Evidence for atheist claims

[Wryetui]

""God" always refers to a character from religion that is demonstrably non-existent (due to having contradictory qualities, not being in the expected location, etc.)", any examples that can back up these empty claims?

Gladly.


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.


The Olympian gods, as another example, were said to live on top of Mount Olympus. They don't, though. There's basically nothing on top of Mount Olympus, or at least there was when we first achieved the summit.


The list goes on, but you get the idea (or probably not, actually).


There's also the problem of virtually all of these gods having traceable origins to human conception for a practical reason (need to explain, need to control, need to survive even if at others' expense, etc.). If you can trace a fiction back to the author(s) and/or reason it was contrived, it is asinine to then assert that the authors were receiving divine revelation and were unique in this regard. To acknowledge that it's "technically possible" for god to exist the way most soft atheists, do, I would have to also acknowledge that it's "technically possible" for Santa Claus and Gandalf to exist, but that's ridiculous. Those things are made up and don't exist. Don't be dense.

"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.

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

"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). 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.

"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. 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.”

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?

[Edwardo Piet]

@ Wryetui

This is what I do when I feel ignored:

We don't know but you don't know either, you just think you do. It's fine with it being a mystery. I understand you think that not only must there be an explanation but it must be God, but you only think that, you don't know it, you think that you know it but you don't know it you just think that you know it. I only think that you don't, but as much as you think you can prove me wrong, you can't, you just think you can. I am not on my high horse but I think you are on yours so I think it's best you get off it. The rewards for your own increase in humility will be huge and make you a lot more rational and less distressed. Good luck.

[Ben Davis]

If you think you deserve an apology from me I will give you one, because you always talked decently to me and in a educated manner and you truly deserve it. This is the kind of behavior I would desire for someone that is talking to me, with mutual respect.

Thank you.

I will then re-read it and see what ideas can I ask.

Then I have hopes for our discussion and look forward to your questions.

People in this forum mock me because I don't understand words that not even they understand, I am curious how much would some of them understand if I gave them to read a treatise written by the Capadoccian Fathers... You are mocking me for my ignorance instead of teaching me.

I've read your intro now and understand that English is not your first language however it is very good. I'm more than happy to help with any linguistic issues, if you need me to and if I can but I think you'll have few problems.

I think you'll find that people were mocking you because you took a supercilious tone with them. If you show ignorance on a subject but also show an honest desire to communicate, discuss, share and learn, you will receive little mockery from the board (it will still come from the strong atheists/antitheists). On the whole, we're a group that revels in its diversity.

[Rhondazvous]

"The Church has known for over 500 years that the creation story in the bible bears not the slightest resemblance to the universe we live in. If you don’t have a problem with the biblical claim that god created the grass and trees before he created the sun and moon, then there’s nothing that I can say to you." you are talking about my field of work and I am interested. First of all I need to know on what do you rely for saying that "The Church has known for over 500 years that the creation story in the bible bears not the slightest resemblance to the universe we live in" since I haven't heard it from anyone in the Church, really, where did you get this from?

No, you wouldn't hear about this is Church today, but a little over 500 years ago, there was a surge in knowledge about the universe. We call this the age of exploration. the age of enlightenment, the age of reason or some such. But it was an age when people discovered that the Earth and the universe are not anything like what the Church had us believing. At first the Church reacted to this by burning the scientists who dared question what was written. You can't openly execute heretics today. But you can ignore the facts in the vain hope that they will be forgotten.

"If you don’t have a problem with the biblical claim that god created the grass and trees before he created the sun and moon, then there’s nothing that I can say to you.", this kind of problems appear when a person reads the Sacred Scriptures without any theological support and are no interested in knowing what they actually say. Look at what explanation gives St. Basil the Great in his famous "Hexaemeron" (Homily 5.1) to exactly the question you asked: "Let the earth bring forth green grass. Let the earth bring forth by itself without having any need of help from without. Some consider the sun as the source of all productiveness on the earth. It is, they say, the action of the sun's heat which attracts the vital force from the centre of the earth to the surface. The reason why the adornment of the earth was before the sun is the following; that those who worship the sun, as the source of life, may renounce their error. If they be well persuaded that the earth was adorned before the genesis of the sun, they will retract their unbounded admiration for it, because they see grass and plants vegetate before it rose. If then the food for the flocks was prepared, did our race appear less worthy of a like solicitude? He, who provided pasture for horses and cattle, thought before all of your riches and pleasures. If he fed your cattle, it was to provide for all the needs of your life. And what object was there in the bringing forth of grain, if not for your subsistence? Moreover, many grasses and vegetables serve for the food of man."

The scriptures will always make sense if you give yourself the liberty to add anything you want to it. Why do Christians insist that we look at scripture in its context if they are going to turn around and superimpose whatever they want?

[GUBU]

Really using the bible to support the bible is like saying there is a discworld because it says so in the colour of magic.

Ah, but the Discworld also has Strata; Guards, Guards; Men at Arms; Witches Abroad; Pyramids; Small Gods; Monstrous Regiment and many other books about it. This therefore elevates it from bible level reality to Middle Earth levels, a much higher plain of existence.

[GUBU]

""God" always refers to a character from religion that is demonstrably non-existent (due to having contradictory qualities, not being in the expected location, etc.)", any examples that can back up these empty claims?

Gladly.


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

Hell even without going on with the rest of your post, which is a perfectly crumulent argument and nothing wrong with it, both these attributes cannot exist within the same being. If a being is all powerful then it cannot be all knowing because knowing everything will constrain its power as it will know the future and be constrained in its future actions according to the limits of this knowledge (for example if god knows I will die by being hit by a bus tomorrow, it cannot change that and remain all knowing as changing future events will cause its knowledge of the future to diminish).

[Crossless2.0]

The scriptures will always make sense if you give yourself the liberty to add anything you want to it.  Why do Christians insist that we look at scripture in its context if they are going to turn around and superimpose whatever they want?

What, you never tried to bluff your way out of a shitty poker hand?

[Wryetui]

"The Church has known for over 500 years that the creation story in the bible bears not the slightest resemblance to the universe we live in. If you don’t have a problem with the biblical claim that god created the grass and trees before he created the sun and moon, then there’s nothing that I can say to you." you are talking about my field of work and I am interested. First of all I need to know on what do you rely for saying that "The Church has known for over 500 years that the creation story in the bible bears not the slightest resemblance to the universe we live in" since I haven't heard it from anyone in the Church, really, where did you get this from?

No, you wouldn't hear about this is Church today, but a little over 500 years ago, there was a surge in knowledge about the universe. We call this the age of exploration. the age of enlightenment, the age of reason or some such. But it was an age when people discovered that the Earth and the universe are not anything like what the Church had us believing. At first the Church reacted to this by burning the scientists who dared question what was written.   You can't openly execute heretics today. But you can ignore the facts in the vain hope that they will be forgotten.

"If you don’t have a problem with the biblical claim that god created the grass and trees before he created the sun and moon, then there’s nothing that I can say to you.", this kind of problems appear when a person reads the Sacred Scriptures without any theological support and are no interested in knowing what they actually say. Look at what explanation gives St. Basil the Great in his famous "Hexaemeron" (Homily 5.1) to exactly the question you asked: "Let the earth bring forth green grass. Let the earth bring forth by itself without having any need of help from without. Some consider the sun as the source of all productiveness on the earth. It is, they say, the action of the sun's heat which attracts the vital force from the centre of the earth to the surface. The reason why the adornment of the earth was before the sun is the following; that those who worship the sun, as the source of life, may renounce their error. If they be well persuaded that the earth was adorned before the genesis of the sun, they will retract their unbounded admiration for it, because they see grass and plants vegetate before it rose. If then the food for the flocks was prepared, did our race appear less worthy of a like solicitude? He, who provided pasture for horses and cattle, thought before all of your riches and pleasures. If he fed your cattle, it was to provide for all the needs of your life. And what object was there in the bringing forth of grain, if not for your subsistence? Moreover, many grasses and vegetables serve for the food of man."

The scriptures will always make sense if you give yourself the liberty to add anything you want to it.  Why do Christians insist that we look at scripture in its context if they are going to turn around and superimpose whatever they want?

"No, you wouldn't hear about this is Church today, but a little over 500 years ago, there was a surge in knowledge about the universe. We call this the age of exploration. the age of enlightenment, the age of reason or some such. But it was an age when people discovered that the Earth and the universe are not anything like what the Church had us believing. At first the Church reacted to this by burning the scientists who dared question what was written.   You can't openly execute heretics today. But you can ignore the facts in the vain hope that they will be forgotten.", I am sorry but you did not understand correctly. I am part of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Church you are mentioning is the Roman Church, that hasn't been united to us since 1054, so those things you are saying are not at all directed to me, neither they are anyhow part of my Church's history. The philosopher Ivan Kireyevsky has an answer in his book "On the Necessity and Possibility of New Principles in Philosophy (1856)" that adress what you mentioned about people getting burned because they said the earth is flat: "In the  Orthodox Church, the relationship between reason and faith is completely different from their relationship in the Latin and Protestant confessions. The difference is this: in the Church, Divine Revelation and human thought are not confused. The boundaries between the Divine and the human are transgressed neither by science nor by Church teaching. However much believing reason strives to reconcile reason and faith, it would never mistake any dogma of Revelation for a simple conclusion of reason and would never attribute the authority of revealed dogma to a conclusion of reason. The boundaries stand firm and inviolable. No patriarch, no synod of bishops, no profound consideration of the scholar, no authority, no impulse of so-called public opinion at any time could add a new dogma or alter an existing one, or ascribe to it the authority of Divine Revelation — representing in this manner the explanation of man’s reason as the sacred teaching of the Church or projecting the authority of eternal and steadfast truths of Revelation into the realm of systematic knowledge subject to development, change, errors, and the separate conscience of each individual. Every extension of Church teaching beyond the limits of Holy Tradition leaves the realm of Church authority and becomes a private opinion — more or less respectable, but still subject to the verdict of reason. No matter whose this new opinion might be, if it is not recognised by former ages — even the opinion of a whole people or of the greater part of all Christians at a given time — if it attempts to pass for a Church dogma, by this very claim excludes itself from the Church. For the Church does not limit its self-consciousness to any particular epoch, however much this epoch might consider itself more rational than any former. The sum total of all Christians of all ages, past and present, comprises one indivisible, eternal, living assembly of the faithful, held together just as much by the unity of consciousness as through the communion of prayer.

This inviolability of the limits of Divine Revelation is an assurance of the purity and firmness of faith in the Church. It guards its teaching from incorrect reinterpretations of natural reason on the one hand, and, on the other, guards against illegitimate intervention by Church authority. Thus, for the Orthodox Christian it will forever remain equally incomprehensible how it was possible to burn Galileo [Kireyevsky apparently confused Galileo with Giordano Bruno] for holding opinions differing from the opinions of the Latin hierarchy, and how it was possible to reject the credibility of an apostolic epistle on the ground that the truths it expressed were not in accord with the notions of some person or some epoch [a reference to Luther’s rejection of the Epistle of James]."

[TheRealJoeFish]

No, you wouldn't hear about this is Church today, but a little over 500 years ago, there was a surge in knowledge about the universe. We call this the age of exploration. the age of enlightenment, the age of reason or some such. But it was an age when people discovered that the Earth and the universe are not anything like what the Church had us believing. At first the Church reacted to this by burning the scientists who dared question what was written.   You can't openly execute heretics today. But you can ignore the facts in the vain hope that they will be forgotten.

The scriptures will always make sense if you give yourself the liberty to add anything you want to it.  Why do Christians insist that we look at scripture in its context if they are going to turn around and superimpose whatever they want?

"No, you wouldn't hear about this is Church today, but a little over 500 years ago, there was a surge in knowledge about the universe. We call this the age of exploration. the age of enlightenment, the age of reason or some such. But it was an age when people discovered that the Earth and the universe are not anything like what the Church had us believing. At first the Church reacted to this by burning the scientists who dared question what was written.   You can't openly execute heretics today. But you can ignore the facts in the vain hope that they will be forgotten.", I am sorry but you did not understand correctly. I am part of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Church you are mentioning is the Roman Church, that hasn't been united to us since 1054, so those things you are saying are not at all directed to me, neither they are anyhow part of my Church's history. The philosopher Ivan Kireyevsky has an answer in his book "On the Necessity and Possibility of New Principles in Philosophy (1856)" that adress what you mentioned about people getting burned because they said the earth is flat: "In the  Orthodox Church, the relationship between reason and faith is completely different from their relationship in the Latin and Protestant confessions. The difference is this: in the Church, Divine Revelation and human thought are not confused. The boundaries between the Divine and the human are transgressed neither by science nor by Church teaching. However much believing reason strives to reconcile reason and faith, it would never mistake any dogma of Revelation for a simple conclusion of reason and would never attribute the authority of revealed dogma to a conclusion of reason. The boundaries stand firm and inviolable. No patriarch, no synod of bishops, no profound consideration of the scholar, no authority, no impulse of so-called public opinion at any time could add a new dogma or alter an existing one, or ascribe to it the authority of Divine Revelation — representing in this manner the explanation of man’s reason as the sacred teaching of the Church or projecting the authority of eternal and steadfast truths of Revelation into the realm of systematic knowledge subject to development, change, errors, and the separate conscience of each individual. Every extension of Church teaching beyond the limits of Holy Tradition leaves the realm of Church authority and becomes a private opinion — more or less respectable, but still subject to the verdict of reason. No matter whose this new opinion might be, if it is not recognised by former ages — even the opinion of a whole people or of the greater part of all Christians at a given time — if it attempts to pass for a Church dogma, by this very claim excludes itself from the Church. For the Church does not limit its self-consciousness to any particular epoch, however much this epoch might consider itself more rational than any former. The sum total of all Christians of all ages, past and present, comprises one indivisible, eternal, living assembly of the faithful, held together just as much by the unity of consciousness as through the communion of prayer.

This inviolability of the limits of Divine Revelation is an assurance of the purity and firmness of faith in the Church. It guards its teaching from incorrect reinterpretations of natural reason on the one hand, and, on the other, guards against illegitimate intervention by Church authority. Thus, for the Orthodox Christian it will forever remain equally incomprehensible how it was possible to burn Galileo [Kireyevsky apparently confused Galileo with Giordano Bruno] for holding opinions differing from the opinions of the Latin hierarchy, and how it was possible to reject the credibility of an apostolic epistle on the ground that the truths it expressed were not in accord with the notions of some person or some epoch [a reference to Luther’s rejection of the Epistle of James]."

I am gonna reach into that wall of text and pull out one single quote, with important parts bolded:

In the  Orthodox Church, the relationship between reason and faith is completely different from their relationship in the Latin and Protestant confessions. The difference is this: in the Church, Divine Revelation and human thought are not confused. The boundaries between the Divine and the human are transgressed neither by science nor by Church teaching.

So, right there, you have told us, essentially, it is impossible for science to contradict your beliefs.  Asking us for evidence, then, is a rhetorical device to allow you to tell us why atheists are wrong.  You ask for evidence, but you don't want any; you just want to say "pfft, that? that's not evidence!" and feel smug.  Essentially, you're engaging in theological masturbation.

We already knew this, but... at least now you admit it.

[Wryetui]

"No, you wouldn't hear about this is Church today, but a little over 500 years ago, there was a surge in knowledge about the universe. We call this the age of exploration. the age of enlightenment, the age of reason or some such. But it was an age when people discovered that the Earth and the universe are not anything like what the Church had us believing. At first the Church reacted to this by burning the scientists who dared question what was written.   You can't openly execute heretics today. But you can ignore the facts in the vain hope that they will be forgotten.", I am sorry but you did not understand correctly. I am part of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Church you are mentioning is the Roman Church, that hasn't been united to us since 1054, so those things you are saying are not at all directed to me, neither they are anyhow part of my Church's history. The philosopher Ivan Kireyevsky has an answer in his book "On the Necessity and Possibility of New Principles in Philosophy (1856)" that adress what you mentioned about people getting burned because they said the earth is flat: "In the  Orthodox Church, the relationship between reason and faith is completely different from their relationship in the Latin and Protestant confessions. The difference is this: in the Church, Divine Revelation and human thought are not confused. The boundaries between the Divine and the human are transgressed neither by science nor by Church teaching. However much believing reason strives to reconcile reason and faith, it would never mistake any dogma of Revelation for a simple conclusion of reason and would never attribute the authority of revealed dogma to a conclusion of reason. The boundaries stand firm and inviolable. No patriarch, no synod of bishops, no profound consideration of the scholar, no authority, no impulse of so-called public opinion at any time could add a new dogma or alter an existing one, or ascribe to it the authority of Divine Revelation — representing in this manner the explanation of man’s reason as the sacred teaching of the Church or projecting the authority of eternal and steadfast truths of Revelation into the realm of systematic knowledge subject to development, change, errors, and the separate conscience of each individual. Every extension of Church teaching beyond the limits of Holy Tradition leaves the realm of Church authority and becomes a private opinion — more or less respectable, but still subject to the verdict of reason. No matter whose this new opinion might be, if it is not recognised by former ages — even the opinion of a whole people or of the greater part of all Christians at a given time — if it attempts to pass for a Church dogma, by this very claim excludes itself from the Church. For the Church does not limit its self-consciousness to any particular epoch, however much this epoch might consider itself more rational than any former. The sum total of all Christians of all ages, past and present, comprises one indivisible, eternal, living assembly of the faithful, held together just as much by the unity of consciousness as through the communion of prayer.

This inviolability of the limits of Divine Revelation is an assurance of the purity and firmness of faith in the Church. It guards its teaching from incorrect reinterpretations of natural reason on the one hand, and, on the other, guards against illegitimate intervention by Church authority. Thus, for the Orthodox Christian it will forever remain equally incomprehensible how it was possible to burn Galileo [Kireyevsky apparently confused Galileo with Giordano Bruno] for holding opinions differing from the opinions of the Latin hierarchy, and how it was possible to reject the credibility of an apostolic epistle on the ground that the truths it expressed were not in accord with the notions of some person or some epoch [a reference to Luther’s rejection of the Epistle of James]."

I am gonna reach into that wall of text and pull out one single quote, with important parts bolded:

In the  Orthodox Church, the relationship between reason and faith is completely different from their relationship in the Latin and Protestant confessions. The difference is this: in the Church, Divine Revelation and human thought are not confused. The boundaries between the Divine and the human are transgressed neither by science nor by Church teaching.

So, right there, you have told us, essentially, it is impossible for science to contradict your beliefs.  Asking us for evidence, then, is a rhetorical device to allow you to tell us why atheists are wrong.  You ask for evidence, but you don't want any; you just want to say "pfft, that? that's not evidence!" and feel smug.  Essentially, you're engaging in theological masturbation.

We already knew this, but... at least now you admit it.

I don't know where did you get all of this from, but I was very clear. I asked atheist that they can tell me how their cosmology and their evidence contradicts God's truth since I knew is impossible and it was rather a matter of interpretation of scientific evidences and other things.