A Logical Proof for the Christian Gods Imperfection

P1: God created the Garden of Eden and placed the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden.

P2: God created Adam and Eve with free will and commanded them not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

P3: Adam and Eve did eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

P4: God was mistaken in his belief that Adam and Eve would heed his command

C: God is not perfect because God makes mistakes.

Discuss.

I'm atheist and even I say that's an increadibly dumb proof. Every Christian will reply with "it was a test". And even if that is flimsy the free will part still makes your "proof" invalid.

Anyway, a better way is to attack God's traits (ripped from another post I made earlier:

God claims to be omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Since God is omniscient and he himself is the one making the claim, then the only logical conclusion is that he must truly be all of these. If, however, we can show that he does not have one of these characteristics then God is wrong, thus not being omniscient. This would essentially redefine God as a demigod, not the all-powerful being he claims to be, as well as cast everything he has said into extreme skeptiscism.

So let's begin.

Is God omnibenevolent? Not really. Aside from the fact that he doomed all life to a demihell after humans gained intelligence, will send anyone to hell if they don't worship him, and allows evil to persist in the universe, the bible is filled from cover to cover with tales of his malevolent doings. For example, God manipulated the pharoh's free will just so he could make a point by killing off every first born in Egypt. He also destroyed entire civilizations. Don't forget the Book of Job which vividely describes how God ruined a man's life over a bet with the devil (and it doesn't matter that God gave Job everything back at the end. He still killed off everyone close to Job and those people never got their lives back, not to mention the fact that God actually bothered to make a bet with the devil. God himself was lured into a bet by Satan). And he's advocated slavery, abuse of slaves, and abuse of women. These would even count as evil acts according to the standards God has set forth (killing every first born in Egypt certainly counts as murder for example).

But wait, God claims to be omnibenevolent. The evidence is undisputable, however, that he is not. As a result God is wrong on this count and cannot be omniscient. This makes sense considering God has shown himself to have very poor foresight and knowledge on many occassions. For example, bring up the issue of God's advocating of slavery in the old testament and Christians will tell you that everything changed in the new testament. But if God knows all and cannot be wrong then he wouldn't ever change his mind on an issue. But maybe something about sending himself down to get sacrificed by humans just so he could be happy changed his mind (nevermind the fact that if he was omniscient he would know what would happen beforehand and there would be no need to do that in the first place). Fine. But what about the mountain scene when he was decreeing the ten commandments? God was about to destroy the Jews for worshipping a false idol and only decided not to because Moses, a human, convinced him not to. If he was truly omniscient he could not be argued with since he would know the right course of action. Or what about Satan? If God is truly omniscient then he would have known what would happen if he created Satan (Satan rising up against him, Satan successfully tempting Eve and thus ruining God's "perfect" creation, and everything else Satan has done).

The genesis story is not meant to be taken literally....so no proof.LJS9502_basic

It's still a proof. There's just a hidden premise that you don't agree with, namely that the Bible is to be taken literally. Not all people believe as you do however, as there are people who believe that the Bible should be taken literally from cover to cover.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The genesis story is not meant to be taken literally....so no proof.Decessus

It's still a proof. There's just a hidden premise that you don't agree with, namely that the Bible is to be taken literally. Not all people believe as you do however, as there are people who believe that the Bible should be taken literally from cover to cover.

No it's not...and just because it's interpreted incorrectly doesn't mean that's proof. If I want to interprete 2 + 2 = 5....that would not be proof that adding 2 and 2 equals 5.

P1: God created the Garden of Eden and placed the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden.

P2: God created Adam and Eve with free will and commanded them not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

P3: Adam and Eve did eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

P4: God was mistaken in his belief that Adam and Eve would heed his command

C: God is not perfect because God makes mistakes.

Discuss.

Decessus

jesus is horus, satan is set.

It's still a proof. There's just a hidden premise that you don't agree with, namely that the Bible is to be taken literally. Not all people believe as you do however, as there are people who believe that the Bible should be taken literally from cover to cover.

Decessus

A crappy proof. The hidden premise I (and just about any other user here) disagree with is P4. How did you come to the assumption that God believed His command would be obeyed? You inserted an assumption in order to validate a pre-determined conclusion.

I'm atheist and even I say that's an increadibly dumb proof. Every Christian will reply with "it was a test". And even if that is flimsy the free will part still makes your "proof" invalid.

gameguy6700

Saying that it was a test is a conclusion that isn't supported by the text. What in the scripture is there to suggest that it was a test?

Also, how does Adam and Eve having free will invalidate the proof?

Either God doesn't exist, or he is unimaginably cruel.JJ4545

Or mankind has misinterpreted Him....

No it's not...and just because it's interpreted incorrectly doesn't mean that's proof. If I want to interprete 2 + 2 = 5....that would not be proof that adding 2 and 2 equals 5.

LJS9502_basic

I'm not talking about proof as something synonymous with evidence. That is why I labeled it a logical proof, because that is what it is. It is a set of premises that leads to a conclusion. You can disagree with the premises, you can disagree with the conclusion, you can disagree that the premises imply the conclusion, but it is incorrect to say that it is not a proof because it most certainly is.

i think we should perma ban all religious thread starters. there has to be a better place for religious conversation than hereCrucifier

I believe there is a rule about that.

i think we should perma ban all religious thread starters. there has to be a better place for religious conversation than hereCrucifier

[QUOTE="Decessus"]

It's still a proof. There's just a hidden premise that you don't agree with, namely that the Bible is to be taken literally. Not all people believe as you do however, as there are people who believe that the Bible should be taken literally from cover to cover.

Oleg_Huzwog

A crappy proof. The hidden premise I (and just about any other user here) disagree with is P4. How did you come to the assumption that God believed His command would be obeyed? You inserted an assumption in order to validate a pre-determined conclusion.

If God knew that his command would be disobeyed, but he put the tree in the garden anyway, then would it be fair to call God good since he set Adam and Eve up for failure?

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

I'm atheist and even I say that's an increadibly dumb proof. Every Christian will reply with "it was a test". And even if that is flimsy the free will part still makes your "proof" invalid.

Decessus

Saying that it was a test is a conclusion that isn't supported by the text. What in the scripture is there to suggest that it was a test?

Also, how does Adam and Eve having free will invalidate the proof?

Because God can't assume that they would obey his command if they have free-will. The free-will aspect makes their behavior unpredictable. The reason God got pissed off was because they had disobeyed him, not because he was proven wrong. Its kind of like with a little kid. You tell him not to eat out of the cookie jar before dinner but you don't assume that he won't just because you told him not to. However, you'll still be mad if he does. Same thing with Genesis. The real problem is that since God claims to be omniscient he would have known how everything would go down from the start. In other words, he could have prevented it. I already went through this in my last post so I'm not going to say anything else on that particular subject.

Anyway, I agree that the test excuse is stupid, but its used commonly by Christians, and taking into account the fact that God could have prevented it if we buy into his claim of omnipotence and omniscience, its the only logical explanation (aside from concluding that God is evil, which if you look at the old testament isn't too difficult to come to).

I believe he knew they'd eat from it, which is why he gave them the warning. Satan did what he always does and tempted them. He knew it would happen, so that's why he sent Jesus. To save us from our mistakes.3eyedrazorback

If he knew it would happen, and perhaps I'm just talking crazy here, wouldn't it have been a far better decision to just vanquish the devil from eden? I mean, doing that would have prevented all evil in the universe. Or better yet, God could have not created the devil in the first place (after all, God knew what would happen if he created Satan). While the later arguement could be attacked by arguing that God feels that everyone should have a chance, the former is a solid objection. God had absolutely no problem banishing every living thing from Eden for the sins of two people so I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't banish a being who's entire existence is sin.

Maybe God learns from his testees...like Lab experiments. Maybe he saw what happened and learned from it.3eyedrazorback

Doesn't work. God claims to be omniscient. As a result, God cannot learn anything since he already knows all. Also, I'd fix the typo you made with "tests". Kind of makes a new meaning otherwise.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

No it's not...and just because it's interpreted incorrectly doesn't mean that's proof. If I want to interprete 2 + 2 = 5....that would not be proof that adding 2 and 2 equals 5.

Decessus

I'm not talking about proof as something synonymous with evidence. That is why I labeled it a logical proof, because that is what it is. It is a set of premises that leads to a conclusion. You can disagree with the premises, you can disagree with the conclusion, you can disagree that the premises imply the conclusion, but it is incorrect to say that it is not a proof because it most certainly is.

I disagree with the premise...I disagree with your interpretation...and I disagree with it being called logical. It's not proof if the statements being used are erroneous.

Because God can't assume that they would obey his command if they have free-will. The free-will aspect makes their behavior unpredictable. The reason God got pissed off was because they had disobeyed him, not because he was proven wrong. Its kind of like with a little kid. You tell him not to eat out of the cookie jar before dinner but you don't assume that he won't just because you told him not to. However, you'll still be mad if he does. Same thing with Genesis. The real problem is that since God claims to be omniscient he would have known how everything would go down from the start. In other words, he could have prevented it. I already went through this in my last post so I'm not going to say anything else on that particular subject.

Anyway, I agree that the test excuse is stupid, but its used commonly by Christians, and taking into account the fact that God could have prevented it if we buy into his claim of omnipotence and omniscience, its the only logical explanation (aside from concluding that God is evil, which if you look at the old testament isn't too difficult to come to).

gameguy6700

If a parent puts out a jar with cookies in it and tells his or her child not to eat any until dinner, that parent believes that the child will listen. If the parent didn't believe that, he or she wouldn't have put the cookie jar out in the first place unless they were purposefully setting the child up to get in trouble. Once the child does in fact disobey his or parent and takes a cookie before dinner, that shows that the parent was mistaken in putting his or her trust in the child.

The same thing would hold true with the tree. God wouldn't have put the tree in the garden believing that Adam and Eve would disobey them and eat from the tree. If he did, then he purposefully set them up to fail. As soon as Adam and Eve ate from the tree, it showed that God had been mistaken in placing his trust in them to do as they were told.

I disagree with the premise...I disagree with your interpretation...and I disagree with it being called logical. It's not proof if the statements being used are erroneous.

LJS9502_basic

It's not my interpretation. There are plenty of Christians in this world who believe that the Bible is to be taken literally word for word.

You have to make tons of other assumptions if you want that to be true.

What if he knew they would eat from the tree? In that case, telling them not to eat from it or telling them to eat from it will end with the same result; and either way man would interpret both of them as negative.

He knew they would eat from it so he told them to eat from the tree. Man would look at him as an evil monster. He knew they would eat from it but he still told them not to. Man would look at him as if he made a mistake.

So as you can see, you gave him 2 options, to be wrong or to be evil, when in fact, he has more than that.

Wrong. He gave them 'free will' as you said...and they displayed that by disobeying his orders. FragStains

And he put the trees there to tempt them. He knew they couldn't resist temptation. Either God is evil or imperfect. Can't have it both ways.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Because God can't assume that they would obey his command if they have free-will. The free-will aspect makes their behavior unpredictable. The reason God got pissed off was because they had disobeyed him, not because he was proven wrong. Its kind of like with a little kid. You tell him not to eat out of the cookie jar before dinner but you don't assume that he won't just because you told him not to. However, you'll still be mad if he does. Same thing with Genesis. The real problem is that since God claims to be omniscient he would have known how everything would go down from the start. In other words, he could have prevented it. I already went through this in my last post so I'm not going to say anything else on that particular subject.

Anyway, I agree that the test excuse is stupid, but its used commonly by Christians, and taking into account the fact that God could have prevented it if we buy into his claim of omnipotence and omniscience, its the only logical explanation (aside from concluding that God is evil, which if you look at the old testament isn't too difficult to come to).

Decessus

If a parent puts out a jar with cookies in it and tells his or her child not to eat any until dinner, that parent believes that the child will listen. If the parent didn't believe that, he or she wouldn't have put the cookie jar out in the first place unless they were purposefully setting the child up to get in trouble. Once the child does in fact disobey his or parent and takes a cookie before dinner, that shows that the parent was mistaken in putting his or her trust in the child.

The same thing would hold true with the tree. God wouldn't have put the tree in the garden believing that Adam and Eve would disobey them and eat from the tree. If he did, then he purposefully set them up to fail. As soon as Adam and Eve ate from the tree, it showed that God had been mistaken in placing his trust in them to do as they were told.

Like I said, Christians will argue that it was a test by God. You have to find a way to counter that. And as I've already said, the best way is to use God's perfectness against them.

[QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

No it's not...and just because it's interpreted incorrectly doesn't mean that's proof. If I want to interprete 2 + 2 = 5....that would not be proof that adding 2 and 2 equals 5.

LJS9502_basic

I'm not talking about proof as something synonymous with evidence. That is why I labeled it a logical proof, because that is what it is. It is a set of premises that leads to a conclusion. You can disagree with the premises, you can disagree with the conclusion, you can disagree that the premises imply the conclusion, but it is incorrect to say that it is not a proof because it most certainly is.

I disagree with the premise...I disagree with your interpretation...and I disagree with it being called logical. It's not proof if the statements being used are erroneous.

Its a valid logical proof as long as the premises logically lead to the conclusion. Doesn't matter how dumb or erronous the premises or conclusions are, its still valid even if the conclusion is right or wrong. For instance:

P1: GW Bush is green
P2: The sky has clouds

C: Therefore the ocean is red

Would be flat out illogical and wrong. However...

P1: GW Bush is green
P2: Democrats love the color green

C: Therefore the democrats love Bush

Is a valid proof since it flows logically. Its completely incorrect, but its still valid.

Just playing devil's advocate :)

You have to make tons of other assumptions if you want that to be true.

What if he knew they would eat from the tree? In that case, telling them not to eat from it or telling them to eat from it will end with the same result; and either way man would interpret both of them as negative.

He knew they would eat from it so he told them to eat from the tree. Man would look at him as an evil monster. He knew they would eat from it but he still told them not to. Man would look at him as if he made a mistake.

So as you can see, you gave him 2 options, to be wrong or to be evil, when in fact, he has more than that.

DeeJayInphinity

You're right he had more than those two options. For example, here's option #3: God knows humans will eat from the tree so he doesn't make the tree thus preventing any sin from occuring, his perfect creation from being corrupted, and everything bad that's ever happened in the world from occuring. Since God is omnibenevolent it only makes sense that he chose #3...oh wait...

Like I said, Christians will argue that it was a test by God. You have to find a way to counter that. And as I've already said, the best way is to use God's perfectness against them.

gameguy6700

The proof is really directed towards fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible should be taken word for word. Since it doesn't mention anywhere in the text (that I'm aware of anyway) that it was in fact some sort of test, the fundamentalist Christian can't use that argument without abandoning his position that the Bible is literally the word of God.

[QUOTE="3eyedrazorback"]I believe he knew they'd eat from it, which is why he gave them the warning. Satan did what he always does and tempted them. He knew it would happen, so that's why he sent Jesus. To save us from our mistakes.gameguy6700

If he knew it would happen, and perhaps I'm just talking crazy here, wouldn't it have been a far better decision to just vanquish the devil from eden? I mean, doing that would have prevented all evil in the universe. Or better yet, God could have not created the devil in the first place (after all, God knew what would happen if he created Satan). While the later arguement could be attacked by arguing that God feels that everyone should have a chance, the former is a solid objection. God had absolutely no problem banishing every living thing from Eden for the sins of two people so I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't banish a being who's entire existence is sin.

Maybe God learns from his testees...like Lab experiments. Maybe he saw what happened and learned from it.3eyedrazorback

Doesn't work. God claims to be omniscient. As a result, God cannot learn anything since he already knows all. Also, I'd fix the typo you made with "tests". Kind of makes a new meaning otherwise.

Contradict me why don't ya :lol:

Maybe God learns from his testees...like Lab experiments. Maybe he saw what happened and learned from it.3eyedrazorback

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Like I said, Christians will argue that it was a test by God. You have to find a way to counter that. And as I've already said, the best way is to use God's perfectness against them.

Decessus

The proof is really directed towards fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible should be taken word for word. Since it doesn't mention anywhere in the text (that I'm aware of anyway) that it was in fact some sort of test, the fundamentalist Christian can't use that argument without abandoning his position that the Bible is literally the word of God.

The proof is really directed towards fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible should be taken word for word. Since it doesn't mention anywhere in the text (that I'm aware of anyway) that it was in fact some sort of test, the fundamentalist Christian can't use that argument without abandoning his position that the Bible is literally the word of God.

Decessus

A good proof should hold up before any audience.

[QUOTE="3eyedrazorback"]Maybe God learns from his testees...like Lab experiments. Maybe he saw what happened and learned from it.whos_next000

Hey cmon now..it's a good word :lol:

[QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Like I said, Christians will argue that it was a test by God. You have to find a way to counter that. And as I've already said, the best way is to use God's perfectness against them.

killtactics

The proof is really directed towards fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible should be taken word for word. Since it doesn't mention anywhere in the text (that I'm aware of anyway) that it was in fact some sort of test, the fundamentalist Christian can't use that argument without abandoning his position that the Bible is literally the word of God.

If it's really the word of God, then yes. Otherwise you are making an assumption about the mind of God, and who are you to do such a thing?

[QUOTE="Decessus"]

The proof is really directed towards fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible should be taken word for word. Since it doesn't mention anywhere in the text (that I'm aware of anyway) that it was in fact some sort of test, the fundamentalist Christian can't use that argument without abandoning his position that the Bible is literally the word of God.

Oleg_Huzwog

A good proof should hold up before any audience.

That is not a criteria for a good proof. A good proof is one where the conclusion flows logically from the premises.

Its a valid logical proof as long as the premises logically lead to the conclusion. Doesn't matter how dumb or erronous the premises or conclusions are, its still valid even if the conclusion is right or wrong. For instance:

P1: GW Bush is green
P2: The sky has clouds

C: Therefore the ocean is red

Would be flat out illogical and wrong. However...

P1: GW Bush is green
P2: Democrats love the color green

C: Therefore the democrats love Bush

Is a valid proof since it flows logically. Its completely incorrect, but its still valid.

Just playing devil's advocate :)

gameguy6700

It's not a valid argument if the factors involved are not correct.

And the correct form for a logic problem is....IF A and IF B...then...conclusion. So if A is incorrect and B is incorrect then the conclusion is not logical.

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"][QUOTE="Decessus"]

The proof is really directed towards fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible should be taken word for word. Since it doesn't mention anywhere in the text (that I'm aware of anyway) that it was in fact some sort of test, the fundamentalist Christian can't use that argument without abandoning his position that the Bible is literally the word of God.

Decessus

A good proof should hold up before any audience.

That is not a criteria for a good proof. A good proof is one where the conclusion flows logically from the premises.

No, that's just a valid proof. A good proof is one that is both logical and correct (or in the case of inductive proofs, stands a high probability of being correct). As a result, a good proof should be able to hold up before any audience.

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"][QUOTE="Decessus"]

The proof is really directed towards fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible should be taken word for word. Since it doesn't mention anywhere in the text (that I'm aware of anyway) that it was in fact some sort of test, the fundamentalist Christian can't use that argument without abandoning his position that the Bible is literally the word of God.

Decessus

A good proof should hold up before any audience.

That is not a criteria for a good proof. A good proof is one where the conclusion flows logically from the premises.

...and if the conclusion flows logically from the premises, it should hold up before any audience.

[QUOTE="killtactics"][QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Like I said, Christians will argue that it was a test by God. You have to find a way to counter that. And as I've already said, the best way is to use God's perfectness against them.

Decessus

The proof is really directed towards fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible should be taken word for word. Since it doesn't mention anywhere in the text (that I'm aware of anyway) that it was in fact some sort of test, the fundamentalist Christian can't use that argument without abandoning his position that the Bible is literally the word of God.

If it's really the word of God, then yes. Otherwise you are making an assumption about the mind of God, and who are you to do such a thing?

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Its a valid logical proof as long as the premises logically lead to the conclusion. Doesn't matter how dumb or erronous the premises or conclusions are, its still valid even if the conclusion is right or wrong. For instance:

P1: GW Bush is green
P2: The sky has clouds

C: Therefore the ocean is red

Would be flat out illogical and wrong. However...

P1: GW Bush is green
P2: Democrats love the color green

C: Therefore the democrats love Bush

Is a valid proof since it flows logically. Its completely incorrect, but its still valid.

Just playing devil's advocate :)

LJS9502_basic

It's not a valid argument if the factors involved are not correct.

No, a valid syllogism just has to flow logically. Whether or not its correct has nothing to do with its validity. To drive this home:

If A then B
A

Therefore B

Is a valid syllogism. Even though there is no information contained in it, the mere structure ensures its validity.

[QUOTE="killtactics"][QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Like I said, Christians will argue that it was a test by God. You have to find a way to counter that. And as I've already said, the best way is to use God's perfectness against them.

Decessus

The proof is really directed towards fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible should be taken word for word. Since it doesn't mention anywhere in the text (that I'm aware of anyway) that it was in fact some sort of test, the fundamentalist Christian can't use that argument without abandoning his position that the Bible is literally the word of God.

If it's really the word of God, then yes. Otherwise you are making an assumption about the mind of God, and who are you to do such a thing?

No, a valid syllogism just has to flow logically. Whether or not its correct has nothing to do with its validity. To drive this home:

If A then B
A

Therefore B

Is a valid syllogism. Even though there is no information contained in it, the mere structure ensures its validity.

gameguy6700

You didn't read my entire post.....I said If...and IF is the operative word. It's not a logical conclusion if the factors aren't correct. Hence the word if.

In your initial example the word IF is missing.

Well, look at it this way. It was not perfect for us but it was probably perfect for God. God did what appears to be a mistake to us but God didn't really care, so it was a huge mistake we have to live but God, well, he just moved on.