Evidence for atheist claims

[Redbeard The Pink]

"Jehovah, for instance, has the mutually contradictory qualities of omniscience and omnipotence. He is also described as a perfectly loving and moral god, which can't be possible if he, as an all-powerful being, created our Universe with advance knowledge of how badly his plan would go (sin, suffering, Hell, etc.). It means that either he wanted us to sin, die, and suffer (meaning he is not all-loving), or he could not prevent these things from being a part of his plan (meaning he is not all-powerful). For this and many more reasons, Jehovah cannot possibly have all the qualities attributed to him, therefore he cannot exist.", this is incorrect in many levels.

This should be good.

"Jehovah, for instance, has the mutually contradictory qualities of omniscience and omnipotence", who attributed Him these adjectives?

Your religion did while they were in the process of making him up.

These adjectives are a mere and poor attempt of human beings to explain the innefable. It is not that God is "omnipotent" and "omniscient" in the sense that he is bond to these adjectives and to their meanings. We have witnessed that God knows pretty much everything and that does everything He wants to do, how are these contradictory?

No. Nobody has witnessed your god doing anything, and the Bible does not contain any knowledge that wouldn't have been readily accessible to people of the time. There is no evidence that you or your religion has communication with an all-knowing being.


Adjectives do not "bind" things. They describe them. That's all adjectives do. Your god cannot be both all-knowing and all-powerful because those descriptors are mutually exclusive, so is he one or the other, or is he neither?

"He is also described as a perfectly loving and moral god, which can't be possible if he, as an all-powerful being, created our Universe with advance knowledge of how badly his plan would go (sin, suffering, Hell, etc.). It means that either he wanted us to sin, die, and suffer (meaning he is not all-loving), or he could not prevent these things from being a part of his plan (meaning he is not all-powerful).", this is just a mere product of your poor theological preparation. You have said that "created our Universe with advance knowledge of how badly his plan would go (sin, suffering, Hell, etc.)", how exactly His plan went badly? By stating that only because we have sinned His plan went badly? I will tell you the truth, His plan went exactly as He planned it. He created Adam and Eve knowing exactly that they would sin and the fact that they sinned is a part of our deification (because the Incarnation of the Word began at the start of Creation).

So he planned Sin and suffering himself, which means that not only is he entirely responsible for both of those things, but he clearly wants us to suffer and therefore does not love us.


You still haven't dodged the bullet, Dodgy. If he planned sin, then he's not all-loving. If he had to plan around sin, then he's not all-knowing and all-powerful. An all-knowing, all-powerful being could have made a plan that would have precluded sin and suffering from being possible without interfering with free will.

God created man with all the spiritual and physical powers necessary for its fulfillment, but for that to happen, a moral exam had to happen, the challenge by which, in a conscious and totally free way, man could acknowledge and manifest the willing submision and gratitude towards his Creator and to win, at the same time, personal merits, comprised in perfection and to avoid, being made perfect, of the tragedy in which the devil fell by his pride, because: Sirach 34:10 People with no experience know little. So, the commandment is not a sign of tirany but the very manifestation of God's kindness and wisdom, so man can raise to its full state of liberty and perfection, because moral power grows only by exercise, man now can freely want to choose God.

If a moral exam "had to happen" because god requires it, then he doesn't love us. If he loved us, he wouldn't have made a requirement that would allow some to experience Hell. If it "had to happen" because god had no choice in the matter, then he's not all-powerful.


As for free will, a perfect being with perfect knowledge and power would be able to create a scenario where everybody gets to choose freely, but nobody ever chooses wrong. The fact that your god went with a plan where some people choose wrong means he either wants some people to choose wrong (meaning he couldn't be all-loving), or he can't make a plan where nobody chooses wrong (meaning he couldn't be all-powerful).

"It means that either he wanted us to sin, die, and suffer (meaning he is not all-loving)" and how exactly this shows that God is not all loving?!

Because he allegedly made a plan that he knew in advance would involve eternal suffering for a certain percentage of living beings, and instead of changing his plan to something that eliminates this possibility, he went through with it anyway.

This stupidity of "if suffering exists it is because God is not loving" is pure ignorance.

That's not the argument. Your little straw man is missing some pieces.


The argument is "If suffering exists, then god cannot be both all-powerful and all-loving. If suffering exists by design, then he is not all-loving. If it exists by necessity, then he is not all-powerful."

As our holy father, St. Nikolai Velimirovich said: “Only the foolish think that suffering is evil. A sensible man knows that suffering is not evil but only the manifestation of evil and healing from evil. Only sin in a man is a real evil, and there is no evil outside sin. Everything else that men generally call evil is not, but is a bitter medicine to heal from evil. The sicker the man, the more bitter the medicine that the doctor prescribes for him. At times, even, it seems to a sick man that the medicine is worse and more bitter than the sickness itself! And so it seems at times to the sinner: the suffering is harder and more bitter than the sin committed. But this is only an illusion – a very strong self-delusion. There is no suffering in the world that could be anywhere near as hard and destructive as sin is. All the suffering borne by men and nations is none other than the abundant healing that eternal Mercy offers to men and nations to save them from eternal death. Every sin, however small, would inevitably bring death if Mercy were not to allow suffering in order to sober men up from the inebriation of sin; for the healing that comes through suffering is brought about by the grace-filled power of the Holy and Life-giving Spirit.”

Where did evil come into this discussion? I never said suffering was evil. What I'm saying is that if a being deliberately inflicts eternal suffering on others, then that being is not all-loving. Before you harp up with "God doesn't inflict eternal suffering, we do," remember that god created everything with advance knowledge of what it would all do. By executing a plan that he knew would result in suffering when he has the power and knowledge to change his plan, god is inflicting that suffering.

Look, I get you are an atheist and I respect your point of view (even if you don't believe so) simply because I believe that every person is able to do the choices they want and that they are responsible for the choices they do, but I will never understand why do you theologize if you lack belief in God? Why do you envolve in theology if you have no preparation?

I'm demonstrating why your theology (or theology in general, rather) is illogical, unsupported garbage that can't possibly be true in the objective reality we observe. Why do you initiate discussions about science and logic when your only preparation is a book of myths and fables?