Originally Posted by kennethamy

Omnigenesis which shows a God that is creator of all and is omnipotent and all good does not work, it is internally ccontradictory. A God that creates all and is all good and is omnipotent is internally inconsistent. A God that is all good and is outside of logic is provably impossible, the super god argument. If God is limited by logic, that means that God cannot have created logic, the universe that has logic as a basic property of that Universe and is thus not as claimed, creator of all, nor all powerful, both self contrardictory. A God that creates all and is all powerful or all knowing but not all good, that is essentially ammoral, is simply incomprehensible and cannot be the God of revelation who is claimed to be all good, righteous, merciful and just et al. Contradicting revelations like the Bible or the Quran, Vedas and others.

A God that creates all and is either omnipotent or omniscient knows the future of everything including his own relation to all parts of the actual, real state of the Universe for all time. Thus God has no free will, and never had free will, he is subject to theological hard determinism, that is all is determined for God who determines all else. If God is outside of time, since to be subject to time is to not be all powerful (Augustine, Boethius)
Then all is and all ever was as it is, there was no creation, no before and after, God makes no sense then. All ever was and its not God's doing, how did that arise? Impossible contradictions.

1. Omnigenesis - Omniscience and omnibenevolence and creatorship of all.
2. Omnigenesis - Omnipotence and omnibenevolence and creatorship.
3. Omnigenesis and omniscience but no omnibenevolence - contradicts revelation. And is nihilistically senseless.
4. Same with omnipotence.
5. A God that is outside of logic can eliminate evil. That God has no effective limits. Evil exists. That God does not.
6. A God that is subject to logic cannot have created the Universe with this logic. Contradicting all major revealed religions. An that makes logic and God a problem. (So much for TAG).
7. A God that creates all and is omniscient is subject to hard determinism and has no free will, and this contradicts claims God has free will.
8. A God that is outside of time creates a truly bizarre paradoxical universe where nothing was ever created, it always was what it is, unchanging, static, lacking free will, determined, and nihilistically senseless, pointless and unsatisfying. Contra all revelations.

There, 8 major contradictions that eliminate God as a possibility. I have mentioned all 8 here at some point or the other, I am sure people are getting tired of omnigenesis and supergod arguments despite the fact that they are very powerful arguments that gut god as a viable concept.

Bundled together, they converge on an unescapable conclusion, God as an idea just can't work. And I have another fist full of secondary arguments besides. And I am working on yet more.

9.
Example, if God is all good, just, merciful et al, he does no moral evil. He has a Good nature incapable of evil. And yet we say he has free will. We do not let his inability to not do evil to count against his free will.
So, why does not God create us with a god-like free will and a god-like good nature incapable of doing no moral evil? If he cannot do this, he is not as claimed, omnipotent. If he will not all evil is because he will not do that and he is omnimalevolent, not omnibenevolent.

10. God creates us, designed us,and thus the nature of man. Man can be designed to have a good nature, a bad nature, and indifferent nature. But we must have a nature and it can only come from God if we claim God created and designed us. If god designed our nature to do only evil God would be responsible for the evil we do. If God made our nature indifferent God is responsible for all evil we do. God can only make us with a good nature, such as he has. To not give us a good nature by design is to doom us to do evil. And thus makes God evil. If God must give us a nature and he is all good, he must give us a good nature. We have no real free will if given any of these three natures, or we must argue that a nature is not the same as being determined, we do have free will. If we have no free will, any nature is the same, no need not to give us a good nature. But we cannot be blamed for our acts. But if being made with an evil nature so we cannot do good is lacking free will, and thatseems tobe an inescapable conclusion, any of these three natures has the same lack of free will. Thus all evil is God's fault, contradicting claims of God being all good. An all good god MUST give us a good nature.
If any of these natures counts as free will, all are the same and thus we should again have a good nature as all are the same, but a good nature eliminates evil.


How many disproofs of a creator god,with maximum attributes, the God of revealed religions of 4.5 billion people, based on contradictions like these do you all want?

God's secondary attributres, transcedence, immanence or idealism/maya
all have similar problems, each of these has its own little contradictory quirks. Each has slightly different disproofs.

Plus claims of God's immutibiliy, simplicity, impassivity et al, more problems for God.

Does anybody get anything out of this stuff here or am I wasting my time posting this stuff here? It doesn't seem to stimulate any real discussion.
Or is it that people say "Well hard to argue with that?"?

I seem to note a distinct lack of curiosity about these arguments.
Do atheists care about strong atheism's disproofs of a viable God or not?
I came to IIDB for feed back, discussion, and to try out ideas and see what people like or don't like, develop rhetoric etc. Its not working well here for me.


Cheerful Charlie

Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie

You don't know what a contradiction is. A contradiction is of the form, p and not-p. Show me where God exists implies anything of the form, p and not-p. You just throw around the term, "contradiction" as if it means anything you don't like, mostly, in this case, something you happen not to like about what you claim is asserted about God.

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Oh dear.... I point out NUMEROUS contradictions and you don't get it.
God is claimed to be all good. An all good God will eliminate evil if possible. A God that is out side logic and not limited by logic can eliminate all evil, there is no logical limit to stop God from doing so. Evil exists. Therefore that God cannot exist.

You don't understand why that is a contradictory disproof of God? Then
I can't help you.

Goodbye.

CC

Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie

No, I don't get it.
The classic reply to the problem of evil, if that is the contradiction you are referring to, is Leibniz's in his theodicy. Leibniz argued that since all evils are logically necessary evils for the existence of some greater good, although God could have eliminated evil, He would not, since His purpose was to create the best of all logically possible worlds. Leibniz denies that God is "outside" of logic. Leibniz doesn't know what that means any more than I do.

Originally Posted by kennethamy

You aren't trying to get it either. No, I am not going to waste time with you. I am going to learn to use the ignore feature. I will not allow you to waste any more of my time.

Johnson having argued for some time with a pertinacious gentleman; his opponent, who had talked in a very puzzling manner, happened to say, "I don't understand you, Sir;" upon which Johnson observed, "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."
Boswell: Life


CC

Originally Posted by kennethamy

No, I don't get it.
The classic reply to the problem of evil, if that is the contradiction you are referring to, is Leibniz's in his theodicy. Leibniz argued that since all evils are logically necessary evils for the existence of some greater good, although God could have eliminated evil, He would not, since His purpose was to create the best of all logically possible worlds. Leibniz denies that God is "outside" of logic. Leibniz doesn't know what that means any more than I do.

Originally Posted by Alethias

What is a logically necessary evil? I don't think such a thing exists, in fact I think "logically necessary evil" is a meaningless phrase. If it doesn't exist, Leibniz's argument is based on nothing.

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Leibniz meant an evil which is logically necessary for some good. For instance, there could not be sympathy or pity unless there were the need to pity or to have sympathy. And for there to be such needs, there would have to be (logically) someone (or something) that needed pity or sympathy. And that would entail the existence of pain or suffering, i.e. evil. So, that evil is logically necessary for the existence of a certain good. (In any case, you have heard of necessary evils, haven't you? For example the necessary evil of going to a dentist to have a root canal procedure).

Originally Posted by Alethias

Bad teeth are part of the existent world. I guess that makes them logically necessary for root canals to exist, which are logically necessary for my wife to feel sympathy for me when I have to have one. So that means that it is logically necessary for a god to have created me so that I'd have bad teeth so my wife would feel sympathy for my root canals? I have a sister that's never had a bad tooth in her life. Why is it logically necessary for me to have bad teeth and not her? That is where this type of argument doesn't follow. It simply isn't consistent; it only applies when people want to make it apply to fit a convenient circumstance.

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Showing that the existence of evil is compatible with such a God is one thing, but showing that the existence of evil is not evidence against such a God is a very different thing. And, that, by the way, is what Voltaire brilliantly argued in his novel, Candide where he points out how preposterous it is that all the evils in the world (earthquakes, floods, rapes, and murders, to name just a few) are compensated for by some greater good. But, to repeat, that doesn't show that Leibniz has not solved the logical problem of evil which was an attempt to show that the existence of evil was logically inconsistent with the existence of an all good and all powerful God. It is logically possible, but empirically highly unlikely.