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: 1285

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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.

this is similar to Dr Neil DeGrasse Tyson's argument on the concept of "stupid design"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4238NN8HMgQ

Here are some other questions along these lines...  If God is all-knowing and all-powerful then why..

 

1. If fundamentalist Christians are the only ones to go to heaven, why did he KNOWINGLY create so many beings that were doomed to hell-fire?

2.If God is more loving, more compassionate, more forgiving than any human being then why did he create a universe with a built-in demand for blood sacrifice?   Why did he create a universe that was punitive only.. instead of rehabilitative?  Why is it One and done for all eternity?  Seems like the Hindu version of god is much more fair and compassionate in this respect.

3. If Adam and Eve were truly innocent then why judge them so harshly?   especially if he already knew what they were going to do?

4.  If a perfect God makes imperfect beings.. doesn't that imply an imperfection in Him?  I mean if before anything else existed ... HE WAS...  Then where does imperfection come from?

There are just tons and tons of questions that nobody really has a decent answer.

Good summary.

These are persuasive reminders that xianity requires people to be uneducated or gullible. Thanx.

Makes sense to me.

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Forum

Science Isn't About Truth

Started by Ari E. S. in Philosophy. Last reply by Simon Paynton 1 hour ago. 8 Replies

Blog Posts

Dead man's Switch

Posted by Philip Jarrett on April 18, 2014 at 11:29pm 0 Comments

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service