Arguments to disprove God always a disaster

Atheists arguments that seek to disprove God are always a disaster. These guys don't understand the Christian concept of God because they don't study theology. They only listen to the fundies. They have the wrong concept of God in the first palce. They don't understand God arguments so they try to make half backed little arguments based upon bad understanding.


two little arguments I came across on TWEB
by "Anontheist"


Argument 1

1. If God exists, then he is perfect.

what does that mean? why should we think that? how do we know that?

how can we know what perfection is? We are not prefect, our only example of perfection would be God and we don't know God directly
how can we know?

2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.

fair enough

3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants.

assumption not in evidence. how do we know this? we would have to be perfect to know what perfect beings feel.

(Otherwise, he would not be perfect.)

If we go by the man made concept, holy irony Batman. this atheist argument is a man made concept!

4. If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want.

maybe, unless of course perfect being can do things even if they don't need to. Saying that perfection would have no wants is misleading. Perfection would lack for nothing but is that the same not desiring?

suppose we assume for the same of argument God created the universe for the same reason an artist creates art. He doesn't have to he doesn't need to in a psychosocial sense. Yet he is an artist, he's driven by his own creative nature to crate.

is that the same as "need?" how could the source of creativity not create? how could the ground of being not produce more being? In that sense the perfection is actually supported by the desire and its' not a contradiction. It would in fact be a contradiction for perfection not to create.

(Unless one can suggest that this was done without a motive or some desire.)

you must show that motives and desires are synonymous with needing.

5. Hence, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).

6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

But all of this assumes assertions not in evidence. It all assumes we understand perfection yet if the argument is right then we can't understand perfection becasue w are not it, so the argument is self defeating.

Or God is not perfect.

so what? what if God is not perfect but still exists and is best that anything could be? why would that prevent God from existing? Another problem with this argument is the person who made it has no concept of what Christian God is about.

God is not a perfect existing man in the say.

Argument 2

1. If God exists, then he is immutable.

Assumption not in evidence

2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.

fair enough

3. An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at another time not have that intention.

(Because, that would be a change.)

(1) This is equivocation over the meaning of "change." one can change physically without changing in character. So why can't one changing one's mind without changing psychically or in character? Atheists are always making stupid straight jacket assumptions about God.

(2) why define "immutable" in terms of mental attitudes or plans? The argument is just set up to arrive at a conclusion the premise is based upon. That's circular reasoning

4. For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at another time, (after the creation), no longer have the intention to create it.

Self contradiction in the argument. Why would you have the same intention to create something you already created? It already exists. it would have to be destroyed to create it again. That's irrational.

5. Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4).

That doesn't follow from the premises. 4 is self contradiction.

6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

the premises are illogical so the argument is illogical.

Or perhaps God changes.

so what if he does? process theology says he does. open theology says he does. This is so typical this guy knowing only of the fudnie version. it's so unthinkable to them and yet it's the theological fashion of the day.