Here I shall set forth some of the strongest arguments against theism, in an explanation of why I am not a Theist despite having had 9 years of Christian education in my early life, from age 4 to 12.
In here, theist refers to any religion believing in a single Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omni-benevolent (Pan-Omni) God, which thus includes Christianity, Islam and Judaism. I will not go into the arguments of Veridicality of Religious Experiences, which frequently get cut off by un-elaborable positing of Faith, which to me seems unconstructive.
While many have told me "Faith is not an ability of the mind, but of the heart", I say unto thee, If God exists, he had fully intended for me to use my Logical faculty fully and I will eventually reach the right answer if he intends for me to.
For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future (Jeremiah 29:11).
Similarly, if he does not exist, I have the responsibility to painstakingly prove to myself that he does not, lest I forsake the truth. So whichever the case, I am carrying my duty to fully analyse the issues in logical terms.
The Incest Paradox
This is only applicable to Christianity. First, a few important bible references.
Incest Implied: Adam & Eve
In Genesis 5:4, we are told that Adam & Eve begat 33 sons and 23 daughters, and all humanity began from there, i.e. Adam & Eve are our ultimate parents who were created by God. Have you figured how many times of incest is necessary to reach 6 billion people from 2 in a matter of 60,000 years (creation date estimated from 6,000 to 60,000 years ago, I'm taking the upper limit).
Statistically, incest would be compulsory for at least the first 11 generations before the genetic composition would start to differ via random mutation and you can say that incest no longer occurs. Prior to that, there is also no explanation why Inbreeding Depression, a natural biological law, did not occur for Adam & Eve's first 11 generations of descendents.
One could argue that the biological laws do not apply to them, as they were the direct creations of God, but this would result in a further paradox as we can no longer call them our "parents" if they were not subject to the same natural laws as we are, and would be entirely different beings, e.g. Apes evolving into man. You can say that they are our ancestors, but certainly not our "parents" if they are entirely different beings. Moreover, this implies change in the original design of God, which is certainly not endorsed in Christianity.
Another point of argument is to deny the truth of either Statistical Science or Biological Science, or even both of them. But in doing so, it would require all theists to go into this denial in order to be consistent with their teachings.
Incest Condoned: Lot
Lot was a just and righteous man.
And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) 2 Peter 2:7-8He was the only man that God saved from the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.
...the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city. Genesis 19:15He got drunk and impregnated his virgin daughters.
Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. Genesis 19:32-36Incest Condemned:
None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness. Leviticus 18:6And, at least in some cases, is punishable by death.
And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:11So, to the Christian I ask: is incest favoured (e.g. Adam & Eve), or is it condoned (Lot & his two daughters) or is it punishable by death (Leviticus)?
And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:12
And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. -- Leviticus 20:14
Problem of Creation
By endorsing the creation of Adam & Eve, Christians have no choice but to deny the truth of Evolutionary Science, as the latter concludes that we evolved from apes. Yet, in doing so, they must also deny the truth of Archaelogy, as the facts of the matter is that Evolutionary Science supervenes upon Archaelogy. If Evolution is untrue, then the supporting evidence from Archaelogy must also be untrue.
Of course, this only means that belief in a religious text which does not comply with any science, requires you to wholly disregard that science or to disregard you religious text.
Thus, as it holds, any faithful Christian must deny the existence of Dinosaurs, a species which existed 65 million years ago, as they cannot possibly have been created 60,000 years ago, as disclosed by the bible. Instead, many Christians would say that Archaelogical methods of dating items is flawed/wrong, and the Dinosaurs were created and existed within the past 60,000 years. Yet, this is counter-intuitive to our scientific knowledge, and the burden of proof lies upon the Christian claim.
Of course, there is the simpler argument that "Knowledge is Evil", and that it is the faculty of Satan. This is a stronger claim, that all sciences are evil. However, if this were true, it would follow that the nourishment of the body to prolong life, which is the goal of science, is evil and not endorsed by God. Thus, taking this stance would lead one to intuitively aim for non-nourishment of the physical body, as it taints one's own soul, therefore suicide. This brings us again to a paradox as
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own, you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body (1 Corinthians 6:19-20).
Omnipotence Paradox
1. Either the Pan-Omni God can create a stone He cannot lift, or He cannot create a stone He cannot lift.
2. If He can create a stone He cannot lift, He is not Omnipotent. (failure to lift something)
3. If He cannot create a stone He cannot lift, He is not Omnipotent. (failure to create something)
4. Therefore, He is not Omnipotent
Against 1:
Quoting Augustine Hippo,
"For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent."
Reply:
However, this would imply that Omnipotence means to be all-able yet NOT all-able. The paradox lies in that an ability is invoked which exposes its own weakness, which by strict definition of Omnipotence, proves that the notion of Omnipotence itself is a logical paradox, hence Omnipotence does not exist. (which leads to Pan-Omni God does not exist)
The problem of Evil.
1. If there is a Pan-Omni God, then there would be no evil in the world.
2. There is evil in the world.
1+2: 3. There is no Pan-omni God.
Possible responses:
Against 1:
- Evil is the result of free will
God grants free will, to allow us to choose between what is right and what is wrong, and what is good and what is evil. In order to allow us to have consistent free will, he does not interfere with it even though he can.
Reply:
What about uncaused evils, e.g. Tsunamis and Floods killing thousands of innocent victims? Certainly it cannot be the choices of humanity that create the flood. Only possibility is that the COMBINED actions of all humanity chose wrongly and caused the flood, but we are merely talking about individual free will as predicated in the Holy Bible
This is the sort of free will whereby an individual chooses between Heaven and Hell. Unlike such choices, choices to, for example, choose environment-unfriendly materials in manufacturing are dependent on considerations which bear no impact upon free will, but manifest into immense environmental disasters. Thus, global free will cannot possibly be an instantiation of the individual free will as disclosed in the Holy Bible.
- Evil is only for the Greater Good.
There are many instances of gratuitious evil, i.e. evil that does greater good, for example the man who goes bankrupt, grows to understand the value of hard work. Thus, even a Pan-Omni God may allow evil if it is for a greater purpose beyond what we can see from a mortal perspective.
Reply:
What about cases of pure evil with no intention of greater good? e.g. A fawn born without a brain? A gang lord who lives to an old age unpunished? In these cases, you can argue that (a) God does not know, then he would not be Omniscient, or (b) God is not able to prevent it, then he would not be Omnipotent, or (c) God does not want to prevent it, then he would not be Omni-benevolent. Hence, the problem of evil still persists.
Against 2:
A divine judgment of evil differs from what we see from our mortal perspective.
What we decide to be evil or not may not be commensurate with what a divine being would, thus we cannot presume to judge Him with our values.
Reply: Fallibility Argument
*1. There are many cases recorded in the Holy Bible where God carries out his judgment. e.g. Noah's Ark and the flood.
2. The judgment is made by a divine being from a divine being's perspective.
*3. The judgment of right and wrong is made upon non-divine beings, which are creations of the divine-being
*4. God is the creator of all that exists.
3+4: 5. Both the right & wrong (or good & evil) are created by the Pan-Omni God.
6. An infallible creator cannot create a flawed creation.
5+6: 7. either the Pan-Omni God did not create evil, or the Pan-Omni God is fallible.
8. If the Pan-Omni God did not create evil, Theism is false. (paradox with fallible God)
(* denotes arguments assuming vested authority of the Holy Bible/Quran, and can be debunked easily by denying the truth of the Bible/Quran; yet doing so would deny the truth of Theism as well.)
So what is my religion? A modified form of theism, which I call Neo-theism, which I will share another day.
No comments:
Post a Comment