To all atheists,
What are your favourite or go-to arguments against religion. One that I find myself coming back to takes the form of basically a cross-examination. I am denoted with an M for Me, and they are denoted with a T for Them. Full disclosure, my responses for "them" are self-generated and are not a representation of one conversation with a believer, but an amalgamation of many general responses to my questions.
M: It is your belief that God is omniscient and omnipotent, is it not?
T: Yes.
M: Therefore, if God created the universe, He would have known of your eventual existence?
T: I suppose.
M: If God is omniscient how can you have free will? If God knows everything that has happened, is happening, and ever will happen, He knows what you will do in any given scenario. It is impossible to surprise God. Therefore, how can you have the freedom to choose option A over B when God knows you will choose B, because God is omniscient?
T: I don't know. The scripture says He gave us free will.
M: What, then, is the purpose of judgment? If God is unable to be surprised, because God knows exactly what you are going to do, and you cannot do anything to the contrary because if so, God is not omniscient, how can God judge you for your actions? They are not your own. You have the illusion that they are your own, but if God already knew that they were going to happen, and he did nothing to stop them, it is as though he prescribed and endorsed them. How can God judge you for something you have no control over? You have no control over your actions, because if you did, God would not be omniscient since he would not know what you were going to do. It is unethical for a god to judge someone over actions that they could not help, and dare I say almost forced to partake in, since at any point God could have decided not to allow you to make that decision.
T: God doesn't need to know what you will do. God could instead know of every single possible hypothetical outcome depending on which hypothetical decision you make.
M: But that's not true omniscience is it? If He truly knew everything wouldn't He know which of these outcomes was going to occur? And he would therefore know the result of that outcome as the only true outcome?
T: I suppose it's not true omniscience, no.
M: Then God, having full knowledge of the course of your life and all your actions, must want them to happen, or at the very least, does not care either way, or He would stop them from happening. How then, can he punish you for eternity in Hell or laud you in Heaven when it was by His hand you acted and could not stray from the path that He formed in his head?
T: I don't know how he can do that...He's God. He can do whatever he wants or thinks is right.
M I refuse to submit to a being who demands my respect when he as already decided millennia before my existence what I will do and where I will be for eternity after I die. He does not know me, he does not know how I will act in a certain scenario. I can only act in the manner in which God dictates I should. Why then, should I be condemned to Hell for acting in the way in which God intended me to? How is that in any way ethical?
T: You shouldn't. It's not. But the scripture doesn't really say that, it says (insert quote here).
M: I also turn to a quote from Epicurus, "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
That's usually the end of the conversation. As soon as I raise the ethical dilemma of judgment of one's actions when one has no control I can see the confusion in their eyes as they rack their brain to figure out an answer that works with their world view rather than amend their world view. Some have lashed out at me. Others have come to me later saying that they are now atheists. I don't actively campaign against religion. But if people want to debate, I will. What do you all think of this argument? How can I make it stronger?
Thanks,
Brian
M: Read your bible if your god exists, it's a fucking monster. If I knew it's real with absolute certainty, I would not worship it.
My example would apply your omnipotence theory to the Great Flood story. In that scenario god knew from tbe beginning he was going to slaughter nearly every land animal on earth, but allowed the circumstances causing the "necessity" of said action to exist. Defend that.
Um...The Lord works in mysterious ways. Checkmate, atheist!
Likely a far longer conversation in my hometown of Portland … than compared to where I’ve relocated in Appalachia -- I let them lead, and it never feels difficult to counter or correct their misinformation. It’s more their responsibility to provide proof than it is ours to counter their fantasy.
I don't discuss it with anybody. I know that's not the answer you are looking for, but I find discussions like this to be useless and the religious person ends up feeling bad about themselves (and you) and nobody wins.
If someone asks, I say "I'm not religious". I pressed for details, I say that I never went to a church as a child, neither did my parents or grandparents. It's just not important to my family. That usually stops the conversation.
You can never really successfully argue the broad idea of God. It's better to pick apart individual ideas of their choosing by asking questions.
Using Socratic questioning for individual ideas is good. But I think it's better to destroy each idea individually and then let it go. After every single idea you've discussed gets contradicted, they'll either come to their own conclusion about the likely existence of a god, or continue with their denial of reality.
As far as the argument of preventing evil and judging, I've let my own children make bad decisions so they can learn a lesson. Unethical? I don't think so. There's a gray area for most things. So while we might think something is terrible and evil, a god that is outside of space and time, might not feel the same.
I was arguing that omniscience contradicts the notion of free will. So my ethical dilemma is with punishing those for eternity in hell and suffering when they have no real control over their own actions-they only think that they do. I don't think that a parent letting a child make their own decisions, good or bad, for the sake of teaching lessons, is unethical. I think that forcing people down a particular path and punishing them for doing so, is.
@Brian_Blum
I understand. But I don't think omniscience contradicts free will, that's my point. Knowing what's going to happen doesn't mean you made it happen, that was my critique on that particular point of the argument. Especially if you are not bound by the limits of space/time.
If you were immortal (which they claim god is) and could time travel at will (which they would certainly claim god could do) then you would be able to see every single that ever happened or will happen, without interfering, therefore free will would not be obstructed.
This is all constructive criticism BTW. I'm totally on your side here. I'm playing the role of the imaginative religious zealot that you might encounter.
@EddieDean Right. I suppose we’ll have to politely disagree on that note. I do believe omniscience contradicts free will, because, as I’ve described, if someone knows with 100% certainty that on next Friday I order a sandwich from Subway and the following day I order from McDonald’s, and this person was never wrong, it would be physically impossible for me to, on Saturday, order something from Starbucks instead. That’s a poor example, I think, but I hope it illustrates better anything that may have been unclear in my original post.
@Brian_Blum who says I have to be polite? ?
Haha
Honest critique? I think the argument is, Meh.
First you're equating a god's potential omniscience with the lack of free will.
I would think that it's not beyond the realm of imagination that a being that"lived" outside of a linear timeline could know everything without necessarily causing it or impeeding free will.
The faster you travel, the slower time passes per general relativity. Therefore, if you were to actually achieve the speed of light, time would essentially stop for you. Meaning, like from the"perspective" of a photon, time would not pass or be linear, but all time, events, etc., Would be static. So you could see what happened in the past, present, future, all at once. But that would not mean you were controlling it. Yes, it's sci-fi fantasy, but still negates your argument. I mean it's all fiction right? ?
Reason doesn't work with these guys. If it did, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.
I just say, I'd love to talk to you about Jesus, but I'm seeing a savoir at this time.
You say 'for God so loved the world,' but he stuck us with Trump. You need to get your story straight.
You believe in an all-knowing all-powerful god. Me to. May the wand of Dumbledore be with you.
There's only one way to heaven... through NASA.
Jesus loves you, but he's two-thousand years old and still lives at home with his father.
It's a lot less time-consuming than trying to debate them.
I don't bother to waste my time arguing religion anymore I consider it a psychosis so why would I argue with a crazy person
If someone truly wishes to engage and debate I see no reason to exclude them. Not that you do so, you just don't participate in such events, which is fine-it's your prerogative. I'm still willing to debate and talk. I might make another atheist. The only time I won't take the time to discuss and talk is if they are going to be uncivil.
My favorite rebuttal, "how do you know?"
...because it says it (right here) in the bible.. (How did they know?) ...they were inspired by ‘god.’ (How do you know?) ..because it says it….