Post by wekle on Jun 29, 2011 3:37:13 GMT
Hello to everyone,
I am new to this forum. I'm not that good at philosophy (I recently converted so I have a lot of ground to cover) so I thought perhaps someone here would be willing to help me with some problems I ran into today on an atheist site. The site is called "evilbible.com", and it has a mini-essay entitled "God is Impossible".
Here is the link to the essay - www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm
Not all of the issue in there worry me.
I'll get straight to the point and name the issue that do worry me. I will also include quotations so that you don't have to check out the page for yourselves unless you really want to:
1. A perfect God would not need to create anything.
QUOTE: "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? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete--it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible."
This one seems sort of difficult to debunk because I too can't comprehend why something that is perfect would have any need to create something. Also, the issue of what exactly God was doing before He created us also intrigues me, but I don't think it necessarily has to be a point that disproves God.
2. We are not perfect, so we could not have been created by a perfect God.
QUOTE: "But, for the sake of argument, let's continue. Let us suppose that this perfect God did create the universe. Humans were the crown of his creation, since they were created in God's image and have the ability to make decisions. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God.
What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, and yet this "perfect" God created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans. The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible. "
Ignoring biblical doctrine for a moment, I am not really sure why a perfect God can't create something imperfect as long the imperfection is somehow part of the overall plan for creation. Does anyone disagree? Perhaps the "imperfection" of something is actually "perfect" in God's eyes as it is part of the overall reason for the creation in the first place (perhaps this "imperfection" serves a purpose --- not that I'm saying Adam and Eve were not perfect). I hope this makes sense, though I'm having a hard type putting it into writing. What I'm trying to say is, yes, we humans probably could have been made "better" in a lot of ways. Same with the animals. I think the error the atheists are making is that they assume that each individual thing that God created must be "perfect" by some sort of standard that they have yet to really define. Let's say we're supposed to be perfect intellectually, yes, we could have been made smarter probably (not that I'm complaining, not at all). But, I would instead argue that it's God's PLAN for His creation that matters most. As long as God's reasons for creating everything are "perfect" (perfectly moral, intelligent? I'm not sure what they even mean by "perfect"!), it doesn't matter if we could be "improved". All that matters is that we fit in PERFECTLY into God's PERFECT PLAN for creation. What do you guys think? Agree, disagree?
3. The free will argument is not good enough.
QUOTE: "The Christians' objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.
Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If 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. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.
Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.
Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?
The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator."
Now, in my opinion, we weren't given free will to "make us happy", I thought free will was given to us so we have the option of following God or not. Therefore, I actually happen to agree with the point being made here to some extent. God could have wired our brains so no matter what happens, we're happy. I never heard the free will argument being used for happiness, only for the ability to make a moral choice.
I'm not sure why God can't create perfect beings (what exactly do these people mean by perfect, anyway???) that can ruin their own happiness.
4. I'll give the quote directly, since this point is short: "A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient God who is all-powerful and freewilled is impossible."
I'm not sure why either of the two sentences should be true. If God knows the future, why couldn't He stop it? I don't get that. Also, does anyone know why someone would claim that being omnipotent, omniscient, and free willed is impossible? I've heard this argument before, at least with regards to the incompatibility of omniscience and omnipotence.
5. Last but not least, it says God can't even feel emotions.
QUOTE: "A God who knows everything cannot have emotions. The Bible says that God experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger, sadness, and happiness. We humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. A man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. In contrast, the omniscient God is ignorant of nothing. Nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may emotively react.
We humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. The perfect, omnipotent God, however, can fix anything. Humans experience longing for things we lack. The perfect God lacks nothing. An omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect God who experiences emotion is impossible."
I'm not sold on this one either. For example, God could simply have emotions about an issue no matter if it comes up or not. God can be disgusted at sin even if it doesn't occur, He can be disgusted in His mind. God can love righteousness simply because it's in His nature to love it, not because it occurs so He has to react to it.
I've tried to offer my responses to these issues. But maybe there's something more to them, I don't know, like I said, I'm not that experienced in philosophical debates.
Thank you to anyone who responds.
-D
I am new to this forum. I'm not that good at philosophy (I recently converted so I have a lot of ground to cover) so I thought perhaps someone here would be willing to help me with some problems I ran into today on an atheist site. The site is called "evilbible.com", and it has a mini-essay entitled "God is Impossible".
Here is the link to the essay - www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm
Not all of the issue in there worry me.
I'll get straight to the point and name the issue that do worry me. I will also include quotations so that you don't have to check out the page for yourselves unless you really want to:
1. A perfect God would not need to create anything.
QUOTE: "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? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete--it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible."
This one seems sort of difficult to debunk because I too can't comprehend why something that is perfect would have any need to create something. Also, the issue of what exactly God was doing before He created us also intrigues me, but I don't think it necessarily has to be a point that disproves God.
2. We are not perfect, so we could not have been created by a perfect God.
QUOTE: "But, for the sake of argument, let's continue. Let us suppose that this perfect God did create the universe. Humans were the crown of his creation, since they were created in God's image and have the ability to make decisions. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God.
What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, and yet this "perfect" God created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans. The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible. "
Ignoring biblical doctrine for a moment, I am not really sure why a perfect God can't create something imperfect as long the imperfection is somehow part of the overall plan for creation. Does anyone disagree? Perhaps the "imperfection" of something is actually "perfect" in God's eyes as it is part of the overall reason for the creation in the first place (perhaps this "imperfection" serves a purpose --- not that I'm saying Adam and Eve were not perfect). I hope this makes sense, though I'm having a hard type putting it into writing. What I'm trying to say is, yes, we humans probably could have been made "better" in a lot of ways. Same with the animals. I think the error the atheists are making is that they assume that each individual thing that God created must be "perfect" by some sort of standard that they have yet to really define. Let's say we're supposed to be perfect intellectually, yes, we could have been made smarter probably (not that I'm complaining, not at all). But, I would instead argue that it's God's PLAN for His creation that matters most. As long as God's reasons for creating everything are "perfect" (perfectly moral, intelligent? I'm not sure what they even mean by "perfect"!), it doesn't matter if we could be "improved". All that matters is that we fit in PERFECTLY into God's PERFECT PLAN for creation. What do you guys think? Agree, disagree?
3. The free will argument is not good enough.
QUOTE: "The Christians' objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.
Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If 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. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.
Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.
Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?
The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator."
Now, in my opinion, we weren't given free will to "make us happy", I thought free will was given to us so we have the option of following God or not. Therefore, I actually happen to agree with the point being made here to some extent. God could have wired our brains so no matter what happens, we're happy. I never heard the free will argument being used for happiness, only for the ability to make a moral choice.
I'm not sure why God can't create perfect beings (what exactly do these people mean by perfect, anyway???) that can ruin their own happiness.
4. I'll give the quote directly, since this point is short: "A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient God who is all-powerful and freewilled is impossible."
I'm not sure why either of the two sentences should be true. If God knows the future, why couldn't He stop it? I don't get that. Also, does anyone know why someone would claim that being omnipotent, omniscient, and free willed is impossible? I've heard this argument before, at least with regards to the incompatibility of omniscience and omnipotence.
5. Last but not least, it says God can't even feel emotions.
QUOTE: "A God who knows everything cannot have emotions. The Bible says that God experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger, sadness, and happiness. We humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. A man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. In contrast, the omniscient God is ignorant of nothing. Nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may emotively react.
We humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. The perfect, omnipotent God, however, can fix anything. Humans experience longing for things we lack. The perfect God lacks nothing. An omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect God who experiences emotion is impossible."
I'm not sold on this one either. For example, God could simply have emotions about an issue no matter if it comes up or not. God can be disgusted at sin even if it doesn't occur, He can be disgusted in His mind. God can love righteousness simply because it's in His nature to love it, not because it occurs so He has to react to it.
I've tried to offer my responses to these issues. But maybe there's something more to them, I don't know, like I said, I'm not that experienced in philosophical debates.
Thank you to anyone who responds.
-D
