Does anyone have a strong argument against God?

[silux]

All what is rational has his god.An irrational statement which is needed to answer 'why?' questions.
The irrational statement can be named 'god' for easy thinking but can be called in many other ways.

If you don't need an irrational statement to work you don't need gods

[jayjay10]

Some people like to beleive that he or she exists, but there is no proof...

[BluePriest]

At any rate, that you believe that the world is flawed because of the fall does give us something to talk about. I do now recall you mentioning it earlier, though you didn't respond to what I said about it. Like using God to explain the universe's origin, this explanation raises more questions than it answers: Flawed man sins because he is flawed. He is flawed because once, a long time ago, a man who wasn't flawed sinned. Now that seems a little harder to explain. Why did the man who wasn't flawed sin? Well, he had the capacity for sin -- a "gift" called "free will." But why would he do it? Well of course, a woman made him do it! Ok, well why did she do that? Well, there was an evil snake who tempted her. Oh, ok, everything is explained. Except wait -- why was there an evil snake in God's idyllic Garden of Eden? And why was there a forbidden tree within man's reach? And why does one man's sin from the beginning of humanity affect the entire race? I could go on, but I don't think it would be necessary.

Im quite confused as to what you are arguing. Although sin is covered in the creation story, it is separate from creation itself. Much like the difference between evolution and bio-genesis. If I am understanding you right, your real argument is that God is not perfect due to sin existing in the world. Is that correct?

[Neopergoss]

At any rate, that you believe that the world is flawed because of the fall does give us something to talk about. I do now recall you mentioning it earlier, though you didn't respond to what I said about it. Like using God to explain the universe's origin, this explanation raises more questions than it answers: Flawed man sins because he is flawed. He is flawed because once, a long time ago, a man who wasn't flawed sinned. Now that seems a little harder to explain. Why did the man who wasn't flawed sin? Well, he had the capacity for sin -- a "gift" called "free will." But why would he do it? Well of course, a woman made him do it! Ok, well why did she do that? Well, there was an evil snake who tempted her. Oh, ok, everything is explained. Except wait -- why was there an evil snake in God's idyllic Garden of Eden? And why was there a forbidden tree within man's reach? And why does one man's sin from the beginning of humanity affect the entire race? I could go on, but I don't think it would be necessary.

Im quite confused as to what you are arguing. Although sin is covered in the creation story, it is separate from creation itself. Much like the difference between evolution and bio-genesis. If I am understanding you right, your real argument is that God is not perfect due to sin existing in the world. Is that correct?

You said "the world is flawed due to the origin of sin." I assumed you meant the Fall of Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Man). I refer to that story. My argument is that the Fall of Man is a ridiculous tale because if God were perfect the Garden of Eden wouldn't have had an evil snake (among other points).

[BluePriest]

At any rate, that you believe that the world is flawed because of the fall does give us something to talk about. I do now recall you mentioning it earlier, though you didn't respond to what I said about it. Like using God to explain the universe's origin, this explanation raises more questions than it answers: Flawed man sins because he is flawed. He is flawed because once, a long time ago, a man who wasn't flawed sinned. Now that seems a little harder to explain. Why did the man who wasn't flawed sin? Well, he had the capacity for sin -- a "gift" called "free will." But why would he do it? Well of course, a woman made him do it! Ok, well why did she do that? Well, there was an evil snake who tempted her. Oh, ok, everything is explained. Except wait -- why was there an evil snake in God's idyllic Garden of Eden? And why was there a forbidden tree within man's reach? And why does one man's sin from the beginning of humanity affect the entire race? I could go on, but I don't think it would be necessary.

Im quite confused as to what you are arguing. Although sin is covered in the creation story, it is separate from creation itself. Much like the difference between evolution and bio-genesis. If I am understanding you right, your real argument is that God is not perfect due to sin existing in the world. Is that correct?

You said "the world is flawed due to the origin of sin." I assumed you meant the Fall of Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Man). I refer to that story. My argument is that the Fall of Man is a ridiculous tale because if God were perfect the Garden of Eden wouldn't have had an evil snake (among other points).

Ok, so your argument is "If God was perfect, then there wouldn't be sin in the world." Correct? It sounds like you are saying it, but at the same time, not quite saying it, only implying it.

[Neopergoss]

At any rate, that you believe that the world is flawed because of the fall does give us something to talk about. I do now recall you mentioning it earlier, though you didn't respond to what I said about it. Like using God to explain the universe's origin, this explanation raises more questions than it answers: Flawed man sins because he is flawed. He is flawed because once, a long time ago, a man who wasn't flawed sinned. Now that seems a little harder to explain. Why did the man who wasn't flawed sin? Well, he had the capacity for sin -- a "gift" called "free will." But why would he do it? Well of course, a woman made him do it! Ok, well why did she do that? Well, there was an evil snake who tempted her. Oh, ok, everything is explained. Except wait -- why was there an evil snake in God's idyllic Garden of Eden? And why was there a forbidden tree within man's reach? And why does one man's sin from the beginning of humanity affect the entire race? I could go on, but I don't think it would be necessary.

Im quite confused as to what you are arguing. Although sin is covered in the creation story, it is separate from creation itself. Much like the difference between evolution and bio-genesis. If I am understanding you right, your real argument is that God is not perfect due to sin existing in the world. Is that correct?

You said "the world is flawed due to the origin of sin." I assumed you meant the Fall of Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Man). I refer to that story. My argument is that the Fall of Man is a ridiculous tale because if God were perfect the Garden of Eden wouldn't have had an evil snake (among other points).

Ok, so your argument is "If God was perfect, then there wouldn't be sin in the world." Correct? It sounds like you are saying it, but at the same time, not quite saying it, only implying it.

That happens to be my opinion. Yes, I believe sin to be an imperfection in this world that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to believe in a kind and omniscient God (one of many such imperfections). The only argument I've found that even leaves open the possibility of a kind, omniscient God existing is that the reason things are best the way they are is somehow beyond human comprehension, but that God knows.

Nevertheless, that's not what I'm arguing. What I'm arguing at the moment is that using the Fall as an explanation for the origin of sin is absurd.

[Nepycros]

There's always the possibility that God is either omnipotent and not omniscient, or omniscient and not omnipotent. No matter how offensive this may seem (I am Christian, though loosely), it's a possibility that has yet to be disproven. If he is omnsicient and not omnipotent, then he could know that although he can't create a perfect world, he is trying to create the best to his ability. If he is omnipotent and not omniscient, he is rather like a scientist, who made a universe to study it and learn about his own potential. This has been on the back of my mind for awhile, actually. I'm just curious to see if my opinion has merit.

[Astrocyte]

There's always the possibility that God is either omnipotent and not omniscient, or omniscient and not omnipotent. No matter how offensive this may seem (I am Christian, though loosely), it's a possibility that has yet to be disproven. If he is omnsicient and not omnipotent, then he could know that although he can't create a perfect world, he is trying to create the best to his ability. If he is omnipotent and not omniscient, he is rather like a scientist, who made a universe to study it and learn about his own potential. This has been on the back of my mind for awhile, actually. I'm just curious to see if my opinion has merit.

A number of religious (and antireligious) thinkers have written about this, actually.

Similarly, a few religions also embrace the idea that God has been learning and growing along with mankind, or that God is slowly revealing his full truth and power piece by piece.

[whitevo]

God exists because some duche wrote Ski-Fi book in year -300 or so and talked about someone who created a planet Earth.

This makes me go back in time and backslap him/her who wrote it.

[Bloodshadow]

There's always the possibility that God is either omnipotent and not omniscient, or omniscient and not omnipotent. No matter how offensive this may seem (I am Christian, though loosely), it's a possibility that has yet to be disproven. If he is omnsicient and not omnipotent, then he could know that although he can't create a perfect world, he is trying to create the best to his ability. If he is omnipotent and not omniscient, he is rather like a scientist, who made a universe to study it and learn about his own potential. This has been on the back of my mind for awhile, actually. I'm just curious to see if my opinion has merit.

This is similar to what I said a few pages ago. My post was completely ignored.

As for the whole good and evil debate, there is simply no such thing as absolute good/evil. All moral values are relative and contrived. But this means your God cannot be a benevolent deity, since benevolence itself is relative. Thus, the whole argument of "God is nice" is invalid in its very foundation. It's pointless to try to pick holes in that argument, because the argument itself is already so intrinsically flawed.

As a substitute for the more relative "good" and "evil", I use selfishness and altruism. So let me rephrase your debate: "Is God selfish or altruistic?" But this question is also flawed. If God is truly selfless and only wants the happiness of his creations, then he can simply suspend all of us in a perpetual state of eternal bliss. If that's the case, then God does not want humans to have free will. There are two possible answers to this question: 1) God is altruistic, and he is trying to find a balance between absolute happiness and free will for his subjects; but this means God is not as omnipotent as Christians claim. 2) God is selfish, and is simply doing all of this for teh lulz. In which case, I'm not sure I'll want to believe in such a God.

In the first answer to the question above, I said God is not omnipotent and is trying to find the optimal point. But if he is omnipotent and altruistic, that means the current state of the world is already the optimal balance point between happiness and free will that he looked for. In this case, God will have no reasons to help any of us, since he is already satisfied with his world.

To summarize, I deduced that God can't be altruistic and omnipotent at the same time. If he is, then he still would not help us. Thus, I think that me believing in Christianity will not benefit me in any way other than deluding myself. I'm not that desperate yet.

[BluePriest]

Well, I was thinking about this discussion during work, and came to this conclusion. God didnt create man to be perfect. When man was created, man was created "very good". Is it because God COULDNT make them perfect, or is it because he WOULDNT make them perfect? I believe he intentionally didnt make them perfect. Having free will essentially makes us less than perfect because we do not know what is best for us. Not as an individual, or as a species. On one hand, it makes it seem like it is impossible to not sin, but then, Jesus was went his life without sinning.

Ill get into the omnipotent vs omniscient debate at a later time. Sleep now.

[Neopergoss]

I believe he intentionally didnt make them perfect.

Why? To me, imperfect creations -> imperfect creator. (The legend of) Jesus didn't sin because he was perfect/godly. I think you would agree with me that most people are less than that, and that they shouldn't be. Anything isn't as it should be -> imperfect creator.