Like with Christianity, there are moderates and extremists. The extremists tend to be more extreme because it is a more conservative religion. But it's not as if the Old Testament doesn't have some f'ed up stuff too.

[Shiver]

(This thread right here shows that we can handle a religious topic)

I've read all these posts saying that you can't prove that there is a god but the truth is you can't prove there isn't one.

[Dolphus Raymond]

Click here for more info about the diffrences (http://www.biblicalrecorder.org/content/news/2006/09_11_2006/ne110906islamic.shtml)
Come on
Andrew post it we want as much involvement as possible

That headline seems totally misleading. He says that the beliefs surrounding the actions of the Muslim and Christian Gods are different. Approaching God through Jesus Christ instead of directly does not make God a different God; it makes for different beliefs about how access to the personal God is achieved.

This is really semantic though. It's not as if any of the religions hold another religion's God can exist at the same time. They all believe in the existence of a God; they disagree on the details surrounding it. When people say "Christians and Muslims believe in the same God," they mean that they both believe in a monotheistic, omniscient, omnipotent God, not that they agree on all the details of the God's existence and intentions. Otherwise they'd essentially be the same religion.

[Dolphus Raymond]

(This thread right here shows that we can handle a religious topic)

I've read all these posts saying that you can't prove that there is a god but the truth is you can't prove there isn't one.

You can, in theory, prove there is a God, as much as you can prove 2+2=4.

It's harder to prove a universal negative, unless you find a contradiction in its existence. To prove that there is a needle in a haystack, you only need to find one needle; to prove that there isn't, you need to search every possible existent space in the haystack and confirm its absence. Now, that haystack is the entire known (and unknown) universe...you can see the problem with absolute "pure atheism" too. That's why there are few absolute, pure atheists.

The atheistic argument is that you can't prove a God doesn't exist in absolute terms, but a lack of empirical evidence for a God - and the lack of scientific support - suggests that there is no God. The argument is not "you can't prove there's a God, so there isn't."

I'd assume that an informed theist has seen enough evidence to assume there is a God, even if they can't prove it absolutely*. Just like how we can't prove gravity absolutely, but still operate on the assumption it exists. That means, at best, the logical existence of God is a theory, not an absolute. Most atheists would probably contest that there is anywhere near enough evidence to elevate it to the status of "theory," though.

* - There are plenty of educated, informed theists who believe because they want to. Believing irrationally doesn't make someone dumb. Arguably it is dumb, but it doesn't mean one is dumb. But that's a different matter. I'm only speaking to people who review their beliefs on rational terms.

[Celeritas]

The thing is, we humans basically created god, because apparently someone in the beginning was spoke to by god or whatever, but how do we know that these people weren't out of their minds?

Also, another thing to take into account that very few people actually know about is that the old testament was written by a pagan just as a random story. But the Christian people stole it and then baptized the guy on his deathbed to make the bible's origin pure Christian.

I know many people are going to refute this, but how do you know that the person who wrote the bible wasn't some crackpot who had weird dreams in their sleep. The problem with religions following a written text is that you never know what the original books went through to get to their present form. In short, you never know what could be a complete load of bull-crap thought up by some maniac.

Oh, another thing these texts pass through is translation, so yeah.

[0=]

The old testament is used by Jews, not just Christians, so you're not making any sense. Also, it's a collection of writings, not from a single person.

[Celeritas]

I am aware of that, but who knows who these people were. They could just be all the same person pretending to be different people. No one has any actual definitive idea of who actually wrote those parts of the bible.

[Shiver]

Actually the people who wrote the new testament are inside of our history books

[Celeritas]

NEW Testament, we're talking abouut the old testament. And even if someone is in ta history book and claims to have seen god or whatever, he could e makin it up.

[Dolphus Raymond]

Actually the people who wrote the new testament are inside of our history books

Sort of. The people to whom the gospels of the New Testament are attributed are widely recognized as known historical figures. But there are two things worth considering. Firstly, date of composition is unclear on many Biblical works. Secondly, there is such a concept as pseudepigrapha, which is basically the idea of attributing a work to a past author. Most Hebrew scholars, for instance, agree that the Book of Enoch was not written by Enoch as claimed. It was removed from the Canon of Scripture, but only after the early Church accepted as as canonical.

The Straight Dope is not my favorite web site ever, but they do a decent job (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible4.html) of covering the question of New Testament authorship. The general verdict from secular scholars pretty much matches their first paragraph:

As with the Old Testament, we just don't know who wrote most of the New Testament. Tradition has assigned the Gospels and most of the Epistles to certain authors, all of whom were important figures in Jesus' life or the early days of the faith. It was important for the early church to believe the authors wrote the works attributed to them, since their eminence lent the writings authority. But since we don't have the original signatures, none can be verified except through textual clues.

Authorship of the Old Testament is even more unclear, since it was written and canonized by a much more diffuse people. The names are real, and the stories corroborate somewhat, but there's nothing at all stopping them from being second-hand, heavily translated, whatever.

[Celeritas]

Yeah, you nnever know what someone was smoking when they wrote something. We relly have no way of telling about if the bible has any sense in it or not, so to really be sure about stuff I just believe in what I kow and what can be proven.

[0=]

The bible is intended to be interpreted in a manner that derives the basic messages, not taken 100% literally. It's a guidebook, not the laws and exact history of everything, so the absolute accuracy of it is irrelevant.

[Celeritas]

A guidebook that cannot be followed at all if you want to actually know what you're following. Say the bible was nothing like God intended the guidelines for his followers? Would God be pleased? Nope. So, the way to go is to follow your life wherever it leads you, and if God really exists, he will guide you through life.

Is this how life goes? Nope. So basically you can't actually say God exists until God shows himself to us.

[0=]

The basic lessons of the bible are very logical, so it makes sense to follow those lessons.

[Celeritas]

In some cases, yes, but this thread is about whether or not God exists.Or actually, about how God does not exist.

[Dolphus Raymond]

The basic lessons of the bible are very logical, so it makes sense to follow those lessons.

I'm a bit confused about what you're arguing. Are you saying that the contents of the Bible conforms to rational moral behavior - "common sense" humanist stuff? In that case, maybe the Bible is a good guide, but that does not