On the omnipotence paradox

Most times this paradox is formulated as can god create a square triangle? To which many apologists have said their god can only do things that are logical. They have further argued that this doesn’t diminish omnipotence but I am not persuaded. Same apologists believe an ass has spoken, a snake walked and a floor covered the entire earth surface.

Can god make a tall person short? Or a black person white? If not, why? Is there any logical contradiction in the above questions?

Or am I missing something?

Evidence for Christianity

The argument from truth

The author of the linked post intended, and failed, to show that atheism is not compatible with truth or to argue that atheists have a problem with truth. I argue, without fear of contradiction, that s/he has not proved their case. They didn’t even get off. We cannot, from reading their blog determine what truth is and how its existence is proof for god or an argument against atheism.

I will state, following Odera Oruka that all truths are contextual, where context is a tradition that determines the levels of understanding and the rules of rationality. Within a context, objectivity is implied and therefore, to argue that truth is contextual is not to commit to relativism.

After failing to make a coherent argument for truth as demonstrating that the Christian god exists, our interlocutor moves to morality and attempts to kill the horse that has been killed so many times there is no death left in it- is morality objective or subjective?- in their own words

What about claims that morality is relative? Someone may say one behaviour is acceptable and another not. If there is no God, then all our morals are a matter of personal opinion and not objective.

And as I have said of truth, codes of behaviour are context specific. And within a given context, whatever norms or codes that people live by are considered, they will be objective.

Our interlocutor then writes

If there is no God, then all our morals are a matter of personal opinion and not objective.

as if transferring the source of the opinion improves objectivity. Where gods have been claimed to have spoken, they have not been clear. Is it bad to kill? Not if they worship a different god. Or if it is as a sacrifice to a god. So that, if we are to follow the precepts laid down in the bible (our interlocutor argues for Christianity), we would not be certain on how to act.

We are told

However, if there is a God, and that God has defined right and wrong moral behaviour, then we have a standard outside of ourselves providing us with an objective standard for morality. If God does exist then we can have real objective moral truths.

and I ask which are these? Don’t eat shellfish? Take for example the command don’t kill. Why should we not kill? Because god has said. This, I argue, is unhelpful. It takes us to WLC philosophy of divine command theory where everything that god says is right. I am not sure Euthyphro’s dilemma has been successfully answered.

Most times when I read blogs by Christian apologists, I am left wondering why do they live in such small worlds. When a person writes

The Atheist must borrow the Christian worldview, to hold onto objective moral truths, but at the same time they want to reject the foundation for moral truth.

i ask is the world divided only between Christian and atheist? From whose world view does the atheist in Buddhaland borrow from?

If 1+1=2, the existence of god adds nothing to this. It is independent of gods. I don’t see how empirical facts help with the argument for existence of gods. Unless the apologist is able to demonstrate that the existence of god will change the value of 1+1, then using it as an argument to demonstrate the existence of god fails, unless I am missing something.

Thirty proofs that god exists

Before Ark asks, no I don’t follow these people.

Assuming for a split second that the god of the believer is an omni god,

2. The Teleological Argument (Design). The obvious design (complexity) of the world “proves” the existence of a “Designer.” Science has estimated that the odds that intelligent life exists on the Earth as the result of non-directed processes to be around: One in 102,000,000,000 [Cited in Gary Habermas and Mike Licona, The Case for the Resurrection, 2004, p. 179]

cannot hold because design involves elimination. The believer has claimed god spoke the world into existence. To believe in design would entail a contradiction ab initio.

This second proof is contradicted by our lived experiences

3. The Moral Argument. The existence of a universal morality among humans “proves” the existence of a universal “Lawgiver.” If the evolutionary worldview were true, we would be advanced animals acting on chemical impulses. Absolute moral standards would not exist. But they do exist!

This is special pleading

4. The cosmological argument. The principle of cause and effect “proves” the existence of an “uncaused Cause.”

This is just absurd

6. The Great Pyramid

This was covered on Nate’s blog a while back

9. The Shroud of Turin

It appears god, a loving all powerful god predicted the WTC bombing but did nothing to avert it.

10. America 9/11 terrorist attack predicted. The link between the 9/11 attack in America, and the attack on ancient Israel (Isaiah 9:10), is uncanny.

Nan, I don’t know how you will feel about this proof.

16. Donald Trump’s election and 7s. God’s hand was clearly present in Trump’s election. For example, he was 70 years, 7 months and 7 days old on his first full day as president of the United States, and he defeated Hillary Clinton by 77 electoral votes…etc.

John Z should tell us if any of the end time prophecies have been fulfilled

22. End-time prophecies fulfilled. Bible prophecy is a fantastic proof for God’s existence

For these and other jokes, go here

Everyone believes: No, you are mistaken!

While visiting my friend Violet’s blog, I came across a link by one pastor Miller who uses one of the very tired arguments theists are fond of using, that because everyone talks about gods, they must exist. On this, the pastor is very wrong and we are about to see why.

Before we look at the pastors tired arguments, it is important to remind the reader that the word god is born of ignorance and fear when early man didn’t know shit! The only explanation they had for phenomena was that a god was doing stuff, and if it was things they considered bad, they created bad spirits to be responsible. Gods are therefore creations of our ignorant ancestors.

The pastor starts by telling us

They start with the assumption that their listeners are objective and analytical and can be persuaded by facts.  I doubt this is true.

which I presume is a reference to atheists or other non-believers. To turn the point on its head, what facts have the pastor to offer, if any, that we could discuss on his god position. Yours truly, is patient, and will be waiting for the pastor to wow us, maybe a few of my atheist friends may just as well change their minds, who knows!

What does the good pastor state as evidence to support his position? Let’s hear it

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things..[Romans 1:18-23]

which is Paul’s threat to the unrighteous. Paul, tells us nothing about the nature of god, other than that he is invisible and eternal how comes to this conclusion is anyone’s guess. Two, for, Paul’s argument to hold, one has to believe that the universe and all that is in it was created by divine fiat, and further one has to believe that the christian god is real since Paul is not referring to any other god. So, pastor Miller and Paul can go ahead and call us fools, but they have not med the burden of proof. They have not shown us why the universe needed a creator and what creator? I would also want to hear from the pastor a description of his god which does not involve negative attributes such as perfection and that also do not involve anthropomorphism, and am patient!

If, until now, you haven’t realized the good pastor is up to something, don’t worry, we are about to unpack it. His next argument couched in many words goes

If God doesn’t exist, morality is at best a mistaken byproduct of blind evolution.

and continues to say

 It’s just strange to me that we act as though objective morals should exist, when a universe without God doesn’t require objective morality.

Our pastor, as is common of other apologists, doesn’t tell us what these objective morals are.  And why shouldn’t evolution or by extension, nature not be responsible for bringing into existence beings disposed in such away that they act in a specific way. Must gods be involved. And while still on this, has the good pastor heard of the Euthyphro dilemma? It appears to me, he hasn’t and need to educate himself.

His next argument is on whether we can know anything in a godless universe. This is what he writes

In a godless universe, everything is simply matter.  Everything is made up of colliding particles.  Our brains in our heads are just a collection of particles that have come to function in certain ways

and which I would want him to show us if this isn’t the case. I would want him to demonstrate how our brain is not matter or agitated by material things. I know our brains are capable of abstract thought, which I think are informed by material things or things of possible experience. I would want the pastor to tell us what he thinks brains are and to further tell us what thoughts are.

His last argument, is to claim that without a god, there would be no language and we wouldn’t be able to communicate with each other. He writes

 Again, a material universe with no guiding conscience would not necessitate that words  have meaning or that language is effective.

which is simply false. We have evolved in a certain way, with brains big enough to develop abstract thought and communicate our ideas with others. A god is not required in this case and the pastor must know this. Unless, the pastor is telling us that the claim in genesis is true, that is, that his god confounded the language of men so they couldn’t build the stairs to heaven. If this is the case, the pastor is a very funny person, and I mean this in all the good ways possible :-P.

In concluding his piece of trope, the pastor writes

That person is acting like God is there at exactly the moment she says he isn’t.

Which can be translated to mean that at the moment when you say there are no tooth fairies, they exist. I don’t know if the good pastor is ready to accept this, and if he isn’t then he must show us where the difference is between his argument and mine.

He writes as a closing statement

So ironically, the person who says “God does not exist” is actually proving that God does.

Which, yours truly, responds by saying no, we prove no such thing and goes further to say that whoever says a god exists is ignorant of nature and how it acts, in short he is a fool.

And that, my friends, is my submission!

Against all gods

Friends, for those of you who have read the God Delusion, there is the Dawkins spectrum of theistic probability where he says the existence of god is a scientific hypothesis like any other. It is the purpose of this post to argue against the existence of any god whatsoever and to remove the god talk from scientific realms to metaphysics where it rightly belongs. In order to do this, yours truly, first submits that the word god has not been properly defined. All attempts that have been made to define such being have been marred with contradictions on end.

The Catholic Encyclopedia gives the following definitions for god

  • the proper name of the one Supreme and Infinite Personal Being, the Creator and Ruler of the universe, to whom man owes obedience and worship;
  • the common or generic name of the several supposed beings to whom, in polytheistic religions, Divine attributes are ascribed and Divine worship rendered;
  • the name sometimes applied to an idol as the image or dwelling-place of a god.

And Wikipedia

God is often conceived as the supreme being and principal object of faith. In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe. In deism, God is the creator (but not the sustainer) of the universe. In pantheism, God is the universe itself. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God.

I hope that we can agree on the above definitions and if anyone has a definition or a conception of god not found above, feel free to include it in the comments and while at it, ensure there are no contradictions in that definition.

I posit that the god of philosophers and deists is based on human imagination and not grounded on reason. It is based on false ideas, the ideas that the universe has a cause, that it has a prime mover who could have set it in motion and no longer sustains it. This god, who many atheists and scientists say could exist, allows many apologists like Platinga, Swinburne and others to argue hours on end about the existence of god. Some silly person will come here and tell me that these are brilliant philosophers, I will say they are wrong. They have been misled by imagination. They have held that by man being able to imagine a god, a god must surely exist. I will ask only that they tell me the attributes of this god and next I will ask for them to show me why this god must exist.

It will also be mentioned that throughout the history of man, there has been talk of god. I will respond that in most of that period, majority of men have been ignorant, they have been guided by superstition and credulity. That priests, people who have an interest in the existence of god, have been their teachers, that monarchs have been urged by priests, imams and prophets to support the cause of priests in spreading superstition. They have benefited from this superstition and still continue to benefit from it as man is still mostly ignorant of his nature.

Man in wishing to live forever, to outlive his death, imagined an afterlife. This idea once thought from necessity to always be alive made man conceive of a soul, a thing which is simple, without extension, and without a prototype in reality that doesn’t get annihilated at the moment of death. Apologists and theologians have told us god is a simple being, without body, immutable, without extension and immaterial but that this being through an act of will caused the material universe to come into existence. I submit that this is also a result of ignorance.

To prove this, I would want you to take time, as long as you want, I will wait, to imagine creation of matter. It has been asked that from whence did nature gets its laws. I will say here that those who propose god don’t know and I also don’t know but I submit that if we continue to refer to nature and not superstition for answers, we will one day find out the truth about its immutable laws. Nature is necessary. It is indifferent to my existence or yours for that matter. It brings you to life and kills you in the same cycle as if killed the dinosaurs that it had brought about and that in some distant future, it will wipe away the human race.

I will still be asked what about the god of scriptures? To this I will simply say the scriptures are works of men, mostly ignorant about nature and their surrounding, a few insightful and forward-looking but no gods whatsoever. It will be seen from reading the scriptures that, their god and their wishes were always congruent and when they suffered they still thought their god was punishing them for disobedience and when they were obedient and they suffered, then their god was testing them. The priests, the Mohammeds, the Hindu priests and their courtiers found men ignorant. The threats of a deity endowed with powers that man would only wish for found an ally in whom they could enslave, control and lead the majority.

In conclusion, I submit that, god is a word without meaning, invented when man was ignorant, used by priests and monarchs to force men into submission, to control them and to enslave their minds. Further, the arguments for the existence of god, cannot in any way be evidence for the existence of a deity no matter how sound they are without first telling us what this god is. In order to convince me of the existence of a god, any god, I demand that a definition without contradictions be provided. I also demand to be shown why a god is necessary for man or for the universe. Until then, keep your chimeras to yourself.


Is the concept of god illogical

God is everywhere

This is our god

The invitation by Dorothy Hunt

A christian cliche

Reclaiming god

The long suffering love of god

Tell me about god

Religion: Existence of god

Gods for sale