Imperfection from Perfection

As we know, the world that we live in is far from perfect. In light of all the beauty that theists love to point to in attempt to prove the existence of their god, the ugliness of nature perfectly matches if not exceeds that so called beauty. In this article, I will not go into detail regarding the specifics of our imperfect world, such specifics will be discussed in the argument from scale. If anything, this article will discuss and rebut one of the objections against the argument from scale, which is Christians appeal to the fall of man in the garden of eden.

In normal atheist vs theist discussions, anytime the issue of the chaotic nature of our world is brought up, Christians immediately retort to man's free will choice to disobey God which resulted in nature becoming corrupted and chaotic. But the theist fails to realize that such a response does not account for the problem, he/she is merely just presenting the same problem in a different but more subtle form. When atheists point to the imperfections in the world, the rationale for such questioning is that it makes no sense to believe that the universe was designed and is maintained by a perfect being but yet the end result is imperfection and chaos. With the case of Adam and Eve in the Garden, the problem remains: How can an imperfect creation come from a perfect God?

Of course the theist will retort and state that man was originally created upright and good and then chose evil and became imperfect as a result. But such theistic reasoning is backwards. We do not become imperfect because we choose evil, but we choose evil as a result of imperfection. If you have a human being that is perfectly righteous and good and has not even a stain of sin or evil in his/her heart, then how do you get from that perfect state to evil and wickedness? In order for evil to be committed, there has to be a source. Appealing to free will choice does not solve the problem because free will choices are performed in accordance to ones own nature, human choices are not random events with no source. Either the source is good or evil.

Interestingly, the Bible supports my argument. In Matthew 7:18, Jesus says that a good tree cannot produce bad fruit and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit. If Adam was originally created good, how then could he have produced a bad fruit? In Matthew 15 Jesus also speaks of how that which comes out of the mouth comes from the heart. So it is man's nature, not free will, that is responsible for our actions and words.

We can present this argument in a logical syllogism.

1. In theism, God is defined as a perfect being who originally created everything good and perfect.

2. Imperfection cannot come from perfection.

3. Man is imperfect.

4. A perfect God does not exist.

Peter's afterlife and God's omniscience

The vast majority of theists hold to the omni-attributes of God. Omniscience, being all knowing of everything that has or will happen is one of them. Theists, such as William Lane Craig have argued that an actual infinite cannot exist. One might ask what does infinity have to do with whether or not God is omniscient? Well in this article it has a lot to do with it. First, we need to define actual and potential infinity. I will allow Craig to define them for me.

In order to understand (2.1), we need to understand the difference between a potential infinite and an actual infinite. Crudely put, a potential infinite is a collection which is increasing toward infinity as a limit, but never gets there. Such a collection is really indefinite, not infinite. The sign of this sort of infinity, which is used in calculus, is ¥. An actual infinite is a collection in which the number of members really is infinite. The collection is not growing toward infinity; it is infinite, it is "complete."

Now (2.11) maintains, not that a potentially infinite number of things cannot exist, but that an actually infinite number of things cannot exist. For if an actually infinite number of things could exist, this would spawn all sorts of absurdities.

What absurdities is Craig referring to?

Let us imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms. Suppose, furthermore, that all the rooms are full. When a new guest arrives asking for a room, the proprietor apologizes, "Sorry, all the rooms are full." But now let us imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and suppose once more that all the rooms are full. There is not a single vacant room throughout the entire infinite hotel. Now suppose a new guest shows up, asking for a room. "But of course!" says the proprietor, and he immediately shifts the person in room #1 into room #2, the person in room #2 into room #3, the person in room #3 into room #4 and so on, out to infinity. As a result of these room changes, room #1 now becomes vacant and the new guest gratefully checks in. But remember, before he arrived, all the rooms were full! Equally curious, according to the mathematicians, there are now no more persons in the hotel than there were before: the number is just infinite. But how can this be? The proprietor just added the new guest's name to the register and gave him his keys-how can there not be one more person in the hotel than before? But the situation becomes even stranger. For suppose an infinity of new guests show up the desk, asking for a room. "Of course, of course!" says the proprietor, and he proceeds to shift the person in room #1 into room #2, the person in room #2 into room #4, the person in room #3 into room #6, and so on out to infinity, always putting each former occupant into the room number twice his own. As a result, all the odd numbered rooms become vacant, and the infinity of new guests is easily accommodated. And yet, before they came, all the rooms were full! And again, strangely enough, the number of guests in the hotel is the same after the infinity of new guests check in as before, even though there were as many new guests as old guests. In fact, the proprietor could repeat this process infinitely many timesand yet there would never be one single person more in the hotel than before. (Taken from http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html)

Craig's overall point is that because an absolute infinity results in absurdities then it is metaphysically impossible. Another argument against the existence of actual infinity is the problem of traversing infinity. Let's say an infinite amount of time as existed. Time could never arrive at this present moment because an infinite amount of time would have to elapse first. But since infinite means no beginning and no end, by definition, it cannot be elapsed.

Now, with that established, let's proceed to the actual argument. Let's take the apostle Peter and use him as our example. According to Christianity, when we die as believers, we will go to heaven and that is where we will spend eternity. So taking Peter as our example, after he died for the faith he went to heaven to be in the presence of God and that is where he will reside at forever. When we say that Peter will reside in heaven forever or for eternity, what are we referring to? According to Craig, it means that Peter will be in heaven for a potential infinite amount of time, not actual. But is this really the case?

Craig elsewhere has given the example of a man jumping from one stone to another. Each time that the man jumps a new stone is created for him to land on. According to Craig, the process can continue forever and it will always remain a potential infinite, because there will always be a new stone created for the man to hop to. Looking at our example of Peter again, Craig is certainly correct. All the days that Peter resides in heaven will always be a potential infinite because there will always be "the next day", just as how there will always be another stone in our above example.

But when it comes to God's omniscient perspective of Peter's after life, we run into a problem. Craig would certainly agree that God knows all things, which would include all of Peter's days in heaven. But if an actual infinite amount of days is impossible then God's knowledge of all of Peter's afterlife is limited. In Craig's mind, Peter's days in heaven is limited since there will always be "that next day". So if God does not have a knowledge of a actual infinite amount of days for Peter's life then that means that there will always be "that next day" that God does not know about. Let's look at this slightly different to help drive the point home. Let's represent Peter's days in his afterlife with dots. Each dot represents a single day in his afterlife and as the next day comes a new dot is created. What is God's knowledge on these dots? Does God see a potential infinite amount of dots that keep getting longer and longer? If so then there will always be future dots that God does not know about since what God sees is only dots coming into existence or a line of dots that continues to grow, not an actual infinite amount of dots.

A possible theistic objection to this argument is that it is a false dichotomy. And that it is not a matter of either God's knowledge comprising an potential infinite amount of days vs. an actual infinite amount. The objector could then proceed to state that God's knowledge of Peter's after life days is finite, not necessarily because there are future days that God does not know about, but because Peter's after life itself is finite. This way of looking at it says that God does not know of a finite amount of dots that keeps growing with no knowledge of anything beyond those finite dots that are already in existence. Rather, God knows of every dot that comes into existence.

This argument is implying that we cannot put a set value on God's knowledge of Peter's days in heaven. But neither will the argument affirm that the amount of days is actual infinite. It is somewhat paradoxical. If we cannot ask the question of how many days of Peters after life that God knows about then this means that God's knowledge in its entirety is not set.

The problem with this objection is that there is always a set value with anything finite. A potential infinite amount of days is a finite amount of days that has a beginning and has an end. It cannot be said that God knows of every after life day that comes without a limit because being without a limit is actual infinite, not a potential infinite. The objector would be inadvertently affirming that God knowledge of all the days of Peter's after life is an actual infinite which leads us to our final point:

Someone could reject Craig's argument against actual infinity and say that God does see an actual infinite complete set of dots, not a finite amount that keeps growing. If in God's knowledge there exists an actual infinite amount of days of Peter's life then one might ask: How is it that God knows of something that Peter himself will never experience? On Peter's level, he will never experience an actual infinite amount of days in heaven, it will always be potential infinite. If God knows of an actual infinite amount of days then his knowledge does not reflect reality. God would know something that would never occur, hence, his knowledge regarding Peter's afterlife would be inaccurate, and he would not truly be omniscient. Either way we cut it, true omniscience is out of the question.

In light of the above, I conclude that an omniscient God cannot exist.

More reasons for rejecting the existence of God

My previous post on my reasons for rejecting the existence of god and the validity of Christianity was not exhaustive. If anything, I would consider those reasons that I gave to be my corner stone foundation. Over time, I will discuss more reasons for my rejection of the existence of God. Here is a list of most of them:

1. Biological Evolution

While there are theists who try to hold to evolution and sneak God in through the back door, such foolishness is unnecessary and disregards what evolution is about. Evolution is about how simplicity can give rise to complexity without the aid of a designer. It is how atheists are able to account for illusion of design in nature. The architect of all complex organisms on the planet is evolution by natural selection.

2. The argument from evil

This argument might seem like a rehash of the common argument from evil that most atheists utilize. I, however, take a slightly different approach. My individualized argument from evil has 3 categories:

A. The argument from foreknowledge

B. The argument from allowance and promotion of sin contamination

C. The argument from deterministic design.

Point C is the most fiercly resisted by Christians but I strongly believe that it stands strong and is a powerful argument against the existence of a loving God.

3. The argument from Non-belief.

Some Christians claim that an atheist's non-belief does not change the fact that the Christian God exists. As a matter of fact, it does.

4. The argument from scale.

This argument states that the universe is not how we should expect it if a God exists. This includes the vast size of the universe and the chaotic nature of the universe as well as life on earth.

5. Argument of the apathetic god.

Assuming that there is a transcendant infinite God then we have reasons to believe that such a god does nothing and could not have created the universe, let alone intervene in it.

6. Incoherency of divine creation.

A few points to keep in mind with this argument:

A. Something cannot come from nothing.

B. A timeless God cannot create out of nothing because of the problem of timelessness.

C. A God who exists in time cannot create due to the infinite time period that would have to elapse before the act of creating.

I will discuss these points in more detail in another post soon.

7. The argument against God's omniscience using Peter's afterlife

The concept of an afterlife invalidates the idea of an omniscient God.

8. God's personhood & timelessness

This argument essentially says that if God is timeless then he cannot be a person. This argument will be covered alongside the apathetic god argument because after that argument is drawn out, I need to address a legitimate objection to that argument utilizing this argument.

9. Imperfection from perfection

Christians cannot account for our imperfect world if they wish to define God as a perfect being.

All these arguments along with the ones I mentioned in the previous post comprise most, if not close to all my reasons for rejecting the existence of God. And considering all these reasons for rejecting the existence of God, I am baffled as to how theists can still continue to point to Psalms 14 and call me a fool.

I will discuss each argument in more detail in separate posts. Let us begin.

Why I am not a Christian

Christians adore their beloved passage from Psalms 14 where the Psalmist says, "The fool has said in his heart there is no God." Christians are convinced that atheists are total idiots for not believing that their god exists and not believing the claims of their religion. I am often times asked why I am an atheist and why I reject Christianity. In this post I will briefly give the reasons as to why I reject both the existence of God and the validity of Christianity.

The overall gospel message says that God originally created man upright and he disobeyed God (Ecc 7:29). As a result of that disobedience, sin entered the world and that sin along with death spread to all men (Rom 5:12-19). God, in his love, sent his Son to save men from their sin, to be a propitiation for their sins, to die on a cross so men can be forgiven and reconciled to God through faith in the gospel (Matt 1:21, 1 John 2:2, Rom 5:10, Col 1:22). And after he died he was buried and resurrected. The death, burial, and resurrection is the basis for salvation (1 Cor 15:1-4)

I reject this "gospel message" for the following reasons:

1. The message presupposes that a god even exists.

Christians preach their message as if the existence of God is blatantly obvious. Is it? They say it is obvious because of the existence of the cosmos. The argument is that because there is something, instead of nothing, because our universe appears orderly and beautiful then there must be a designer which we call God.

Now, there is a simple category error which virtually every Christian is guilty of commiting. It is in essence one of the major things that separates atheists from theists. When they ask questions such as, "why is there something, instead of nothing?", or "why does the universe act or appear the way it does" they are presupposing that there is a higher cause to such things, something beyond the material.

Since the existence of the material universe is axiomatic, and the existence of God is not, then it is not difficult to recognize that the universe is the First Cause. And if the universe itself is the first cause then not only can we not ask such questions from above but such questions are futile. The fact that there is something, instead of nothing, and that the universe manifests in the way it does, which includes order and beauty, is a necessary fact. It makes no more sense to contradict the rational atheistic worldview by demanding an explanation for the natural world than it would to demand an explanation for the existence of God.

2. The message presupposes that the term 'God' is meaningful.

If you were to ask me what a human being is, I would say that a human is an organism that is composed of hydrogen, carbon, & oxygen. And that we are composed of matter, atoms, electrons, etc. But when the theist is asked, "What is God?" they give an answer that describes things about God, as opposed to saying exactly what God is. Christians will define God as Creator, savior, designer, king, etc.. But if I say that a human being is a leader, am I saying what a human being is? Since theists cannot even define what "God" is, any discussion or claims regarding 'God' is meaningless and invalid.

3. The message presupposes the historical accuracy of the gospels.

It is beyond the scope of this post to cover the details of this point but here are some key points to keep in mind.

A. The pattern that the character and life of Jesus follows is nothing new. Stories of men that walked on water, born of a virgin, etc.. preceded the Jesus story.

B. There is no contemporary historical evidence of the life and events of Jesus Christ. The gospels were recorded decades after Jesus' alleged death.

C. The old favorite argument that nobody will die for a lie knowing is a lie is blatantly false. There are plenty of documented cases of people dying for a lie knowing its a lie for a variety of possible reasons. Appealing to the fact that the apostles died for the faith is not sufficient evidence, even if we assumed that they knew that it was a lie.

4. From the perspective of an outsider, the gospel message is completely absurd.

Though this reason cannot stand alone, it cannot be discarded. From a human perspective, the gospel is barbaric and sadistic. If I have wronged someone, it is my responsibility to make ammends to that person. But what would it look like if some people offended me and instead of me expecting them to make ammends for their crimes, I get my only son and buture him to death and then say that those who wronged me just have to have faith in my act of sacrificing my son and I will forgive their evil deeds. It is absurd from the human's perspective.

5. Assuming that a Creator exists undermines the primary message of the gospel.

Christians claim that the gospel message is the greatest act of love from God. But if God caused the very problem which Christians claim that he is fixing through sending his Son to die then it is no longer an act of love. It is deceit and evil. If there is a sovereign designer, then everything regarding human beings would necessarily have to be determined by God. If it is God that designs the brain, our emotions, our character, our personality, our rationale for choices, our reflexes, our environment, our parents, etc, then it is God who is responsible for all the events that occur on this planet. If this is so, then this nullifies the gospel message.

Christians & death

The topic of death does not make anyone comfortable or excited. When we ponder on the fact that we will one day die it can almost terrify us. However, religion offers salvation from the fear of death. They claim that every human being has a soul that lives on and that physical death is nothing more than just separation of the body and soul. Once the physical body dies, the soul can either go to heaven or hell depending on whether or not that person believed on Jesus Christ during their life.

If death is nothing more than just a change of location (from earth to heaven) then the topic of death should never bring a Christian any discomfort, unless of course its regarding a nonbeliever going to hell. If a loved one dies, and they were a Christian, then the believer should be filled with overwhelming joy and happiness because that person is now in the presence of God in paradise.

Since day 1 of my change to atheim, I have been completely vexed at how Christians react to the death of loved ones. In the real world, when people die, Christians treat it as a real loss, as if the death is permanent. If two Christian friends were to be separated for 40 years, neither one of them will be significantly affected. But if one of them dies then the reaction is different. Why is it that in death, Christians react with severe depression, anger, hostility, vengance, etc..? If i am a Christian who is of 50 years of age and my other Christian friend dies assuming that I will die in 40 years and meet him in heaven, there is absolutely no difference between that and us just being separated by location for 40 years.

When Christians treat death as if it is a permanent loss, as if death means oblivion, they are presupposing or borrowing from the atheistic worldview. In my worldview, death is the end. It is the cessation of consciousness. This is why people who hold to my worldview have a basis for grieving the death of a loved one whereas the theist who believes in life after death really has no basis for grieving or depression if their loved one is in heaven.