When considering the Bible's description of how humanity came about and what traits and characteristics this "omnipotent" and all-knowing being gave us, supposedly, the question comes up, "Is it, in the context of the Bible, humanities fault for original sin, or can and should this be contributed to an error in judgement made by the creator?" This was a question me (atheist) and a close friend(theist) came across while looking at and debating certain parts of the Bible. Him, being a very strong believer, wouldn't accept my argument in even the slightest capacity. So, with every atheist, theist, agnostic, pragmatic,ect.. On this site as my witnesses. I am going to present that very same argument. I will start off by noting that all information and statements presented in this are from a point of view that presupposes the existence of a divine, supreme God. First, you have to ask, why exactly would God have created us. The Bible, being the vague, superstitious piece of "literature" that it is, never gives us a true strait answer. Therefore, it is safe to assume that either we had no purpose, God just wanted some playthings, or God just wanted to demonstrate his ability's (to whom is another matter to be discussed). Now, with the problem of purpose shelved, not solved, let's begin delving into the main problem. The Bible says that God created us in his image, while also giving us free will. First of all, God giving us free will would raise a question. If God wanted to create something that would worship and love him unconditionally, why give the creation something that would allow it the ability to go against him? Did he simply want us to have to come to him for forgiveness so he would feel importaint.? Did he have such a bad ego problem that he wanted us to have to bow down to and allow him to have a sense of dominance over us, lest he cast us into hell? Now, we reach another problem-Hell. If this omnipotent, benevolent God created us with free will and knew that we were going to use it to go against him, why did he doom all those who did so to damnation? It makes no sense that a benevolent being would willingly give his creations the ability to go against him only to either have them burn in hell or come begging and pleading for forgiveness. Unless of course, he's not benevolent and actually enjoys seeing his creations either suffering or groviling at his feet. A similar problem is the problem of nuclear weponry. When (and if) the nuclear holocost happens, will the survivers blame the countries that pressed the button, J. Robert Oppenheimer, or both? However, one distinct difference remains. I don't think J. Robert Oppenheimer will be around to make the survivers of the nuclear weapons grovil at his feet or else die by more nukes, nor do I think he would do that even if he could. Then, we have one last option to consider: could this supposedly omnipotent, all knowing, benevolent being have made an error in judgement that forever changed the fate of humanity. Could it be that, much like the mad scientists in the sci-fi movies mixing random chemicals together, "God" had absoululy no idea what he was doing? Once again, please note that I am an atheist and that this is all from a point of view that presupposes the existence of God. All opinions and viewpoints are welcome, just don't chew my head off. Update: for the purpose of aiding those whom may not be able to understand this in the format it's in, I am going to include two basic possible summary's of my argument. 1. If God exists, then he is perfect.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants.
4. If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want.
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).
Or:
1. If God exists, then he is perfect.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.
4. But the universe is not perfect.
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).
Attachments
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Human beings wrote the Bible(s) and created concepts like Original Sin in their minds. Like the atomic weapons Oppenheimer helped to create this idea works to keep the masses groveling and dependent on authority.
First of all original sin never made sens and never will.
Under NO moral reason would a benevolent omnipotent god EVER EVER EVER punish another innocent person for the mistakes of others.
Either god is immoral or the god described does not exist.
The argument ends there.
If a theist would try to change subject he is a dishonest mentally damaged person and you should keep getting back the argument on it when he tries to change subject.
Yes he will, over and over again.
Because if you cannot get a theist to admit this obvious logical fact, there is no way to get him to reasoning on any other subject.
I usually use this story:
If your wife punches you in the eye and gives you a black eye, would you consider yourself a KIND, JUST, LOVING person if you do nothing to your wife who gave you the punch but go home later in the day and beat the crap out of your own son?
That is the kind of person you worship.
I do not worshop it. I was nearly offering a question from that veiwpoint.
If you desire to ask questions from that viewpoint are you prepared to answer the responses from that viewpoint ?
On this topic, at the very least, yes. Though there are but a very few theists that will even attempt to understand logic, and why "God" symbolises a lack thereof.
I tried to make it evident that I was arguing with a theist, just like you did.
I was not asking you, but showing you what you should ask them.
"That is the kind of person you worship."
It is the punchline I use at the theist, I know you are not one.
Basically make the theist try to put himself in the position of god.
They hate that most.
As if looking through the perspective of god is shameful or something.
When they say something similar I immediately cut them short and tell them.
How can you claim you are a true believer if you do not even attempt to understand god and his reasons?
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I agree: if you won't attempt to understand what your Gods reasons were, how can you ever hope to know he is the being your being lead to believe he is? Assuming he actually exists.
Np
One thing I learned is that you never know with what nonsense a theist will come up with.
You never say I heard them all, which is good since you never stop laughing at their stupidity.
It seems like they think claiming the thing that is trying to be disprooven will prevent said thing from being disprooven.
Well if we evolved there is no adam and eve, and evolution is a proven FACT... So no original sin even if they wanted.
But sometimes it's nessasary to take a religions holy book and throw it right back at them.
True at face value, but like Random One said, it's important to use the illogic within their own text to respond to them. If you see someone who has no concept of evolutionary theory, or who see evolution itself as a tool of deception, then mentioning it, regardless of how true it is, avails you nothing. What's important is to make them see the deception within their own knowledge base. That way they see that the ground they're standing on isn't as firm as they think it is.
Well said, and much more so then I did.
"Well if we evolved"
We are constantly evolving, that has been shown.
"there is no adam and eve,"
How would you know that?
" and evolution is a proven FACT.. So no original sin even if they wanted."
Just because evolution is a demonstrable fact it does not follow that it implies that there is no original sin.
Like saying just because you can eat an apple then you cannot eat a banana.
One does not follow from the other.
1)Evolution(that it exists)
2)Human constant evolution(that humans do evolve)
3)Human evolution from a Miocene ape in history(that a Miocene ape evolved and became a human)
Those are 3 different claims.
First 2 can be demonstrated as observable facts, the last one is a hypothesis, definitely not a fact.
A fact is something that can be observed over and over again.
Did you observe the human evolution from a Miocene ape?
Anything short of a time machine won't help you to claim historical events as facts.
So if you were assuming (3) that is not a fact, and even if you can demonstrate that Miocene apes do evolve and become humans, you cannot assert it as a fact because that might only be 1 of the many ways humans could exist on this planet.
Right now it is a hypothesis and maybe in the future it will become a scientific theory if enough evidence is found to support it.