http://www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm

An excellent article that uses simple, easy-to-understand logic to prove the non-existence of the Christian God. I found it to be highly informative. Enjoy .

The logic may be simple, but the terms require a great deal more subtlety than the arguments provide. Within a very specific, but limited, theological framework of reference, it does suggest there are inconsistencies, but it seems some of these are the result of comparing somewhat different dogmatic frameworks.
I think there are far stronger arguments for rejecting the sectarian dogmas derived from Old Testament interpretations. Certainly from an historical, a scientific, and textual analysis, the OT becomes a human and not a godly set of documents. And the truths found therein become poetical and human truths that are best taken as such.
Z

I read the article also, but I disagree with you. I'm not going to say whether or not I believe God exists, however, the article is ineffctive.

The logic he uses is most of the time incorrectly used. If you already have your opinion formed going into reading the article, it sounds wonderful, but if you actually look at what he's saying, then the logic he uses is illogical.

"God's creation was originally perfect, but humans, by disobeying him, brought imperfection into the world. "

God created human beings with free will, allowing imperfection to enter the universe, not because we disobey him.

"God gives humans the opportunity to accept forgiveness for their sin, and all who do will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven, but while they are on earth, they must suffer for his sake."

Again, not ture. We don't suffer for his sake. We're not forced to suffer. We suffer because human beings have free will.

"What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored?"

Or maybe in his perfection he sought to perfectly balance the universe, by creating those with imperfection.

"What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it."

If you're perfect, you can create whatever you want. There's nothing you can't do, because you're perfect.

"f God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness."

That doesn't make sense. If you were created like a robot, then you wouldn't be happy, because you would have no sadness to compare it to. If you're happy all the time, you wouldn't know what it means to be happy. It's not a rule that God made, it's just basic logic.

I don't want to make this too long, so I'll stop here, but the rest of the article can be completely argued just as the first part has. The author of the article uses flawed logic that can easily be argued. Really, there have been much smarter men and women for centuries debating this topic, and if they haven't been able to prove God's inexistance, then this author can't either.

When looking over the discrepancies in the Gospels section your author is using seperate occasions to make his points, how is that proving his point?

I have to agree with Z and Sphinx here, his reasoning is flawed.

I concur with your concurrence.




My Karma ran over your dogma.

I think the writer glosses over the problem of applying predicates derived from human experience to a term that by common agreement is supposedly completely outside human experience. All our ideas are derived from a study of Nature or Ourselves, and that is all that we can possibly know and understand; yet God is understood to be entirely different from either, and any terms or predicates must be therefore applied analogically. For example, what does it mean when one talks of "God's thoughts" or "God's will", when all we understand about what it means to think or to will is derived from the experienced world?

Logic can provide guarantees of the "truth" or falsity---more properly speaking, of the validity--- of deductions from a set of premises, but only if the premises and the terms therein have meaning and are univocal in nature. I would suggest that this is not the case in the arguments cited, where terms are too casually defined to be applicable.

I think Kant's conclusion is very profound, that when the understanding goes beyond possible knowledge, the results are antimonies, or opposites, that can be both proved true at the same time.
Z

This is slightly off-topic, but I don't understand something.

The title of the website being debated is evilbible. Now, whether or not you agree with what the Bible says actually happened is personal discretion, but I don't understand how someone can call it evil. It's trying to teach people about peace, love, goodwill, and how to be a better person. Regardless of whether or not you believe Jesus was the son of God, I think you should still take his lessons to heart.

I just don't get how people can call the Bible evil.

Well, Sphinx, there is another possible interpretation, which depends on the parts of the OT you choose to select, that certainly portrays God and some of the people he seems to like, as evil. One cannot think much of a god, for example, that wipes out all but a handful of humanity, drowning animals, grandparents, and very young babies just to prove a point. Again, there are passages in the Bible that seem to support the institution of slavery, although it does to its credit tell Simon Legree to be kind to them. And one would hardly desire an impressionable youngster to peruse the Song of Solomon, which is as lascivious as any love poetry. Especially in the OT, for every passage that discusses peace and love, there is a counter-example of God applauding the destruction of the enemies of his chosen people.

The conclusion to be drawn:- - - that depending on an interpretation that is a matter of choosing certain passages over others, one can make a moral judgment (and THIS judgment depends on a logically prior choice about what is right and wrong, or good and evil, true or false) that the "Bible is evil."
Z

People that do not believe in God seem to have this strong desire to try and prove the believers wrong. If someone chooses not to believe in God, then that their business. But it does not make you enlightened or smarter than those who do. The non believers want to be respected for their beliefs. Fine. But don't forget that is a 2 way street.

This post has been edited by Eric: Apr 25 2008, 11:43 AM

The God Squad, come banging on my door all the time,so being friendly, we are returning the favour,showing you the error of your ways. Don't forget it's a 2 way street.

Thank you .

And thank you for the comments everyone . And in my opinion, this author's logic makes about as much as or more sense than the logic in the Bible and behind the belief in God. Like the simple fact that Christians believe God is perfect, therefore how could God create something imperfect like us humans? Sure he gave us free will but why bother? This and many other things are discussed in the article. And you don't need complicated logic to make a good argument. Just some common sense and deducement of what God can and cannot do.

And you know, that is a very valid point. I don't like getting people banging on my door with the idea of "spreading their word". My beliefs are my own. I don't need someone coming to my home and trying to tell me theirs.

Solaris:

I can't argue with the author's logic. Then again, if I am to be honest, I must admit I have a real hard-on toward Evangelical Christians. This emanates from my college days in Georgia, my first experience with the Religious Right. Growing up in New York, religion was taken with a proverbial grain of salt.

But the Bible Belt has clearly earned its name. It seemed to me the fundamentalists just accepted what they were taught as children by the church and it's WMD, the Bible, at face value without any investigation. These people were (are) as convinced that their take on spirituality is right and the others in the world are flawed. Just as racism was passed down from generation to generation there, so has this ignorant religious dogma.

Even the Buddha encouraged his students not to accept what he taught without personal scrutiny and experience. He even conceded personal experience trumps all education and admitted one spiritual size doesn't fit all!


This post has been edited by political scribe: Apr 25 2008, 03:44 PM

If one believes that their is no God, then why waste so much time and effort in trying to prove the nonexistence of God? I don't necessarily believe in pink unicorns but I'm sure not going to go out of my way and waste time trying to convince everyone that they don't exist. Why bother? What's the purpose and what good does it do for the one who does try to disprove the existence of God? I also don't go around calling pink unicorns Bill or Jack or Jane, why attach a name (yaweh) to a nonexistent entity? Just a couple of observations.

By the way, the author does seem to have a problem with understanding the meaning of at least one word (and more I'm sure, this one just stands out), image. God never said let's create someone perfect in everyway as we are,you do notice that the author forgets in his studies of the "evil bible" that in Chapter 1 verse 26 it says "And God said, Let us(notice the plural)make man in our image.
The last time I checked an image was considered a likness or imitation of a form or person. He said nothing about instilling all of his attributes in man, therefore he never said nor claimed that man was perfect. It says he looked upon his creations and saw that they were "good", it never said perfect. Maybe they just wanted to tinker around with something imperfect. Afterall what fun would we be if we were perfect in everyway and never fouled up? Boring,boring,boring.
Now where do you suppose the author stables his "pink unicorn"?

It is one thing to say, "this is what I believe." One may believe all sorts of things, and some of the dogma of some of the Christian sects seem to me more superstition and ignor-ance than anything else, but certainly they have every right to follow their conscience and practice their religion (as long as their actions do not violate law). One accepts their account or one doesn't.

It is entirely another thing to add, "and this is why you should believe as I do" or more blatantly after a knock on the door, "and this is why I am right and going to heaven and you will not." This second step (and this applies to the opposite view as well) is one of persuasion, and hopefully one of argumentation and not of force broadly defined. By entering into a persuasive dialogue, their arguments (and their premises) are subject to the scrutiny of logic, definition, and compliance to the common understanding of what are "facts" or "interpretations" because one may question their warrants for their conclusions. By choosing to present reasons for a particular set of beliefs, they undertake to "play by the rules." And if they violate these rules, one has almost a duty to point it out.

Z