Common argument for contradiction of God

[Jameson]

Hello to all. This is a common argument for the contradiction of God that I've read about. I'm curious to hear others' thoughts.

----------
Define God as all powerful, all knowing, and all loving.

Main premise: there is pain, suffering, and evil in the world (I'll refer to the premise as "these things")

1. If God was all powerful and all knowing, he would know of these things and be able to stop them. These things exist, therefore God is not all loving.

2. If God was all powerful and all loving, he would be able to stop these things and would want to. These things exist, therefore God is not all knowing.

3. If God was all knowing and all loving, he would know of these things and would want to stop them. These things exist, therefore God is not all powerful.

-------------------
I realize that those three statements over simplify a infinitely complex issue, but I still think they pose an interesting argument.

Post your thoughts,
Jameson

[Epsilon=One]

Hello to all. This is a common argument for the contradiction of God that I've read about. I'm curious to hear others' thoughts.

----------
Define God as all powerful, all knowing, and all loving.

Main premise: there is pain, suffering, and evil in the world (I'll refer to the premise as "these things")

1. If God was all powerful and all knowing, he would know of these things and be able to stop them. These things exist, therefore God is not all loving.

2. If God was all powerful and all loving, he would be able to stop these things and would want to. These things exist, therefore God is not all knowing.

3. If God was all knowing and all loving, he would know of these things and would want to stop them. These things exist, therefore God is not all powerful.

-------------------
I realize that those three statements over simplify a infinitely complex issue, but I still think they pose an interesting argument.

Post your thoughts,
Jameson

God cannot be: all knowing and all loving; such are anthropic qualities.

Before seriously discussing god/God, a definition must be established for the term as the word carries many connotations to many persons.

First I suggest dropping the capital “G”, in all instances, for simplicity and to remove the reverence, which makes the topic difficult to straightforwardly (head unbowed) discuss for many.

Most religions, which seem to have appropriated the concept for their own, from the science/philosophy crowd, which was once united in a single discipline of knowledge, cannot agree on a common god; or if that, who that common god may be.

Therefore, “god” has too much baggage (connotations) for a general consensus; so, another word will be selected . . . Oneness (capitalized to indicate a special meaning; as per this discussion). Oneness is a word used throughout all major religions and most all other religions as well. See:

Oneness
Great Principles Shared by All Religions
Jeffrey Moses, 1989
With an Introduction and
Special Prayer from
Mother Teresa
A Fawcett Columbine Book.
Now, the nature of Oneness is in much dispute; however, there is much agreement on the fact that Oneness (whatever that may be) can be considered as the creator. Particularly, as there is much that exists; and, no one seems to know: How? Or Why? One could almost say that because of the lack of intelligent understanding that the nature of Oneness borders upon the metaphysical.

Another obvious characteristic of Oneness, as the creator, is that Oneness can have no anthropic qualities.

Anthropoids are the most evolved phenomenon known; creation is at the beginning of evolution; thus, nothing can be more different. Indeed! . . . Oneness with any anthropoidal qualities could be said to be quintessential blaspheme. Besides, who can imagine a man-like creature, bare-handed, shaping the Cosmos, raising the mountains, or tweaking subatomic particles?

Oneness pertaining to “one” has much symbolic meaning.

One and Zero are singular among the integers. One and Zero often symbolize the duality of Infinity . . . the infinite and the infinitesimal. Thus, Oneness has connotations of the metaphysical; as there are many knowledgeable persons that so think of infinity.

And, observation (“dark” energy) seems to confirm that creation may well emanate from Infinity.

And physicists, for the most part, concur that creation began with a burst of cataclysmic energy, a singularity, (they are wrong on thr former count), the Big Bang. Regardless, it should be easy to agree: 1.) That god, Oneness, and Infinity are singularities; and, 2.) That there can be only one singularity (by definition).

Aside: Atheists have a difficult case to prove. It is not easy to prove a negative. Particularly, when there is abundant evidence that something has been created.

To summarize. Oneness has no anthropic qualities; Oneness is a singularity; and, Nature provides the evidence of Oneness as creations (manifestations) that do exist.

[Jameson]

God cannot be: all knowing and all loving; such are anthropic qualities.


That is a very absolute statement. One of the core beliefs in Christianity is that we as humans are created in God's image, therefore sharing many of his qualities. There are many references in the Bible about love and knowledge.

I chose to use the capital "G" to denote the Christian God. I would gladly discuss all of the different concepts of God, but for this particular thread I chose that one to simplify things.

Another obvious characteristic of Oneness, as the creator, is that Oneness can have no anthropic qualities. Anthropoids are the most evolved phenomenon known; creation is at the beginning of evolution; thus, nothing can be more different. Indeed! . . . Oneness with any anthropoidal qualities could be said to be quintessential blaspheme. Besides, who can imagine a man-like creature, bare-handed, shaping the Cosmos, raising the mountains, or tweaking subatomic particles?

I just don't see this as a proof that the Oneness or God cannot have human like qualities. Just because you cannot imagine it does not mean it isn't true.

Aside: Atheists have a difficult case to prove. It is not easy to prove a negative. Particularly, when there is abundant evidence that something has been created.

I disagree with this. Do you go about believing everything until someone tells you otherwise? If I told you that there were unicorns, would you believe me? Probably not. I think you would think I was crazy and then only believe if I could prove it to you, one way or another. I look at the concept of God like this. It is a commonly accepted claim, but it very extraordinary. I think the job lies in the theists to prove God exists, not in the hands of the atheists to prove God doesn't.

Hope to continue this good discussion,
Jameson

[Epsilon=One]

That is a very absolute statement. One of the core beliefs in Christianity is that we as humans are created in God's image, therefore sharing many of his qualities. There are many references in the Bible about love and knowledge.
I, with most of the rest of the world, am not a Christian.

That said; the amalgam that is Jesus Christ is one of my few heroes, along with, just to mention a few, in no particular order: Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, Fibonacci, Gutenburg, Euclid, Voltaire, Toussaint L'Ouverture, everyone who has ever asked "Why?," Veblen, the American indians, the framers of the U.S. Constitution. The list is small; yet, I'm sure I forgot someone.

I don't doubt that we are created in god's image. I just don't believe that which we are created from has any large-scale anthropic qualities. Can one say that the subatomic manifestations (tangled waves) that fundamentally constitute a person have all-knowing anthropic qualities?
I chose to use the capital "G" to denote the Christian God. I would gladly discuss all of the different concepts of God, but for this particular thread I chose that one to simplify things.
If anything, there is nothing simple about the confusing Christian god. This is the same god as the god worshipped by the Jews and Muslims, which everyone is killing each other in the name of. No one can even agree if a man can possibly be this god; not to mention other, often, members of a trinity; plus a few special hangers-on.

Who side has this god been on for the last few thousand years of various torture and killing beween the faithful?

How far has the Christian god set man's progress back during the Dark Ages, mathematics and physics still suffers from the loss of some of Euclid's books. Euclid certainly understood the unique geometry of the ellipse, which to this day has alluded mathematicians. Physics' paradigms are disasters because no one properly accounts for the primacy of elliptical structures.

It is the ellipse which is at the heart of all sinusoidal motion. Imagine, the mistakes in the theory of light and Cosmic evolution that have skewed all physics' theory because of the influence of the amalgum Christian god. Or perhaps, as I would like to think, the fault does not lie with god; but, with man, who has contrived false gods so as to manipulate those that can be manipulated because they don't understand Natural law.

Also, The Christian god is a poor god to pick for discussion as the majority of persons do not believe in this god. Are the Mormons and Catholics Christian? How about the "born-again" fundamentalists. What would Emerson have to say about this state of affairs?

If their can be only one god; and that's how it is; as certainly, god qualifies as a singularity; then I suggest all gods of organized religions are false gods.

Regarding organized religion: No man can come between another man and his god.
I just don't see this as a proof that the Oneness or God cannot have human like qualities. Just because you cannot imagine it does not mean it isn't true.
I define god as that which creates. Anthropic qualities are well down the line of evolution; particularly, when we are discussing the Cosmos.

I put my faith in rational logic and IPSO. I believe that Science, Theology, and Philosophy are one. It is hard to reconcile your god with all these disciplines.
Originally Posted by Epsilon=One
Aside: Atheists have a difficult case to prove. It is not easy to prove a negative. Particularly, when there is abundant evidence that something has been created.
I disagree with this. Do you go about believing everything until someone tells you otherwise? If I told you that there were unicorns, would you believe me? Probably not. I think you would think I was crazy and then only believe if I could prove it to you, one way or another.
I can't follow your above reasoning regarding my above comment.
I look at the concept of God like this. It is a commonly accepted claim, but it very extraordinary. I think the job lies in the theists to prove God exists, not in the hands of the atheists to prove God doesn't.
I agree! See: Proof of God (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?p=319#post319)
Hope to continue this good discussion,
Jameson
I wish all physicists and theologians would have the strength to pursue as you do.

The following reminds me of scientists willing to debate theology and vice versa.

It was written for Hugh Ross (http://www.reasons.org/about/staff/ross.shtml#education), charlatan, in response to many debates at Caltech alumni club.

Your argument avoids the issue.

Ostriches stick their heads in the
sand to avoid the unpleasant.

Not so, sentient human beings.

-Brunardot
February 6, 2000

[Jameson]

Thank you for your response. There's a lot to cover, so if I miss something, forgive me and I'll come back and fix it.

I, with most of the rest of the world, am not a Christian.

Yes, I agree with this. I believe one-third of the world claims to be Christian. I as well am not one of these people.

I don't doubt that we are created in god's image. I just don't believe that which we are created from has any large-scale anthropic qualities. Can one say that the subatomic manifestations (tangled waves) that fundamentally constitute a person have all-knowing anthropic qualities?


I think I'll need some clarification on what you're saying, so I don't assume too much about what I thought you said. Are you defining a human as a compilation of subatomic manifestations? Do you believe there is more to us than that, for instance, some kind of soul?

If anything, there is nothing simple about the confusing Christian god. This is the same god as the god worshipped by the Jews and Muslims, which everyone is killing each other in the name of. No one can even agree if a man can possibly be this god; not to mention other, often, members of a trinity; plus a few special hangers-on.

I too find the Christian God confusing. However, my inability to comprehend the concept of that God does not make it any more or less valid. Neither does the fact that people kill in the name of this concept.

Also, The Christian god is a poor god to pick for discussion as the majority of persons do not believe in this god. Are the Mormons and Catholics Christian? How about the "born-again" fundamentalists. What would Emerson have to say about this state of affairs?


I have not found two people who completely agree on the concept of God completely, and for this reason in my original post I gave a short, simple definition of God to base the discussion on. I agree, the Catholics associate different things with God than Mormons, same with Methodists versus Baptists.

If their can be only one god; and that's how it is; as certainly, god qualifies as a singularity; then I suggest all gods of organized religions are false gods.

Why are those gods false ones? I don't see the logic there.

I define god as that which creates. Anthropic qualities are well down the line of evolution; particularly, when we are discussing the Cosmos.

First, let me say, I like your definition of God. Short and to the point. But are you saying that this Oneness evolves? Is this oneness conscious? Can you expand on this a little more please?

I can't follow your above reasoning regarding my above comment.

Sorry, that was hard to follow. I was using unicorns as an example of an extraordinary claim. It's my job to prove to you that they exist, not your job to prove that they don't.

I think that's all for now! Thanks for replying!

Jameson

[Epsilon=One]

Thank you for your response. There's a lot to cover, so if I miss something, forgive me and I'll come back and fix it.
I do understand. :)

Yes, I agree with this. I believe one-third of the world claims to be Christian. I as well am not one of these people.

As long as you don't proslytize, are tolerant, and don't foist your beliefs on others, I can accept this.

I think I'll need some clarification on what you're saying, so I don't assume too much about what I thought you said. Are you defining a human as a compilation of subatomic manifestations? Do you believe there is more to us than that, for instance, some kind of soul?

Yes. And, No. I can only depend on philosophic logic, scientific method, and observation. I take great effort to remove all faith from my beliefs.

I too find the Christian God confusing. However, my inability to comprehend the concept of that God does not make it any more or less valid. Neither does the fact that people kill in the name of this concept.
This is most likely because theoretical physocists have not given you a strong enough reason to think otherwise.

I have not found two people who completely agree on the concept of God completely, and for this reason in my original post I gave a short, simple definition of God to base the discussion on. I agree, the Catholics associate different things with God than Mormons, same with Methodists versus Baptists.
Yes. And you could continue on ad infinitum. Thus, I can trust no organized religion; though, the Buddhists, Jews, and ancients have some good approachs.

Why are those gods false ones? I don't see the logic there.
There can only be one god . . . a singularity; logically all others must be false.

First, let me say, I like your definition of God. Short and to the point. But are you saying that this Oneness evolves? Is this oneness conscious? Can you expand on this a little more please?

Yes; Oneness, the singularity, evoles through the Unified Concept (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=119) to all phenomena.

Oneness can not have Consciousness. Consciousness is a manifestation of Life (CASA (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=149)) which, evolutionarly, is far from the sigularity that by definition can have no Design.

Sorry, that was hard to follow. I was using unicorns as an example of an extraordinary claim. It's my job to prove to you that they exist, not your job to prove that they don't.

I consider my primary job to prove anthropic gods do not exist. However, I believe in god more than anyone else that I have ever known of.

I think that's all for now! Thanks for replying!

Jameson
Thank you! I get lonely out here. :)

[Jameson]

Thank you for your prompt response.

As long as you don't proslytize, are tolerant, and don't foist your beliefs on others, I can accept this.


I hope I don't do any of these things, except be tolerant. I just wanted to clarify though, that I was saying that I am not Christian. I'm sure you got that, I just don't want to say something that's false.

Yes. And, No. I can only depend on philosophic logic, scientific method, and observation. I take great effort too remove all faith from my beliefs.


Oh, faith. What a wonderful topic to discuss. I can start another thread here to discuss it if you are willing. But back to the matter at hand.

You said in an earlier post that "I just don't believe that which we are created from has any large-scale anthropic qualities." Do you believe that our creator, the Oneness, has the qualities of "philisophical logic, scientific method, and observation"? Would you say that those three qualities, or processes, define you completely or partially? More to the point, what separates us as humans from the Oneness?

Yes. And you could continue on ad infinitum. Thus, I can trust no organized religion; though, the Buddhists, Jews, and ancients have some good approachs.

Does this mean you do not believe in any organized religion's god because there is not a general consensus? That seems like the reverse of argumentum ad populum.

Yes; Oneness, the singularity, evoles through the Unified Concept to all phenomena.

I cannot really discuss the Unified Concept to which you refer until the post is completed, but I'll take a moment to talk about the Oneness evolving. Is this a Darwinistic kind of evolution? Going from basic to more complex? Or is it more of a constant change? Did the Oneness have a beginning?

I consider my primary job to prove anthropic gods do not exist. However, I believe in god more than anyone else that I have ever known of.

I look foward to this. Since you say that you rely on faith as little as possible, than your strong belief in God is solely due to logic and philosophical reason, correct?

Thank you! I get lonely out here.

I hope that changes soon. I'm trying all the time to get more members. But until then, I'm rather enjoying this. :D

Jameson

[Epsilon=One]

I hope I don't do any of these things, except be tolerant. I just wanted to clarify though, that I was saying that I am not Christian. I'm sure you got that, I just don't want to say something that's false.

I did miss that. Unless you correct me; I am now assuming that you are not Christian . . . at least in spirit. If such is the case you will save me much grief and this Thread should proceed more rationally

Oh, faith. What a wonderful topic to discuss. I can start another thread here to discuss it if you are willing.

Go to it. Start it generically; I’ll probably switch it to secular faith. You might start it with something like: How much faith should a physicist properly have?

You said in an earlier post that "I just don't believe that which we are created from has any large-scale anthropic qualities." Do you believe that our creator, the Oneness, has the qualities of "philisophical logic, scientific method, and observation"?

No. I refer to those qualities as “Design.” Oneness, god, is without design. Design is a quality of Life; and most likely, only “higher” life.

Would you say that those three qualities, or processes, define you completely or partially? More to the point, what separates us as humans from the Oneness?

We are separated by 14 billion, raised to infinitely-high exponents, years of evolution. However, yet, the “essence” of Oneness is found within every fundamental manifestation that exists. And, I am created from these fundamental manifestations...

Does this mean you do not believe in any organized religion's god because there is not a general consensus? That seems like the reverse of argumentum ad populum.

I believe in no organized religion’s (including academic, theoretical physics) god because as long as no one understands the geometry of that which creates everything they cannot understand god.

I cannot really discuss the Unified Concept to which you refer until the post is completed,

Fair enough. I am up to my ass in alligators. Most of tomorrow is battles with government agencies so that I can continue to function. Tonight is finding time to post Taisoids (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=102) and “dark” matter and energy.

Please respond with a query concerning any Thread or post that is not completed, I will reprioritize to where there is interest.

Unified Concept (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=119) is noted. This is where I started with Philip Morrison in 1955. He insisted on Einstein’s "unified field theory" as the concept. I said no; because, I felt the fields were contrived. He told me to take it up with Einstein; and, I did . . . and, Oppenheimer's small mind got involved (sorry about the emotion).

but I'll take a moment to talk about the Oneness evolving. Is this a Darwinistic kind of evolution? Going from basic to more complex? Or is it more of a constant change? Did the Oneness have a beginning?

The evolution is actually cyclic through the four Realms of Reality (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=130); thus there is actually no beginning (this can be as confusing and counter-intuitive as was relativity in the '20s). The evolution involves coalescence, propagation, compression, and dissipation . . . ad infinitum.

Oneness is analogous to Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109), which few persons properly understand; thus: No beginning . . . nor end.

I look foward to this.

I too, as your questions are cogent and probing.


Since you say that you rely on faith as little as possible, than your strong belief in God is solely due to logic and philosophical reason, correct?

Correct. The goal of all learning (knowledge, wisdom), aside from, the unification of Science, Theology, and Philosophy, should be to minimalize faith, both religious and secular.

I hope that changes soon. I'm trying all the time to get more members. But until then, I'm rather enjoying this. :D

I too. You have built the field . . . they will come.

I was only teasing; about the lonliness; I have known much more in the Halls of Academe :)

[phil27of79]

If/then statements can work.
If God created the universe, then God would be above the universe.
If God baby proofed the world, then we would still be babies.

If all we see of ghosts is electromagnetic disturbances, then the spirit must be an energy independent of matter, but merely charges matter. An idea like that would completely rewrite psychology.

[Epsilon=One]

If/then statements can work.
If God created the universe, then God would be above the universe.
If God baby proofed the world, then we would still be babies.

If all we see of ghosts is electromagnetic disturbances, then the spirit must be an energy independent of matter, but merely charges matter. An idea like that would completely rewrite psychology."If/then statements" are subject to all the inherent inaccuracies of those who formulate them.

Your contentions are babble without any redeeming meaning until you define your terms.

[phil27of79]

Well I thought they were self evident

If God created the universe. Then God exsisted before the universe. Thus is independent of universal things. Unless God changed old energy into new energy, and thus changed God.

If God baby proofed the world. Then people would have no motivation to rise above being babies. Unless God taught us about it, with a instruction manual that grew on certain trees. But then I guess we'd be snobby babies.

If all we see of ghosts are electromagnetic disturbances, then the spirit must be an energy independent of matter we know, but merely charges matter. Unless a residual charge floats through the air and has a life of its own.

[Epsilon=One]

Well I thought they were self evidentThe definitions of your terms certainly are not self-evident. The word “God” has different connotations for almost every person.

Other words that you use, I suspect, have different connotations than what you perceive them to mean; such as: “universe,” “existed,” “ghosts,” “electromagnetic,” “spirit,” “energy,” “matter,” etc.

If God created the universe. Then God exsisted before the universe. Thus is independent of universal things. Unless God changed old energy into new energy, and thus changed God.Your assumption that there was something “before” the universe is false. (Of course, depending upon how you define “universe.”)

If God baby proofed the world. Then people would have no motivation to rise above being babies. Unless God taught us about it, with a instruction manual that grew on certain trees. But then I guess we'd be snobby babies.Argument by anecdote and analogy is weak and almost always meaningless.

If all we see of ghosts are electromagnetic disturbances, then the spirit must be an energy independent of matter we know, but merely charges matter. Unless a residual charge floats through the air and has a life of its own.Nonsensical babble.

[chrisforbes]

How easy is it for us to understand a higher purpose in our own world.

I want this
I want that
Why did this happen
Why didn't that happen

If the world was fair the genocide that happens in africa wouldn't happen. In the old testament God was a pretty ruthless dude. Mother nature is pretty reuthless to. A lion is a ruthless animal so is a tiger. An Elephant is a big beast so in the animal kingdom it is left alone. A bit like a whale in the ocean.

My point is life is not fair, we have too much need to rationalise things and blame things on the other guy. In my view there is not a god up there that deals with justice, that's up to us to sort it out, we might get it wrong we might get it right. It is up to us to sort it out. All is I can do in this life is be a good person and share my wisdom and philosophy. If that helps me out in another world beyond this one then so be it, if not I was still a good guy. Either way I am happy. Don't blame god, he has nothing to do with it. It is up to us!!

[Munigas]

As an unreformed atheist, agnostic, whatever term fits, Im of the opinion that all these amazing, efficient systems and subsystems work so well not because of the hand of god or any ID input, but because due to the mind numbing span of time since the first primordial life giving soup, the stuff that works now does so because the crap that didnt work has either been phased out think appendix and coccyx or the line died out. The reign of h. erectus on this planet is but a blink of an eye in the timeline of the planet. Im convinced that man is so unable to get his head around the concept of hundreds of millions or even billions of years of change and trying this out, discarding that, morphing into whatever, that he comes up with religion and religion lite stuff like ID because it aint as scary and unfathomable as the alternative.

Were here for 60 to 80 years and its over. Thats our frame of reference.
The march of time is the ultimate form of patience, and rearranging a cell here, or a helix of DNA there to effect an evolutionary change, to make it work, is the march of times version of a blink of an eye.

[rickysymo]

I would say that the belief in god is something widely-accepted, especially that of christians and catholics, however, can one considered this as knowledge? They say that for a statement to be considered knowledgeable it has to be a justified true belief. God's existence, though some believe it to be true, cannot be justified by any other means. Not even the bible which is very subjective.