Weak “god” escapes the clutches of an atheist argument


chart via https://www.facebook.com/NonbelieverNation

This is a powerful flowchart of refutation against the modern “christian” authoritarian rationalization. It is practical and I commend its creator.

Have other nonbelievers ever considered what a “god” that is not all powerful could look like? It clearly escapes the clutches of this chart; omnipotency has always seemed self-contradictory anyway. 

I am about to say things that the vast majority of you will misunderstand. Have you ever experienced the “sacred” or “numinous” ? Have you reached the understanding that consciousness is a representation? Do you appreciate that technological development is accelerating exponentially? What’s your understanding of the relationship of the three preceding questions?


9 thoughts on “Weak “god” escapes the clutches of an atheist argument

  1. Here’s what has to happen in order for there to be a god:

    The first necessary but insufficient condition is that the proposed god must not be self-contradictory. If it’s self-contradictory, then I don’t need any evidence at all: It doesn’t exist. This rules out all omnipotent gods, all omnipresent gods, all omniscient gods, all omnibenevolent gods, any gods that “ever” “exist” “outside of” space or time, and all gods who led King Hitler the 14th of Japan to victory over the Scientologists in 13BC at the battle of Waterloo.
    The second necessary but insufficient condition is that it must be explicable. If it took the time to explain itself to me, it would help. Perhaps it is a remainder in the fundamental constants of the big bang taken sentience, which somehow allows it to selectively manipulate spacetime and the forces to achieve its miracles, in a process that can be described by physics and experimentally verified. If after learning about a phenomenon the phenomenon is still MYSTERIOUS, then we don’t yet understand the phenomenon well enough to conclude it an act of god rather than an act of David Blane.
    The third necessary but insufficient condition is that it must be demonstrable. That is, despite being possible, and explicable, it must yet turn out to actually occur. At some point, the god has to actually show up and offer to buy me a drink, or have an effect on the world which is different from how the world should be expected to progress if it were absent, which can be distinguished and verified. It must not be merely a fiction written by a creative person with a plausible explanation of how god could be.
    The fourth necessary but insufficient condition is that it must be deific. My shoe is demonstrable, is self-consistent, and explicable, but it is hardly a god. The entity proposed must be capable of doing something that will by some mechanism be forever beyond the ability of humans to duplicate. This is the difference between a god and a Kryptonian. Perhaps as in the above example the god is “made” of a self-propagating remainder in physics. Humans will never have access to such materials as generate such a force to build with, and so cannot replicate the god. The god must also be in some way sentient, if not an actual personality that can be talked to. This excludes the mundane and the universe itself from being god.

    Fail any one of these, and I am not convinced. Succeed in all, and I will believe in it. And then, if it turns out to be responsible for all the suffering of humanity by having shoddily created the universe in a premeditated act it foresaw the consequences of, I will attempt to murder it.

  2. Went through this. I got to “Does God Want to Prevent Evil” and said “No”. This is because of free will. If he really wanted to prevent evil, he wouldn’t have given us free will. Being a mindless puppet would be much worse than being in a world of evil. I saw “Free will” as an answer down the character, so I went down there.

    “Could God have created a world without evil?”


    “Then why didn’t he?”

    Free will.

    “Could God have created a universe with free-will but without evil”


    “Then why didn’t he?”

    Because to do so, we would have to be pure and, with our own free will, not be evil. Basically, everyone here would be Jesus. But when you think about it, Jesus is God, thus everyone would be God, everyone would be all knowing and all powerful. We’d all be omnipresent and omnipotent and thus God wouldn’t have created anything. It’d be a universe with just God in it. It’s our evil and sin that separates us from him and makes us unique creatures.

    • were Adam and Eve pure (without evil) before the “fall”?
      were they “god”? if not your argument is void
      So, if they were pure, and Not god then they didnt have freewill… If they had no freewill or were god- how can there be punishment for any of their actions?

    • Will makes sense. Free will as I usually hear it doesn’t even seem coherent. I think we came from the void left behind divine self annihilation. And I think we approach a reemergence of a universe at one with itself, the godhead.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s