2 Arguments against God

[Ursus maritimus]

Argument 1

1. If God exists, then he is perfect.

Good morning, anontheist.

This is an interesting attempt to prove the non-existence of God using basically the same types of arguments that are used in some alleged proofs of the existence of said deity. However, as interesting as it may be, it suffers from what I view as a critical flaw that many proofs for God have.

Specifically, it starts off by claiming that God is perfect.

Okay, not bad, but then the argument tries to explain what properties a perfect entity must have. It is simply not clear to me that one can simply decide what a perfect being must be like; perfection is a very subjective quality. The only objective standard of perfection I can think of is God himself, assuming that he exists. But then "God is perfect" simply becomes "God is like God", a tautology.

[reasonabledoubt]

Well doesn't the ontological argument come in here? God is the being of which no greater can be conceived. That implies the epitome of perfection. If there is a being that can be conceived that is greater than God, then why would we not worship that OTHER being instead? So if God wants for something, desires something, and therefore creates something in order to fulfill some want or desire of his, then I can conceive of a greater being who is complete in and of itself, and needs not create anything at all. This presents a conundrum...since creation is here, obviously, does this then mean that there IS no God? Some reverse type of ontological argument....

[Duder]

Well doesn't the ontological argument come in here? God is the being of which no greater can be conceived. That implies the epitome of perfection. If there is a being that can be conceived that is greater than God, then why would we not worship that OTHER being instead? So if God wants for something, desires something, and therefore creates something in order to fulfill some want or desire of his, then I can conceive of a greater being who is complete in and of itself, and needs not create anything at all. This presents a conundrum...since creation is here, obviously, does this then mean that there IS no God? Some reverse type of ontological argument....

Greater suffers from the same subjective ambiguity as perfect. In my way of thinking, a God with a small "flaw" that causes Him to desire is greater than one who is in a state of homogeneous perfection.

[Mountain Man]

The real sticking point here appears to be the concept of perfection. Specificially, the original poster (and any other atheist who wishes to use these arguments) must prove that unchangingness is a necessary property of perfection. Furthermore, unless you can prove that it is impossible for a perfect being to have wants and desires then this argument against God doesn't have a leg to stand on. For extra credit, you might also try coming up with an objective measure of perfection that doesn't depend on an omnipotent Creator.

[reasonabledoubt]

You can read Thomas Aquinas about how immutability is a requirement of perfection.

[Mountain Man]

So now Thomas Aquinas has the final say on the standards of perfection?

[Tickle Me Goody]

So now Thomas Aquinas has the final say on the standards of perfection?

If Aquinas had the final say, then we would all believe in God.

GG

[reasonabledoubt]

No, Aquinas did not have the final say. But neither did Mountain Man. In fact I doubt that 200 years from now anyone will be discussing Mountain Man's theology, while I'm willing to bet Aquinas will still be very relevant.

[Mountain Man]

No, Aquinas did not have the final say. But neither did Mountain Man.

Nor did the Mountain Man claim to have the final say. He only pointed out that for the atheist "argument from perfection" to move forward, the concept of perfection must be objectively established and it must be proven that unchangingness is a necessary property of perfection. Thus far, the Mountain Man has not seen either of these subjects addressed except in the most circuituos manner.

[anontheist]

I posted this already in this thread, but it seems some of you may have missed it, so, here it is again. Please, forgive me for its redundency.

Several responses have suggested I clarify my position. Just a note: this is not MY position. Given what Christian have suggest as a definition or attribute of God, I am asking what would this imply.

So, if I may suggest, see Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, by Norman L. Geisler. Page 284, the section under Immutability, the third paragraph under this section 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.“

.

Christians do not always agree, just as atheist do not always agree. So, if someone does not agree with this definition, it is not me that the disagreement is with.

anon

[reasonabledoubt]

Well the thing is, there's always a different way of looking at things. The question of God's perfection has been answered for thousands of years, according to Jewish and Christian orthodoxy - God is immutable, and immutability is required for perfection.
Of course someone can come along now and say, hey wait a minute, WHY is it required? But those arguments have been dealt with eons ago and rejected by orthodoxy. The "official" church position is immutability. Anyone's free to believe what they wish, of course, but there have to be some agreed-upon basic definitions and guidelines in order for any religion/church/dogma to survive and operate.

[Mountain Man]

But I do not see where it is necessary that immutablity be a singular state. Is it not possible for God, being perfect, to change and still be perfect?

Furthermore, we do not seem to be arguing about change so much as apparent change, that is apparent from our perspective. What we assume to be God changing in some way may not be actuality. For instance, did God's nature change when he desired to create us, or was that always a part of his being that he simply chose to manifest at some point? Did God's nature change when he threatened to destroy a city yet stayed his hand when they repented, or was he acting in a way that maintained his perfect justice and grace?

Point being, are we really in the position to judge God's perfection?

[kendemyer]

TO: Mr. Tinkles:

You wrote:

How about http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sh...46&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?

Did I say that "Satan controls the weather" ? Perhaps, you are attempting to build a strawman but sadly it does not appear you even have hay!




You then wrote:

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

It is a time honored principle in debates that the burden of proof is upon the claimant. You need to support your claim that my reading which uses the historical source of the Jerusalem Talmud is unsupportable. You never did this.





You then wrote:

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.

Now I clearly said in the thread:

I realize you did not appreciate me bringing up philosophical/theological issues in God protecting Jonah in terms of protecting Jonah in terms of the natural environment through the miraculous but I thought in good conscience the question should be at least raised given the context of the account (God is said to have intervened at least three times in the Jonah account although one of them is not as specific as the other two). see below:

Jonah 1: 17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah.


Jonah 2:1-3

Then Jonah prayed unto the LORD his God out of the fish's belly,

And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, [and] thou heardest my voice.

And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, [and] thou heardest my voice.

For thou hadst cast me into the deep, in the midst of the seas; and the floods compassed me about_: all thy billows and thy waves passed over me.


Jonah 2: 10 And the LORD spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry [land].



A KEY QUESTION IN REGARDS TO THE BIBLE VERSES:

What was Jonah being afflicted with (see above verse in Jonah 2:1-3, specifically: "And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD")? The general dire circumstance of being swallowed by a whale? Lack of air? Gastric Juices? We simply do not know. In the context of a God creating the unvierse out of nothing and doing many miracles and many people experiencing miracles today including myself I am led to believe that God could have overcome such issues if necessary. He certainly saved the men from the fiery furnace for example.

Lastly, I think there are times when you have suspended judgement until you receive more information. I think this is appropriate in this case. You seem to want to shut the door on further research. I think this is unwise. Therefore, I no longer wish to rehash this with you Dunnysaze.

So this thread was an exploration of how Jonah might have survived being swallowed by a "great fish".

You seem to take offense at exploration. Yet exploration of issues is how people gain additional understanding. This is precisely why another thread was added to this string later which also discussed the historical and archeological issues.

In short, I think you need to improve your debate etiquette via providing evidence since the enhancement of the publics knowledge should be the reason for debates.

[steamer]

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.

Nonsense! The only thing we should call supernatural is if we found ourselves in a universe that developed in such a way that it could not support life. I'm amazed that people think it should be other than what it is. Yes, If the earth were a gas giant we wouldn't live here. So what? it's not. The laws of physics are what they are, to pretend they are even possible in some other form is the sheerest conjecture.

[kendemyer]

anontheist,

You wrote recently:

The bible says that god cannot change

Does it? Where?

Again, in debates the burden of proof is upon the claimant.Please do proper Bible exegesis (see: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37375 ).

Here is a abbreviate version of something I recently wrote elsewhere:

"There is a proverb, "First socks then shoes." Another proverb is "The easy way is the hard way and the hard way is the easy way." Let me explain. When a skeptic does not do his homework and do the adequate preparation to build a real case he can't legitimately expect to win his case. In my estimation, the Bible skeptics build flimsy cases and armed with some very fundamental Bible exegesis principles I believe Christians can get them thrown out of court. [/quote]

In short, I would say the skeptics are spinning their wheels here. Because many Christians would rather face a devouring lion than face attempts to be knawed on by many weak and diseased rats (this is a paraphrase of a line spoke by a person mentioned in a history class who name currently escapes me that I thought was very humorous). I personally do not believe I have seen any lions brought forth by the Bible skeptics. In fact, in every single case the skeptics never even give a brief review of Bible exegesis principles so it could easily be argued that many may not even be aware of them."

Now with this in mind show me what you claimed above is in fact true.