Gods' Contradictory Characteristics: Making God Impossible to Exist
Sunday November 8, 2009
Theists often claim that their gods are perfect beings; they describe gods, however, in contradictory and incoherent ways. Numerous characteristics are attributed to their gods, some of which are impossible and some combinations of which are impossible. As described, it's unlikely or impossible for these gods to exist. This doesn't mean that no god could possibly exist, just that the ones theists claim to believe in don't.
Read Article: Gods' Contradictory Characteristics: Making God Impossible to Exist
I’m having a problem with this article.
At this point in the article –”It’s not that they are lacking in labels and characteristics to attribute to their gods, it’s just that so many of these characteristics contradict each other.” – an example would have been helpful.
“Christians, who ostensibly believe in the “same god,” [as the Muslims], does not provide the basis for an argument unless the word “ostensibly” is removed. How is this belief “in the ’same god’ established as the basis for” this statement? It must be a point of agreement between the two religions to qualify as “the basis for” anything; i.e., if the Muslims and Christians do not agree that they are in reference to the same “god”, this argument fails.
As for ” It’s not rational to believe in something with logically contradictory characteristics.”, unless, that is, one wishes to claim that the logic of one of the supposed “contradictions” is based on a false premise, in which case, the “logically contradictory characteristics” loses its function as being contradictory, leaving it as being possibly true.
Finally, regarding “If we are being given arguments and evidence we wouldn’t accept as justification to buy a house or a used car, we definitely shouldn’t accept it as justification for adopting a religion.” fails to grasp the cornerstone of Christian belief: Faith. Paul, in the book of Hebrews, would disagree with you: “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things unseen.”; i.e, “faith”, for believers, constitutes the “arguments and evidence”, say, for the resurrection.
You may win all of your “logical” arguments regarding illogical Christian beliefs, but fail to persuade any or all Christians to reconsider their beliefs, simply because they will counter your logic with the omnipotent function of faith. It stands to reason, then, that if atheist thinking is to gain any power to persuade, that persuasion must stem from logic’s ability to undermine the fictionall function of faith.
It is my belief that this can be done by demonstrating to believers that the underpinning for the function of faith is EIDS (Emotional Intelligence Deficiency Syndrome): the basis for Colbert’s “Truthiness”.
I am currently gathering material for the purpose of presenting a comprehensive study that will show the interplay between faith and EIDS; the same interplay that explains why the whole spectrum of people’s beliefs and belief-driven behaviours defy logic in many cases, in the absence of physical/psychological disabilities.
When we start to address religious beliefs in the framework of emotional-intelligence-deficiency issues rather than in the framework of logical arguments such as this, we will move beyond the beachhead in our battle against the destuctive influence of relious beliefs.
kenrev, a born-again atheist
Test. Prior attempt to post apparently failed.
I’m assuming that most people are aware of the numerous antitheological arguments based on contradictory characteristics.
Yes, it does, when directed at those who do believe that Christians and Muslims believe in the same god. For those who don’t accept this, this part of the argument isn’t directed at them.
If you’re dealing with a person who denies logic, then all attempts at conversation of any sort are useless.
On the contrary, it’s Christians who fail to grasp it when they keep offering logical arguments as part of their evangelization. So long as Christians offer logical arguments and evidence, then it’s appropriate to say that it’s wrong to accept arguments and evidence which are inferior to that which we would reject in cases like buying used cars or houses. If Christians stop offering arguments and evidence, then this observation is no longer relevant.
Which is why atheists should insist on only hearing those arguments which the theist considers convincing and important enough that, if they turned out to be false, then the theist would be forced to at least reconsider their position. No other argument is worth listening to because refuting it would be a waste of time. If the theist has no such arguments, then they aren’t being fully honest — ethically or intellectually — with the atheist.
In many ways contradictory Gods fit into lower middle class values fairly well. Lower middle class morals involve a love / hate relationship. The government is a bully or a benign father. God is much the same. It is illogical but firmly grounded in the ways that lower middle class interpret experience.