The Argument Against God's Existence From God's Imperfect Choice

[Mystic]

1. Free-will.
2. Consequences.
3. Fallen world.
4. We are in this together.
5. The world is horrible, not even 1% of God's compassion comes to this world.
6. Love has wonders, and it will manifest the wonders in trials of suffering that we are afflicted with.
7. Patience is the steering head of love.
8. Fear is the guardian protector aspect of love.
10. Hope is the mover of love and it's fuel.
11. Appreciation is highest form of love, and fear aspect of appreciation level of love seeks to protect the treasures given by the beloved.
12. He created life and death to try us who is best in actions.
13. The state of the world is a highly improbable with a benevolent Creator because Adam was not expected to waver, because humans weren't expect to prefer Jinn Worshiping over submitting to God through chosen humans out of jealousy, because Cabel was never expected to kill Abel, and proofs from God were meant to restore the world without disease and afflictions and it was not expected we mock proofs and take the Messengers as a mockery, by almost all infecting ourselves with a laughter and playful deception to ourselves and others from a dark magic from Iblis....

In short, God expected us to react better then we have. Of course, he always knew this was possible, and is now dealing with a very bad case scenario, that was always possible but originally improbable.

The story of Adam down to Messengers, is to show, that this is not a probable world and it's not rational that God would make us suffer like this, but we have chosen rebellion and worship the dark traits of Iblis and cling to him knowingly or unknowingly.


Anyways, the solution is still the same. Turn to God through his chosen ones, the beautiful names of God that are Captains and Drivers of all souls to the peace meant for us, and the world will be restored to a perfect world.

Corruption and diseases and natural disasters will cease once we cease our rebellion, and Adam was never meant to taste hunger or death.

May God heal our hearts.

[SteveII]

Premise (1) is not true. God chooses what is best. It is not logical that he would die on a cross. It is loving that he would die on a cross. This unravels your whole argument.

Strawman. Do you not understand logical possibility?

"God always chooses what is best" and "God always chooses the best logically possible option" is exactly the same damn thing if you accept that God cannot do the logically impossible. You are equivocating by using "logical" to mean as opposed to "loving" or something else of the heart instead of of the head, whereas I was using "logical" to refer to logical possibility. As was abundantly clear. How can you not see that I was talking of logical possibility when it was stated right there?

For reference, this is what you said:

Premise 1: God always chooses the best logically possible option.
Premise 2. There is a better logically possible option than the one in which God has chosen which he hasn't chosen.
Conclusion: Therefore such a God does not exist.

I understand your point. However then according to your own response, you don't actually mean "logically possible"--you simply mean "best possible".  You have to distinguish between logically possible and actually possible (logical modality). For example, a world where everyone chooses good is, broadly speaking, logically possible--logic alone cannot rule it out. But clearly, additional criteria is needed to determine if it is actually possible. It is logically possible that something can travel faster than the speed of light. However, physical constraints of the universe seem to set a limit so it is not actually possible. Premise (1) cannot be logically possible because in Premise (2) it clearly must mean actually possible. THEREFORE, your whole inserting of "logically" is meaningless and what you really mean is just 

Premise 1: God always chooses the best logically possible option.
Premise 2. There is a better logically possible option than the one in which God has chosen which he hasn't chosen.
Conclusion: Therefore such a God does not exist.

which brings up what you mean by "best". Premise (1) is not valid if you don't define "best". "Best" is a value judgement weighed against how well it meet a certain criteria. What is your criteria and more importantly why should it also be God's criteria? 

Premise (2) is also not true for two reasons:

(a) For your premise to be true, God would have to be able to control all the variables and therefore the outcomes.

So you are saying he can't?

If God created people with free will, then he has by definition, subordinated his ability to control everything. Freewill entails a sinful world. Free will entails that God has subordinated control of some things. 

That's just another example of him choosing an inferior option unless you are biting the bullet and saying that "free will" is worth child rape, serial killings, genocide and animal cruelty... all of which God foresaw.

And that's not to mention the fact that there are two kinds of free will: One kind that is logically incoherent and even God himself doesn't have... and another kind that is possible in a deterministic world and was possible even before God supposedly "gave" us it. There's absolutely nothing about compatabilist free will that means God is unable to intervene... as we violate each other's compatabilist free will all the time. Are you saying God has given himself less power than us? And he thinks that allowing all the needless suffering in the world to happen is justified?

Libertarian Free Will is not only taught throughout the Bible, but is core to the entire message of God/redemption/etc. To argue against God, you don't get to deny the theology that goes with it. Otherwise you are question begging. 

I am saying exactly what I said. Free will entails that God has subordinated control of some things. Why do you say "needless" suffering. You are begging the question again. You have not proved that it is needless or can have been prevented while achieving the same goals. 

(b) Your example has to be from a Christian worldview. Under such a worldview, a child dying of cancer is not the greatest loss. That child never existing would be a greater loss.

In case you didn't realize, the child existing and NOT dying of cancer is the greater option... and it is logically possible... therefore God failed to choose the better option. Q.E.D.

and again, you are using logically possible incorrectly. You have not shown that avoiding such a thing is actually possible while achieving the same goals.  

With Premise (1) not being the case and Premise (2) being severely undercut, this argument fails to support the conclusion.

You equivocated on the word "logical" and made a strawman out of premise (1), thereby you didn't even address it... and you admitted on premise (2) that our "free will" is worth all the awful suffering that goes on in the world.... AND you failed to refute the logically possible option of a child NOT dying of cancer AND being born. The fact that that is logically possible and God doesn't choose it just demonstrates my point. And, you can't make the free will argument against that. Which is why you made a fallacy of a false dilemma between a child not being born at all and a child being born with cancer. It is logically possible that the child that was born with cancer could have been born WITHOUT cancer, and yet God didn't choose that. Q.E.D.

P.S. I suspect that Christians will dispute premise (2). But disputing premise (1) makes literally no sense unless you are saying that God can do the logically impossible. The fact that you equivocated and strawmanned premise (1) despite how incredibly clear it is makes me think you either (a) don't understand logical possibility or (b) were being disingenuous and misrepresented it on purpose. You're just being silly if you're disputing premise (1). Talk about doubling down on irrationality.

Either that or you think God can make square circles. In which case you are saying he is beyond reason so there's literally no point in reasoning with you.

You lack basic conversation skills. I didn't have to respond to you little syllogism. Change your tone or it won't happen again.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do the physical constraints of the universe limit gods, somehow..such that what may be logically possible.....are beyond their actual ability?

[Drich]

I'm sure a similiar argument against God has been done in the past... but here is my formulation of an argument I call The Argument Against God's Existence From God's Imperfect Choice.

The idea being, that if a perfect God always makes perfect choices then if he makes an imperfect choice then not all his choices are perfect so such a perfect God does not exist. Here's the argument:

Premise 1: God always chooses the best logically possible option.
Premise 2. There is a better logically possible option than the one in which God has chosen which he hasn't chosen.
Conclusion: Therefore such a God does not exist.

My guess is that premise 2 is the only premise in dispute by most theists (most theists accept that God cannot do the logically impossible).

An example of premise 2 being true is a world that was otherwise exactly the same as the one we live in but just one less child died of cancer. That's a logically possible world that is an improvement on this one. And yet God hasn't chosen it, which means God's choice is imperfect, so if all God's choices are perfect then this means that such a God does not exist.

Discuss.

1 from who's perspective?

If God always chooses what is logical can then He not have the ability to make a choice out of compassion? or make one for the greater good logical or not?

1) the statement God always chooses the best logically possible option is false. Because that statement presupposes that best and logical are to be determined by m.n per your example below. In truth God as a plan for man and even individuals. The bible shows that God always make decisions based on the fulfillment of his plans and or any prophesies tied to His final outcome.

So Yes God always chooses the best outcome, but what is accordance to His will and not our own. does that mean kids will die, yes does that mean good people will loose everything sure will/lord willing. Why?

Because to God it is far more important that your eternal home/future is secure than anyone person place or thing.. That while pushing for the events in the book of revelation.

Premise 2. There is a better logically possible option than the one in which God has chosen which he hasn't chosen.

If your primary premise is wrong then it is no wonder your follow up and conclusion also fails.
Again your idea of 'logic' does not play into a decision God wold make. God ultimately makes choices from an omni present state knowing the consequence of every action every life and every death. Sometimes death if far more merciful than a full long life. Sometimes the death of a person if far better than the death of several different people or a whole people. but all you see is a kid with cancer and the immediate effect.

how narrow minded one must be to not be able to look past a single story of a child with cancer and see anything but the immediate circumstance.

So not you logic/reasoning argument where God is paradoxically fixed into making your decisions fails a horrible death and you should be ashamed embarrassed for think that if God does not think as you do there can be no God..

[Edwardo Piet]

I understand your point. However then according to your own response, you don't actually mean "logically possible"--you simply mean "best possible". 

No, I mean the best logically possible answer.

 You have to distinguish between logically possible and actually possible (logical modality).

Or in other words, between logically possible and metaphysical possible. This is just an irrelevant tangent you're going on though because I specifically stated logically possible. God can supposedly do anything logically possible even if it isn't metaphysically possible.

For example, a world where everyone chooses good is, broadly speaking, logically possible--logic alone cannot rule it out.

We're not talking about metaphysical possibility we are talking about logical possibility. Something is logically possible if it can be described without being logically contradictory or logically incoherent.

But clearly, additional criteria is needed to determine if it is actually possible.

God can supposedly do anything that is logically possible even if it isn't metaphysically possible, yes?

It is logically possible that something can travel faster than the speed of light. However, physical constraints of the universe seem to set a limit so it is not actually possible.

Indeed... and God is supposedly beyond these physical constraints.

Again, this is just a red herring on your part. I specifically say that God can and does choose the best logically possible option. God can supposedly do anything that is logically possible even if it isn't metaphysically possible.

Premise (1) cannot be logically possible because

That's absurd. Premise one HAS to be logically possible because it's literally a tautology to say that God chooses what is the best logically possible option when you already concede that God can do anything logically possible and always makes perfect choices!

 in Premise (2) it clearly must mean actually possible

And again, it makes sense to dispute premise 2 from a Christian perspective but you're just doubling down on absurdity by disputing premise 1 if you accept that God can do anything logically possible and always chooses the best option. If you're not even willing to make the most basic of concessions when you're very clearly mistaken even according to your own viewpoints then this is clearly you not even arguing honestly and just doubling down on being wrong. But it didn't really make any sense to dispute premise (1) at all from a Christian perspective. You were very clearly equivoating on my use of the word "logical" when I was very clearly talking about logical possibility. Now you are going off on another red herring about metaphysical possibility/modal possibility and yet failing to notice the fact that premise (1) only speaks of logical possibility so you're not even addressing premise (1) let alone refuting it.

THEREFORE, your whole inserting of "logically" is meaningless and what you really mean is just 

Do you or do you not accept that God can do anything logically possible and chooses the best logically possible option? The only way you can possibly deny premise (1) is by accepting that God is beyond logic and can do the logically impossible or that he doesn't always choose the best of all logically possible options.

Premise 1: God always chooses the best logically possible option.

You strike it out and say it's "meaningless" and yet the entire point is that some Christians say God can do anything even the logically impossible and others recognize that that makes no sense and God can obviously not do the logically impossible as the logically impossible isn't even anything coherent at all.

If you don't accept premise one then you are not accepting the idea that God CAN do anything that is logically possible and DOES choose the best logically possible option. Seriously, stop playing silly games and move onto premise 2 if you want your criticism of my argument to actually be taken seriously. Premise 1 is indisputable unless you think God isn't so perfect after all or that he is so perfect that he can make square circles and married bachellors.

which brings up what you mean by "best". Premise (1) is not valid if you don't define "best"

We already have a concept for the best option. It means better than all other possible options. The point is if we can accept that there is a world that can be described that is better than this world then God can bring that world about because it is logically possible (because it can be described without a contradiction which is what logically possible means).... so the only possible dispute lies in whether a better world than this one can be described. My argument isn't invalid until the word is defined. The word is defined and we know what it means. It's merely a matter of opinion whether there's a logically possible better world because it's a matter of opinion about what is better than what. But, it is still true that if there is a logically possible better world that can be described... then my argument is valid. If my premises are true then my conclusion follows. And premise 2 is the only premise that you can realistically dispute.

 "Best" is a value judgement weighed against how well it meet a certain criteria.

Indeed. So the question is... can a world that is better than this one be described?

What is your criteria and more importantly why should it also be God's criteria? 

If something is truly better it's better regardless of what God thinks. The point is that if a better world can be described and God has failed to choose it then he either can't or won't.

Libertarian Free Will is not only taught throughout the Bible, but is core to the entire message of God/redemption/etc. To argue against God, you don't get to deny the theology that goes with it. Otherwise you are question begging. 

I'm not question begging anything as Libertarian Free Will is not only logically incoherent and impossible regardless of whether determinism or indeterminism is true but I've already made arguments against why it is impossible repeatedly on AF. Want me to share it again?

I am saying exactly what I said. Free will entails that God has subordinated control of some things. Why do you say "needless" suffering. You are begging the question again.

What question do you think I'm begging?

If God can no longer violate people's free will even if he wants to then it is not true to say that he is omnipotent.

You have not proved that it is needless or can have been prevented while achieving the same goals. 

I don't have to prove that needless suffering is needless LOL. I'm not saying that all suffering is needless.

It's not my job to prove that God can prevent it while achieving the same goals as God can supposedly do anything logically possible so we already know that he could do that.

and again, you are using logically possible incorrectly.

Wrong. It's you who doesn't seem to understand the difference between logical possibility and metaphysical possibility. If something is logically possible it just means that something can be described coherently without any logical contradictions.

You have not shown that avoiding such a thing is actually possible while achieving the same goals. 

Again, I wasn't talking about actual/modal/metaphysical possibility. I am saying that God can do anything that is logically possible and that is supposedly what you believe omnipotence is about, yes? God is beyond the physical world and can do absolutely anything... which is why he is omnipotent. He can't do the logically impossible but that's only because such things cannot even be described and are therefore a total absence of anything and therefore aren't anything that he cannot do.

You lack basic conversation skills. I didn't have to respond to you little syllogism. Change your tone or it won't happen again.

Change my tone? You're the one who just randomly got rude right here right now. You're the first one to get personal.

---

Do the physical constraints of the universe limit gods, somehow..such that what may be logically possible.....are beyond their actual ability?

Apparently God can't do the metaphysically impossible either which could make his powers so limited that what is actually possible isn't very impressive at all compared to a being that could do absolutely anything logically possible. The answer to all God's apparent mistakes could actually be "Avoiding that apparent mistake wasn't metaphysically possible."

---

In short, God expected us to react better then we have. Of course, he always knew this was possible, and is now dealing with a very bad case scenario, that was always possible but originally improbable.

Lol he didn't just always know that this is possible he always knew that this would be actual. And from God's perspective there is no such thing as improbable as everything that will happen is absolutely certain to him.

[Mystic]

---

In short, God expected us to react better then we have. Of course, he always knew this was possible, and is now dealing with a very bad case scenario, that was always possible but originally improbable.

Lol he didn't just always know that this is possible he always knew that this would be actual. And from God's perspective there is no such thing as improbable as everything that will happen is absolutely certain to him.

You know everything about God it seems soon you will be his Prophet.

[Godscreated]

I'm sure a similiar argument against God has been done in the past... but here is my formulation of an argument I call The Argument Against God's Existence From God's Imperfect Choice.

The idea being, that if a perfect God always makes perfect choices then if he makes an imperfect choice then not all his choices are perfect so such a perfect God does not exist. Here's the argument:

Premise 1: God always chooses the best logically possible option.
Premise 2. There is a better logically possible option than the one in which God has chosen which he hasn't chosen.
Conclusion: Therefore such a God does not exist.

My guess is that premise 2 is the only premise in dispute by most theists (most theists accept that God cannot do the logically impossible).

An example of premise 2 being true is a world that was otherwise exactly the same as the one we live in but just one less child died of cancer. That's a logically possible world that is an improvement on this one. And yet God hasn't chosen it, which means God's choice is imperfect, so if all God's choices are perfect then this means that such a God does not exist.

Discuss.

 What makes you think there's another possible world (time line), there is no proof of such a thing thus your argument is a mute point, bye, bye.
Other atheist will have to argue against you because they do not believe in free choice, period and to have another world ie. time line there would have to be free choice, it is inescapable. 

GC

[Alan V]

---

Lol he didn't just always know that this is possible he always knew that this would be actual. And from God's perspective there is no such thing as improbable as everything that will happen is absolutely certain to him.

You know everything about God it seems soon you will be his Prophet.

It follows from the theistic assumption that God is all-knowing, which is from your own Prophet. So it's logic, not theology.  It's an if-then statement: If God is all-knowing, then he can't be surprised by anything which happens.

---

3. Fallen world.

...

Corruption and diseases and natural disasters will cease once we cease our rebellion, and Adam was never meant to taste hunger or death.

I assume by "fallen world" that you believe God physically altered the nature of the world when "Adam rebelled."  Is that correct?  If so, I guess that means you don't believe in the scientific understanding of evolution, or that nature has always been "red in tooth and claw."

Don't you think it's possible that at least one living person, if not quite a few, do not rebel against God, yet still live in this same world as everyone else?

[Jehanne]

I'm sure a similiar argument against God has been done in the past... but here is my formulation of an argument I call The Argument Against God's Existence From God's Imperfect Choice.

The idea being, that if a perfect God always makes perfect choices then if he makes an imperfect choice then not all his choices are perfect so such a perfect God does not exist. Here's the argument:

Premise 1: God always chooses the best logically possible option.
Premise 2. There is a better logically possible option than the one in which God has chosen which he hasn't chosen.
Conclusion: Therefore such a God does not exist.

My guess is that premise 2 is the only premise in dispute by most theists (most theists accept that God cannot do the logically impossible).

An example of premise 2 being true is a world that was otherwise exactly the same as the one we live in but just one less child died of cancer. That's a logically possible world that is an improvement on this one. And yet God hasn't chosen it, which means God's choice is imperfect, so if all God's choices are perfect then this means that such a God does not exist.

Discuss.

It seems like a variation on the Argument from Evil, but I think that yours is a good argument.  Of course, adherents of theism, which can never be falsified, will always be able to provide an answer to anything.

[Edwardo Piet]

---

Lol he didn't just always know that this is possible he always knew that this would be actual. And from God's perspective there is no such thing as improbable as everything that will happen is absolutely certain to him.

You know everything about God it seems soon you will be his Prophet.

God is supposed to be omniscient. I'm not the one claiming he knows everything I'm accepting the premise that he does, as most people think he does. Do you think he doesn't know some things?

---

 What makes you think there's another possible world (time line), there is no proof of such a thing thus your argument is a mute point, bye, bye.

I didn't say there was such a possible world at all. I'm talking about logical possibility not metaphysical possibility.

Do you mean "moot point"?

It's not a moot point because I didn't say there was such a possible world at all. I'm talking about logical possibility not metaphysical possibility.

Other atheist will have to argue against you because they do not believe in free choice, period and to have another world ie. time line there would have to be free choice, it is inescapable. 

No one has to argue with me on this matter. But I'm making an argument against God's existence so it's the theists who have to address it. Omnipotence as the ability to do anything logical possible is an ability prescribed to God by Christians.

---

1 from who's perspective?

Premise 1 isn't about perspective.

If God always chooses what is logical

I didn't say God always chooses what is logical.

can then He not have the ability to make a choice out of compassion?

Yes he can as such a thing is logically possible.

or make one for the greater good logical or not?

It's not about God only doing logical things it's about God having the ability to do anything logically possible. It basically means God is able to do absolutely anything except for impossible things like make square circles or married bachelors.

1) the statement God always chooses the best logically possible option is false.

So he sometimes chooses worse options?

Because that statement presupposes that best and logical are to be determined by m.n per your example below.

No it doesn't. Premise 1 isn't about premise 2. All premise 1 says is that God chooses the best logically possible option.

In truth God has a plan for man and even individuals.

And such a plan has to be logically possible otherwise he can't carry it out.

The bible shows that God always make decisions based on the fulfillment of his plans and or any prophesies tied to His final outcome.

This doesn't contradict premise 1.

So Yes God always chooses the best outcome, but what is accordance to His will and not our own.

So if he always chooses the best outcome he must choose the best logically possible option. So it seems that you do accept premise 1.

does that mean kids will die, yes does that mean good people will loose everything sure will/lord willing. Why?

Because to God it is far more important that your eternal home/future is secure than anyone person place or thing.. That while pushing for the events in the book of revelation.

This is a false dilemma as God doesn't have to choose between those options as there is a logically possible option that is better than them both: The option of God saving your eternal home/future without kids dying.

If your primary premise is wrong then it is no wonder your follow up and conclusion also fails.

The follow up premise wouldn't fail even if premise 1 did because it's a separate premise. Only the conclusion would fail if one of the premises did. And premise 1 is the premise that can't be wrong unless you think God either doesn't always choose the best option or God is able to choose impossible options.

Again your idea of 'logic' does not play into a decision God wold make.

Do you know what "logically possible" means?

God ultimately makes choices from an omni present state knowing the consequence of every action every life and every death.

This doesn't contradict premise 1.

Sometimes death if far more merciful than a full long life.

This doesn't contradict premise 1 either.

Sometimes the death of a person if far better than the death of several different people or a whole people. but all you see is a kid with cancer and the immediate effect.

None of this contradicts premise 1. Like as I have told you and Steve multiple times now: Premise 2 is the only premise that is in dispute unless you think God can do things like make square circles or God doesn't choose the best possible option. All premise 1 says is that God chooses the best option and that the best option available is something logically possible as the Christian sense of omnipotence does claim that God cannot do logically impossible things.

how narrow minded one must be to not be able to look past a single story of a child with cancer and see anything but the immediate circumstance.

Again you're just making a false dilemma again. God doesn't have to allow bad things to happen in order to carry out his plans. God is able to do absolutely anything logically possible.

So not you logic/reasoning argument where God is paradoxically fixed into making your decisions fails a horrible death and you should be ashamed embarrassed for think that if God does not think as you do there can be no God..

It's the Christians who claim that God can do absolutely anything logically possible. It isn't me who claims to know what God can and can't do. It's the Christians. Premise 1 is literally a Christian premise. That's why it's so silly to object to premise 1. The dispute is premise 2. The fact premise 1 is disputed either means that the Christians I am talking to either (a) Don't understand logical possibility (b) Don't think God always chooses the best possible option © Are disagreeing with premise 1 for the sake of it merely because I'm giving an argument against God despite the fact it's actually a Christian premise. Christians claim that God always chooses to take the best option and that he can do anything logically possible. That's all premise 1 is.