Argument for atheism from impossible actions

[Captain Scarlet]

The Christian god is said to exist by definition in a superntural realm as an omnipotent but incorporeal mind. As such an incorporeal mind has no potential nor kinetic energy they are incapable of acting upon the material world. Energy is of the material world and is required for action within it (eg forming earth or life upon it or just directing matters to take a particular course requires energy) therefore the Christian god cannot be omnipotent and this would lead one to conclude that therefore no being with these qualities exists and that atheism is true.

[Shinylight]

No, it just means the Christian God isn't omnipotent.

---

They just messed up the definition of a God they can't possibly know about.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

The Christian god is said to exist by definition in a superntural realm as an omnipotent but incorporeal mind. As such an incorporeal mind has no potential nor kinetic energy they are incapable of acting upon the material world. Energy is of the material world and is required for action within it (eg forming earth or life upon it or just directing matters to take a particular course requires energy) therefore the Christian god cannot be omnipotent and this would lead one to conclude that therefore no being with these qualities exists and that atheism is true.

The only reason god is defined as omnipotent and omnicient is to cover all the horrible plot holes and errors in religious texts and so god can have no defined parameters in which to fail. It's a very convenient way to argue against less compitent people to allow god to do things in very impossible ways.

For example, 'god's mysterious ways' is a result of god knowing the future perfectly and can manipulate events across space and time in any manner it sees fit in order to make things happen in a specific manner. It's also a convenient way to explain how loving god is even though he's so perfectly cruel a deity in the old testiment.

The examples are endless. He's the original Mary Sue.

It's also why such a being is impossible as anything other than the workings of the human imagination and mythology. It's also why the Christian bible is far and away less interesting than greek, nordic, egyption, roman, or really just about all mythos.

[solja247]

The Christian god is said to exist by definition in a superntural realm as an omnipotent but incorporeal mind. As such an incorporeal mind has no potential nor kinetic energy they are incapable of acting upon the material world. Energy is of the material world and is required for action within it (eg forming earth or life upon it or just directing matters to take a particular course requires energy) therefore the Christian god cannot be omnipotent and this would lead one to conclude that therefore no being with these qualities exists and that atheism is true.

Are you a dualist?

These are my premises:
1. God is immaterial, not materialistic
2. God has created everything and can do whatever He pleases
3. Since God can do whatever He wants, He can enter and manipulate the materialistic world
4. Therefore, God is not constricted to the immaterialistic world

Does that make sense?

Atheism wouldnt be true, a Deistic God would be true, if your premises were correct...

[Captain Scarlet]

The Christian god is said to exist..

Are you a dualist?
These are my premises:
1. God is immaterial, not materialistic
2. God has created everything and can do whatever He pleases
3. Since God can do whatever He wants, He can enter and manipulate the materialistic world
4. Therefore, God is not constricted to the immaterialistic world
Does that make sense?
Atheism wouldnt be true, a Deistic God would be true, if your premises were correct...

Not a dualist. I said "god is said..." I'm not expressing it is my view but using the theist conception of god to demonstrate god cannot exist. As we are both aware there are many other arguments on both sides. If my premises are true a deistic or theistic god are ruled out, unless it is claimed that the deist god is material.
Your rejoinder does not form a refutation. I'm arguing that if god is immaterial and energy is only of the material world then god is not omnipotent Because he has no way of acting in the material world and therefore does not exist.

---

No, it just means the Christian God isn't omnipotent.

---

They just messed up the definition of a God they can't possibly know about.

Correct it does just mean that god isn't omnipotent. But By definition if not omnipotent he is not perefect and therefore does not exist. This is because the ontogical arguments used for theism can conceive of a more perfect god and therefore we are in an infinite regress. Not our problem but a problem of theisms own making.

[The Omnissiunt One]

This argument isn't particularly strong, because it presupposes that only materialistic mechanisms for action are possible. We know no others, but that doesn't mean that we can say there aren't any a priori.

[Captain Scarlet]

This argument isn't particularly strong, because it presupposes that only materialistic mechanisms for action are possible. We know no others, but that doesn't mean that we can say there aren't any a priori.

The need for a material action in a material unievrse is a very strong inductive inference. Nothing else has ever been observed. I don't see how it could be written off as weak? Infact I can't think of a stronger inductive inference. Are you saying that the problem of induction undermines all such inferences? That can't be surely.

Secondly I am positing that material actions only happen in a material universe and cannot happen in or from a proposed supernatural realm via an immaterial being. This to me seems logical.

The undermining of either of these premises would fault the argument, but I am not convinced your refutations work.

[fr0d0]

You're limiting God with science, which you don't have the knowledge to do. In your understanding of physics this is impossible because you don't know the link between temporal and non temporal. Assuming God assumes a creation from God. The theology is clearly asserting a link where you are not. The theology is consistent: it doesn't say that the two realms are disconnected as you are claiming, therefore your refutation is not addressing theology, but science.

[Captain Scarlet]

You're limiting God with science, which you don't have the knowledge to do. In your understanding of physics this is impossible because you don't know the link between temporal and non temporal. Assuming God assumes a creation from God. The theology is clearly asserting a link where you are not. The theology is consistent: it doesn't say that the two realms are disconnected as you are claiming, therefore your refutation is not addressing theology, but science.

You need to show me the error of my ways and challenge the premises. I am simply using definitions of god and what we know of our universe to disprove ominpotence. If god is omnipotent he can do anything in our universe, if so he must have potential or knietic energy (by induction), but as he is immaterial he can't posess such attributes. Therefore he is not ominpotent. Which I would then assert disproves the god at least of philosophical theism and Christianity (although perhaps not a Posieden for example). I am not constraining a god with science in this argument. If I were I would say outright that he does not exist becuase there is the immaterial does not exist.

[everythingafter]

2. God has created everything and can do whatever He pleases

Since when are arguments true just by making an assertion and then following the line of thinking out to some other fatuous conclusion? Oh, I finally get it! He created everything, so he can do anything he wants! Makes perfect sense. Glad that's settled once and for all.

1. Zeus is immaterial, not materialistic.
2. Zeus has created everything and can do whatever He pleases
3. Since Zeus can do whatever He wants, He can enter and manipulate the materialistic world
4. Therefore, Zeus is not constricted to the immaterialistic world

If God is, well, God, he doesn't necessarily have to be constricted to the immaterial world, and indeed, if he is constricted to the immaterial world, he's not omnipotent. In other words, if he can't affect events in the material world, he's limited in some way. And that's not our definition of God, unless of course, we want to claim that God is not omnipotent.

---

The Christian god is said to exist by definition in a superntural realm as an omnipotent but incorporeal mind. As such an incorporeal mind has no potential nor kinetic energy they are incapable of acting upon the material world.

I suppose, but it seems to me omnipotence, by definition, includes the ability to affect the physical world, or else, God is limited in some way. Ergo, he didn't make the heavens and earth, nor send plagues, nor any of the other physical actions commonly attributed to God. We can, of course, throw out the Bible, miracles and theology in general, which I'm happy to do, but that would seem to make above statement a non-issue in the first place.