Disproving the Christian God: It's Easy

[gomtuu77]

God is Omnipotent, which means that He can do anything that power can actually accomplish. There is no power that can accomplish a square-circle because it's a logical absurdity.

I've met lot of christians who say that god is not bound by logic any more than he is bound by the laws of physics.

Me too!  Just turn on the TV and you can see them almost every single day.  For the most part, these are people who do more harm than good when it comes to presenting their own faith because they have not learned to think carefully about their own faith in a skeptical culture that both expects and deserves a more thoughtful exposition of their faith than the warm fuzzy "Jesus loves you" God or the God of prosperity who stands ready to enable you to "live your best life now".  You can find a lot of Christians who will say all kinds of things that are false.  A lot of them are well meaning, but they are typically not deeply knowledgable or thoughtful in their presentation.  

I will say though, that throughout Christian history, the overwhelming vast majority of Christian Theologians have specifically not taken God's omnipotence to mean he could do things that were illogical, immoral, or in any way contrary to His nature.  They did not see this more precise definition of omnipotence as any kind of infringement upon the concept of omnipotence at all.  Pick up most Systematic Theology texts, and you will find that they do not view God's omnipotence as entailing or allowing for the accomplishment of absurdity in the form of violations of the laws of logic or His own nature.

[Colanth]

Just turn on the TV and you can see them almost every single day.  For the most part, these are people who do more harm than good when it comes to presenting their own faith because they have not learned to think carefully about their own faith in a skeptical culture that both expects and deserves a more thoughtful exposition of their faith than the warm fuzzy "Jesus loves you"

That describes all theists who haven't yet gone back to the atheism they were born into.  IOW, all of you.  (You still assume that your brand of Christianity is wrong, and all other brands have errors.  Surprise - they all say the same about your brand.  And, being the nice people we are, we don't disagree with any of you.)

You can find a lot of Christians who will say all kinds of things that are false.

Like "God exists" or "Jesus was a real person".

A lot of them are well meaning, but they are typically not deeply knowledgable or thoughtful

If they were they'd be atheists.

I will say though, that throughout Christian history, the overwhelming vast majority of Christian Theologians have specifically not taken God's omnipotence to mean he could do things that were illogical

Through most of Christian history, most Christian theologians weren't intelligent enough or well-educated enough to apply logical thought to the situation.

Pick up most Systematic Theology texts, and you will find that they do not view God's omnipotence as entailing or allowing for the accomplishment of absurdity in the form of violations of the laws of logic or His own nature.

And they miss the fact that an omnipotent god subject to logic is a logical absurdity.  And the converse fact that a god not subject to logic is impossible.  And that about includes the entire set.

[gomtuu77]

The problem with doing this is the christian concept of god literally changes from person to person. Do you expect us to go to the 6+ billion religious people on earth, find out exactly how they define 'their' god, then disprove it? I think not, how about you give us 0 anecdotes and some concrete evidence for what you're claiming your own personal god does (the god you share with no one else).

It's probably not that the concept itself is changing, but you're probably running into Christians who don't know enough about the concept or their own faith to properly explain and/or defend the concept to someone who has questions or misconceptions about what it means or how it can be made sense of.  But Christian ignorance, which is relatively widespread regarding issues of doctrine, doesn't give you a good basis for making a judgment about the veracity of the religion itself.  Levels of knowledge and devotion run the spectrum within every religion, including those who hold to more atheistic notions.  There are some really knowledgeable atheists, and there are some that have significantly less knowledge and aren't really capable of carrying on much of a conversation or adequately defending their points of view.  It just depends on who you run into.  If you're interested in particular concepts of Christianity, I would recommend the Systematic Theology text by either Wayne Grudem, which can often be found in Barnes & Noble, or the slightly less common 4 volume set Systematic Theology text done by Norman Geisler.  Those books will give you a lot of very specific detail.

You're right, the christian doesn't hold the contradictory position; until you interview christians individually, then the contradictions start pouring out. The devil is in the details and every christian will give you very different details about their personal god.

Yeah, you won't get any arguments from me.  I personally know Pastors who couldn't give you a good understanding and defense of this very concept, and it's primarily an issue of ignorance, environmental insulation, and a failure to cultivate an ability to thoughtfully present the truth about their own faith in ways that are truly helpful and meaningful to people who are genuinely skeptical and think more deeply than our pop culture mentality lends itself to.  Like I said, looking to individuals and seizing upon their varying levels of ignorance as a basis for making serious objections to the Christian faith probably isn't the best idea.  You're better off understanding that most people aren't going to be prepared to deal with questions and skepticism, often, even on very basic levels.  Usually, it's a better plan to seek out someone with a greater level of knowledge, check out genuine Theological and/or seminary level texts, and focus on what the sacred texts themselves and the example of its founder(s).  The mixed behavior and knowledge levels of all of the individual alleged adherents will probably only provide more confusion.

So if I told you I've met christians who have claimed this you would retract you're claim that christians don't contradict eachother?

Keep in mind that I said "Christianity doesn't hold that God can both be and not be...", I wasn't saying that you couldn't find a single or even man errant professing Christians that might say all kinds of crazy stuff that the religion of Christianity hasn't historically held to.  Christians do contradict each other all of the time.  I've never claimed otherwise.  But the existence of an ignorant Christian(s) who lacks knowledge and probably thoughtfulness does not constitute a useful objection to the religion itself.  You might be correct in coming up with a new objection like, "Most Christians are ignorant about their own faith" because that's likely to be true.

You keep saying 'we' but you really mean 'you' because you can't speak for all christians on Earth and most (or some) of them would disagree with you.

No, I keep saying 'we' because I know that the illogical and absurd position regarding God's omnipotence hasn't been the historic position of the Church over time, and having been a Christian for multiple decades, it hasn't been the position of knowledgeable or informed Christians that I've run into.  I've also never seen that position positively promoted in the multiple Systematic Theology texts that I either own or have perused over the years.  Lastly, that position doesn't fit with what the Christian scriptures actually teach.  The Bible is very clear when it says that God cannot sin, and it's also very clear that God is all-powerful.  If that is true, then it would be impossible for an informed Christian to hold to a position that did not adhere to those Biblical teachings.

Here's an example from a text that would have been used in a lot of Christian seminaries from the 1980's and into the 2000's.  The particular philosophy professor who wrote the text died in 2006.

...if there is anything to be learned from the classical Christian discussions of omnipotence, it is that omnipotence was always understood to be compatible with certain limitations upon God's power.  There are certain things that even an omnipotent God cannot do.

And of course, he goes on to discuss it further with a discussion of Aquinas and various other Christian thinkers throughout the ages.  The title of the book is The Concept of God: An Exploration of Contemporary Difficulties with the Attributes of God.  The author's name is Ronald H. Nash.

This is just more evidence that christians all believe in a different god, each god is personalized depending on the person. If you told those christian they were uninformed, you would quickly cause a lot of arguments. They would think you were uninformed because to them your personal god doesn't make sense.

Unlikely.  The existence of disagreement on the basis of ignorance or lack of thoughtfulness wouldn't mean that each person who differed believed in a different God anymore than a disagreement within a scientific field meant that they believed in an entirely different field of science.  Understanding, whether one is talking about scientific facts and theories or whether one is talking about God, comes over time.  Our understanding is refined over periods of time through various methods appropriate to each particular discipline.  Our theological understanding is more developed now than it was in the year 500 or 1,000 A.D. for example, but of course, we have a lot more questions to answer than they did in those days as well.  In any case, even though our understanding, for those who are genuinely informed, is better than it was; that doesn't mean that every or even most professed adherents of a particular faith have appropriately availed themselves of that understanding.

However, you are correct, in that there are those who believe enough different things that they would not be considered a genuine part of a particular faith.  When something goes from being in one category to another is probably a matter of debate, but it does occur.  For example, Mormons believe in an entirely different kind of God, and that human beings will one day become Gods.  They believe that God was a created being like human beings at one time.  This is so fundamentally different than the Christian belief, that informed Christians don't count Mormons as genuine Christians.  I hope that helps bring a little bit of clarity rather than more confusion.

[Icarus]

It's probably not that the concept itself is changing, but you're probably running into Christians who don't know enough about the concept or their own faith to properly explain and/or defend the concept to someone who has questions or misconceptions about what it means or how it can be made sense of.  But Christian ignorance, which is relatively widespread regarding issues of doctrine, doesn't give you a good basis for making a judgment about the veracity of the religion itself.  Levels of knowledge and devotion run the spectrum within every religion, including those who hold to more atheistic notions.  There are some really knowledgeable atheists, and there are some that have significantly less knowledge and aren't really capable of carrying on much of a conversation or adequately defending their points of view.  It just depends on who you run into.  If you're interested in particular concepts of Christianity, I would recommend the Systematic Theology text by either Wayne Grudem, which can often be found in Barnes & Noble, or the slightly less common 4 volume set Systematic Theology text done by Norman Geisler.  Those books will give you a lot of very specific detail.

You don't seem to get what religion is all about. Religion only exists in the minds of its believers, if no one believed religion would die (the written records would be put into archives). This means that the concept of god/gods in religion is decided by the masses, not a select few. You're trying to claim that you (and a select few) alone understand god, without providing any evidence on why you're any different from any other Christian. In everyone else's eyes, but your own, you are not special. You can't be any more knowledgeable than your Christian counterparts because you don't know how much of the information you have is actually correct, you read it and assumed it was correct for some reason. You recommended that book to me because the authors bias fits your own, but why is that book different than the thousands of others? Does the author use quantitative reproducible scientific experimentation to find answers?

Usually, it's a better plan to seek out someone with a greater level of knowledge, check out genuine Theological and/or seminary level texts, and focus on what the sacred texts themselves and the example of its founder(s).  The mixed behavior and knowledge levels of all of the individual alleged adherents will probably only provide more confusion.

The problem with this is you have to start with the base assumption that all the religious texts are true. If you've read the religious texts than you know for yourself how ridiculous that assumption is.

Keep in mind that I said "Christianity doesn't hold that God can both be and not be...", I wasn't saying that you couldn't find a single or even man errant professing Christians that might say all kinds of crazy stuff that the religion of Christianity hasn't historically held to.  Christians do contradict each other all of the time.  I've never claimed otherwise.  

But the existence of an ignorant Christian(s) who lacks knowledge and probably thoughtfulness does not constitute a useful objection to the religion itself.  You might be correct in coming up with a new objection like, "Most Christians are ignorant about their own faith" because that's likely to be true.

I separated these two because you start out doing really well until you fall into the same trap you fell into when you started your last post. Religious belief only exists in the minds of the masses so is dictated by the majority. Without anyone having any real evidence that's the only way people can agree on anything. The christian god will die when no humans believe in him anymore.

No, I keep saying 'we' because I know that the illogical and absurd position regarding God's omnipotence hasn't been the historic position of the Church over time, and having been a Christian for multiple decades, it hasn't been the position of knowledgeable or informed Christians that I've run into.  I've also never seen that position positively promoted in the multiple Systematic Theology texts that I either own or have perused over the years.  Lastly, that position doesn't fit with what the Christian scriptures actually teach.  The Bible is very clear when it says that God cannot sin, and it's also very clear that God is all-powerful.  If that is true, then it would be impossible for an informed Christian to hold to a position that did not adhere to those Biblical teachings.

Again, you incorrectly started searching for information is books you assume to be correct with 0 evidence. Christian scriptures teach "Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." -Matthew 19:21 so you're clearly not following the christian scriptures as you claim because you own a computer. You might try and say something like "Some of the teachings are metaphors" or something but is a personal choice you made to your personal god (not the christian one or you would have no money).

Unlikely.  The existence of disagreement on the basis of ignorance or lack of thoughtfulness wouldn't mean that each person who differed believed in a different God anymore than a disagreement within a scientific field meant that they believed in an entirely different field of science.  Understanding, whether one is talking about scientific facts and theories or whether one is talking about God, comes over time.  Our understanding is refined over periods of time through various methods appropriate to each particular discipline.  Our theological understanding is more developed now than it was in the year 500 or 1,000 A.D. for example, but of course, we have a lot more questions to answer than they did in those days as well.  In any case, even though our understanding, for those who are genuinely informed, is better than it was; that doesn't mean that every or even most professed adherents of a particular faith have appropriately availed themselves of that understanding.

You can't compare science and religion because every scientific fact has one or more experiments that could be conducted to validate that fact. In religion, all the 'facts' have been written in a book and if you question the book you go to hell. Very very different standards for information and what constitutes as evidence. Some aspects of science aren't as straight forward but they're always identified and confusion explained. As someone who is educated in a scientific field I find this part of your post rather disturbing: "Understanding, whether one is talking about scientific facts and theories or whether one is talking about God, comes over time.  Our understanding is refined over periods of time through various methods appropriate to each particular discipline."

Your comparison arrogantly assumes our fields of study are equal in some way. Science is refined through empirically proven and reproducible experimentation while religion is refined by "I read this and think this" with 0 evidence whatsoever. Go to a university around where you live, visit any science department (maybe not biology) and ask them to help you understand how much work goes into the scientific process.

[the_antithesis]

The word Omnipotence means all powerful, but what does that mean?  Does it actually mean God can do anything?

That's what the word means. It's a childish attribute to use, actually. It's a kind of one-upmanship. "My daddy can beat your daddy." "Oh yeah, well my daddy can beat all the daddies in the whole world."

Logically, the term doesn't make any sense. How do you determine if a god is all powerful? Seriously, how do you tell the difference between a being that is all powerful and one that is just very powerful? How do you test for that?

It's like how god is called "the most high" is a holdover from when Israel was polytheistic. Because that's a title that makes no sense unless there are other gods to be compared to.

No one finds your excuse that god is all powerful except cannot do things that are logically impossible to be satisfying. The problem is not us not accepting your redefinition of the word omnipotence, but that you insist on using the incorrect word and a word whose use you cannot defend.

[ApostateLois]

For example, can God exist and not exist at the same time? No, that's an absurdity.

 He is doing a fine job of not existing right now, so that's one half of the absurdity taken care of.
 

What if you were interested in human moral development over time through free will activities? Could not those be at least some reasons for apparent non-omniscience ?

  Being omniscent, God would already KNOW about human moral development over time. Remember, this is the entity who is supposed to know all and see all. He is supposed to grant prophesying abilities to people based on the fact that he knows what will happen in the future. I do not see why he has to pretend that he doesn't know stuff. That would mean that God is making himself out to be something that he is not--in other words, lying. Isn't lying a sin?
 

Could it be that God was regretting the creation of man because of man's behavior, rather than a mistake of His?

  If he is omniscent, then he KNEW that man was going to screw up in a huge way. But this passage--Genesis 6:6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.--shows that he was sorry he had created human beings. This indicates that he did NOT know what was about to transpire.  The early Hebrews seemed to have had no concept of an omniscient deity who literally knew every little detail of every person's life in the whole of history. That didn't come until much later, and Christians appropriated the idea for their own version of God.

The judge voluntarily offering to take the punishment you deserve....

Who in their right mind would think that this has anything to do with justice? If a man were to murder your child, and the judge offered to serve a life sentence in prison while letting the murderer go free, would you consider that fair or just? I should hope not, because the guy who committed the crime would be still free, while an innocent man would be in prison for no reason! If this makes no sense on a human level, why would I believe it is supposed to make sense on a spiritual level? Under NO circumstances do I consider it to be right, just, or fair for an innocent person to take the punishment of the guilty--not even if he does it voluntarily. I would consider such a man to be insane, and the insane are not capable of making decisions for themselves.
 

Because the people in Hell are receiving just punishment for crimes against an eternal God.

 No, they receiving an INFINITE punishment for a FINITE crime. Why would Christians think this is fair? When you punish your child for stealing candy, do you punish him every day for the rest of his life? No, you do it once and then it's over. Even for the most heinous crimes humans commit, life sentences usually are not given lightly (not in the States, anyway). But you would have us believe that for the "crime" of simply not believing in God--or not worshiping him the right way, or believing in the wrong god, or attending the wrong church, or whatever it is God hates so much--people deserve to be tortured for all of eternity. Where is the justice in that?

[Colanth]

If a man were to murder your child, and the judge offered to serve a life sentence in prison while letting the murderer go free, would you consider that fair or just? I should hope not, because the guy who committed the crime would be still free, while an innocent man would be in prison for no reason! If this makes no sense on a human level, why would I believe it is supposed to make sense on a spiritual level? Under NO circumstances do I consider it to be right, just, or fair for an innocent person to take the punishment of the guilty--not even if he does it voluntarily. I would consider such a man to be insane, and the insane are not capable of making decisions for themselves.

Even Psalm 49:7 agrees with this.  Christianity invented a savior who could violate this in order to have a reason for existence.  If Jesus couldn't pay for our sins, Judaism was just as good as Christianity, and wouldn't have lasted a month.

Because the people in Hell are receiving just punishment for crimes against an eternal God.

 No, they receiving an INFINITE punishment for a FINITE crime. Why would Christians think this is fair? When you punish your child for stealing candy, do you punish him every day for the rest of his life? No, you do it once and then it's over. Even for the most heinous crimes humans commit, life sentences usually are not given lightly (not in the States, anyway). But you would have us believe that for the "crime" of simply not believing in God--or not worshiping him the right way, or believing in the wrong god, or attending the wrong church, or whatever it is God hates so much--people deserve to be tortured for all of eternity. Where is the justice in that?

It's not even that.  Accepting Jesus as your savior kind of absolves you of the sin that you go to hell for if you don't accept him.  The actual sin is being born.  Or, more directly, being a descendent of Eve (or Adam, depending on whether or not you're a misogynist), who committed the sin.  So we're being asked to pay for Eve's (or Adam's) sin - again violating Psalm 49:7.

But that's not what their pastors tell them, and it's not what they need to be true, so to them it's not true.  Like kids sticking their fingers in their ears and refusing to hear what they don't like hearing.  Theists stick their religion in their ears.