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.

Decessus

Second of all you moron, God gave all humans free will, are you like mentally challagned or something. How do you not know that? Unless you neve rpay attention to religion anyway and are just tyring to piss people off using your lack of knowlegde.

Way I see it is God somehow knows everything but cannot force anything. That's his kindness. Therefor God is omnipotent. The confusion arises out of his goodness to everything. Where is his wrath? Satan knows God's wrath, has seen itand hence "hides" in the dark in fear of it. Always working against God because God punished him most severely. Out ofthat fear of God...he works to convince people to fear God as he does. Unknowing, some fall for his tricks and walk away from God. Satan is crazy evil. God is crazy good. Understanding either isn't worth the time. Better to just do your best and choose life over death.

I believe all that has to do with Armeggedon. The last war after which everyone will be free of Satan and will walk in the way and gloryof God without having to deal with the confusing "tempter".

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.

gameguy6700

I'm not so sure that I agree with that. A fundamentalist Christian and a non-fundamentalist Christian are going to look at the Bible in two completely different ways (probably more than two, but for the sake of argument we'll just say two). An argument that is against fundamentalism is irrelevant to someone who isn't a fundamentalist.

[QUOTE="Decessus"][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.

Ezgam3r

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?

What assumption have I made?

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

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.

LJS9502_basic

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.

It doesn't matter if the premises are correct or not in order for a logical argument to be valid. An argument is logically valid when the premises, if true, necessarily entail the conclusion. Whether or not the premises are actually true makes no difference in terms of its validity.

[QUOTE="Ezgam3r"][QUOTE="Decessus"][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?

What assumption have I made?

[QUOTE="Decessus"]

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.

Matts07

Second of all you moron, God gave all humans free will, are you like mentally challagned or something. How do you not know that? Unless you neve rpay attention to religion anyway and are just tyring to piss people off using your lack of knowlegde.

You made the assumption that God believed that Adam and Eve would heed his command and not disobey. Ezgam3r

You made the assumption that God believed that Adam and Eve would heed his command and not disobey. Ezgam3r

I guess it's fair enough to call that an assumption. However, given all the other information I think it's a fair assumption to make. Afterall, God is said to be benevolent and would you really consider it benevolent to place the tree in the garden believing that they would disobey you and then punish them when they do?

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

Decessus

First of all, that is not a logical proof (at least not a formal one at any rate).

Secondly, where does it say this in the Bible? Just because He is an interventionist and omnipotent God doesn't mean his creations can't have free will

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

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.

Decessus

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.

It doesn't matter if the premises are correct or not in order for a logical argument to be valid. An argument is logically valid when the premises, if true, necessarily entail the conclusion. Whether or not the premises are actually true makes no difference in terms of its validity.

Actually, it can be proved that if one (or more) of the premises is false, one can arrive at any false or true conclusion using valid logic. You're wrong (and the "logic" to which you refer is not there - again, this is nowhere near a formal argument).

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"][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.

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.

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?

Not so. God knew the future, yet since the future hadn't happened yet, God allowed them to make their own decision... it's not like he forced them or tempted them.

What...just because a command was given doesn't mean the receiver(s) will follow it. Adam and Eve were given free will as you said, so they could choose whether to listen or not. God giving them a command does NOT equate to God believed they would follow his orders :|

That's a huge logical fallacy you got there...sorry.

By the way, I'm an agnostic.

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

JadedEagle04

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?

Not so. God knew the future, yet since the future hadn't happened yet, God allowed them to make their own decision... it's not like he forced them or tempted them.

Hypothetical situation:

You have a young child and its getting close to dinner. You know for a fact that if you put a jar full of cookies out in the kitchen and leave him alone for a few minutes he will eat the cookies, even if you tell him not to. This isn't a guess or anything, you're a psychic parent and you know for a fact that this will happen if you put the cookie jar out. Despite knowing this, you decide to put the cookie jar out and tell your kid that he'll be in big trouble if he gets into the cookie jar. Of course he does and you punish him.

Question: in this situation were you setting him up for failure? Keep in mind that you had the choice not to put the cookie jar out in the first place but did knowing full well what would happen.

Furthermore, if God knows the future there can't be free will. It doesn't matter if his knowledge of the future causes our futures to be determined or not, the fact that he knows the future has the consequence of meaning that we can't possibly have free will.

Maybe... god is like a really big doughnut that spews out really cool stuff from the whole in the doughtnut!

Or maybe, god is like a pencil, and he like writes with himself, and erases what (after time) he doesn't like? Or maybe, If God IS perfect, then he's a pen! That's it! God is a pen! We haven't seen him for a while because he ran out of ink! That IS it! Ohmygosh, I am TOTALLY making a new church.

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

Shouldnt he have known they would eat from the tree; being omniescent and all.

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

[QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

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.

nbtrap1212

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.

It doesn't matter if the premises are correct or not in order for a logical argument to be valid. An argument is logically valid when the premises, if true, necessarily entail the conclusion. Whether or not the premises are actually true makes no difference in terms of its validity.

Actually, it can be proved that if one (or more) of the premises is false, one can arrive at any false or true conclusion using valid logic. You're wrong (and the "logic" to which you refer is not there - again, this is nowhere near a formal argument).

I know that, but the argument with LJ was about whether or not a logically valid argument has to have true premises, and the answer is no it doesn't.

[QUOTE="Decessus"]

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

nbtrap1212

First of all, that is not a logical proof (at least not a formal one at any rate).

Secondly, where does it say this in the Bible? Just because He is an interventionist and omnipotent God doesn't mean his creations can't have free will

I never said his creations can't have free will. In fact, I specifically stated that they were given free will.

[QUOTE="Decessus"]

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.

verparanoidpers

It's implied based on the knowledge that God is a benevolent creator. If God put the tree in the garden believing that Adam and Eve would disobey his command to not eat from it, then God could certainly not be called good.

[QUOTE="verparanoidpers"][QUOTE="Decessus"]

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

It's implied based on the knowledge that God is a benevolent creator. If God put the tree in the garden believing that Adam and Eve would disobey his command to not eat from it, then God could certainly not be called good.

of cource, the creation story is allegorical, 7 days isn't really 7 24 hour days

What's better, something that makes a lot of sensebutconstricts your life or something that makes no senseand sets you free? There is atitanic difference. Fear of the latter comes fromaccepting theformer. Fear of the former comes from not accepting the latter.

Words like "transcend" and all that are weakthoughts, concepts, ideas,that get punished by the word of God.You cannotthink your way back underthe umbrella of acrafty word. The word of God is absolute and all knowing. You either acceptwhat happens or stay out of the word and await death.

Honesty see's.

Another thing; Logic is not the mind of God, but put to the test, I honestly, knowingly and seriously doubt anything could defeat God. Certainly not Satan. How could Satan defeat God? Seriously.

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

I don't think He ever believed that they would follow His command. He still gave them a choice to go against Him thopugh which makes the Christian God so amazing.

Logic is not the mind of GodNostraSamus

Uh, every major monotheistic religion says that God is a rational deity. That's the opposite of what you say.

[QUOTE="FragStains"]Wrong. He gave them 'free will' as you said...and they displayed that by disobeying his orders. Video_Game_King

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.

If we have free will then we must have the oppurtunity to do good or evil. If we were only given the choice of goodthen we become like a machine/robot created.

You have freewill. You can choose God or Satan, correct?

Red pill, blue pill.

The cookiejar is just a "go with the flow" kinda thing. You don't know what the kid will do. All you know is what you will do if the cookies are messed with. Am I right?. ;)

"Uh, every major monotheistic religion says that God is a rational deity. That's the opposite of what you say"

God is not religious or rational. At all. God displays kindness and that may seem rational but the reason for that kindness is his wrath. Which would you rather deal with? All the goodness of the world and righteousness or the sky opening up and God slamming meteors into the planet?

God is not religious or rational. At all. God displays kindness and that may seem rational but the reason for that kindness is his wrath. Which would you rather deal with? All the goodness of the world and righteousness or the sky opening up and God slamming meteors into the planet?

NostraSamus

What the heck are you babbling about? You say God is not rational, then proceed to say God is driven by reason. Make up your mind!

theres the key christian philosopher's idea of transcendence. basically, they believe that god is not of our world, and therefore, is not limited by our logic. otherwise, one could easily disprove god with simple questions like "can god make a rock that he cannot lift?" or "could godbless himself?" its kind of convenient if you ask me, but to each his own.

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

Reason and rationality are way different.NostraSamus

:lol: Let's flip to dictionary.com, shall we?

rational (adjective) - 1) agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible 2) having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense 3) being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid 4) endowed with the faculty of reason 5) of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers 6) proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning

Thus ends today's English lesson.

Ahh, the clamor of us humans. Trying to breakdown a superior entityand judge Him as you would judge your fellow man. It's almost insulting to Him, really. You don't see this kinda discussion with us and a dog. "Why did he defecate on my brand new carpet?" It's a dog, no sense having a panel about it. It kinda works up too.

I just use what I believe He has placed in front of me and do what I want to do. Namely, worship Him and abide by the will as I and others before me have interpreted it...

Adam and Eve did not exist... the human race would be completely inbred if they were the only human beings to exist, and we would not have lived as a species up to this time period.

Adam and Eve did not exist... the human race would be completely inbred if they were the only human beings to exist, and we would not have lived as a species up to this time period.

EboyLOL

Come to think of it, I don't recall ever hearing about incestual details in church. They must've skipped that part. :P

Are you blind? "having or exercising reason," "agreeable to reason" Rationality comes after reason. A description. I have reason. You see that as rational thought. But it isn't rational to me.There's just a reason and that's rational to you. Is it rational to me? How could I rationalize with reason withinmyself? See what I'm saying?

So reason and rationality are way different. If I have a reason, you do. It appears rational...but it isn't. ;)

jesus is horus

Me_Is_Pacman

Jesus betrayed God?! :shock:

Are you blind? "having or exercising reason," "agreeable to reason" Rationality comes after reason. A description. I have reason. You see that as rational thought. But it isn't rational to me.There's just a reason and that's rational to you. Is it rational to me? How could I rationalize with reason withinmyself? See what I'm saying?

So reason and rationality are way different. If I have a reason, you do. It appears rational...but it isn't. ;)

NostraSamus

Reasonable and rational are synonymous. Just admit your goof and move on.

What's wierd is that he decided to punish every human in existence ever for eternity by making them seperate from him for the actions of two people.

No. There is a major difference in saying "I do something because its rational" and "I do something for a reason".

You have to understand that.

Now admit your error and move along.

No. There is a major difference in saying "I do something because its rational" and "I do something for a reason".

You have to understand that.

Now admit your error and move along.

NostraSamus

:| English must not be your native language. "I do something because it's rational" and "I do something for a reason" mean the EXACT SAME THING.

No, they don't dude. Can you say "I do something forarational?" No. But you can say "I do something for a reason."

Do I have to spell it out for you? Wake up, man.

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

You forgot

P5: Adam and Eve is a fictional parable. The story is not literal but symbolic. Try to see the truth behind the truth.

To believe the story is literal is a mistake in itself.