Perfect Argument Agianst God

[Tanker]

A couple years ago I came across a web sight that had a variety of tests on it that were very strictly unbiased, cought me in a few misconceptions on my part, such as my willingness to believe atheism over religion when presented with the same amount evidence. Really good tests. Anyway one of the tests you checked off the properties of your ideal god, it was a long list from many current and even dead religions. After submiting them it pointed out the contradicions and inconsistancies. Well I decided that it would be fun to check off the christian god ideals. Well not surprisingly there are some holes in the christian religion. I'll list the three that I remember it hiting on as flawed.

1. God is all knowing
2. God is all loving
3. God is all powerful

  The glaring flaw: god knows when your in pain, he loves you so much he would do anything to stop it, he has the power to stop it but doesen't. The Cristian god could actually possibly exist if any one of the three traits wasen't in the equation for their god, but then he woulden't be perfect, and since god is perfect he has to be all three. The very discription of god proves he can't exist.

  Of couse this argument works about as well as any, that is to say not well. I do like to watch the gears grind right after I say it to them, just befor brains get traction in blind faith mode, and they trot out the same tired party answers.

[Asmodean]

I find "Ockham's Razor" to often be the best argument against God.

Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity".

This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories.

For those who wonder  

[Will]

Tanker, that sounds like the Epicurean paradox:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Brilliant in it's brevity.

[thegodconclusion]

i was reminded of that epicurus quote too.  

tanker, i first heard the epicurus quote in a documentary available online, history of disbelief, by jonathan miller.  veoh has it.  i highly recommend it if you haven't seen.

this site lists some more ideas from it: http://www.secularsites.freeuk.com/jona ... quotes.htm.  it shows there is no shortage of compelling arguments against god.  

and there's always the classic philosophy 101 - If God is all powerful, can God make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?  which is always quickly dismissed by 'God defies human logic.'  

my personal favorite, which i also first heard in the jonathan miller doc (not an argument against god but a great critique of religion):  

Victor Hugo â€" "There is in every village a torch- the schoolteacher, and an extinguisher- the priest."

[OldGit]

Here's a  golden oldy that I still find useful:

Does god have a belly-button?  (Serious!  Think about it.)

[Asmodean]

Here's a  golden oldy that I still find useful:

Does god have a belly-button?  (Serious!  Think about it.)

God has created men in his image. Therefor god must have a belly button. Belly button is a scar from the umbilical cord, thus all who have one were gestated. If God has a belly button, he must have been gestated. Thus, God has a mother. However, God is the oldest thing there is and as such, has no mother. Thus, God can't have a belly button. That leads us to only one possible conclusion:

Human's don't have belly butons.

  What say you, do I make a good fundie, or what?!

[OldGit]

Star!  But sorry to disappoint you - I have a rather beautiful belly button.  Many ladies have complimented me on it.  

[Opsamk]

God is whatever you want to believe him to be.

[OldGit]

God is whatever you want to believe him to be.

Excellent!  I want him to be a King Prawn Biryani with a large Naan bread and a glass of beer.  Right now.

[Mastriani]

It only takes one statement to falsify God.

Omnipresence is physically impossible.

[Loffler]

The only problem with this god refutation is that most gods are immune to it. The idea of a perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful god is somewhat modern. Most gods, especially in polytheist religions, are/were imperfect, of limited knowledge and limited power.

If I were to define God as minimally as possible -- the creator of the universe -- the above argument would have no effect on him.

[Ahgendai]

You have a perfect argument against God if the premises to your argument are correct.  But this argument is outdated and uses faulty premises.  These premises have existed because men who didn't know God have defined God in fundamentally flawed ways.  

Why do people have to insist that God is perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, etc.?  These men created the doctrine of perfection in order to use it as a means to control and manipulate the masses.  And, this distortion is what you are basing your whole argument on.

What if God was holy, rather than perfect?  Here is a description of God that works:
1. God is benevolent
2. God is incredibly powerful, but not omnipotent
3. God is incredibly wise, but not omniscient
4. God is a holy being trying to help human beings to evolve to higher states of consciousness

Check out this video... it explains it in a very reasonable way:  http://youtube.com/watch?v=27gyj908JnM

[Tanker]

The only problem with this god refutation is that most gods are immune to it. The idea of a perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful god is somewhat modern. Most gods, especially in polytheist religions, are/were imperfect, of limited knowledge and limited power.

If I were to define God as minimally as possible -- the creator of the universe -- the above argument would have no effect on him.

I did state in my original post that I put in the Christian ideals. You are absolutly right though you do have to temper the argument to the religion.

[joeactor]

It only takes one statement to falsify God.

Omnipresence is physically impossible.

I dunno about that...
I'm right behind you.
And I am you.
(also the keyboard)

Here is a description of God that works:
1. God is benevolent
2. God is incredibly powerful, but not omnipotent
3. God is incredibly wise, but not omniscient
4. God is a holy being trying to help human beings to evolve to higher states of consciousness

Uh, by that definition, I could be god.
Sounds very Buddhist to me.

Let's see if I can coin some new words...
I'm seminiscient (I know some things)
I'm semipotent (I can do some things)
I'm semipresent (I can be some places)

That makes me a SemiGod.

Ok, I'm thru playing with you all - time to recreate the universe,
JoeActor

[Will]

Why do people have to insist that God is perfect

"As for God, his way is perfect", Psalm 18:30

omniscient

"Lord, thou knowest all things..."  John 16:30

omnipotent

"... with God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26

Sorry, but these are defenitions of the Judeo-Christian god from the very religious texts that believers use. In other words, "people" aren't insisting god is perfect, god is (by his followers, by proxy).