Why God Is Impossible

May 30

What Can We Tell About God?

For a moment, let’s accept some of the various arguments for the existence of God. Unlikely, frankly, but we will. What can we tell about this theoretical deity?
This is in essence natural theology: ignoring scripture and revelation, to see what the universe and linked arguments say about the character of God.
Let’s start off with a joke, to demonstrate the point:

A Mathematician, a Physicist, and an astronomer were travelling north by train. They had just crossed the border into Scotland, when the Astronomer looked out of the window and saw a single black sheep in the middle of a field. “All Scottish sheep are black,” he remarked.
“No, my friend,” replied the Physicist, “Some Scottish sheep are black.”
At which point the Mathematician looked up from his paper and glanced out the window. After a few second’s thought he said blandly: “In Scotland, there exists at least one field, in which there exists at least one sheep, at least one side of which is black.”

Or, to put it more concisely: don’t overestimate what the information available says.

One Cannot Know the Mind of God

This is a common response to questions on motive, or incongruencies in God’s actions.
It would be fair enough: but moments later, the people who say this can often be found doing the exact same thing: professing to know the mind of God.

God is good; God wants all to be saved… Anything like that, where does it come from? God said it? how do you know it was true? With humans, we expect truthfulness, honesty: but if we cannot know the mind of God, we cannot know either way.
And those that say God is good, how do you know that? And even if we can grant that principle (as many take it as the definition of God, admittedly with very little reason), you still know the mind of God to the degree that you expect:

God’s definition of good to be the same as ours (for example: lying vs truthtelling)
Telling humans the truth is in fact good (not necessarily, especially under Divine Command Theory)

Among other things.

No matter where you claim to get this knowledge from, how are you assured that it’s genuine?
Not knowing the mind of God would be a fair enough response and, assuming there is a deity, may well be true: but then, why do those that say this argument equally expect to know the mind of God?

May 29

thelastatheist:

…

Actually this is pretty funny, one it seems like a rehash of the Ad Populum fallacy. Second he forgets to mention that not all those copies are the same, part of them show that pesky little fact christians waste so much time bullshiting around, that not all copies say the same thing, or in other words, they show the editing done by humans, on their own fictional work. Turns out it was pretty normal at the time for the next generation edit the previous generation works, by embellishing it.

We don’t even know who were the authors of the books of the new testament. But we know due to textual references and style, that the authorship of at least most of them, was forged. It’s obvious that most of the books attributed to Peter were not written by the same person. If we get into the gospels, well… then we have buck loads of fun. Also interesting that the further back you go in time, the less real and more mythical the character of named Jesus becomes. To a point were he becomes entirely part of fantasy. Most christians don’t have a clue what their ancient counterparts believed. Modern christianity was only born after the 4th century.

Not to mention that the author of Matthew seems to only have had access to the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Torah), most likely because he couldn’t read Aramaic. We know this because he left marks of the mistranslation of the Septuagint. Read Matthew 21:7, where Jesus supposedly entered Jerusalem in two donkeys. It’s also very interesting for me that right under the New Testament in the table is Homer’s Iliad. A book that the author of Mark heavily inspired his work of fiction on.

In what way, shape or form does this speak of reliability? The second text on that list demonstrates that quite clearly: the Iliad is not a reliable historical document unless you contend that the Gods of Mount Olympus played a part in the Trojan War.
It was a popular text: lots of people cared about it enough to preserve and copy it. We already know this much.
But by the simple fact that the Bible has known historical errors in, and (by the admission of many believers), is not intended as a historical record at all, what reason turns popularity into reliability?

(via truthofgod)

A Series of Videos on Jesus and Messianic Prophecies

Not mine, but incredibly well-researched and interesting. If you have a lot of free time and are interested in this kind of thing, I’d wholeheartedly recommend it.

May 25

May 20

Borrowing

It’s interesting how many religions can claim, on one hand, to contain the one true truth, etc: while simultaneously being composed of an incredible amalgamation of individual stories from so many cultures: some real, some mythical.
I’ve heard some claim that this proves the truth of the claims: for example, in science, corroboration shows that something is likely to be correct: but the problem here, is that there is no scientific methodology involved in how these tales are passed on: it’s based solely on literature. It’s not corroboration: it’s plagiarism.
The only claim I’ve seen that stands up to a vague scrutiny, is that whatever God is proposed tried to give people the true story of the world, and essentially failed, only segments being passed on: a claim that falls completely once the idea of an omniscient God is involved.

Now, a quick examination of the most interesting borrowed stories in religion. I try not to dwell on the clichéd subjects, so I’ll try to mention only the more interesting.

William Lane Craig: Five Arguments

You’ve probably heard of WLC: Christian apologist, expert debater, no question; yet his most effective point is the manner in which he delivers the arguments. Note that: not the arguments themselves, just the way in which they’re delivered.
Why is that important? Well, take the Transcendental Argument for an example; an argument for God that’s difficult to refute for the simple fact there’s nothing there to refute. It’s essentially the conclusion stated in amongst a little smokescreen, with no reasons; and yet you’re expected to disprove those non-existent reasons.
WLC could deliver this argument, and make it sound convincing: just because of his style of speech and expression. He’s a good debater, there’s no question about that, but the arguments themselves?
There are five used in a specific document of his, including his favourite, Kalam. None of them are at all convincing. Discussed here.