Jesterballz, I’ve migrated the thread to my site for readability/loading time.
Taken from this post for readability.
I honestly can’t see how you can seriously say “I welcome civilised argument in the comments” when your name is “jesterballz”.
In any case, we can do this the easy way (testing for coherency, universality, and uniqueness of claim to truth) or the polemic way (point by point rebuttal/back and forth until no conclusion is reached). Up to you.
There are a whole lot of people out there who believe in “God”. Billions of people are Christian, Muslim or Jewish, and are following their religion (most often blindly). But I strongly refute the claim that this particular “God” exists, and I have pretty good reason, too. So all those curious people out there, please read this and maybe you will realise your mistake. That said, I am not accusing anyone who believes in God of being stupid. Please make comments to explain your reasoning if you disagree with my theory.
This is based on the three premises put forward by the three major monotheistic religions. God is all powerful, God is all knowing and God is all good. If you refute any of these three premises, then you are not a Christian, Muslim or Jew, and I have no beef with you.
1. Assume God exists.
2. God is all powerful
3. God is all good
4. All good beings are opposed to suffering
5. All good beings who are able stop suffering will do so immediately
6. God is opposed to suffering (from 3 and 4)
7. God can stop suffering completely and immediately (from 2)
8. God will eliminate suffering completely and immediately (6 and 7)
9. Suffering exists
10. Therefore, God does not exist (8 and 9)
I can’t believe I didn’t see this (looks like I need a brush up). Your “proof” is an example of pseudo-logic. Why? Look at point 1 and point 10.
You basically say: “Assume G. Therefore, not G.”
Second point (from 7 and 8): “G can… G will.”
This is not logical rhetoric. Therefore, this is not logic.
A popular argument against this one, is that “God gave us free will”. Well this argument is utterly useless and completely refutable. Consider those thousands of children who starve in developing nations. How could anyone justify this as free will?
You use free will in the wrong frame of reference. It is exclusively used in the Bible as a choice between choosing God and choosing sin – suffering plays no role in that. Influence the decision, maybe.
What do you think about the Buddhistic notion that life is suffering?
And if you believe that it is the fault of human beings, then explain to me how an all good being could justify an innocent child being born into this situation. Is it that child’s fault?
No, the child is not at fault until he/she starts crying for food. Secondly, you ontologically assume a child is always innocent: look here for your supporting evidence (or try raising a kid! Ever hear of the colloquialism “little devil”?).
Or if a person is crossing the road, and gets randomly hit by a bus. How does this in any way constitute free will?
Again, the frame of reference is with choosing God or choosing sin. But “free will” – as you define – it can be inferred from their decision to get up that morning, or schedule the appointment which made them get there. So no, that doesn’t work either.
Finally, a person is born with a particularly painful and severe disease. If this has happened, explain to me how there could possibly be an all powerful, all knowing, all good being out there?
Jesus said that people such as these were born to bring glory to God. It is the problem of Christians that we aren’t doing enough to make that happen (whether by medicine or miracle).
Again, I am not a Christian hater. I am simply offering a debate on the possible existence of your god. I welcome civilised argument in the comments.
Response to my comment:
I have taken free will into account. Did you read the whole post?
Actually, no – sorry. Most of my attentions were caught by the “proof”.
In heaven? If a man is tortured for hours, is it all OK if he gets an icecream at then end? I did the state the direction of the post. I have firstly proved that either God does not exist (as Christians know it), or Christians are wrong about the God. In regard to free will, I asserted that this is a poor argument. Please explain how my arguments are wrong, rather than pointing out what I have not addressed.
I hope I’ve done this.