Assuming that the word 'god' refers to the 'creator of everything' and is 'perfect' (the majority of definitions) then the existence of 'free will' (if it does, indeed, exist) precludes the existence of such a god.

If I have free will, it stands to reason that I am able to apply it to creating something that did not exist before as a direct result of the unfettered choices I have made within the non-confines of that free will (In other words, a god would not have had any control of those choices and, therefore, also have no authorship of the creative result.)

Therefore, I would have created something that was not created by god.

Therefore, everything would not have been created by god.

Therefore, god would not exist as defined, i.e. creator of everything.

Therefore, god can only exist if there is no free will.

Therefore, if there were a god, there could be no sin (imperfection), since everything would be his doing.


**** addendum


This is a fascinating discussion of 'free will' - but much misses the irony of my point - in that it poses an argument in favor of atheism based on a standard argument used by Abrahamic believers - that god created everything - except he didn't. Actually, they are stuck with a tremendous paradox we, as atheists, are not. Because, if god created free will - he made it possible and, therefore, certain, that some things are NOT of his creation - but if he didn't create free will, then he is pre-damning many people to hell (which JW's and Calvinists sort of agree on.)

Of course, as an atheist, if there is no real random number (a no-cause cause), we also have a problem because that suggests (albeit on a chaos theory level) that everything is still pretermined by a hyper-complex multi-chain of causality and, in a way, suggests a 'Master Plan' of sorts (albeit it without an actual 'Master' behind it.).

Views: 333

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

But you haven't proven the existence of God to be false, only that certain definitions are either logically contradictory or end up begging the question. I can also prove that a square circle's existence is false without evidence. But all I've really proven is that it is possible to put words together in ways that don't make sense. So it is with most conversations about God ...
I don't want to go through this again, but it seems I have to.

Omnipotence is an essential characteristic of God in all the definitions. Omnipotence is self-contradictory; therefore, God does not exist. Why is it self-contradictory? Well, just think of two mutually exclusive alternatives: A and B, and ask yourself can God choose both A and B. God cannot; therefore, God is not omnipotent, and God does not exist.

If God is not omnipotent, then anyone can be God, which is absurd.
Apparently, many atheists still hold that existence is entirely deterministic (there are no uncaused causes - no truly random numbers). In that case, while there may be no 'author' so to speak - determinism would be the omnipotent feature of this existence and there would ba a de facto 'masterless master plan' since no actual deviation would be permitted.
As I recall from writing about St Anselm's Ontological Proof for the Existence of God almost 45 years ago, omnipotence has nothing to do with that definition of a god that existed. Some do, some don't.

In your little syllogism, there is the assumption (which you stated) that God is omnipotent. So, you've proven that an omnipotent god does not exist, not that a god of some other type doesn't exist.

If God is not omnipotent, then anyone can be God, which is absurd is a non sequitor and doesn't say or prove anything.
Yes, it does. Without omnipotence, anything can be God.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Not repetition.
What I tried to say is that without the essential characteristic "omnipotence" you can pretty much claim anything is God. A cat is God; a dog is God; a tree is God; a sun is God; you are God;.... It leads to polytheism, which is not God. It is understood here that there is only one God.
OK, I didn't see where it said that "omnipotence" is an essential characteristic of God. I also didn't see where it said what kind of omnipotence is being assumed. (See the Wiki for at least 6 -- of which 3 turn out to be equivalent.)

Even if we agree on all that, to go from non-omnipotent to anything can be God completely ignores "omniscience", "omnipresence", and "omnibenevolence" to start. If omnipotence is a necessary characteristic (condition), what is the evidence (logical or otherwise) that it is a sufficient condition?
For God to exist, we need omnipotence and omniscence and omnipresence and omnibenevolence to be true. Proving any one of them is false is enough to disprove God's existence.

As I said before, if omnipotence is not necessary, then anything can be God. We have only two hypotheses: 1.omnipotence as the essential characteristic. 2.omnipotence is not the essential characteristic. I have shown #2 leads to polytheism, which is wrong. That leaves us #1.
One of the definitions of omnipotence is that it is the power to do anything that is logically possible. In other words, no nonsense allowed. So, it is a meaningless string of words to ask God to choose both objects (thoughts, etc.) which are defined in a manner that only makes sense if only one can be chosen.
Omnipotence means the power to do everything in reality, which includes choosing both A and B in reality even when A and B are mutually exclusive. This is not about asking God to do anything. It's about whether He can do it or not. Apparently, NOT!
Again, from the Wiki: In response to questions of a deity performing impossibilities (such as making square circles) Aquinas says that "Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God." In other words, even Aquinas (along with many medieval philosophers) put limits on the concept of omnipotence. It has to be about something that is at least logically possible.

It is possible for an apple to be in place A or for it to be in place B. But there is no reality in which it is possible for the apple to be in both places at the same time. The sense of mutually exclusive is the same -- each describe a possible (future?) state of reality. But only one of those realities can be true at a time.

Now, if you're saying that Aquinas got it wrong, then we're back to which of the other 3 definitions of omnipotence you're using.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service