2 Arguments against God

[FarEastBird]

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

How is it not possible that what you imply of God to be perfect and immutable is to be dead? Which is quite odd of what we expect of a "LIVING" God.

When we conceptualize perfection and immutability in terms of quantity, one will go crazy.

FEB

[Griggsy]

Anontheist, of course, and the other person loses by default of argument, using the faith-based begged question of living God! To prattle with scriptures begs the question period.
Martin and Monnier also have out " The Improbability of God" and Martin has also the anthology " The Cambridge Companion to Arheism," besides " Atheism: a Philosophical Defense of Atheism" and " The Case against Christianity." Also ponder John Loftus' books!Martin and Doubting John together masterfully win for naturalism against supernaturalism!

[OU812]

More "skeptic" pulpit-pounding from Bud Melman Griggsy.....how about that "He needs more Star Trek!!!!!" argument?

[Griggsy]

On an episode of that program, a robot states that it was perfect but Capt. Kirk demonstrates that no it wasn't and the robot self-destructed.
Alvin Plantinga prattles that omni-God can use flourishes in designing whilst limited God has to be sparing and thus could not make imperfections! Those imperfections can mean death. Again, a theist rises to the ocassion to self-destruct.
Plantinga cannot overcome then Hume's dysteological argument- from imperfections.

[Griggsy]

[I] Anontheiist, see you at naturalist arguments about God, where you can outmatch the theists http://lyngsdotcom.wordpress.com there!
The empirical argument is now that no evidence exists for God, but theists use misinterpretations of evidence for Him!
What all theistic arguments boil down to is an obfuscation to take over the valid role of natural causes as the sufficient reason and primary cause with that obfuscation - that Superme Mystery, surrounded by still other mysteriees, ostensibly as that Ultimate Explanation but in the end is just a needless redundancy relfecting wishful thinking![/]

[Griggsy]

Nontheist Aquinas's superfluity argument answers Aquinas, Feser and the misguided theists here why God is unemployed:" Itis moreover superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for a few principles, has been produced by many principles,. But it seems that can in the world be accounted by other principles without suppsosing God. For all natural things can be accountable for by one principle, which us nature....There is no need to suppose that God exists.
Aquinas himself thereby eviscerates theism! As Antony Garrard Newton Flew in his mature days notes that thereby Aqunas implicitly wants to counter the Npw Flew-Lamberth the presumption of naturalism, akin to the presumption of innocence, with his five ways- just suggestions, never proofs.
Think about it: unwittingly he confirms Lamberth's reduced animism argument that theists try to foist an unneedeed efficient cause- primary explanation in a series of hierarchical causes,not chronical ones, that, took on faith from the Tanakh.] just as full animists do, so theism is just reduced animism. Just as the Azande now know about bacteria-caused diseases they conclude that ultimate causation inheres in Him. No philosophical difference from full and reduced animists exists other than the number of spirits!
For this superstition, people murder millions in His name!
See also my similar response in arguments about God, where Nontheist just might respond to those who hold onto the unnecessary superfluous non-entity!