The Impossibility of God

Hey fellow Knights!

This is an excerpt from a philosophy paper I made for the class of the same name a few months ago on the subject of my Ignosticism (yes, it is a word), and I'd like to share

---

The Impossibility of the Abrahamic God, or Why I am Ignostic


Definitions:

Ignostic: A person who believes it is impossible to define God, therefore he cannot be clearly debated from a certain Abrahamic or Hindu standpoint.

All-powerful: Can do anything, perform every action

All-knowing: Knows everything, past, present and future.

All-benevolent: Wants the best for you, will do anything to best ensure your development

Hypothesis:

The God whom is in question in this paper fits the definition of all-powerful, all-knowing and all-benevolent. These traits of course raise several paradoxes which make these assets impossible, which will be shown in the next few paragraphs of reasoning

Reasoning:

A) Being all-powerful is impossible:

As defined in the definitions, being all-powerful means being able to conduct every action. That fact is debunked by this paradox:

P1: If God is all-powerful, he can jump over anything
P2: If God is all-powerful, he can build anything
R1: God, in this case, cannot build a rock he cannot jump over.

C1: He cannot perform that action, thus cannot perform all actions, thus is not all-powerful

Being all-knowing is impossible:

As defined in the definitions, being all-knowing means knowing everything, past, present and future. That fact is debunked by this next paradox:

The question is asked to God: "Am I lying?" without any prior statement. It is then said "Answer me by a yes or no answer". God cannot answer this, as saying yes would have no weight due to having said no prior statement. If he answers no it's the same thing, This is a double whammy, as God cannot perform this action (thus is not all-powerful) and doesn't know the answer (thus is not all-knowing).

C) Being all-benevolent is impossible.

As defined in definition, being all-benevolent means wanting the best for anyone and everyone. This is easily debunkable, as God says were going to Hell if we don't accept him wholeheartedly.

Conclusion:

As seen above, the paradoxes described how it is impossible for God to be all-powerful, all-knowing and all-benevolent. Thus if he is not, it does not fit the Judeo-Christian and Islamic description of God, thus not giving the religion any weight or credibility anymore.

Are you greater than the sum of your components?

Can you jump over them?

++++++++
Are you lying if you have said nothing?

No...

+++++++++

Man's interpretation of God's word, says we are going to hell....

God has told me no such thing....

Oh...

I left out, I don't even believe in God...

I just like debating....

Hey, I just wanted to see the sources you had for the arguments you make

For the God you've set up, it appears you've struck it down with your logic. Good job.

I wonder though...could someone or something still be considered a "god" even if they weren't all-powerful, or all-knowing, or omni-benevolent?

Does it matter to me if their is a god that isn't all-powerful but could snuff me out with a word?

Does it matter to me if their is a god that isn't all-knowing but he knows how to create and destroy by a word?

Does it matter to me if their is a god that isn't omni-benevolent but he can still raise people to a heaven or thrust down to hell?

(I'm just debating, too.)

It would be like a 1st grader playing football going up against an NFL linebacker. The NFL linebacker isn't all powerful, but he'd have his way with the 1st grader on the football field (American football, for you European readers. )

there is a part in my favorite novel, 'steel beach' by jon varley, where humanity has fled earth in the face of the seemingly invincible 'invaders', who destroyed mankind and all her works in 3 days time. the main character is musing about religion after this ocurrence, and putting forth ideas about god now.

* that god was dead.

* that god was not dead, but absent or in some heavenly intensive care unit.

* that the INVADERS were actually gods.

in all three cases, the main character concludes that believing in that sort of god is more than useless, it damages mankinds drive to rebuild, to thrive and expel the invaders one day. the quote was something like 'if the invaders are gods, what the hell good is that to any of us? they didnt give a sh*t about us, swept us aside like so much detritus in THREE DAYS. why worship that?'

i agree. IF there is a singular god, and IF that character is not benevolent and looking out for our interests somehow, THEN i see no real reason to worship him/her/it.

I'm not a Christian however...

your claim about god not being omnipotent is the same as the common one that is;

If God is all powerful, can he not create a rock that he himself is not able to lift?

The statement in itself is nonsensical, God is not physical and is timeless, for him to create a rock or a building implies that he exists in time and is subject to change which he is not.

God is not omniscient. That to me doesn't make any sense, if you aren't talking about anything what is there to respond to. In that statement there is no answer. What's more God does not know the future. That's true but that's because the future does not exist, so there's nothing to know. God knows everything the moment it happens and as such God is all knowing.

God is not onmnibenevolent. By your definition omnibenevolence is wanting the best for everyone. It is true that some people interperate the Bible (or other scripture of other religions) as saying that you will go to hell if you don't worship God. However, contemporarily I would say that most religious people believe that being a morally decent person would mean you go to heaven. You could also say, however, that there is suffering in the world because;

1. If God were to intervene in the world it would mean he was subject to change and as such he would be neither omniscient or omnipotent.
2. One of the main points of Biblical teaching is the idea that humans have free will as a gift from God, if God intervened in the world to stop everything bad from happening we would have no free will and that gift would have been taken away.

Jestor wrote:

Are you lying if you have said nothing?

No...

Have to agree with you there.

The question should have been:
'Does a liar lie when he says he is lying!?'

Yes or No?

Rosalyn J wrote: Hey, I just wanted to see the sources you had for the arguments you make

You don't meed sources for a philosophical argument.

Mace, free will is impossible due to the fact he's all-knowing and knows everything past through present through future. Also, he's not omnipotent, since due to his all-knowingness, he knows exactly what will happen and can't change his mind