Imagine you were the smartest chemist ever. You already know how any substance mixed with any other substance will react. You don't even have to conduct experiments anymore because you know everything will react. You have rules when you do decide to experiment (maybe you are bored). If you create a bad substance, you flush it down the drain. If you create a good substance you put it in a flask, label it, and keep it on a very organized and clean shelf. Now imagine one day you decided to mix Hydrogen with two parts Chlorine. You test the solution by dipping your finger in the flask. It burns your finger, so you angrily flush the solution down the drain.

Now, as the smartest chemist to ever exist, you already knew about hydrochloric acid. You knew that the solution would burn you. But you created it anyway, knowing you would end up having to flush it all down the drain.

It is obvious that this chemist acted in a way inconsistent with his own definition. This experiment and test was illogical, given this chemist already knew about the solution. An inconsistent illogical chemist that is also somehow the smartest chemist cannot exist, as it violates the first logical absolute of identity. X cannot also be not-X.

That is exactly analogous to the Christian god. He combined two attributes of sentience, free will and a mind capable of rational, critical thought. He knew that this type of sentient being would necessarily reject his existence, through the honest application of reason and skepticism, but created this type of being nonetheless. He already knew that per his own rules, such a being would have to be flushed to eternal damnation.

An omnipotent god could create anything logically consistent. An omniscient god knows everything, including the future and how his creations would react if given certain abilities. This god then acted inconsistent with his own definition by creating a creation that would have to be discarded (eternally tormented) per his own standards. A god that acts inconsistent with its own definition obviously does not exist. A god that is logical cannot also be not logical.

In fact, per the Christian dogma, this incompetent (yet somehow all-knowing) god created mankind so barbaric and flawed that he had to wipe the slate clean with a global flood and start over with a drunk and his family. If we ignore the ridiculous idea of a boat holding two of every animal and the lack of evidence for this global event, we are still left with the inconsistency of an all-knowing god that created mankind knowing he would just have to flush it all away in just a few generations.

This same god would have also known that flooding the planet would not solve the problem of evil and barbarism (but he supposedly did it anyway). We are still left with a world that required that same god to send himself to Earth as a human to sacrifice himself to himself as a loophole for rules he created. And even after that ridiculous act, we are left with a god that created mankind so imperfect that they would still disbelieve these events ever happened due to a lack of evidence. He created mankind with the capability of forming rational beliefs based on evidence that would eventually necessarily result in the rejection of belief in gods. If he wanted us to believe without good reason, he would have never made us with this “flaw.”

I will expand this into another analogy. Imagine you are the ultimate architect. You know every rule of building any type of structure, and know how to build the perfect structure. Yet you build a very unstable building out of very poor materials and end up having to demolish the building when it almost immediately starts falling apart. Yet you had already known that the imperfections would be there, and that you would end up having to scrap the project. But you built it anyway, and sure enough, had to knock it all down and start over. So you then build another building using the same materials, having kept just a handful of bricks that had not broken when you demolished the first structure. Knowing that this structure was also doomed to fall apart, despite having kept a few good bricks from the original, you go down to the construction site in person and temporarily hold up a few bricks yourself. But you then leave, and don't bother leaving any evidence that you had ever even stopped by. You don't even bother to inspire people to write about your visit until decades had passed. And you don't bother fact-checking what they actually wrote about your visit. Of course several articles come out about your visit, each with conflicting details and all lacking any references or autographs from their authors.

You don't bother telling the authors to get their story straight and to perhaps record it all on something relatively indestructible like a sapphire-coated titanium plate. The articles then get lost and only resurface in fragments hundreds of years later.

The second structure indeed starts to fall apart shortly thereafter. And you sit back and watch it all burn and fall apart, even though it was your plan that led to this fate. Ultimately, you blame the bricks themselves, and smash the ones that failed to hold up the building into dust. But you don't completely destroy them quickly. Rather you break them and glue them back together so you can break them again over and over for all eternity in a process called hell.

That is the Christian god in a nutshell. It is inconsistent for an god to build an existence that he knows he will have to demolish. It is REALLY illogical for that same god to then rebuild the same existence, knowing it too would eventually fail. It is plainly ridiculous for that same god to then build anything with rules that he would have to then try to circumvent by personally visiting existence, leaving no sound evidence of his visit. And it is unjust and illogical to then punish his own creation just for using the skills he instilled them with in the first place. Yet that is what Christians would have us believe of their Designer, their Creator, his human incarnation, and their god. Belief is that god is illogical. An illogical god cannot exist. The Christian god cannot exist.

These analogies are based on a much longer argument of mine against the existence of the Christian god. If you want a more premise-conclusion based argument, I can add that later.

Tags: Christian god, god does not exist, human imperfection

Views: 66

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Of course, one way for this omniscient, omnipotent chemist/architect/god to be logically consistent is if he's just an evil bastard. :)  Thanks Gregory -- nice, coherent analogies.


That's ONE part Chlorine, bro ... Hydrochloric acid is HCl, one-to-one, from an atomic POV, at least.  And I should mention that predicting how new chemical compounds will behave is involved in the entire field of Physical Chemistry.

This is the whole contradiction issue, having an omniscient god who creates flawed human beings with free will, yet fails to anticipate all the mistakes, problems and foibles which are part and parcel of having beings who are supposedly not robots (no, I'm NOT going to get into the whole free-will-vs-predestination crap!).  What the biblical model of a deity looks far more like is a very powerful but NOT omnipotent (hell, not omni-ANYTHING!) god who is dabbling in things he doesn't fully understand, nor has he sufficient foresight to predict obvious possible consequences of his experiments.

Hell of a note, isn't it?  On top of the utterly on-point accusations Richard Dawkins makes about the god of the old testament, that god is also INEPT.

If there is a god, as in the Bible/Quran etc., and if that god is omniscient,  omnipotent and infinite, then it knew everything, before it made the universe. It knew all of the future down to the tiniest detail.

Compare this to a man who murders a person by sniping a bullet into the victim's heart from a concealed location. That murderer is caught, and put on trial. He is convicted, despite some friends of his saying that it was not him who did the killing, but the bullet, and the weakness of the human form.

The judge said that such a defence was inane, and that the murdering sniper knew full well, that the bullet was likely to hit the target and kill the victim. It was in the mind of the murderer that the future would pan out with the death of the victim. There was no defence, not even the silly ones that the wind could have blown the bullet off-course, the victim might have fainted to the ground before the critical moment, a dog could have run up and made the victim change course etc..

In the same way, there is no defence for a god which knew with even greater certainty, that if it created a universe, the future would pan out exactly as the god knew in its mind, in advance, how it would be. A god as described, would have had the power to make the universe otherwise, and to have a future pan out differently. We can only assume that the god wanted the universe to be as it is, and all events to unfold as they have done and will do henceforth. There would be no room for any variance, or fortuitous event to influence the unfolding of history, other than exactly what such a god in its omniscience knew, and still knows.

A god like that would be responsible for everything, and should be held to account and to even a greater degree than the sniping murderer; after all any number things could have gone 'wrong', to make the murder attempt fail. There would be no such let-off for an omniscient, omnipotent and infinite creator god.

In agreement with other writers in this thread, this does not disprove the existence of a god, but it does show that this god, (if it were to exist), is not like the one which most religious people believe in.

Coherent, yes, except for my mistake on how to make hydrochloric acid. HA HA HA! It has been 20 years since I was in a chemistry class. I took honors chemistry in high school and loved it. I memorized the periodic table and various compounds. But obviously, I retained about 30% of that information. 

I like the word INEPT. That is a good point. INEPTNESS is in contradiction to the typical standards we have for a god. Is it possible an inept god exists? I guess. But as Dillahunty puts it, that god is certainly not worthy of worship and the words of that god should not be taken seriously. 

This comes down to how we define a god. It is possible we were designed by a transcendent being. There is no evidence for this, but it is possible. But maybe the transcendent being is merely some alien that lives in hyperspace or something. That alien could certainly be inept. It could have designed our world as a sort of science experiment and abandoned the project out of disinterest. That would be consistent with our lack of evidence. 

Ah, I definitely agree with you.

One thing I've noticed over the years is that if there is in fact a god that he or she (not sure why a god needs a gender!) is terrible at creation. We're far from perfect in any sense. 

I don't know who it was who originally posed this question, but it still begs for a proper answer, to wit:

What kind of god puts a recreation center in the middle of a sewage farm?

HA! That is an oldie but goodie.

It is the same god that designed us to breathe and drink through the same orifice. The same 'designer' that thought it made sense to give us more teeth than our jaws could accommodate. The same guy that thought having the light sensing cells of the eye face backwards, and require the nerves to then pass through a hole in the retina, creating a blind spot. The fact that people still think our bodies are so amazingly designed is to ignore the facts.


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon




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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service