2 Arguments against God

[anontheist]

First of all, I do not intend to offend anyone. But I have been asked why I do not believe in God. So, here are a couple of arguments. Good or bad, you decide.

I am sure, if you are a Christian, that these arguments will do nothing to change your mind about the existence of God. They did not change mine.

I had two things that made these arguments ineffective. One, my salvation experience and two, God’s word. So, no matter what arguments were raised, I was still secure with my belief.

First, the Bible as “God’s word” had to be put into question. This was done over a matter of several years in college. Then, the fact that other religions had similar experiences which justified their belief, led me to question my experience. Studying Philosophy started me on the path to questioning the existence of God. It tends to do that.

So, here are a couple of philosophical questions.

Question 1

I believe that the concept “God” is simply a human creation. But for the sake of argument, let us assume God exists. Will this idea lead to anything absurd?

It just seems to me that either God is not what one thinks he is or he does not exist.

It has been suggested by a few Christians (at least in some of the Christian writings that I have read) that God is perfect. That is just one of God’s attributes; perfection. But, what would this mean?

What does it mean to be perfect?

If there was a perfect being, what would be the point of doing anything? What would be the motivation?

If one was perfect, one would have no needs, no wants, no desires, for there would be nothing you would need or want. For, if there was something you would want or need, you would not be perfect.

It has been suggested God being perfect, is full of love, and wants to share this love with others.

Why?

Where does this “want” come from?

Why would you want something, (to share your love) unless you need something, (to be loved back). Perhaps you want someone to respond to your love. But why do you need a response? I mean, if you are prefect, why would you care if someone loved you or not? What would be the point?

It would seem odd, that a god would decide to create something merely to demonstrate its love. What would be the purpose? If one is perfect there is no need to share anything. And if one was perfect no response would be necessary.

With this in mind, let us consider an argument.

Argument 1

1. If God exists, then he is perfect.

2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.

3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants.

(Otherwise, he would not be perfect.)

4. If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want.

(Unless one can suggest that this was done without a motive or some desire.)

5. Hence, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).

6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

Or God is not perfect.

#4, It has been suggest that the reason the universe exists, is God created it. But the question still remains, why? What was the motive? To offer God as a reason for the existence of the universe is not an explanation, if you cannot answer the question, why did God create the universe? To suggest “God” only answers the question; How? not Why?

But, to answer the question ”why?” would suggest a motive. But any motive to do anything would suggest some desire. If there is some desire, this would suggest something wanted. Does it make sense to suggest that a perfect being can want something? Not if he is to remain perfect.

So, God can do whatever he wants. He just cannot be “perfect” in doing so.

Perhaps a better question would be, How can a being be perfect and do anything?

Question 2

Now, a perfect being would not need to change. Because it is perfect. Change would mean something is not perfect, or less than perfect and some adjustment is necessary.

It has been said that God is unchanging. And I have even seen some references to scripture to support this belief. So, one of the attributes of God is immutability. God is unchanging.

If something is perfect, then there is no need to change.

With this in mind, let us consider another idea.

Argument 2

1. If God exists, then he is immutable.

2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.

3. An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at another time not have that intention.

(Because, that would be a change.)

4. For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at another time, (after the creation), no longer have the intention to create it.

5. Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4).

6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

Or perhaps God changes.

There are a couple of issues to deal with.

#3, it has been suggested that God is outside of time, so one cannot suggest that there is such a thing as time when talking about God.

But we are talking about a sequence of events, not time, as such, that is part of the universe . And one cannot escape the sequence without running into other problems.

If it is suggested that God is “outside” of time and that his “intention” cannot have happened in what we would call a sequence. What this would suggest is that God both intended and did not intend. (Since time is not a part of God’s existence). But this leads to a contradiction. So, does the concept of God still exist?

Of course prior to the existence of the universe God had not willed the universe into existence, so there was a change from God not having yet willed the universe into existence to doing so.

There was a point that the universe came into existence (if you wish to say that God did it). Since it has been suggested that God created the universe, and you suggest that the universe is not eternal, there has to be some point that the universe came into existence. At that point, God “willed” (or whatever) the universe into existence. But at some point it was over. The universe exists. So, there is no longer the need to “will” anything. So, there was a change. God willed the universe into existence, when it was done, he stopped, He changed.

#4, Now, did God intend to create the universe?

When he created the universe, did he still intent to create it?

This last question does not seem to make much sense.

So, either God changed because his intentions changed, which means God is not immutable, or God does not exist.

One can suggest that God cannot change. But then how do you explain the change from nonexistence to existence of the universe? If God, “did it” then God changed. Even if it was just his intention or will that changed.

I would tend to think that if one was rational, one would either have to change one’s belief about the attributes of God, or consider the possibility that such a thing as a God, does not exist.

You will find these and other arguments in a somewhat new book, The Impossibility of God. Edited by Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier. By Prometheus Books.

So, did I change anyone's mind?

anon

[Jedidiah]

What does it mean to be perfect?

If there was a perfect being, what would be the point of doing anything? What would be the motivation?

Not being a perfect being I am not able to comprehend the requirement that perfection is static. Is perfection only one possible state from which any change is imperfection? Could you demonstrate this to be true?

Now, a perfect being would not need to change. Because it is perfect. Change would mean something is not perfect, or less than perfect and some adjustment is necessary.

This is not a different arguement, only a different statement of the same assumption regarding what perfection would be.

beeman

[Calvinist4Him]

Taking a quick look, i do not agree with premise number 3 in argument number 1. i would say that God is not lacking and does not need, but that doesn't follow that it's impossible for Him to need. Maybe He wants to need? i completely disagree that it's impossible for God to want...to have a desire. To create the universe would more than likely necessitate a desire...a want.

i might come back and critique the second argument later....

[steamer]

So, did I change anyone's mind?

I feel much the same way, I may have to copy this if you don't mind

[Berean Todd]

Argument 1
3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants.

I don't entirely agree with this point. If, for example, one had perfect love then one would have to have an object on which to show that love.

4.

If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want.

I don't think that it nescacarily implys want at all, and need is not a disqualifier for a perfect being because as I said above if one has perfect love he would need to have an object on which to show that love.

The rest of the argument falls apart because it is built on these 2 premises which I find faulty.

Argument 2

1. If God exists, then he is immutable.

2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.

3. An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at another time not have that intention.

1 and 2 are correct. 3 is only correct if it is the same time and the same relationship. If factors change then intentions can as well. For example the book of Jonah. God "intended" to destroy Ninevah because of her wickedness. However the point came where the city repented of it's wickedness and turned to God, throwing themselves on His mercy. It is not a change in God then to not destroy them, because He is not then reacting to a stubborn, vile, rebellious and evil people, but to a repentent people longing for God.

4.

For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at another time, (after the creation), no longer have the intention to create it.

This falls apart again on the basis of logic. The object has changed, the relationships have changed. If situation A exists and God feels one way about it at time x and another way about it at time y, then that is a change and destroys immutability. If however God reacts one way to situation A, things change leading to situation B, and God's reaction to B is different than A, then that is not a challenge to immutability. You seem like a logical person I don't understand how this argument can hold any water at all with you.

[kendemyer]

You wrote:

3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants.

Perhaps you should show that God does not merely have wishes and not needs I propose.

If you use Bible verses I would suggest doing adequate Bible exegesis (see: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37375 ).





You also wrote regarding God changing:

And I have even seen some references to scripture to support this belief.

You would need to show some verses and show you did adequate Bible exegesis (see: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37375 ).

Perhaps you should also show that change and perfection are mutually exclusive. For example, if I do new things and I do them perfectly am I less perfect.

Also, if I create a portrait and I am a perfect painter does this make me any less of a painter?

Also, if I the perfect painter decide to create a landscape instead of a portrait of a man am I less perfect?

[Mr. Tinkles]

If you use Bible verses I would suggest doing adequate Bible exegesis (see: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37375 ).

Is exegesis your word for the day, Ken? It seems to appear in most of your posts, though does not seem to be a strong suit in many of your less than eloquent posts.

[kendemyer]

Mr. Tinkles,

Please demonstrate you second sentence. In debates, the burden of proof is upon the claimant. You offered nothing.

Sincerely,

Ken

[Mr. Tinkles]

How about http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...6&page=2&pp=16

Do you believe that sound exegesis of the Book of Job, taking account of your rules 1,2 and 8, is that Satan controls the weather?

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28583
in your attempt to support an unsustainable reading of 2 Kings 25:8-9 and Jer. 52:12-13

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19586 is your eponymous Jonah thread. I refer readers to the comments in that thread on the historical and religious context of Jonah.

[Duder]

Anontheist-

Could it be there is a fault in your starting point that if God exists He must be perfect? Are there arguments you can make that will show this to be true, or it it an unproven axiom?

It seems to me there must always, at the very least, be a small seed of chaos in God - just the smallest disturbance in His perfect symmetry. Imagine Him, just sitting there, being perfect, wanting nothing, doing nothing, thinking nothing, experiencing nothing. God needs something to be just the slightest bit out-of-whack to get Him going. Perhaps He has sat for uncountable ages in a seemingly flawless bliss, but fortunately for God, the little seed of chaos manifests itself as boredom - a yearning for something to happen.

So God creates a universe. And now suddenly that little seed of chaos explodes and we've got a great big mess. Everthing goes to hell in a handbasket. The perfect symmetry is broken. There is light and dark, space and solid, love and hate, peace and strife, virtue and sin, all swirling around in a chaotic jumble. God suddenly finds Himself in a most imperfect situation, but behold, it is good! For now there are things to do, things that matter. Injustices can be made right, sinners can be saved, great glory can be manifested as God works to repair the damage and restore the symmetry. And after many billions of years, God wins the victory over chaos, as we all knew He would, and then once again He finds repose in absolute perfection... except, of course, for that small seed of discontent and chaos that He must never totally destroy.

Too Hindu? Well, think it over.

[steamer]

Anontheist-
Could it be there is a fault in your starting point that if God exists He must be perfect? Are there arguments you can make that will show this to be true, or it it an unproven axiom?

The bible says that god cannot change. If he cannot change then he cannot contain chaos or else he is permanently unbalanced. The starting point is generally that god is a perfect being and therefore doesn't need to change. This could be wrong of course, I don't know that god isn't completly whacko as the bible suggests.

Can't Shut off annoying Bold font grrr.

[anontheist]

beeman,

Thank you for responding.

If I may suggest, see Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, by Norman L. Geisler. Page 284, the section under Immutability, the paragraph that begins, “The third argument...”

The third argument for God’s unchangeability argues from his absolute perfection. Whatever changes acquires something new. But God cannot acquire anything new, since he could not be better or more complete. Therefore, God cannot change. If he did, he would not be god for he would have lacked some perfection.

.

When I have more time, I will attempt to answer more issues that have been raised.

anon

[Jedidiah]

If I may suggest, see Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, by Norman L. Geisler. Page 284, the section under Immutability, the paragraph that begins, “The third argument...”

Okay, so it would appear that you are only taking an assumption by Geisler and using it. My arguement remains the same, only now I argue (it seems) with Norm Geisler.

beeman

[Duder]

The bible says that god cannot change.
If he cannot change then he cannot contain chaos or else he is permanently unbalanced. The starting point is generally that god is a perfect being and therefore doesn't need to change. This could be wrong of course, I don't know that god isn't completly whacko as the bible suggests.

Can't Shut off annoying Bold font grrr.

Possibly, you can find Biblical evidence that God cannot change. But then, you will also find lots of evidence in the Bible that He does change. For myself, I don't think the Bible writers had great philosophical themes of Being versus Becoming when they wrote the Bible. That discussion seems to have arisen among the Ionians, not the Hebrews.

God inspired men to write the Bible, Steamer, but He did not tell them what to say. I know this is a very unpopular view, because of how we yearn for something that is absolutely solid and secure amid the chaos of life.

The Bible is like a journal, in which men try to work out who they are, who God is, and what might be the relationship between the two. God most definitely approves of this endeavor, but what He thinks about what we've written in the Bible we do not know (whoever God is, literary criticism does not seem to be His chief occupation). What is obvious to anyone who has made even a dabbling study of the project we call the Bible is that it's descriptions of God evolve - hopefully improve - as the project progresses.

Around the fourth century, a group of powerful men declared the project over and the canon closed. This is a pity, because it effectively ended the Bible's career as a dynamic and unfolding revelation and turned it into a dead relic or a historical curiosity. It can no longer breathe.

There are a very large number of people who believe in God, some of whom are devout Christians, who undertand the Bible in this way. They realize that it did not come down from heaven all-of-a-piece, nor was it spoken by God to human dictation-takers. That is why I think it is most unfruitful to point out every apparent contradiction in its pages, and hold these up as "proof" that the Bible is without value and the God of its pages does not exist. In the Bible, Steamer, we are looking at an interplay of points and counterpoints, out of which interplay syntheses arise. It's dialectic, dialog, conversation, humanity talking to humanity about God - with a good measure of prose and poetry thanking God for the His gift to us of life.

Some parts of the Bible are very primative, ascribing to God brutal qualities that are the mere reflections of our own unflattering sides (I hesitate to say these parts are "wrong", because, if nothing else, they are instructive about our own shadows). Other parts are sublime. But they are all meaningful, if one aquires the talent of looking beneath the forms to find the meaning therein.

So come on, Steamer - what do you say? Use Biblical contradictions, if you will, to argue now and then against the most naively literal interpretations of the Bible. But don't take the absurd stance that only a naievely literal interpretation is possible and therefore the Bible is useless and God doesn't exist.

I apologize to the group for wandering off topic, but there was something I wanted to say to Steamer and I just figured out what it was and how to say it.

[Tickle Me Goody]

Argument 1

1. If God exists, then he is perfect.

2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.

Creator of the universe is pretty specific. "Perfect" is a subjective concept. If the universe has been created by God, he basically defines what "pefection" is since he is then the #1 boss in charge of everthing.

Argument 2

1. If God exists, then he is immutable.

2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.

Again, "immutable" is not a necessary condition for the creator of the universe.

We currently know enough about the universe to understand that our very existance is conditional upon the fine details of the laws of physics with which this universe is endowed. We have a choice between two things (I think). Either it was created by a superior intelligence or else there must be a virtually infinity of universes.

Either of these viewpoints calls upon "supranatural" (not part of nature). Why would you feel that the non-intelligence is the correct one?

GG