My claim: “The Christian God does not exist as an absolute; rather he exists as a dogmatic subjective concept created by humankind.”
My Proof:
1)If the Christian God exists, he is perfect.
2)If the Christian God exists, he gave earthly beings free will.
3)Perfection refers to the complete absence of flaws, defects, or shortcomings.
4)Therefore if (the Christian) God exists, he is without flaws, defects, or shortcomings.
5)I am free to think and act as I please.
6)(The Christian) God does not comply with what I desire God to be.
7)Therefore, if (the Christian) God were to exist, he has at least one shortcoming.
8)Thus (the Christian) God is not perfect.
9)The Christian God does not exist.
Premise number 1 is true by the very definition of God in Christianity. Christians, by the tenets of their religion, see their God as omniscious, omnipresent, omnipotent, and PERFECT.
Premise number 2 is correct by the tenets of Christianity. Christians believe that God gave humankind free will.
Premise number 3 is correct by the definition of perfection. The concept of perfection was defined by man as something without flaw, defect, or shortcoming.
Premise number 4 is correct following premises 1 and 3.
Premise number 5 is correct by premise 2. If premise number 5 is incorrect, it follows that premise number 2 must be incorrect as well. If premise 2 is found incorrect, either God does not exist, or the Christian Doctrine is wrong entirely.
Premise number 6 is correct because that is my own personal opinion being presented as such. I am able to have this opinion because of premise 5. It better suits me if (the Christian) God does not exist. I feel that God is not perfect because no entity that is perfect would ever require others bow down to it. I feel that any entity that would willingly condemn another to eternal torture (Christianity’s “Hell”) is not worthy of reverence. If the Christian God were to exist, I would be condemned to Hell merely for writing this blog; thus I would be better suited if (the Christian) God did not exist. Therefore, to me, (the Christian) God has a shortcoming.
Premise number 7 is true by the statements of premise 6.
Premise number 8 is true by the statements of premises 3, 4, and 7.
The conclusion, line 9, is proven true by the statements of premises 1 and 8.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I'm not going to claim this essay, but...
You might do better to place your argument in an essay, where the inherent vagueness of the English language and the diction employed (permitting the obfuscation of the intended claim and support by means of vocabulary external to the vernacular of the swinish multitude) afford cover from critics like me, so eager to prove the transcendent inferiority of geometry and its progeny.
Hiding behind words that you use not in everyday speech, I see? I'm sorry, but your diction has "thesaurus.com" written all over it, almost quite literally ("PARANOMASIA" intended!!!). This is impressive to none other than the "swinish multitudes" that you so denounce. Mr. Monk, please allow me to offer you sound advice from someone who has been there. I, too, once was one who hid behind an active vocabulary of lofty words, some of which exceeded 44 letters. Words such as hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian flowed out of my mouth with an ease that dissuaded others from questioning; this all changed when I realized, "Why say hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian when I could simply say 'long word'?" For the sheer sake of clarity, I opt to use "normal" words, whilst stranding them together cleverly, often in ways previously unimaginable. (As is the case with my world record sentence--ask me about it!) Seriously, you would be amazed at the power of language; one needs not embellish where unessential. More often than not, it is more effectual to use what I would refer to as a "lexical Ockham's Razor." In other words: trim the fat as to avoid confusion. I bid you take my advice into consideration. For if you do, your audience will be more focused on what you say, rather than wondering why you must hide behind big words. Furthermore, "transcendent inferiority?!??!" I object to your use of two contradictory words in reference to each other. Please take into consideration connotations when writing an argument; a word is more than just its dictionary definition. This being said, I WILL address your claim, disregarding the facade of intellectualism that you so chose to employ. Now, Mr. Monk, I do not doubt your intelligence entirely, rather I find the language you used suspect. Don't take it personally. As I said: advice.
MOVING FORWARD, I would like to begin by addressing your intent...As far as I gathered, you advised me to put my argument into a piece structured as an essay. You so advised me because you feel that in an essay my claim would become more ambiguous, resulting from language that I may have or may not have chosen to employ. I would desire not to buffalo my audience or in any way confound. My aim is to provide a logical argument that is easy to understand, in the form of a proof. Notice that I opted not to use evidentiary proofs, rather I employed ones of logic. Logic is just that: logical. One should not desire to make logic any less logical, for then it would lose all meaning. To rephrase: My logical proof is INTENDED to be candid, easy to understand, and thus easier to refute. I WANT people to find flaws in my argument, for the only way to make it stronger is to discover where it is weak. I have no need to avoid cover from critics--I WELCOME critics.
Finally, I would like to extend you an offer: Comment on the content of my blog, instead of the format. Give this discourse validity, purpose. Is that not what this is all about?
As per your request, I am reviewing your argument. (Note: my "official assignment post" was for "the Monk") Well, the logic makes sense...save for two things:
1. You mention that, if you do not have free will, either God does not exist or Christain doctrine is wrong...could this apply to the "perfect" concept as well?
Because I personally think if God were perfect he'd not have let us run amok down here. We've totally screwed up his week-long project.
2. You use your own personal opinion as the critical sixth statement. It can be a logical inference, if you state that a perfect God because he does not meet all universal standards and because of the whole Hell and kowtow thing. However, the way you phrase it..."it better suits me," "God does not comply with what I desire..." Is it just me, or are you totally talking down to God? I can't see the precept that defines that God has to appease the lot of us to be God...for that, why can't he just make you God? Cut out the middleman, as it were?
If your whole argument is that at least one person disagrees with God, and that such is a shortcoming, yeah...but is not appeasing everyone really a shortcoming?
And, by the way, if God was going to send you to Hell, it would probably be more for giving Him orders rather than disagreeing with Him. God doesn't smite for minor issues, according to Christian doctrine. Your point about how you'd prefer no God so you don't go to Hell still stands, but if you had the free will to choose that over Heaven...I mean, really, He gave you the option.
P.S. The Word Verification for leaving comments is driving me crazy. It never lets me in on the first try, and yes, I put the letters in correctly. THAT is evidence that God is not perfect; he should have smote the guy who invented that a LOOOOONG time ago.
Anonymous,
Thank you very much for your commenting as per our spoken arrangement. Regarding your rebuttals there are points that I agree with, and ones contrary. I will begin by addressing those with which I agree.
Regarding your first point, I am in concurrence. Certainly the same principle could be applied to the “perfect” concept. Actually, it SHOULD be. Allow me to explain…Christianity as a religion defined God as a “perfect” being. That is to say that PEOPLE opted to call their God perfect. The intent of my claim was to prove that their claims are wrong. If their claims were to be found correct, God would not exist. If they insist that God is perfect, and a logical argument proves otherwise, then God does not exist. So either they must accept that according to their own definition God does not exist, or they must accept their definition as incorrect; thusly Christians would lose credibility either way. You see, as evidenced by my claim, I was working towards one of two possible ends: either God does not exist at all, or he exists as a concept created by humanity, subject to human error. So with regards to your counterpoint, I agree. In fact, I think it strengthens my argument overall. Thank you for pointing that out. I should add that into my proof somehow…
Regarding your counterpoint number 2, I disagree. By Christian doctrine, God must be perfect. To be perfect is to be without flaw or shortcoming. If an individual feels that (the Christian) God does not meet his/her standards, then to that individual, God is flawed, God has a shortcoming. Thus to that individual, God is not perfect. Also, does it not seem contradictory for God to give humans free will, but at the same time condemn them to Hell without any choice? Certainly Christians will attempt to argue that God gave them a choice to either accept him or not, thus the individual essentially “chooses” to go to Hell if he does not accept Jesus as his lord and savior. This logic is clearly flawed by the very definition of free will—how can one have free will, but be forced by God to accept him. It seems as though God gave man free will to choose as God dictates. In other words, if I were God, “You are free to do only as I say, or else I will torture you.” Yeah, some choice…Laughable logic. And as for your suggestion that God should make me God…Hmmm…Perhaps I should take him up on that offer. But wait, then that would lead us to the age-old paradox of “Can God create another God???” “Can God create a stone too heavy to lift?” “Can God create something beyond his control?” “Can God create something more powerful than himself?” “Can God create something beyond his own comprehension?” “Can God create somewhere he cannot go?” “Can God destroy himself?” I could go all day with these…But I’ll spare you. We are ALL familiar with the many paradoxes that plague Christianity.
And as for your third idea, I yet again must clarify…If a being is perfect, it must be just that: perfect. If a being is anything other than perfect, it is not perfect. Allow me to clarify: If a being is unable to appease everyone, then that being has at least one shortcoming. If one person finds flaw in a certain being, then the otherwise perfect being would be perfect-minus-one. Get me so far? Anything less than absolute perfection is a shortcoming relative to perfection itself.
Finally, yes, I agree with you entirely about the “word verification” system. I have wasted many countless keystrokes attempting to login. Smote the man who invented that should be.
P.S. Thank you for your humor in discussing this with me. Any comic relief when discoursing on such a sensitive topic is greatly appreciated and encouraged. I particularly liked when you referenced the alleged creation of the earth as God’s “week long project!” Quite humorous indeed.
I'm sorry Monk, perhaps my previous comment was a tad harsh. I just get frustrated when I see someone who is clearly very smart having his ideas lost behind his words. I would much prefer to hear what you have to say than worry about decoding intentionally cryptic language. That's all. Sorry if i came off a bit unrelenting.
Diego writes:
you would be amazed at the power of language; one needs not embellish where unessential. More often than not, it is more effectual to use what I would refer to as a "lexical Ockham's Razor." In other words: trim the fat as to avoid confusion. I bid you take my advice into consideration.
Bravo!! All writers should do as you suggest. To simplify does not mean one must write bland, simple sentences all the time. Rather the writer should strive for clarity, using words carefully and prudently and succinctly.
Diego writes:
Premise number 1 is true by the very definition of God in Christianity. Christians, by the tenets of their religion, see their God as omniscious, omnipresent, omnipotent, and PERFECT.
Yes, you are focusing on the christian god, but what about the muslim and jewish definitions of God?
How do you define the term "see"? Do you mean literally they see God. Are you talking about the way the perceive him/her? More importantly, are saying it is the way they CHOOSE to define their God?
"If the Christian God exists," must he be perfect? Have the christians created an image of a being that does not possess their shortcomings and imperfections? Do they conjure a God to make themselves feel safe?
Did the christian God give beings free will? If this god is all-knowing, can see the future as well as the present, he/she will know what will happen. If man possesses free will, how does he act independently of God if God already knows what is going to happen?
I smile as I read your discussion of premise 6. So your opinion defines the existence or non-existence of God. Have you read Immanuel Kant? You might enjoy his philosophy.
I suggest you read God by Jack Miles.
To theteach:
Thank you for responding to my blog. I hope more people weigh in on this discussion, for I find this topic one of great curiosity. I know some people were discouraged or dissuaded because they know it to be a “sensitive” issue, but is that what education is about, pressing the issues that are close to one’s heart and (ever so gently) forcing one to expand his or her horizons? I hope some more people shed some light on this issue…
Yes, I was referencing the Christian God alone. Christianity is the religion I am most familiar with, and I did not want to make any false statements about other religious beliefs. Basically I could speak confidently with regards to Christian beliefs, but not those of other religions. Furthermore, I felt that the term “God”, without limiting the argument to a specific God, would be far too general and ambiguous a term to define and speak to without tremendous holes in my logic. Perhaps I’ll look into it a bit more and see if I can refine my argument to be all-encompassing, though I’m not so sure it’s probable. We’ll see.
Sorry for the uncertainty surrounding my use of the word “see.” I simply meant “perceive” or “define”. In context either would work fine.
You wrote: “"If the Christian God exists," must he be perfect? Have the christians created an image of a being that does not possess their shortcomings and imperfections? Do they conjure a God to make themselves feel safe?”
–To answer your first question: yes. Since Christians define God as perfect, if he were to exist he must be perfect. If I were to describe my God as being a blue hippopotamus, but it turned out that God does not exist as a blue hippopotamus, then my God does not exist. If Christians are to call their God perfect, and God is not perfect, then their God does not exist. Sorry for the strange comparison, it’s just the first thing that popped into my head.
As for your second and third questions, yes. Christians have defined God as perfect, thus he does not have the shortcomings or imperfections of human beings. Though he allegedly created man in the image of himself, the free will that he (was said to have) bestowed upon man allots for imperfection on behalf of his terrestrial subjects. And I, personally, feel that the image of God that Christians have conjured IS to make them feel safe and secure. After all, “religion is the opiate of the masses.”—due credit to Karl Marx.
It seems as though you are more than familiar with the paradoxical impossibility of free will vs. omniscience. I was contemplating mentioning that the two are incompatible and using that as a proof inside a proof. Incompatibility proofs are, I believe, some of the most effective means by which to construct a logical argument against the existence of a God. Kind of an inverted ontological argument, right? One could certainly make that point. It seems as though Christianity has failed in its attempts to properly define God. Since there are incompatible properties of God as defined by Christianity, either God does not exist, or the Christian doctrine is wrong.
And no, I have not yet read Kant. I plan on studying philosophy as part of a double major in college though, so undoubtedly I will. Unless of course I take English as part of that double major instead, in which case I will probably read some Kant on my own time, for my own pleasure. I do think we are getting to Kant soon in my philosophy class, or at least sometime in the relatively near future. From what I have heard of his philosophies they sound quite interesting.
Also, I think that sometime soon I will post another blog on this site about a particular sentence that I created. It’s an extension of the buffalo buffalo buffalo, etcetera sentence. Of course this will not be for language class, but if you would care to comment on or critique it I would appreciate it. I’m looking for all who are interested (and preferably well-versed) in the English language too opine on this. Hope to talk to you then!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piuoGb-Nhfw
Post a Comment