Has anyone heard an argument like this before? (I came up with it on the way to work.)

 

It is logically possible for God to have brought into being creatures that were infinite like himself.

 

Instead God chose to bring into being finite creatures (namely us).

 

God’s actions here are analogous to a human choosing to have a disabled child rather than a perfectly healthy child.*

 

A mortal parent who made such a choice would be acting immorally.

 

Therefore God, an infinite being, in choosing to bring into being finite beings is being analogously immoral.

 

Therefore God is not good.

 

(* For the analogy to work the human parent would have to be free to bring into existence a healthy fetus or an unhealthy fetus but chose the unhealthy one.)

 

What do you think? 

Views: 1337

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I agree, and this is the problem with most "atheist" arguments that pop up on this site.  "There is a god, and he is a jerk" is not an atheist stance.  It's trite to point out that kindness doesn't play a role in everything that happens when it can be argued that intelligence and willpower don't exist beyond material reality.

"There is a god, and he is a jerk" is not an atheist stance.

Of course it is not an atheist stance. Good thing when atheists use this kind of argument they tend to say "IF there is a god, he is a jerk."

And even more specifically, "IF there is a god as described in the Bible, then he is a jerk"

"There is a god, and he is a jerk" is not an atheist stance.

This is a valid and important point to make, and one that we don't articulate often enough. However, the understanding is that, when talking about what a jerk god is, we are showing that the God portrayed in the bible is self-contradictory. So it is an atheist argument in a roundabout way, since it indirectly undermines common Christian beliefs. I think that by not finishing this line of thinking and saying that it's simply more likely that God is make-believe, that we leave ourselves open to charges of being "just mad at God".

Why are you assigning a "good" or a "bad" to a non-existent delusion?

True enough, Bo, but why are we commenting on the Giant, when we know the Giant isn't true anyway?  Like who cares?

About the Giant? Probably very few people. But if there were a billion people who not only believed that the Giant was real, but also believed that they were supposed to emulate the Giant and act as he does, then it becomes important to point out that the Giant is bad and moreover, does not actually exist.

I see -- thanks for pointing that out.  Point taken.

Good - as I post this the number of views is 666. Here is an old post on "Smith's Wager" and if God is Just. It had some good replies but is a bit out of sync as some accounts were deleted.

Just got thru reading that whole "Smith's Wager" discussion back in 2010 - & now I'm tired.  An interesting discussion ---- but I never was good at math!

A very good argument and very good point. The entire concept of most concepts of a deity is purely illogical

-- it's as old as theology in the middle ages

God-meets-stone: God gets dethroned

Can a negative existential statement like -- God can not exist -- be proven true? Of course — happens all the time in science, mathematics, logic, and everyday use of language.

It is up to the person who claims to be talking about some god to supply also a coherent concept of god. The xian can not sling about the word ‘God’ without telling what concept he’s playing with. It’s at the boundaries of logic and rational discourse generally where negative existential claims go to die — there can not be an X which is like this.... Can God -- the all-powerful -- create a stone too heavy for him to lift?

• Under the guise of simple logic comes this dilemma from the middle ages. It destroys any concept of “God” as “Pantocrator” = the can-do-it-all ruler.

More, the simple looking dilemma destroys the xian (jewish, moslem) claim that a "negative existential statement about “God” can not be proven". The answer is “God does not exist” can be proven -- assuming, as xians (jews or moslems) do, that “God” has absolute attributes -- all-knowing, perfectly benevolent, or...

Q: Can God -- the all-powerful in this case -- create a stone too heavy for him to lift?

A. 1. If God can do so; then he is not all-powerful. 2. If God can not do so; then, likewise he is not all-powerful. Thus , God can not be all-powerful.

Why? An adjective-phrase ‘is too heavy to lift’ can not be used meaningfully in the absolute -- it must be limited to a definite context. In which case, God can not be all-powerful, not as a matter of fact. But as a matter of conceptual (linguistic) incoherence.

Amusingly, if you imagine that the phrase ‘all-powerful’ can be used absolutely without a context, you run up against the very same brick wall. The phrase ‘all-powerful’ is incoherent; it too must be contextually limited.

• The phrase ‘God-the-Almighty’ has crossed the border into linguistic incoherence. No matter how theologians wiggle, this God-concept ends up being incoherent. Xians fundamental dogma, the first of xian credal statements, the “godma” — “I believe in God the Father Almighty...” fails to make sense.

Can the existence of “God” be disproved -- that is, can a claim that ‘God exists’ be shown to be logically incoherent -- not just false, but necessarily false? It all depends upon what characteristics "God" supposedly has.

What concept of God will the true believer try to defend -- once known, it can be attacked. Sometimes “God” simply can not exist. The xian God can not exist.

RSS

Events

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service