Strong Atheistic Arguments Against Christianity Including Bertrand Russell’s Teapot And God’s Omnipotence.
Comments(6) Now a rebuttal of theism by the most famous person on this website aside from myself. I present to you, Mandat who seems to think I’m some form of Hitler.
Oh my god awesome i love that you finally have let us do this.
Of course, psychologically speaking this will not convert you as schizophrenic delusions do not accept intellectual counter-proofs.
Anyway, here we go.
Firstly of course i must start with the theodice paradigm, i.e. Yaweeh or Buddha or Allah or any of the other ones prohibit themselves from existing. Whilst this does not prove that no such thing as a god can exist, merely that the various gods as defined by religion exist.
Mandat is right when he says that Buddha does not exist.Most religions maintain that their god is omnipotent and omniscient, both these are impossible concepts as to be omnipotent you would have to be able to create soething that you couldn’t do and therefore not be omnipotent. similarly omniscience would take away a being’s free will. also the main paradigm as below;
“If the evil in the world is intended by god he is not good. If it violates his intentions he is not almighty. God can’t be both almighty and good. There are many objections to this, but none that holds since god is ultimately responsible for the existence of evil. Besides, if only god can create he must have created evil. If somebody else (the devil) created evil, how can one know that god, and not Satan created the universe?”
If everything must have been created, then god must have been created as well. If god is not created, then everything mustn’t have a creator, so why should life or cosmos have one?
If everything has a source and god is that source, then god must have existed without it before he created it. So if god created time and space, he must live outside of time and space. Thus he is non-existent. If all life must come from something and that is god, god is not alive and hence non-existent. If moral must come from god, god lacks moral. If logic comes from god, god is illogic. If nature comes from god, god is unnatural. If existence comes from god, god is non-existent. If god is the cause of everything, god is void
A rather nice although generally pointless bit of verbal gymnastics defines gods as non existent. If he created time and space and existence then he would have to have been outside time and space and existence and therefore not exist.
There is much similar verbal trickery to negate the existence of gods however this will not convince you as I know it will not convince me. The way that schizophrenics are often treated is by getting them to question their own delusions and attempt to prove them to themselves which they then of course fail to do allowing them to regain some form of sanity. Unfortunately the general delusion makes an absolute proof of a gods non-existence.
It is much like Bertrand Russell’s teapot. He stated that there was a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between earth and mars, he also stated that it was too small for our telescopes to see. Because of this we cannot prove it’s non-existence however this does not then mean that it does exist. In fact it’s existence is so unlikely and illogical that it can only be taken to be non-existent.
Now tell me, what is different between this teapot and god except that the teapot is actually more probable to exist.
Here’s a scientific little glitch which is sure to offend your sensibilities. If some form of god did create the universe and all life then he did a pretty shit job. Indeed humans can design and build much better versions of various naturally occurring things. For example the eye, which creationists somehow seems to think proves their point (i’ve never got that argument) in most land animals the eye is made backwards and upside down making it inefficient and causing photons of light to have to pass through many different lumps of tissue and fluids which is unnecessary and degrades the ’signal’.
Conversely the eyes of octopodes (I notice the spell checker wants me to use the incorrect octopi), whilst different does not have this flaw. There are millions of examples of such flaws and all of these, such as the eye can be designed and made much better by humans.
So if you insist on maintaining this belief in yaweeh/mickey mouse/ra/whoever then you have to admit that they have lower intelligence than humans.
God popped into existence once humans evolved to be intelligent enough to question it’s environment. The only reason we have to suspect god’s existence is that a long time ago some cave man came up with a theory that the big yellow thing in the sky had power over him. This then developed into your much more complex and much more damaging delusion.
Why would god condemn 99.99999% of his creation to hell? I believe that you say only those that believe in god go to heaven. No animals do but do they deserve to go to hell.
Mandat. You’re obviously a very intelligent young man, but you do not know everything.
I understand what you’re saying about the teapot but it’s a poor analogy. There’s absolutely no evidence for a teapot in outer space AND there’s absolutely no need for tea making facilities in the outer cosmos. This is why the teapot is an absurd notion.
On earth there may be no ’scientific’ evidence for God but there is a need for him. We need him in order to be Good. We need to be saved by His grace otherwise we will be condemned to Hell for ever.
There is a God shaped hole in all of our lives. There is no teapot shaped hole in the Cosmos. Even Carl Sagan would have agreed with this.
Not everyone will go to Hell Mandat. Many will, but there are also plenty who are destined for eternal bliss for being faithful to God. We know this through the Bible.
God is both logical and illogical. He can defy his own laws as he’s beyond human and beyond all natural laws. It’s unfair to pigeon-hole Him in like you have.
“On earth there may be no ’scientific’ evidence for God but there is a need for him. I feel this is a very strong argument.”
I agree with this statement, but I interpreted as a different way. Is this need emotional, mental, or physical?
Also logical and illogical is quantum physics. In quantum physics, all normal physic rules are thrown out the window; perhaps our scientific knowledge has not yet reached the point where we can prove or disprove the existence of a powerful deity?
you can and coonversly cannot proove or disprove anything
for example below is algebraic proof that 2=1 which clearly it does not
let a=b
therefore
a^2=ab (-2ab)
a^2-2ab=-ab ( a^2)
2a^2-2ab=a^2-ab
2(a^2-ab)=1(a^2-ab) (divide by (a^2-ab))
2=1
this is based on a mathematical fallacy and only really demonstrates how pointless a lot of our debate is, only those with a good knowledge of algebra and mathematics will be able to work out why the above is incorrect.
out of curiosity can anyone?
i will be back later to discuss your rebuttal Don (nice of you to think of me as famous)
mandat
p.s i do not think of you as a hitler (although your views on various books are similar) i would much rather confront you calmly and rationally as oppose to this continual sniping over the internet. this is why i suggested the video debate
quote:
“I understand what you’re saying about the teapot but it’s a poor analogy. There’s absolutely no evidence for a teapot in outer space AND there’s absolutely no need for tea making facilities in the outer cosmos. This is why the teapot is an absurd notion.”
And there is absolutely no evidence for a invisible god in the sky AND there’s absolutely no need for a invisible friend in my and many people’s lives.
you see, i did not just disprove god just as you did not disprove that theres a teapot in space. how is the teapot any more absurd then an invisible sky god?
quote:
“we need him in order to be good”
i believe this notion scares me more then anything else you have said. so basically by believing in god you have completely lost your ability to differ between good and evil? of course you haven’t. so why then do you need him in order to be good? this statement is logically unsound. if your conscious ability to determine, without god, whats right and wrong is still sound then why do you need him? is it for the same reason that most christians do? that you fear hell? then dose that not make god and the bible forms of terrorism? for terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.
As the above post mentions, you said that “we need him
in order to be good.” This infers that atheists who do not get their morals from the bible are “bad.” This is very obviously false. There is no indication of a higher crime rate or anything
else of the like in atheists. How many wars have been
caused because of christianity? Undoubtably you have heard this argument many times before, but it is an adequate one. It is simply illogical to critisize atheists for lack of morals while speaking in favor of a religion which has killed millions of peoply for simply disagreeing with their ideas.
I’ll give it a go, Mandat.
let a = b /** Ok
a^2 = ab /** As demonstrated
ab – 2ab = -ab /** 1 – 2 = -1
2ab – 2ab = ab – ab /** 0 in any case
2(ab – ab) = (ab – ab) /** Also 0 in any case
0 = 0
But the same maths cannot be applied to
2 = 1
Because 0 is a concept of nothing, and nothing has no proportions
thats one way of saying it the main problem is that you cannot cancel through zero and a^2 – ab must always equal zero