Evidence for atheist claims

[wiploc]

"Jehovah, for instance, has the mutually contradictory qualities of omniscience and omnipotence"

, who attributed Him these adjectives?

Christians.  The same people who claim he exists.  

These adjectives are a mere and poor attempt of human beings to explain the innefable.

So you don't really know anything about him?

It is not that God is "omnipotent" and "omniscient" in the sense that he is bond to these adjectives and to their meanings.

If he can't do anything, he isn't omnipotent in any sense.  If he doesn't know everything, he isn't omniscient in any sense.  
And we aren't trying to bind him to those adjectives.  We're just pointing out that the adjectives don't describe him.  Not if the Christian stories about him are true.  

You aren't a vegetarian if you eat meat.  Nobody says vegetarians are bound to avoid meat.  We only say that, if you eat meat, then you aren't a vegetarian.  Likewise, if you don't know things, then you aren't omniscient, and if you can't do things, then you aren't omnipotent.   

We have witnessed that God knows pretty much everything and that does everything He wants to do, how are these contradictory?

If I was the god of Oklahoma, and Jehovah was the god of everywhere else, everybody would move to Oklahoma.  And I'm not even that nice.  It's just not hard to be nicer than Jehovah.  

Jehovah causes suffering, and allows suffering, and all because he is too stupid, too weak, or too evil to prevent it.  If we have earthquakes and floods and plagues, then Jehovah (assuming he exists) is not the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god that Christians make him out to be.  

Maybe that's not your version of him.  Maybe your version is all-ineffable, but in that case there's still no reason to worship.

"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.

Then he's not loving.  All this suffering cannot be the plan of a loving god.  

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).

He could have started us out with Solomon and Ruth, or whoever it would take to avoid the fall.  He could have put that tree outside the garden.  But, no, his plan included the Fall, so he's not a good god.  

In the same sense that Hitler was not a good humanitarian, Jehovah is not a good god.  

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.

An all-knowing god would know in which worlds the Fall happened, and in which it did not.  An all-powerful god would be able to create any world of his choice.  An all good god would want to create one of the infinity of possible worlds in which (a) there is no suffering, and which have (b) any other desired effects the god desires.  

If you say that your god ineffably can't do this, then it is effably less than omnipotent.  If you say that your god ineffably is to stupid to manage this, then it effably isn't omniscient.  If you say your god ineffably isn't benevolent enough to do this, then it effably isn't omnibenevolent.  

That's three of your five available moves.  Here are the other two:

4: You could say that we don't suffer.  Nobody is unhappy.  It's rare, but I've seen Christians resort to this move when they can't tolerate the others.

5. You can abandon logic.  You can say, in effect, "Yes, logic proves that god is less than omnipotent, less than omniscient, or less than omnibenevolent, but my religion is not logical."  I've seen this more often.  

Those are your five choices.  

"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?! This stupidity of "if suffering exists it is because God is not loving"

is pure ignorance. As our holy father, St. Nikolai Velimirovich said: “Only the foolish think that suffering is evil.

Suffering is evil by definition.  Why can't I turn off these Italics?  If you mean something else by the word, you need to share your meaning.  Otherwise, talking past each other is inevitable.  

... Only sin in a man is a real evil, and there is no evil outside sin.

You don't want to conflate sin and evil.  Evil is the punishment for sin.  Sin is doubting and disobeying Jehovah.  Evil is all the things that cause unhappiness, like weeds, like having to earn our living by the sweat of our brow, like pain in childbirth, like having to cover our nakedness with raiment--"And YOU," Jehovah said, pointing at Eve, "gots to button yours backwards!"

Everything else that men generally call evil is not,

So you're talking a different language, or about a different subject?  Then, quite effably, nothing you say can be construed as contradicting anything we say.  

...There is no suffering in the world that could be anywhere near as hard and destructive as sin is.

Who made that rule?  Certainly not a tri-omni (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god).  An all-powerful god could prevent sin from being destructive if it wanted.  An all-knowing god would know how to prevent sin from being destructive if it had the power.  A totally benevolent god would choose to prevent sin from being destructive if it had the power and knowledge.  

A tri-omni god, then, would not coexist with destructive effects of sin.  

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.

Spoken like one who thinks god is effable after all.  Else, why all these opinions about what he's up to and why?


An omnipotent god could save us from eternal death without any suffering.  An omniscient god would know how to accomplish that.  An omnibenevolent god would choose to do so.  

If we have suffering, then, we do not have an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god.  

Every sin, however small, would inevitably bring death /quote]

Who made that rule?  Certainly not a good god.  At least not if it is also smart and powerful.  

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.”

God tries to be ineffable, but you've got him all figured out, right?