An argument that disproves God possibly existing?

[Darkstar]

The basic question here is simply this:
Is god perfect by definition? If he was always perfect, then he did not do anything to deserve perfection. Strangely, that would paradoxically make him incapable of evil, making something god cannot do. If god is capable of evil, then he is not perfect...
So, if god is not perfect, then overcoming his flaws would make him worthy of praise. If there were a god, he/she would most likely very powerful, but not absolutely perfect, just so far above us that we couldn't tell the difference.

[Mystic]

Yes, I agree. Perhaps there are "gods" that earned value. But it seems they have to live in a similar world with struggle as we do. In other words, the classic God concept doesn't fit this earning of value.

[Angrboda]

I've refuted Anselm et al. before, and don't feel like retyping all that shit for this slow pupil. Be not convinced. You know you want it not. Begone, foul shadow.

[Mystic]

I don't understand^

[Darkstar]

Yes, I agree. Perhaps there are "gods" that earned value. But it seems they have to live in a similar world with struggle as we do. In other words, the classic God concept doesn't fit this earning of value.

Perhaps I am wrong, but the only absolute gods I can think of are Allah, and Yahweh/Holy Trinity. Many of the polytheistic religions I know about have flawed gods. Take the ancient Greeks, for example. (Okay, by 'all' I mean basically Greco-Roman stuff and a tad of Egyptian)

Greek Mythology

"Myths of origin" or "creation myths" represent an attempt to render the universe comprehensible in human terms and explain the origin of the world. The most widely accepted version at the time, although a philosophical account of the beginning of things, is reported by Hesiod, in his Theogony. He begins with Chaos, a yawning nothingness. Out of the void emerged Gaia (the Earth) and some other primary divine beings: Eros (Love), the Abyss (the Tartarus), and the Erebus.

Unlike Yahweh, they had a beginning, albiet one that is hard to believe; that gods could emerge from nothing when humans could not.

According to Classical-era mythology, after the overthrow of the Titans, the new pantheon of gods and goddesses was confirmed. Among the principal Greek gods were the Olympians, residing atop Mount Olympus under the eye of Zeus. (The limitation of their number to twelve seems to have been a comparatively modern idea.) Besides the Olympians, the Greeks worshipped various gods of the countryside, the satyr-god Pan, Nymphs (spirits of rivers), Naiads (who dwelled in springs), Dryads (who were spirits of the trees), Nereids (who inhabited the sea), river gods, Satyrs, and others. In addition, there were the dark powers of the underworld, such as the Erinyes (or Furies), said to pursue those guilty of crimes against blood-relatives. In order to honor the Ancient Greek pantheon, poets composed the Homeric Hymns (a group of thirty-three songs). Gregory Nagy regards "the larger Homeric Hymns as simple preludes (compared with Theogony), each of which invokes one god".

Here they are shown as more of a species, and not as all powerful, either.

The Greeks considered immortality as the distinctive characteristic of their gods; this immortality, as well as unfading youth, was insured by the constant use of nectar and ambrosia, by which the divine blood was renewed in their veins.

This further suggests that they are not nearly omnipotent.

They also had notable personality defects; not even Zeus was ever said to be perfect.

A few radical philosophers like Xenophanes of Colophon were already beginning to label the poets' tales as blasphemous lies in the 6th century BC; Xenophanes had complained that Homer and Hesiod attributed to the gods "all that is shameful and disgraceful among men; they steal, commit adultery, and deceive one another". This line of thought found its most sweeping expression in Plato's Republic and Laws. Plato created his own allegorical myths (such as the vision of Er in the Republic), attacked the traditional tales of the gods' tricks, thefts and adulteries as immoral, and objected to their central role in literature.

---

I don't understand^

I didn't either. After googling:

Anselm of Canterbury

Anselm wrote many proofs within Monologion and Proslogion. In the first proof, Anselm relies on the ordinary grounds of realism, which coincide to some extent with the theory of Augustine. He argues that "things" are called "good" in a variety of ways and degrees, which would be impossible were there not some absolute standard and some good in itself, in which all relative goods participate. The same applies to adjectives like "great" and "just", whereby things involve a certain greatness and justice. Anselm uses this thought process to state that the very existence of things is impossible without some one Being, by whom they come to exist. This absolute Being, this goodness, justice and greatness, is God. Anselm is not thoroughly satisfied with this reasoning, however, because it begins from a posteriori grounds, meaning that the reasoning is inductive. The philosophy also contains several converging lines of proof.

Sound familiar?

[Mystic]

Heh, so it turns out the polytheists had the concepts that were rationally possible. Yet the monotheist seems to be the most rational.

---

Sound familiar?

heh. Maybe we have an absolute potential god within (generated by the mind) and that is the standard.

---

To be honest, the Aslem argument seems to be true to me still.

It seems without it, evolution just created these experiences and measurements to help us survive and thrive. But it's not really with a basis.

At that, it feels "morality" is less binding. The beauty and greatness we see in it, is all just a delusion.

Perhaps evolution created the intuition of God to justify the belief in greatness, beauty, praise.

I dunno, this all so confusing. Are the damn nihilist right? Is there is no objective praise, no objective good, no objective evil?

[The Grand Nudger]

A god within...? I think it's more likely that we have opinions within. Meh.

[Mystic]

A god within...? I think it's more likely that we have opinions within. Meh.

I don't know, I think the human mind is very complex and that there is a whole spiritual world in there, whether if there is a metaphysical existence or not, it creates a spiritual world. Even our personality (if there is no soul) is created with an spiritual metaphysical type image by the mind.

We have concepts of potential honour we can have, of course, it's another thing if we embrace what level of honour or if we even can if we wanted to.

In a sense you are right, these are our "opinions", but I don't think thoughts are simple, they are very complex, and having a living metaphysical dimension in a world created by the mind.

Whether this is a real soul or not, real metaphysical existence or not, this world is created through the mind.

There is a world within, and I feel there is "gods" within, and then our idea of the "most greatest" of these "gods" within us.

Before people had to express a mix of these gods in religion. Today we tend to express them in Movies and fiction.

The key thing is we look up to the stars, and then we have a high standard. Perhaps evolution favoured that, because it made better humans, both in strength of will and goodness.

[The Grand Nudger]

I can create a fantasy world in my head all day (and twice on tuesdays) Mystic...that doesn't mean that anything "spiritual" is going on. The world isn;t created by our mind (unless you want to go round that particular bush). our perceptions and opinions are...but it may be more accurate to state that our "mind" is created by our perceptions and opinions. I still see nothing spiritual going on either way you choose to go. If the only way you can conceptualize this is by removing the "spirits" from "spiritual"...I'm gonna have to suggest that you stop using that word.

[IATIA]

---

Something that may lead me to Atheism is the following argument:

Infinite greatness is not possible for beings that come to exist after not existing.
The greatest type of praise/value is that which is earned.
Eternal praise/value is not earned.
Therefore praise/value that is finite is greater then infinite praise that is not earned.
Since finite praise earned is greater then eternal praise not earned, there cannot possible be eternal being that is greater then all finite beings.
God is defined to be eternal and greatest possible being, and is therefore impossible to exist.

Counter argument:

How do you objectively know earned praise is greater then non-earned praised if there is no ultimate basis to praise?

I don't know the answer, but I feel it's intuitive the more you think about it, that earned praise is greater then non-earned praise.

---

That sounds like the shit that used to go through my head in my toking days. It made sense until I sobered up.