Please help me to find a flaw in my derivation for a proof of atheism: Intelligence is the ability to make decisions. To make a decision you need to conceptualise the present environment and simulate the outcomes from future actions, hence a chronological order in which you exist. That means every intelligent subject needs to be a subject of time. Since God exists outside of time and even created it, he can’t be intelligent. That leaves only room for a pantheistic God that can’t be distinguished from any other natural force, so why even care for that one.
Only attempts to deny intelligence in an anthropomorphic sense when there are other conceptions out there both within Christianity and outside Christianity. Further, denying an anthropomorphic God doesn't only enable a pantheistic god suddenly. You've done no work to assert such a thing.
It requires denial of an anthropomorphic god AND skepticism of claims of divinely inspired revelation.
I'm not OP, but for me at least I have no problem with either, which is why I am an atheist.
One can make predictions of the past for the past(either not knowing what happened or alt-history or similar theories, say "how did X group of people die out?", "what if the Union didn't win the war?"), predictions of the past regarding the future("The impact of 200 years of greenhouse gasses is gonna kill us"), one can make a prediction of the far-future, given a hypothetical future scenario("How shall civilisation develop in 200 years, if we make First Contact in 2040?"), and other scenarios on the timeline.
All of these undoubtedly require intelligence to make these hypotheses, yet none of these provoke a decision.
Are people that cannot make decision not intelligent or even sapient?
Is a guy in a wheel chair that cannot affect his environment in a meaningful way not intelligent?
Is a puppet politician that is tied down to making his decision in a certain way not intelligent in a human way?
Umm... a monotheistic god isn't anthropomorphic.
"Umm..." a god who is "male", has facial features, limbs, feelings such as jelousy, speaks words, begets a son, etc.
Yeah I know those are "poetic" descriptions.
Unless you are being facetious? Some kind of blatant turnabout.
>Yeah I know those are "poetic" descriptions.
Unless you think people that today talk about how the "face of God smiles upon them" or "the hand of God" are talking about a giant hand that's hugging them, Gork and Mork style.
p.s.: "Male" is just a linguistic quirk of hebrew, who's characteristics are gender-neutral and sometimes feminine. Finno-ungric languages translate God as genderless, for example.
>trying to talk legitimately of a non-composite God's parts
Your train of thought doesn't really follow.
Atenism was one of the first monotheistic religions, and it's defining characteristic from the start was "it's an omnipresent spirit", as have various monotheistic tribal religions, while muslims are super-serious about God being unique and pure spirit, and neither of those have slipped their theology into weak pantheism and a non-sentient god.
So, not everyone is an autist like you that strips their theistic personalism strawman of monotheism of it's characteristics, then proclaims victory through leaps of logic.
Great point, that means there could be still thousands of inactive gods. I was rather talking about the gods from scriptures. They usually tend to make decisions, like bringing the world into being or asking people to kill Amalekite children
I don't really mean an anthropomorphic god but any god that exists under the assumption that he interacts with humans. Such interactions would imply that he can influence our daily life or simply create us. Even identifying humans as something to interact with, rather than requires intelligence.
Anyway, there is still the possibility of a solipsist god, but there is absolutely no reason that it would be conscience after death.
My counter-argument is informed by almost no knowledge of physics at all but can't god(s) just move linearly forward along another unknown dimension rather than time (Or space, no matter how much I am amused by a god that simply travels along the Y axis the same way we travel forward in time), thus justifying their ability to make decisions and also their intelligence?
If 4 dimensional spacetime is a thing and all.
Keeping in mind that I think the proof for atheism is that a positive claim without a hypothesis is pointless busywork.
I see what you mean. God must be able to subject himself to a limited range of a timeline. He would therefore not be omniscient anymore. Then he could go through an evolution where good decisions are tested and separated from bad ones. Of course you must first be omniscient to decide to postpone your omniscience for later use when you acquired intelligence. Then again, you need to make a decision to pursue this plan in the first place, which in turn requires intelligence...
While I like your hypothesis argument, I doubt it will convince most religious people. There is still plenty of stuff in the universe we have no knowledge of and wouldn't deny that it could exist. My argument however attempts to hypothesize the limitations of a (religious) god --> being an intelligent being with a personality. I'm still waiting for an argument to falsify that :)
Is God is complete, this would mean He also has feelings.
To say "God doesn't care" is ignorant, because how does one person speak for something that transcends the human reality by countless dimensions.
So when people say "God is dead" or "God can only be this because my theory says so" if we buy into it we are closing off our intelligence to percieve God.
Which is unfortunate. So many new "theories" against God's existence and so many people who have no other sources to look into they just eat it up because they don't know any better.
I'm not offended, I just feel that your theory came from a feeling you have and not any research or experimentation when trying to find out who God. There isnt really an attempt at a personal relationship to God but an attempt to "disprove" God based off of one conclusion you have that is likely to change in the next couple of days.
>the ability to make decisions. To make a decision you need to conceptualise the present environment and simulate the outcomes from future actions, hence a chronological order in which you exist. That means every intelligent subject needs to be a subject of time. Since God exists outside of
In my first post... When I described him as someone with the ability to make decisions
Even if God is outside of time what makes you think He can't make decisions?
Even inanimate objects are subjects of time, just because God exists outside of time doesn't mean He cannot exist inside of time as well.
I found a definition that directly translated intelligence as "choosing between". While I'm aware that there are multiple definitions for intelligence, I figured the act of choosing is the origin of it all (like learning new skills rather than not learning them). Anyway, God decides constantly and adapts to new situations, because he seems to be unaware of the future - just like humans.
Exactly, because he exists outside of time. That is why it doesn't make sense that he behaves like someone who subjects himself to the boundaries of time. He even can't do that, because he is described as omniscient. Though he needs to be unaware of the future, because that is the origin of intelligence/decision-making.
>Please help me to find a flaw in my derivation for a proof of atheism:
Athiesm is believing God doesn't exist, and can't be proven.
>Intelligence is the ability to make decisions. To make a decision you need to conceptualise the present environment and simulate the outcomes from future actions, hence a chronological order in which you exist.
Can also use past info to make decisions
>That means every intelligent subject needs to be a subject of time.
Not unless the subject is outside of time
>Since God exists outside of time and even created it, he can’t be intelligent.
What is unintelligent about being outside the conception of time?
>That leaves only room for a pantheistic God that can’t be distinguished from any other natural force,
According to opinion
>so why even care for that one.
Because God also has feelings and is aware of past, present and future events, and limiting Him to a baseless theory is only going to make the ability of you ever finding God lack.
>exactly, because he exists outside of time.
And inside of time
>That is why it doesn't make sense that he behaves like someone who subjects himself to the boundaries of time.
Makes plenty of sense, to say God cant feel is saying God is limitied
>He even can't do that, because he is described as omniscient.
He can do that because He is omniscient
>Though he needs to be unaware of the future.
God is very aware of the future
>because that is the origin of intelligence/decision-making.
According to what your opinion is
No, he doesn't exist inside of time. He "inhabits eternity" (Isaiah 57:15 and that is just one example, there are countless quotes from the bible that describe the timelessness of God, also that he was aware of the advent of Jesus even before he created humanity, afaik in Tim 2) and of course created time itself.
The rest of your arguments seem to take no account on the overall context of my op...
>Because God also has feelings and is aware of past, present and future events, and limiting Him to a baseless theory is only going to make the ability of you ever finding God lack.
Exactly that's why I'm an atheist ;)
You say God is love. I say decision-making requires unawareness of future events. I could also say, God is a giant teapot (no endorsement for Dawkins intended), but I could never say decision-making is a giant teapot.
That is why it doesn't make sense that he behaves like someone who subjects himself only to the boundaries of time. He even can't do that, because he is described as omniscient. Though he needs to be unaware of the future, because that is the origin of intelligence/decision-making.
Inside and outside of time.
Keep calm and hug a tree, and remember we are the leaves, and Christ is the branch, and God is the rest of the full body and rooted nature of the tree.
The tree is inside the Earth, but also gives oxygen outside of the tree.
The earth is time, form, and the oxygen outside is formless, outside of the tree.
No, God is non-composite. This doesn't change anything else we know of God. This is part of the classical mainstream interpretation of God. Divine Simplicity does not create a irrelevant god whatsoever.
While there is no authoritative answer to how the trinity works, I prefer Augustine's understanding that relates to the mind. Father, Son, Holy Spirit relate to the mind, self-knowledge, and the self-love between them both. Not going into the defense of such a view, it does put up a situation where all three things are "god" distinctly without being separate parts.
Hope that helped.
Why not just start over and posit only what needs to exist? If you had to recreated this whole thing TODAY starting from scratch, and you weren't beholden to the judaic storm spirits and sanitation proscriptions and the greek fanfiction, would you really end up with this same god? It seems like an incredibly convoluted juggling act just to hold up this idea of a God, who has these increasingly nonsense and esoteric aspects bolted on to salvage the whole mess.
This, still, seems to understand God in a sense of being a "person", which is still fairly anthropomorphic. You imply God is a being in or outside the universe, looking in, and identifying things to interact with. This is still a limited view, as other conceptions exist elsewhere both in the west and in Christianity. In fact, the view you uphold is more modern a Christian view of God.
I would say so, though the connection to the events of Christ would obviously not be there. You seem to not realize that, without even appealing to scriptures or dogma, the dominant metaphysical system in the west until modernity pointed to the truth of God and could discern certain attributes. The necessity of divine conservation pretty much killed any intellectual backing for atheism and revolved discussion between forms of theism.