Strong Atheism - God and omnipotence

[Cheerful Charlie]

Strong atheism is the proposition that God can be logically disproven. The God of Bible and Quran, that supposedly reveal too us by God's revelation trustworthy information about God's nature and attributes.

Anselm stated God is that which is so great that nothing greater can be imagined. Lets see where this idea leads.

What is omnipotence? Rene Descartes and William of Okham both famously stated God was truly omnipotent, that God made the rules, the laws, the logic and metaphysical necessities of the Universe. Such as 2 + 2 = 4. God could if he desired, make 2 + 2 = 5 if he so desired. Obviously the truly omnipotent God of Descartes annd Okham is the greatest God imaginable.

God is also dogmatically stated to be good, perfectly good. Anselm claimed, some things are good, some better than merely good, and the most supremely good is God.

1. If God is truly good, God would wish to eliminate all moral evil that could be eliminated.
2. God has free will and a good nature. God, of his own free will only does good, never moral evil.
3. If God wishes to eliminate moral evil, he would give man a god-like good nature and a god-like free will.
4. Since God makes the rules, anything that might thwart God's desires would be modified to allow his desires to be fulfilled.
5. Thus any possible excuse that could be offered to explain why God could not eliminate moral evil must be false.
6. Moral evil exists, logically we must conclude this greatest possible cannot.

This establishes the logical truth God is not creator of the laws, rules, metaphysical necessities and logic of the Universe.
There is no super-logic that allows God to ignore logic in any way.
So obviously God did not create these things, the logic of the Universe.

By imagining the greatest God possible, we prove that naturalism is more powerful than that God, and we have logically establish naturalism exists and is greater than God. If one abandons the claim God is omnipotent in the sense of super-omnipotence of Descartes and Okham, the the theist concedes naturalism is established. Naturalism, being strongly established, cannot be eliminated, but God is now superflous. The nature of reality is naturalism, naturalism creates the Universe as we know it. God ar best can only be secondary, naturalism does all the heavy lifting.

This also eliminates the claim God creates everything. Yet another contradiction for theology. The strong proof that the super-omnipotent God does not exist, that naturalism exists, coupled will other proofs God does not exist as defined, such as omnigenesis, demonstrates God is an incoherent concept that fails, and that failure strongly establishes an atheistic naturalism must be the true nature of reality.

Cheerful Charlie

[Eric]

Strong atheism is the proposition that God can be logically disproven. The God of Bible and Quran, that supposedly reveal too us by God's revelation trustworthy information about God's nature and attributes.

Anselm stated God is that which is so great that nothing greater can be imagined. Lets see where this idea leads.

What is omnipotence? Rene Descartes and William of Okham both famously stated God was truly omnipotent, that God made the rules, the laws, the logic and metaphysical necessities of the Universe. Such as 2 + 2 = 4. God could if he desired, make 2 + 2 = 5 if he so desired. Obviously the truly omnipotent God of Descartes annd Okham is the greatest God imaginable.

God is also dogmatically stated to be good, perfectly good. Anselm claimed, some things are good, some better than merely good, and the most supremely good is God.

1. If God is truly good, God would wish to eliminate all moral evil that could be eliminated.
2. God has free will and a good nature. God, of his own free will only does good, never moral evil.
3. If God wishes to eliminate moral evil, he would give man a god-like good nature and a god-like free will.
4. Since God makes the rules, anything that might thwart God's desires would be modified to allow his desires to be fulfilled.
5. Thus any possible excuse that could be offered to explain why God could not eliminate moral evil must be false.
6. Moral evil exists, logically we must conclude this greatest possible cannot.

This establishes the logical truth God is not creator of the laws, rules, metaphysical necessities and logic of the Universe.
There is no super-logic that allows God to ignore logic in any way.
So obviously God did not create these things, the logic of the Universe.

By imagining the greatest God possible, we prove that naturalism is more powerful than that God, and we have logically establish naturalism exists and is greater than God. If one abandons the claim God is omnipotent in the sense of super-omnipotence of Descartes and Okham, the the theist concedes naturalism is established. Naturalism, being strongly established, cannot be eliminated, but God is now superflous. The nature of reality is naturalism, naturalism creates the Universe as we know it. God ar best can only be secondary, naturalism does all the heavy lifting.

This also eliminates the claim God creates everything. Yet another contradiction for theology. The strong proof that the super-omnipotent God does not exist, that naturalism exists, coupled will other proofs God does not exist as defined, such as omnigenesis, demonstrates God is an incoherent concept that fails, and that failure strongly establishes an atheistic naturalism must be the true nature of reality.

Cheerful Charlie

BY the way Charlie, I did answer your question on "My Faith As it Stands Now". To answer the above: Strong atheism is the proposition that God can be logically disproven.
Science proceeds from facts to laws to theories by a difficult-to-define process called induction. Induction includes pattern-recognition, brainstorming, tinkering, creative guessing and that elusive "insight". It is not a process of deductive logic.

Theories and laws are required to be of such form that one can deductively proceed from theories to laws to data. The results of deduction must meet a stringent standard: they must agree with experiment and with observations of nature.

Furthermore: Coming to conclusions based on religious beliefs versus science only proves the belief being scrutinized as wrong and does not prove that a higher intelligence cannot exist.

Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence. --- Joseph Wood Krutch
Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do. --- James Harvey Robinson

[Cheerful Charlie]

Strong atheism is the proposition that God can be logically disproven. The God of Bible and Quran, that supposedly reveal too us by God's revelation trustworthy information about God's nature and attributes.

Anselm stated God is that which is so great that nothing greater can be imagined. Lets see where this idea leads.

What is omnipotence? Rene Descartes and William of Okham both famously stated God was truly omnipotent, that God made the rules, the laws, the logic and metaphysical necessities of the Universe. Such as 2 + 2 = 4. God could if he desired, make 2 + 2 = 5 if he so desired. Obviously the truly omnipotent God of Descartes annd Okham is the greatest God imaginable.

God is also dogmatically stated to be good, perfectly good. Anselm claimed, some things are good, some better than merely good, and the most supremely good is God.

1. If God is truly good, God would wish to eliminate all moral evil that could be eliminated.
2. God has free will and a good nature. God, of his own free will only does good, never moral evil.
3. If God wishes to eliminate moral evil, he would give man a god-like good nature and a god-like free will.
4. Since God makes the rules, anything that might thwart God's desires would be modified to allow his desires to be fulfilled.
5. Thus any possible excuse that could be offered to explain why God could not eliminate moral evil must be false.
6. Moral evil exists, logically we must conclude this greatest possible cannot.

This establishes the logical truth God is not creator of the laws, rules, metaphysical necessities and logic of the Universe.
There is no super-logic that allows God to ignore logic in any way.
So obviously God did not create these things, the logic of the Universe.

By imagining the greatest God possible, we prove that naturalism is more powerful than that God, and we have logically establish naturalism exists and is greater than God. If one abandons the claim God is omnipotent in the sense of super-omnipotence of Descartes and Okham, the the theist concedes naturalism is established. Naturalism, being strongly established, cannot be eliminated, but God is now superflous. The nature of reality is naturalism, naturalism creates the Universe as we know it. God ar best can only be secondary, naturalism does all the heavy lifting.

This also eliminates the claim God creates everything. Yet another contradiction for theology. The strong proof that the super-omnipotent God does not exist, that naturalism exists, coupled will other proofs God does not exist as defined, such as omnigenesis, demonstrates God is an incoherent concept that fails, and that failure strongly establishes an atheistic naturalism must be the true nature of reality.

Cheerful Charlie

BY the way Charlie, I did answer your question on "My Faith As it Stands Now". To answer the above: Strong atheism is the proposition that God can be logically disproven.
Science proceeds from facts to laws to theories by a difficult-to-define process called induction. Induction includes pattern-recognition, brainstorming, tinkering, creative guessing and that elusive "insight". It is not a process of deductive logic.

Theories and laws are required to be of such form that one can deductively proceed from theories to laws to data. The results of deduction must meet a stringent standard: they must agree with experiment and with observations of nature.

Furthermore: Coming to conclusions based on religious beliefs versus science only proves the belief being scrutinized as wrong and does not prove that a higher intelligence cannot exist.

Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence. --- Joseph Wood Krutch
Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do. --- James Harvey Robinson

Your reply seems to consist of general handwaving.

IF God is good and truly omnipotent as per Okham and Descartes, we should in fact live in a world without moral evil.

Moral evil does in fact exist.

Logically then, it is established that the laws, rules, and logic of the Universe is outside and beyond the control of God, that is naturalism is true and trumps any possible God. contradicting theological claims made for God derived from supposed revelations from God.

"Theology is the making up of bad reasons for things we are going to believe anyway"
-- G.E. Moore

Cheerful Charlie

[Eric]

Science proceeds from facts to laws to theories by a difficult-to-define process called induction. Induction includes pattern-recognition, brainstorming, tinkering, creative guessing and that elusive "insight". It is not a process of deductive logic.

Theories and laws are required to be of such form that one can deductively proceed from theories to laws to data. The results of deduction must meet a stringent standard: they must agree with experiment and with observations of nature.

Furthermore: Coming to conclusions based on religious beliefs versus science only proves the belief being scrutinized as wrong and does not prove that a higher intelligence cannot exist.

Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence. --- Joseph Wood Krutch
Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do. --- James Harvey Robinson[/quote]

Your reply seems to consist of general handwaving.

IF God is good and truly omnipotent as per Okham and Descartes, we should in fact live in a world without moral evil.

Moral evil does in fact exist.

Logically then, it is established that the laws, rules, and logic of the Universe is outside and beyond the control of God, that is naturalism is true and trumps any possible God. contradicting theological claims made for God derived from supposed revelations from God.

"Theology is the making up of bad reasons for things we are going to believe anyway"
-- G.E. Moore

Cheerful Charlie[/quote]

CC: IF God is good and truly omnipotent as per Okham and Descartes, we should in fact live in a world without moral evil.

I disagree. How can life exist without choice? I do agree that Theology is the making up of reasons though I prefer the words 'search/exploration'. The fact is, we are here and have free choice. Choices made by people can be good and bad. A controlling force eliminates the possibility of a conscience existence. The logic in which you conclude (Logically then, it is established that the laws, rules, and logic of the Universe is outside and beyond the control of God, that is naturalism is true and trumps any possible God.) is based on control. Our life is a life of awareness, choices and ability. The natural laws that govern the universe and laws of science as we understand it, and which has given us our awareness, choices and ability, are set in motion. So to state that a greater intelligence is NOT possible in creating the 'natural laws' (i.e. naturalism) because that intelligence is not controlling the outcome, shows a greater omnipotence than one trying to control the outcome. The choice is on us. And that choice is what gives us life experiences.

[Cheerful Charlie]

Robinson

Your reply seems to consist of general handwaving.

IF God is good and truly omnipotent as per Okham and Descartes, we should in fact live in a world without moral evil.

Moral evil does in fact exist.

Logically then, it is established that the laws, rules, and logic of the Universe is outside and beyond the control of God, that is naturalism is true and trumps any possible God. contradicting theological claims made for God derived from supposed revelations from God.

"Theology is the making up of bad reasons for things we are going to believe anyway"
-- G.E. Moore

Cheerful Charlie[/quote]

CC: IF God is good and truly omnipotent as per Okham and Descartes, we should in fact live in a world without moral evil.

I disagree. How can life exist without choice? I do agree that Theology is the making up of reasons though I prefer the words 'search/exploration'. The fact is, we are here and have free choice. Choices made by people can be good and bad. A controlling force eliminates the possibility of a conscience existence. The logic in which you conclude (Logically then, it is established that the laws, rules, and logic of the Universe is outside and beyond the control of God, that is naturalism is true and trumps any possible God.) is based on control. Our life is a life of awareness, choices and ability. The natural laws that govern the universe and laws of science as we understand it, and which has given us our awareness, choices and ability, are set in motion. So to state that a greater intelligence is NOT possible in creating the 'natural laws' (i.e. naturalism) because that intelligence is not controlling the outcome, shows a greater omnipotence than one trying to control the outcome. The choice is on us. And that choice is what gives us life experiences.[/quote]

If there is a God who creates the Universe and who is omniscient., any possible initial state of creation chosen by God will unfold in a strictly deterministic fashion which logically must occur because God is stated by revelation to be omniscient in regards to future events. God has free will to choose initial states of creation to implement, which sets the future state of reality. Only God has free will. In a deterministic reality, free will is precluded. If Jane does good and John does evil,neither Jane nor John has any choice in what God plans for them.

The only way out is for religion to abandon ancient revelations that claim God foreknows the future, accept that religion has gotten it wrong for centuries and start from scratch. Or abandon religion and revelation, my solution personally.

Cheerful Charlie

[Eric]

Robinson

Your reply seems to consist of general handwaving.

IF God is good and truly omnipotent as per Okham and Descartes, we should in fact live in a world without moral evil.

Moral evil does in fact exist.

Logically then, it is established that the laws, rules, and logic of the Universe is outside and beyond the control of God, that is naturalism is true and trumps any possible God. contradicting theological claims made for God derived from supposed revelations from God.

"Theology is the making up of bad reasons for things we are going to believe anyway"
-- G.E. Moore

Cheerful Charlie

CC: IF God is good and truly omnipotent as per Okham and Descartes, we should in fact live in a world without moral evil.

I disagree. How can life exist without choice? I do agree that Theology is the making up of reasons though I prefer the words 'search/exploration'. The fact is, we are here and have free choice. Choices made by people can be good and bad. A controlling force eliminates the possibility of a conscience existence. The logic in which you conclude (Logically then, it is established that the laws, rules, and logic of the Universe is outside and beyond the control of God, that is naturalism is true and trumps any possible God.) is based on control. Our life is a life of awareness, choices and ability. The natural laws that govern the universe and laws of science as we understand it, and which has given us our awareness, choices and ability, are set in motion. So to state that a greater intelligence is NOT possible in creating the 'natural laws' (i.e. naturalism) because that intelligence is not controlling the outcome, shows a greater omnipotence than one trying to control the outcome. The choice is on us. And that choice is what gives us life experiences.[/quote]

If there is a God who creates the Universe and who is omniscient., any possible initial state of creation chosen by God will unfold in a strictly deterministic fashion which logically must occur because God is stated by revelation to be omniscient in regards to future events. God has free will to choose initial states of creation to implement, which sets the future state of reality. Only God has free will. In a deterministic reality, free will is precluded. If Jane does good and John does evil,neither Jane nor John has any choice in what God plans for them.

The only way out is for religion to abandon ancient revelations that claim God foreknows the future, accept that religion has gotten it wrong for centuries and start from scratch. Or abandon religion and revelation, my solution personally.

Cheerful Charlie[/quote]

CC: The only way out is for religion to abandon ancient revelations that claim God foreknows the future, accept that religion has gotten it wrong for centuries and start from scratch. Or abandon religion and revelation, my solution personally.

Well here on the above point we agree. Religion is an expression of faith acted out on a set of beliefs. To say that a particular religion has the 'whole truth' without flaw, is unsound, including atheism. On religious beliefs they start with the conclusion there is a God, and these religions have been going through an evolutionary process in understanding and trying to prove that there is a God. Same with atheism. Atheism is a belief that starts with the conclusion that there is no God and has been going through an evolutionary process in trying to describe that belief to disprove an existence of God. Once again this shows our free will to choose without interference. So to base a "self-proclaimed belief as fact" as both shared by different religions as well as atheism, neither proves nor disproves, an existence of God or of NO God, it only shows flaws in that belief NOT proof. Both are relying on a system of faith.

[Joseph_Abbott]

1. If God is truly good, God would wish to eliminate all moral evil that could be eliminated.

God could do this, but then everything would be God and nothing would not be God. If God wants to create something other than himself, it must be different, and therefore less whole than Him.

3. If God wishes to eliminate moral evil, he would give man a god-like good nature and a god-like free will.

Men, given God-like powers would be far more immoral than they are now. Power corrupts.

5. Thus any possible excuse that could be offered to explain why God could not eliminate moral evil must be false.

Elimination of all evil would leave only God and nothing else. Consider the colour wheel in my avatar picture. White is the perfect mixture in equal quantity of all the colours (wavelengths of light). There is only one perfect mixture of all the wavelengths, we call that white. Anytime we make a perfect mixture of all the wavelengths we get white. We can only get other colours thru imbalance between the wavelengths. And we get black from a lack of any light at all. It is a simple metaphor used to describe the platonic view of evil (darkness) being simply a lack of God (love/good). If you want to make blue=white it wont be blue anymore.

This establishes the logical truth God is not creator of the laws, rules, metaphysical necessities and logic of the Universe.
There is no super-logic that allows God to ignore logic in any way.

Not true. Godel proved almost 100 years ago that no consistent system of axioms can demonstrate its own consistency.

We take as true the basic axioms of logic and math, but we cant prove with logic that logic is true. The system becomes self-referential.

This is why the project to derive all the laws of mathematics failed, because it is logically impossible to do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica

Logic has its limits, God does not. Therefore God is beyond logic.

[Eric]

1. If God is truly good, God would wish to eliminate all moral evil that could be eliminated.

God could do this, but then everything would be God and nothing would not be God. If God wants to create something other than himself, it must be different, and therefore less whole than Him.

3. If God wishes to eliminate moral evil, he would give man a god-like good nature and a god-like free will.

Men, given God-like powers would be far more immoral than they are now. Power corrupts.

5. Thus any possible excuse that could be offered to explain why God could not eliminate moral evil must be false.

Elimination of all evil would leave only God and nothing else. Consider the colour wheel in my avatar picture. White is the perfect mixture in equal quantity of all the colours (wavelengths of light). There is only one perfect mixture of all the wavelengths, we call that white. Anytime we make a perfect mixture of all the wavelengths we get white. We can only get other colours thru imbalance between the wavelengths. And we get black from a lack of any light at all. It is a simple metaphor used to describe the platonic view of evil (darkness) being simply a lack of God (love/good). If you want to make blue=white it wont be blue anymore.

This establishes the logical truth God is not creator of the laws, rules, metaphysical necessities and logic of the Universe.
There is no super-logic that allows God to ignore logic in any way.

Not true. Godel proved almost 100 years ago that no consistent system of axioms cannot demonstrate its own consistency.

We take as true the basic axioms of logic and math, but we cant prove with logic that logic is true. The system becomes self-referential.

This is why the project to derive all the laws of mathematics failed, because it is logically impossible to do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica

Logic has its limits, God does not. Therefore God is beyond logic.

Enjoyed your reply. Thanks for the links and input!