this post was submitted on 05 May 2024
212 points (97.7% liked)
Asklemmy
42609 readers
571 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The default position is that we don't know if a specified thing exists. To prove or disprove it, you need evidence. I can prove that the Christian God doesn't exist, as it is logically impossible, but it's possible that some other version of a god might exist, I don't know. I don't have evidence either way.
How can you prove the Christian God doesn't exist?
It's logically impossible, it has contradictory aspects.
Yes, you said that, but what exactly?
It's impossible to prove the non-existence of something. It's on those who believe in god to prove its existence.
And the Bible doesn't count as sufficient evidence because that would be like believing Harry Potter exists because JK Rowling says so.
Unless you claim, as OP did, that you can actually disprove it.
I agree that the Bible is not sufficient in the sense that it proves anything or sews up their arguments, but to suggest its historical value as evidence is the same as modern day fiction is absurd.
For example, omnipotence is a self-contradictory term, as you have a dilemma - if a being is all powerful enough to give itself limits, it is not omnipotent as it wouldn't be able to do the things it limited itself to do. Whereas if it can't self-impose limits, it's also not omnipotent as it isn't able to self-impose limits. Another example is that suffering exists in the world, which would be a contradiction if an all-powerful being that wanted to end suffering existed, since it should, but it isn't.
And these are just contradictions within God's character. If you want to look at the things he actually claims to have done, you'll find numerous more in the Bible. Just as one example, Jesus's last words are different in almost every gospel.
None of this is new or hasn't been thought about, written about and deflated for centuries. I doubt you have any theologians shaking in their boots.
The meaning of omnipotence as it translates to Good has always been nuanced. There have always been things God can't do - sin being the obvious example. You could debate whether he can, but just never would because of his character, but it amounts to the same thing and has been orthodoxy for centuries.
The apparent contradictions on the Gospels (especially synoptic) have been done to death. Debated and answered more times than you've had hot dinners. There is no serious theologian or biblical scholar who would hear that argument and be at all concerned by it.
Honestly the same applies to the idea of a good god and suffering.
Just because people think they've put forward an excuse doesn't mean it's a good excuse. None I've heard have convinced me yet.
And that's fair enough. Claiming you can definitively disprove the existence of the Christian God and having some objections that you haven't heard a convincing response to aren't the same thing though...