2 Arguments against God

[anontheist]

First of all, I do not intend to offend anyone. But I have been asked why I do not believe in God. So, here are a couple of arguments. Good or bad, you decide.

I am sure, if you are a Christian, that these arguments will do nothing to change your mind about the existence of God. They did not change mine.

I had two things that made these arguments ineffective. One, my salvation experience and two, God’s word. So, no matter what arguments were raised, I was still secure with my belief.

First, the Bible as “God’s word” had to be put into question. This was done over a matter of several years in college. Then, the fact that other religions had similar experiences which justified their belief, led me to question my experience. Studying Philosophy started me on the path to questioning the existence of God. It tends to do that.

So, here are a couple of philosophical questions.

Question 1

I believe that the concept “God” is simply a human creation. But for the sake of argument, let us assume God exists. Will this idea lead to anything absurd?

It just seems to me that either God is not what one thinks he is or he does not exist.

It has been suggested by a few Christians (at least in some of the Christian writings that I have read) that God is perfect. That is just one of God’s attributes; perfection. But, what would this mean?

What does it mean to be perfect?

If there was a perfect being, what would be the point of doing anything? What would be the motivation?

If one was perfect, one would have no needs, no wants, no desires, for there would be nothing you would need or want. For, if there was something you would want or need, you would not be perfect.

It has been suggested God being perfect, is full of love, and wants to share this love with others.

Why?

Where does this “want” come from?

Why would you want something, (to share your love) unless you need something, (to be loved back). Perhaps you want someone to respond to your love. But why do you need a response? I mean, if you are prefect, why would you care if someone loved you or not? What would be the point?

It would seem odd, that a god would decide to create something merely to demonstrate its love. What would be the purpose? If one is perfect there is no need to share anything. And if one was perfect no response would be necessary.

With this in mind, let us consider an argument.

Argument 1

1. If God exists, then he is perfect.

2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.

3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants.

(Otherwise, he would not be perfect.)

4. If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want.

(Unless one can suggest that this was done without a motive or some desire.)

5. Hence, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).

6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

Or God is not perfect.

#4, It has been suggest that the reason the universe exists, is God created it. But the question still remains, why? What was the motive? To offer God as a reason for the existence of the universe is not an explanation, if you cannot answer the question, why did God create the universe? To suggest “God” only answers the question; How? not Why?

But, to answer the question ”why?” would suggest a motive. But any motive to do anything would suggest some desire. If there is some desire, this would suggest something wanted. Does it make sense to suggest that a perfect being can want something? Not if he is to remain perfect.

So, God can do whatever he wants. He just cannot be “perfect” in doing so.

Perhaps a better question would be, How can a being be perfect and do anything?

Question 2

Now, a perfect being would not need to change. Because it is perfect. Change would mean something is not perfect, or less than perfect and some adjustment is necessary.

It has been said that God is unchanging. And I have even seen some references to scripture to support this belief. So, one of the attributes of God is immutability. God is unchanging.

If something is perfect, then there is no need to change.

With this in mind, let us consider another idea.

Argument 2

1. If God exists, then he is immutable.

2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.

3. An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at another time not have that intention.

(Because, that would be a change.)

4. For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at another time, (after the creation), no longer have the intention to create it.

5. Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4).

6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

Or perhaps God changes.

There are a couple of issues to deal with.

#3, it has been suggested that God is outside of time, so one cannot suggest that there is such a thing as time when talking about God.

But we are talking about a sequence of events, not time, as such, that is part of the universe . And one cannot escape the sequence without running into other problems.

If it is suggested that God is “outside” of time and that his “intention” cannot have happened in what we would call a sequence. What this would suggest is that God both intended and did not intend. (Since time is not a part of God’s existence). But this leads to a contradiction. So, does the concept of God still exist?

Of course prior to the existence of the universe God had not willed the universe into existence, so there was a change from God not having yet willed the universe into existence to doing so.

There was a point that the universe came into existence (if you wish to say that God did it). Since it has been suggested that God created the universe, and you suggest that the universe is not eternal, there has to be some point that the universe came into existence. At that point, God “willed” (or whatever) the universe into existence. But at some point it was over. The universe exists. So, there is no longer the need to “will” anything. So, there was a change. God willed the universe into existence, when it was done, he stopped, He changed.

#4, Now, did God intend to create the universe?

When he created the universe, did he still intent to create it?

This last question does not seem to make much sense.

So, either God changed because his intentions changed, which means God is not immutable, or God does not exist.

One can suggest that God cannot change. But then how do you explain the change from nonexistence to existence of the universe? If God, “did it” then God changed. Even if it was just his intention or will that changed.

I would tend to think that if one was rational, one would either have to change one’s belief about the attributes of God, or consider the possibility that such a thing as a God, does not exist.

You will find these and other arguments in a somewhat new book, The Impossibility of God. Edited by Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier. By Prometheus Books.

So, did I change anyone's mind?

anon

[/b]

[scorpia]

. So, either God changed because his intentions changed, which means God is not immutable, or God does not exist.

One can suggest that God cannot change. But then how do you explain the change from nonexistence to existence of the universe? If God, “did it” then God changed. Even if it was just his intention or will that changed.

Uh? What's wrong with his intentions changing?

Maybe it depends on how one defines perfection

[Illyricum]

So, did I change anyone's mind?

Um, no not really.

[anontheist]

scorpia,

If God cannot change, then neither can his intentions. Otherwise, God changes and therefore is not immutable and is not perfect. Which is fine if that is how you wish to perceive God.

anon

[scorpia]

Does that necessarily mean that his intentions will change for the worse?
I mean, if a guy changes his mind from wanting a coke to not wanting a coke, neither is an immoral deciscion, even if he changed his mind.
Although, it would imply that God at some point might not have had the intention of creating the universe.

[ST88]

What does it mean to be perfect?

If there was a perfect being, what would be the point of doing anything? What would be the motivation?

If one was perfect, one would have no needs, no wants, no desires, for there would be nothing you would need or want. For, if there was something you would want or need, you would not be perfect...

Why would you want something, (to share your love) unless you need something, (to be loved back). Perhaps you want someone to respond to your love. But why do you need a response? I mean, if you are prefect, why would you care if someone loved you or not? What would be the point?

Rebuttal to Argument 1
You are coming at this from the perspective that this kind of want somehow is based on a selfish desire. But it is possible to have an altruistic desire for this kind of love. That is, a perfect being would know H/he is perfect and would therefore desire to share some of that.

It is possible to be perfect and still want things to happen. There is no selfishness implied if the want is perfect.

Perhaps a better question would be, How can a being be perfect and do anything?

Perfection does not imply stasis. It is possible to have perfection and still be an agent of change.

It has been said that God is unchanging. And I have even seen some references to scripture to support this belief. So, one of the attributes of God is immutability. God is unchanging.

If something is perfect, then there is no need to change.

Rebuttal to Argument 2
The immutability of God does not imply that his intentions do not change. This is not mere semantics. Immutability only applies to the nature of God -- do not confuse this with the mind of God. The Flood is an example of the changing mind of God, as is the creation of Woman.

it has been suggested that God is outside of time, so one cannot suggest that there is such a thing as time when talking about God.

But we are talking about a sequence of events, not time, as such, that is part of the universe . And one cannot escape the sequence without running into other problems.

If it is suggested that God is “outside” of time and that his “intention” cannot have happened in what we would call a sequence. What this would suggest is that God both intended and did not intend. (Since time is not a part of God’s existence). But this leads to a contradiction. So, does the concept of God still exist?

That God is outside of time is irrelevant. We, as humans, H/his purported creation are subject to time. It would naturally follow that he would act in accordance with this fact for our benefit. That he is capable of acting without the constraints of the time dimension does not mean that he does not also act within it when it suits his purposes.

[agnostic_pilgrim]

Rebuttal to Argument 1
You are coming at this from the perspective that this kind of want somehow is based on a selfish desire. But it is possible to have an altruistic desire for this kind of love. That is, a perfect being would know H/he is perfect and would therefore desire to share some of that.

It is possible to be perfect and still want things to happen. There is no selfishness implied if the want is perfect.

Is there even such a thing as an unselfish want/desire? Why would this god have this altruistic desire? Where did this altruistic desire come from?

Let's not take the term unselfish as necesarily negative for a while.

By saying unselfish, I mean something done without having any beneficial or pleasurable effect on the part of the giver/sharer, which in this case, god.

Does god find pleasure in sharing this altruistic desire? If it does then it isn't entirely unselfish. If it is selfish, then why would this perfect self-sufficient god have this altrusitic desire in the first place? Having a need and want would be superflous to god's perfection.

Perfection does not imply stasis. It is possible to have perfection and still be an agent of change.

Possible. Perhaps god is perfect but his surroundings are imperfect so he could then change it to suit his perfect preferences thus making him an agent of change. But again why would he change it since he doesn't need it (since he is perfect)? Boredom? Why would a self suficient god be bored? He already has anything he'll ever need/want within himself since he is perfect. So doing anything else is superflous.

Rebuttal to Argument 2
The immutability of God does not imply that his intentions do not change. This is not mere semantics. Immutability only applies to the nature of God -- do not confuse this with the mind of God. The Flood is an example of the changing mind of God, as is the creation of Woman.

"Immutability only applies to the nature of God" - How did you know this? Or perhaps we are talking about the judeo-Christian god well in that case this is to be assumed. Any scripture reference supporting that "Immutability only applies to the nature of God"?

Well I think it would be best if we define the term perfect first.

[bernee51]

Uh? What's wrong with his intentions changing? .

because she/he/it would then not be omniscient.
And would then fail the 'god test'

[anontheist]

Several responses have suggested I clarify my position. Just a note: this is not MY position. Given what Christian have suggest as a definition or attribute of God, I am asking what would this imply.

So, if I may suggest, see Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, by Norman L. Geisler. Page 284, the section under Immutability, the third paragraph under this section that begins, “The third argument...”

”The third argument for God’s unchangeability argues from his absolute perfection. Whatever changes acquires something new. But God cannot acquire anything new, since he could not be better or more complete. Therefore, God cannot change. If he did, he would not be god for he would have lacked some perfection.“

.

Christians do not always agree, just as atheist do not always agree. So, if someone does not agree with this definition, it is not me that the disagreement is with.

anon

ST88,

When I have more time, I will return and attempt to deal with some of the issuses you have raised. I do think they are interesting, but perhaps not compeling.

[ST88]

Is there even such a thing as an unselfish want/desire? Why would this god have this altruistic desire? Where did this altruistic desire come from?

Let's not take the term unselfish as necesarily negative for a while.

By saying unselfish, I mean something done without having any beneficial or pleasurable effect on the part of the giver/sharer, which in this case, god.

Does god find pleasure in sharing this altruistic desire? If it does then it isn't entirely unselfish. If it is selfish, then why would this perfect self-sufficient god have this altrusitic desire in the first place? Having a need and want would be superflous to god's perfection.

I would think any desire God would have would be altruistic. We often talk about the inability to have perfect charity, because there is always a good feeling associated with donating to charity or doing charitable work, a feeling which is necessarily sefish. But these are the feelings and thoughts of Man.

Similary, we find in the Bible, numerous instances of God being "pleased" with something or having found something "good" (with the implication of being pleasing). But can this be said to be the same psychological pleasure as that of Man? I submit that God does not have a psychology. All attempts to put one on him are futile.

Desire and want, as we see it, is based on the thing that is missing -- we want something because we don't yet have it. It is very difficult to imagine this kind of desire, or, say, a desire for aesthetics, as being unselfish. But isn't this the point? That we have difficulty imagining a nature of God without such venal sins as pride and greed is why we would need constant counsel and reminder.

Perfection does not imply stasis. It is possible to have perfection and still be an agent of change.

Possible. Perhaps god is perfect but his surroundings are imperfect so he could then change it to suit his perfect preferences thus making him an agent of change. But again why would he change it since he doesn't need it (since he is perfect)? Boredom? Why would a self suficient god be bored? He already has anything he'll ever need/want within himself since he is perfect. So doing anything else is superflous.

Again, I think this is ascribing human attributesto God. We change our environment because we think we can make it better for our own situation. But God doesn't need a change in his situation, so we must ascribe this desire to something else, something more divine.

"Immutability only applies to the nature of God" - How did you know this? Or perhaps we are talking about the judeo-Christian god well in that case this is to be assumed. Any scripture reference supporting that "Immutability only applies to the nature of God"?

Well I think it would be best if we define the term perfect first.

About defining the term perfect: As you may have guessed, I think we have an unnnecessarily anthropomorphic view of God and the mind of God. Even if you accept that there is a God, you must accept that the mind of God is unknowable. It therefore follows that God does not have the same type of thought patterns and processes that Man does, because then we would be able to know. Man is made in God's image, in Genesis. But this doesn't mean Man is a clone of God. I think we need to accept that this philosophical notion of God does not conform to our ideas of ethics or morality.

Immutability of God:

Psalm 102:25-26
Of old Thou didst found the earth; and the heavens are the work of Thy hands.
Even they will perish, but Thou dost endure; and all of them will wear out like a garment;
Like clothing Thou wilt change them, and they will be changed.
But thou are the same, and Thy years will not come to an end.

This states the unchanging nature of God applies to death -- i.e., God is unchanging because he does not grow old and die the way we do.

Malachi 3:7
For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.

This seems to say that because God will never stop being God, the nation of Israel will never cease to exist. This also refers to immortality being the basis of God's immutability.

Numbers 23:19
"God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that he should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

This is Balaam's response to Balak when asked to curse the Israelites. God has already blessed them and will not go back on his blessing. This represents the unchanging nature of God's edicts. All His blessings will always be blessings, all His commandments will always be commandments, etc.

God Changes His Mind:

2 Kings 20:5
"I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; behold, I will heal you."

God tells Hezekiah (through Isaiah) that He has changed His mind about killing him off because he has repented.

And, of course, there is the grief of God in Genesis 6:5-7 where he laments that His creation, man, has done so much wickedness.

From these (& others), I get the impression that God sometimes changes course because of the actions of men. But this does not mean that his nature changes, only his approach towards His people.