/* Busy Coder */
©2017 Jiri Jelinek

About
Family
Mind
AI
Dev
Philosophy
Misc

* Paranormal *
Christianity

Christianity - Ultimately Refuted

by a freethinker Jiri Jelinek


Contents


Refuted

Ref.ID Question Answer Note
QA1 Is sin "objectively immoral" according to the Christian doctrine? YES Note the doctrine scope here. Whether or not objective morality applies under other frameworks is irrelevant here.
QA2 Can and would an all-good (and all-powerful) god make a pro-sin choice? NO Against his nature, and nothing can force him to do so. Pro-sin choice = an optional and intentional choice which predictably promotes or guarantees sin.
QA3 Did god (according to the Christian doctrine) have the choice to prevent sin by not creating future sinners? YES Being the ultimate and all-powerful authority, all the creation choices were his.
QA4 Could any of his decisions conflict with free-will of any not-yet-created being? NO Invalidates frequent free will excuses even if our free will was for real.
QA5 Well aware of all the consequences, did the Christian god (according to the Christian doctrine) make an optional, active, and intentional choice to make sinners a part of his creation? YES An active pro-sin choice he (by definition) absolutely cannot make. And yet he does - which makes him fiction.

Synopsis

The active pro-sin choices make the Christian god guilty of immoral behavior by his own moral standard. His optional choices guarantee that what he identifies as immoral (/sinful) will surely happen. Consider child molesters, rapists, or terrorists who (e.g. Boko Haram) don't hesitate to crucify Christian children for their faith. Consider people like Adolf Hitler or Josef Mengele. No one (and nothing) could force the all-powerful Christian god to create those [future] sinners. Thus, well aware of related consequences, he would be creating them because he wanted them (and their sins) to be a part of his creation. Also consider that (according to the Christian doctrine) many sinners will be tortured forever in a "lake of fire", and this god will remain aware of all that suffering and sin (which he "hates") - forever as well. This god had the option to prevent every single sin (and all the consequences including suffering of the victims and the "need" for hell) without free will conflicts by simply not creating those who would predictably choose to sin. His choices clearly demonstrate his desire for sin which (considering his nature as described in the Bible) he absolutely cannot have. Having a perfect and complete knowledge of consequences of any potential and actual choice, he must be capable of pre-creation (/before-life) judgment. Having that ability, and being strongly against sin, there is nothing honest about pretending that a creation of a future sinner is (from his perspective) "good", and nothing smart about leaving the judgement for afterlife (instead of applying it upfront and preventing sin). As Albert Einstein once said, "Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them." The Christian god not only fails to solve problems effectively, but he (despite all his alleged powers and wonderful options) practically forces sin into existence. And that is what makes Christianity one of the most irrational superstitious frameworks people ever came up with.


Note for Christians who tend to contact me about this art and suggest plagiarism: FYI, I have a written permission from RFB to use the above strip (as is), as well as the Jesus image copy (re-used on the BusyCoder.com slide I added) - which is a slightly modified public domain clip art, with the modification not being copyrighted (as confirmed by RFB).

Objections

Note: Some of the below objections aren't particularly clever, but they earned their place here based on their frequency.

Ref. Name Objection My Response
problem-of-evil &
appeal-to-emotion
It's just the old "Problem of Evil" (/why does God allow bad things to happen to good people) which has been addressed by Christian apologetics. In addition, the presented variant is emotion-based - which makes it weak, and invalid. Fundamental misunderstanding. We are talking about a god that actively violates his own "absolute morality" (not just passively allowing violations) - which represents a critical self-contradiction - which is a logical issue. Emotions and moral perspectives of other agents are practically irrelevant. Even if everything the biblical god did was perfectly moral (and thus not evil) from our subjective perspective, it wouldn't make his behavior any less self-contradicting. If not engaging in sinful behavior was objectively immoral, and an all-good god kept creating those who choose not to sin, it would be the exact same kind of critical self-contradiction - which would make him fiction as well. The self-contradiction is the key here, not the details of what is defined as objectively moral vs immoral, or how we feel about it. Thus the problem of evil, as well as the alleged appeal to emotion, are invalid objections.
free-will God didn't want to create robots who would be forced to make moral choices. Humans have free will, thus their [immoral] choices are their responsibility. 1) Not creating those who would later choose to sin would not prevent creating those who would freely choose not to sin, and it would not introduce any [additional] free will limitations.

2) If humans had free will (which itself is hard to defend) then those of them who were "properly" taught the relevant rules could be potentially considered responsible too, but
  • that would be just another (/separate) level of responsibility - which would not take away the ultimate responsibility of an all-knowing and all-powerful creator who makes active choices about who/what will be included in his creation; and
  • keep in mind that in order to teach humans god's morality "properly", it would be important to show that the given morality actually comes from god. And that's highly problematic since (because of our considerable limitations) we aren't equipped to positively authenticate any god-like being. If the Bible was inspired by a Satan-like being, Christians would not be able to tell.
3) If there was no way for humans to live sinless life (which can be strongly argued against) then the biblical god could never create them due to his all-good nature.
parent-child-analogy God cannot be held responsible for sinful choices of beings he created, just like parents cannot be held responsible for misdeeds of their children.
False. Foreknowledge + the ability to prevent = responsibility. Humans are very limited in that sense - which effectively invalidates this popular analogy.

If you and your spouse were about to conceive a child today, but learned from an all-knowing source that this child would surely become the next Hitler, would you still go ahead thinking that it's not really your responsibility? Or would you rather wait another day, realizing that the knowledge and the power to prevent come with responsibility?

Ultimate power and knowledge = ultimate responsibility. If real, the Christian god wouldn't just observe its creation from the present time perspective. Instead, he would see [and could judge] all the future decisions of any agent he would be considering to create (+ all the related consequences) instantly. Thus he would not be able to honestly claim that the decision to add future sinners to his creation is a moral thing to do.

Try to view a sinner as a gate through which sin enters the world. The gate might be closed when created, but creating it with the knowledge that it will later [for whatever reason] surely open (letting [more] sin into our world) - that implies responsibility for the sin. Preventability [by inaction] is the key here. The decision to creating a gate which guarantees sin is an active pro-sin choice.
it's-temporary God has a plan. In the end, all the evil/sin/immorality will be conquered. So, promoting "objectively immoral" behavior can become moral when it's temporary? Makes no sense. Objectively immoral behavior is by definition immoral no matter what. Besides, solutions involving eternal suffering have no potential to undo suffering experienced by the victims (let alone how cruel it might be from many perspectives). There is nothing smart about dealing with anything undesirable when one has the option to easily prevent it [especially by inaction] in the first. A truly moral god cannot make a single immoral choice.
objective-morality-assumed By accusing God of making pro-sin choices, you are affirming objective morality, and thus confirming God's existence. False. The objective morality is a part of the Christian framework. Thus the "all-good" Christian god (who himself defines it) cannot violate it, and when he does, it can be used to demonstrate contradictions within the framework. Whether or not objective morality applies under other frameworks is a separate issue, and even if it did, it (contrary to the popular belief promoted by WLC) would not necessarily require any god-like being.
can't-prove-negative You cannot claim that God doesn't exist because - logically - you can't prove a negative. That only applies to concepts which (at least in theory) can exist; not to self-contradicting concepts like a square-circle, or the Christian god. While many god-like beings are a theoretical possibility, the Christian god is not.
we-can't-understand God's choices are always moral. It's just not always obvious to us because we are too limited to understand his ways. It's actually trivial. Under the Christian moral framework, you simply cannot claim that optional choices which predictably ensure sin are moral. It would be like claiming that 0-1=1, and suggesting that one needs to understand some unimaginably advanced math to see why it's true. Clearly false.
doesn't-apply-to-god This argument is invalid because the moral standard it attempts to apply to God only applies to man. False. If human sin is objectively immoral [as claimed by Christians] then any optional intentional choice which predictably ensures such sin is inevitably objectively immoral as well.
god-assumed Since you don't believe in God, you can't use arguments involving living God. False. One doesn't need to accept (or believe in) the alleged validity of a particular framework in order to identify and demonstrate critical contradiction(s) [and/or other issues] within the framework. (Related to the objective-morality-assumed objection.)
redefined-sin God is defining sin at different times in different ways which can make his choices appear "pro-sin" while they actually aren't. Even if particular sins were defined as sins after the creation of the future-sinner, god's decision to create this being would still constitute an active pro-sin choice because of the perfect awareness of this being's actions eventually matching the contemporary definition of sin.
your-art-sucks That God art you have at the top really sucks artistically. It seems to get the message across pretty well, and the fact that this objection actually made this list (due to its frequency) is very telling, especially considering that most people who sent it didn't come up with any other objection. Good luck with always having at least one more before responding.

Conclusion

The Christian god isn't even a theoretical possibility because his active pro-sin choices are critically incompatible with his defining attributes, thus his non-existence can be assumed with an equivalent of mathematical certainty. Claiming that he exists is a logic-based error. A violation of the law of non-contradiction. A violation of the most basic principle of rational thought.

Challenge

I challenge all Christians (and especially those who consider themselves to be intellectually honest thinkers) to either come up with a valid reasonable objection invalidating the above presented argument (which I consider to be an impossible) OR (if not being able to do so) reject their irrational beliefs. As a Christian, perhaps you tend to take the Bible seriously, so I encourage you not to ignore 1 Peter 3:15 which is asking you to "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect". The contact link is below, and the best (and/or most frequent) objection-attempts will be addressed in the Objections section above. If anyone manages to come up with a valid objection/counterargument, it would be acknowledged on this page, and an effort would be made to communicate it to at least some of the people who lost their faith because of the above presented argument.



Reasonable objection(s)? Contact me [anonymously if preferred].