Q#2 God doesn't exist by definition

[Questioner]

This is a quick one. It's a barrage of paradoxes. I sorted them from the weakest to the strongest.

0) This is just for fun If God is defined as omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition because He can't create a stone so heavy that He can't lift it.

1) If God is defined as omnibenevolent and omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition since either He can't kill, say, Terry Schiavo, or He isn't perfectly good.

2) If God is defined as omnipotent and omniscient, God doesn't exist by definition because either He can't change the future or He can't know the future.

3) If God is defined as omnibenevolent and omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition because being omnipotent He could have avoided killing small children with the Flood. He instead let only one family live. So either he didn't have the power to save every single good or innocent human or he had that power but murdered innocents.

The Flood is interchangeable with other biblical events, like the destruction of Sodom.

4) If God is defined as omnimax, God doesn't exist by definition because either he doesn't know about the unnecessary evil present in the world (= not omniscient); or he knows about it but can't do anything to eliminate it (= not omnipotent); or he knows about it, could erase it, but doesn't because He wants us to suffer (= not omnibenevolent).

Discuss (if you want to).

Btw, I hope I'm posting in the right forum...

[Littlelite]

This is a quick one. It's a barrage of paradoxes. I sorted them from the weakest to the strongest.

0) This is just for fun If God is defined as omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition because He can't create a stone so heavy that He can't lift it.

1) If God is defined as omnibenevolent and omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition since either He can't kill, say, Terry Schiavo, or He isn't perfectly good.

2) If God is defined as omnipotent and omniscient, God doesn't exist by definition because either He can't change the future or He can't know the future.

3) If God is defined as omnibenevolent and omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition because being omnipotent He could have avoided killing small children with the Flood. He instead let only one family live. So either he didn't have the power to save every single good or innocent human or he had that power but murdered innocents.

The Flood is interchangeable with other biblical events, like the destruction of Sodom.

I do not want to sound judgemental or anything like that, but what you have just stated, sounds to me like you do not know the Lord Jesus as your personal Saviour.

I say this kindly. To understand the Holy Word, you must be born again, and the Holy Spirit will give you the spiritual understanding that you seek. YSIC Littlelite

4) If God is defined as omnimax, God doesn't exist by definition because either he doesn't know about the unnecessary evil present in the world (= not omniscient); or he knows about it but can't do anything to eliminate it (= not omnipotent); or he knows about it, could erase it, but doesn't because He wants us to suffer (= not omnibenevolent).

Discuss (if you want to).

Btw, I hope I'm posting in the right forum...

[Littlelite]

This is a quick one. It's a barrage of paradoxes. I sorted them from the weakest to the strongest.

0) This is just for fun If God is defined as omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition because He can't create a stone so heavy that He can't lift it.

1) If God is defined as omnibenevolent and omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition since either He can't kill, say, Terry Schiavo, or He isn't perfectly good.

2) If God is defined as omnipotent and omniscient, God doesn't exist by definition because either He can't change the future or He can't know the future.

3) If God is defined as omnibenevolent and omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition because being omnipotent He could have avoided killing small children with the Flood. He instead let only one family live. So either he didn't have the power to save every single good or innocent human or he had that power but murdered innocents.

The Flood is interchangeable with other biblical events, like the destruction of Sodom.

4) If God is defined as omnimax, God doesn't exist by definition because either he doesn't know about the unnecessary evil present in the world (= not omniscient); or he knows about it but can't do anything to eliminate it (= not omnipotent); or he knows about it, could erase it, but doesn't because He wants us to suffer (= not omnibenevolent).

Discuss (if you want to).

Btw, I hope I'm posting in the right forum...

[/quote

Sorry, I did not mean to cut into your post like that. I will do better next time YSIC Littlelite

[AnotherTraveler]

It's a barrage of paradoxes.

Just more intellectual dishonesty. There is not a paradox in the bunch.

[Observer of dreams]

Your right questioner he contradicts himself. It's to complex for a human being to understand. The question arises "How can one be sitting and standing at the same time?" God is described in this type of fashion because he can't be described any other way. The bible doesn't even cover all of Gods' attributes.

What's happening is that we get a piece of a quilt, but we don't know that, all we see is a square. We come up with many ideas about what this fabric square goes to, but we never really quite have the whole picture. You give a lot of reasonable evidence as to why you believe God doesn't exist. We give a lot of reasonable evidence to as to why we believe he does exist. I believe that if there were proof of Gods non-existence by definition. It would be a little more wide spread and hold more ground than a common conspiracy theory. I believe all of these arguments are irrelevant. That being said I will post my thoughts about each one.

0) This is just for fun wink.gif If God is defined as omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition because He can't create a stone so heavy that He can't lift it.

God is not a human with human strength, also if God were a human with human like strength he would still be everywhere, and everything. Basically he would be the boulder. Lastly God doesn't do pointless things. You never see a place in the bible where it says, "And God lifted the boulder and set it back down, because he could, then he killed a random cow, because he felt like it."

1) If God is defined as omnibenevolent and omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition since either He can't kill, say, Terry Schiavo, or He isn't perfectly good.

Defining God is the mistake of man, not God. If God is omni benevolent his benevolence becomes the absolute moral standard regardless of who agrees with it.

2) If God is defined as omnipotent and omniscient, God doesn't exist by definition because either He can't change the future or He can't know the future.

Not true, he is simply calculated. It's not that he can't change the future, it's that he knows better. And how does being all-knowing, and all powerful put a limit on anything anyways?

3) If God is defined as omnibenevolent and omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition because being omnipotent He could have avoided killing small children with the Flood. He instead let only one family live. So either he didn't have the power to save every single good or innocent human or he had that power but murdered innocents.

All the evil adults he destroyed were children too, he is all knowing so he must've known how they would grow up. Also if they were innocent they would have gone to a much better place than an awful earth full of hatred and greed.

4) If God is defined as omnimax, God doesn't exist by definition because either he doesn't know about the unnecessary evil present in the world (= not omniscient); or he knows about it but can't do anything to eliminate it (= not omnipotent); or he knows about it, could erase it, but doesn't because He wants us to suffer (= not omnibenevolent).

When you said "because he wants us to suffer" you don't actually know that. God knows what would happen if he changed anything before end times. What you should be asking questioner is how there is evil on earth at all if it was destroyed by the flood. I mean he caused the flood to get rid of evil so does that mean he failed since there is still evil? No, because God's mission wasn't to rid the planet of evil. It's our job, we as humans decide what path we will take, you have chosen the path of atheism, others choose the path of needless destruction. These people aren't evil, at least not all of them. Most are just ignorant. Should God kill every ignorant person on earth?

[Questioner]

It's a barrage of paradoxes.

Just more intellectual dishonesty. There is not a paradox in the bunch.

How do you call them and why am I dishonest?

[Floatingaxe]

God doesn't fit into any of your little boxes, folks! He is above all the human understanding that we can muster. All our high-falutin' so-called intelligence (getting a good belly-laugh at all the pseudo-intelligent arguments for atheism on this thread here!) cannot scratch the surface of His persona--yet when you give over to acceptance and choose to believe He is---well, you are granted knowledge of Him! Knowledge that is sure and solid. It's a choice. He has given us every proof. Atheists are just agnostics who have made a choice to remain blind....there is no such thing as an atheist, anyway.

So, dream on, folks. God is watching this intellectual game and rooting for His own.

[systemstrike_7]

If God is omnimax then there is one thing he can't do....make a mistake. He cannot "mess up". So what do you call Satan? He created him to make our lives more difficult? Or to make it harder for us to make it to Heaven? Does that sound benelovent? I think not.

[Questioner]

Your right questioner he contradicts himself. It's to complex for a human being to understand. The question arises "How can one be sitting and standing at the same time?" God is described in this type of fashion because he can't be described any other way. The bible doesn't even cover all of Gods' attributes.

What's happening is that we get a piece of a quilt, but we don't know that, all we see is a square. We come up with many ideas about what this fabric square goes to, but we never really quite have the whole picture. You give a lot of reasonable evidence as to why you believe God doesn't exist. We give a lot of reasonable evidence to as to why we believe he does exist. I believe that if there were proof of Gods non-existence by definition. It would be a little more wide spread and hold more ground than a common conspiracy theory. I believe all of these arguments are irrelevant. That being said I will post my thoughts about each one.

The first paragraph is an appeal to ignorance. I believe if someone says something about God he must be ready to back up that assertion, which is indeed what you do in your post; so why appeal to a lack of knowledge? Obviously, you're capable of answering me.

The second paragraph is very good; you're asking me, if the definition of God is incoherent why isn't this notion more widespread than it is right now? That's a perfectly legitimate question and I like questions Well, first of all there are better, sounder and more interesting arguments than this bunch of contradictions I exposed, e.g. the problem of evil (which really is number 4 but should be discussed by itself and more extensively - I'll get around to do that, eventually). Secondly, this kind of things are, indeed, very widespread. Ask any atheist about the definition of God, he/she will tell you that it's logically incoherent and expose one or more of the 4 contradictions I exposed. But don't worry, I'm not presenting this thread as the ultimate atheistic argument It just raises a few interesting questions, especially the last ones.

0) This is just for fun wink.gif If God is defined as omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition because He can't create a stone so heavy that He can't lift it.

God is not a human with human strength, also if God were a human with human like strength he would still be everywhere, and everything. Basically he would be the boulder. Lastly God doesn't do pointless things. You never see a place in the bible where it says, "And God lifted the boulder and set it back down, because he could, then he killed a random cow, because he felt like it."

Don't bother, it's just an old joke that always has to appear in this kind of threads. I wrote it down in the OP just to get it out of the way. It's fallacious because it basically says God cannot do what is logically impossible - as if something logically impossible could be done at all

1) If God is defined as omnibenevolent and omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition since either He can't kill, say, Terry Schiavo, or He isn't perfectly good.

Defining God is the mistake of man, not God. If God is omni benevolent his benevolence becomes the absolute moral standard regardless of who agrees with it.

But the problem is not with the benevolence, it's that his benevolence takes away a big chunk of his omnipotence. I don't quite understand your answer.

2) If God is defined as omnipotent and omniscient, God doesn't exist by definition because either He can't change the future or He can't know the future.

Not true, he is simply calculated. It's not that he can't change the future, it's that he knows better. And how does being all-knowing, and all powerful put a limit on anything anyways?

If He knows everything, then everything has already been decided, thus He cannot change anything - which means He is not omnipotent, not by a long shot. I'm sure you have heard this objection hundreds of times.

3) If God is defined as omnibenevolent and omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition because being omnipotent He could have avoided killing small children with the Flood. He instead let only one family live. So either he didn't have the power to save every single good or innocent human or he had that power but murdered innocents.

All the evil adults he destroyed were children too, he is all knowing so he must've known how they would grow up. Also if they were innocent they would have gone to a much better place than an awful earth full of hatred and greed.

But isn't that true for today too? Why doesn't God kill all the children so that they can go to heaven without going through a painful life, maybe ending up being thieves or living in a city overrun by sin like Sodom? If He doesn't want to kill anybody, which seems to be what most Christians believe, why did He do such a thing back then but not now? It seems at the very least His behavior is inconsistent, as if somewhere along the way He changed His mind. I'm not saying He's not allowed to but hey, do you really believe in a schizophrenic god who wakes up one morning and says, hey let's do some genocide? That's not the Christian God. So, I must be wrong somewhere, but where?

4) If God is defined as omnimax, God doesn't exist by definition because either he doesn't know about the unnecessary evil present in the world (= not omniscient); or he knows about it but can't do anything to eliminate it (= not omnipotent); or he knows about it, could erase it, but doesn't because He wants us to suffer (= not omnibenevolent).

When you said "because he wants us to suffer" you don't actually know that. God knows what would happen if he changed anything before end times. What you should be asking questioner is how there is evil on earth at all if it was destroyed by the flood. I mean he caused the flood to get rid of evil so does that mean he failed since there is still evil? No, because God's mission wasn't to rid the planet of evil. It's our job, we as humans decide what path we will take, you have chosen the path of atheism, others choose the path of needless destruction. These people aren't evil, at least not all of them. Most are just ignorant. Should God kill every ignorant person on earth?

No, of course not, that would be horrible but I was talking about unnecessary evil, not evil caused by sinful people. Why does God allow a hurricane to almost wipe away a city? Can't He prevent such an event? Doesn't He know about it? Doesn't He love us? I'm sure you see what I mean. What about forest fires killing people? What about the EDIT flu I've , I'm coughing my lungs off you know

Lots of questions. I like questions.

PS: What's up with the quote tags? I'm pretty sure I opened and closed them correctly

Edited January 7, 2007 by Wayne B.

[Questioner]

God doesn't fit into any of your little boxes, folks! He is above all the human understanding that we can muster. All our high-falutin' so-called intelligence (getting a good belly-laugh at all the pseudo-intelligent arguments for atheism on this thread here!) cannot scratch the surface of His persona--yet when you give over to acceptance and choose to believe He is---well, you are granted knowledge of Him! Knowledge that is sure and solid. It's a choice. He has given us every proof. Atheists are just agnostics who have made a choice to remain blind....there is no such thing as an atheist, anyway.

So, dream on, folks. God is watching this intellectual game and rooting for His own.

It's not that you're not saying interesting things; what you're saying is actually the basis for agnosticism. The problem I have with theists saying this kind of things is: why then are you so confident about God being the way you say He is? How can you say anything about God if He's so unreachable? Aren't this problems grounds to decide that somewhere along the way someone has made a mistake while trying to define God? If not, i.e. if God is indeed perfectly good, has perfect knowledge and is almighty where do those problems come from? Obviously, if the reality is that God is omnimax then I must have made a mistake.

So where's the mistake? I'm not saying I didn't make one or more, look at the Draygomb's paradox thread, I realized such an argument is irrelevant and untrustworthy and dropped it. I will do the same with all of this stuff as soon as someone can show where the mistake is. I can find none, but neither could I find one in Draygomb's Paradox in the beginning. We're all working toward higher knowledge guys, so let's work toward gaining that knowledge rather then just stop dead in our tracks as soon as the road gets a little harder.