J_Lazarus
10-03-2004, 02:02 PM
I'm a genius!! I thought this up all by myself!!
*holds up his Kindergartener's Extended Summer-School Graduation Diploma with glee*
The Argument From The Passion Of The Christ (POC) For The Non-Existence Of God (or PANG, as used in the thread title)
(1) If the Christian God (CG) exists, he is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and all-loving
(A) Being all-good, the CG would only enact and deal with the most benevolent and beneficial actions for humanity
(B) Being all-powerful, the CG could enact the most benevolent and beneficial actions for humanity
(C) Being all-loving, the CG would want to enact the most benevolent and beneficial actions for humanity
(D) Being all-knowing, the CG would recognize the most benevolent and beneficial actions for humanity
(2) Due to the CG's characteristics, God would never be associated, instigative, or originating of a situation that would merit a movie rating of R/NC17 (From (1) A, B, and D).
(3) But the POC was a movie that was rated R/NC17.
(4) Thus, based on the CG's attributes, God could have nothing to do with the situation portrayed in the movie that necessitated the rating of R/NC17.
(5) But the CG must necessarily have something to do with the situation, because of Jesus' crucial role in the Trinity and the Divine Plan.
(6) Consequently, the CG is incoherent.
(7) Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.
---------
Premises (2) and (4) would obviously be put to question. What one must recognize is that there is no limit to God's ability to act, and thus forgiveness and restoration of man from sin could have been achieved in various other ways besides bloodshed and suffering, - and indeed, God would prefer such other ways due to His all-loving and omni-benevolent nature. Further, being omniscient, He would know about such ways.
It may be further objected that there are no such ways - but as we shall see, there are a number. I also invite readers to conjure in their imagination other ways (besides mine listed below) that God could have gone about making forgiveness available to humanity without a violent/ gory blood sacrifice.
Alternatives:
I. The Ultimate-Good-Deeds Objection
Instead of demanding blood sacrifices in recompense for sins, God could have demanded one good deed per bad deed (or perhaps two good deeds per bad deed) for a human's restoration from "transgression". Thus, when Jesus came to Earth, Jesus could have performed "ultimate good deeds" (e.g. saving dozens of lives, working in the government to achieve highest forms of order and prosperity, writing down complete sets of ethical codes for man to live by, preventing wars, revealing medical cures to various diseases, enlightening man about the nature of the natural universe etc.) throughout his life.
- And one need only have faith in Jesus' altruism and performance of such "ultimate good deeds" (UGD's), as well as a generally set life by the written ethical codes, to receive salvation.
Notice that everything remains the same in Christian Theology, only that faith in the blood sacrifice has been replaced by faith is Jesus' altruistic UGD's.
II. The Camcorder Objection (for lack of a desire to brainstorm)
Instead of having Jesus killed on a cross as the act of salvation, faith in Jesus' [i]miracles and ethical codes could have been substituted as that which warrants salvation.
God could have given Jesus a camcorder to bring down to earth, and teach man how to use it and distribute tons of copies of the videos, and performed miracles on the tapes as evidence - which would be substantial reason for belief, rather than the writings of four anonymous gospels forty years post-occurrence.
Faith in the authenticity of the distributed films and Jesus' miracle workings would merit eternal life, and Jesus' revealed parlor tricks would have been the salvation act.
-------
There ya go - two alternatives (one seemingly fine, the other dumb but still reasonable along basic/general lines [heh]) - that God could have taken besides the sacrifice on the cross as the redemptive act.
Now, to deal with objections.
Objection #1: Movie Ratings And Subjectivity
It may be objected that movie ratings are subjective, and thus this argument provides no real objective evidence for the incoherency of the Christian conception of God. There are two counter-points I wish to make to this charge:
(1) Movie-Ratings As Symbolical Representations Of The Problem
The individual who makes this objection is not really grasping the real argument here. The argument builds itself on the extreme violence, torture, and bloodshed that are expressed in the gospel narratives and in Gibson's movie. Any individual who would deny that these sources do not contain extreme violence would seem to have some screws loose.
(2) Movie-Ratings As Not-All-That-Subjective-Anyway
While movie ratings may be said to be somewhat subjective, there are basic outlines that the Motion Picture Association of America and other movie critics use to determine what a particular film should be rated. Thus, the rating of the POC is not all that subjective at all - and again, those who would feel it does not deserve it's current rating based on those objective outlines would seem to have some screws loose in their head.
Objection #2: Modified Unknown Purpose Defense
Secondly, The theist *can* come up with a sort of modified Unknown Purpose Defense, saying that God would know that no such examples of other beneficial/benevolent plans that I've provided above would've worked out and that therefore the R rating was the only available option.
Only problem is - there is no reason at all to believe my UGD objection wouldn't work out, nor that there aren't many more available due to God's omnipotence. The theist would have to refute my objection first, as there is no reason to believe it wouldn't have worked (and it is entirely rational), and address the issue of God's omnipotent power.
Objection #3: Typical Theistic Meta-Ethics Response
Just as with the Argument From Evil, the theist may say, "Well, where did you get this idea that torturing/murdering/crucifying people is wrong and antithetical to benevolence? You're assuming an objective standard of good, thus necessitating God's existence."
The claim that objective standards of good necessitate the existence of God are controversial at best (in my opinion, they are entirely faulty) - but the non-believer need not submit himself to admitting the existence of an objective good in the first place - but could simply say that they are arguing within the Christian's own worldview. That is, the atheist could make this argument as an internal critique of the Christian belief system, showing how their own standard of good and God's omni-benevolence is antithetical to Jesus' blood sacrifice.
Consequently, due to the faultiness of the objections to this argument and the valid alternatives provided that would've been enacted rather that the blood sacrifice if the Christian God existed, it is to be concluded that PANG stands, and the Christian God is incoherent, and therefore cannot exist.
[Insert self-complimenting statement here]
- Laz
*holds up his Kindergartener's Extended Summer-School Graduation Diploma with glee*
The Argument From The Passion Of The Christ (POC) For The Non-Existence Of God (or PANG, as used in the thread title)
(1) If the Christian God (CG) exists, he is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and all-loving
(A) Being all-good, the CG would only enact and deal with the most benevolent and beneficial actions for humanity
(B) Being all-powerful, the CG could enact the most benevolent and beneficial actions for humanity
(C) Being all-loving, the CG would want to enact the most benevolent and beneficial actions for humanity
(D) Being all-knowing, the CG would recognize the most benevolent and beneficial actions for humanity
(2) Due to the CG's characteristics, God would never be associated, instigative, or originating of a situation that would merit a movie rating of R/NC17 (From (1) A, B, and D).
(3) But the POC was a movie that was rated R/NC17.
(4) Thus, based on the CG's attributes, God could have nothing to do with the situation portrayed in the movie that necessitated the rating of R/NC17.
(5) But the CG must necessarily have something to do with the situation, because of Jesus' crucial role in the Trinity and the Divine Plan.
(6) Consequently, the CG is incoherent.
(7) Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.
---------
Premises (2) and (4) would obviously be put to question. What one must recognize is that there is no limit to God's ability to act, and thus forgiveness and restoration of man from sin could have been achieved in various other ways besides bloodshed and suffering, - and indeed, God would prefer such other ways due to His all-loving and omni-benevolent nature. Further, being omniscient, He would know about such ways.
It may be further objected that there are no such ways - but as we shall see, there are a number. I also invite readers to conjure in their imagination other ways (besides mine listed below) that God could have gone about making forgiveness available to humanity without a violent/ gory blood sacrifice.
Alternatives:
I. The Ultimate-Good-Deeds Objection
Instead of demanding blood sacrifices in recompense for sins, God could have demanded one good deed per bad deed (or perhaps two good deeds per bad deed) for a human's restoration from "transgression". Thus, when Jesus came to Earth, Jesus could have performed "ultimate good deeds" (e.g. saving dozens of lives, working in the government to achieve highest forms of order and prosperity, writing down complete sets of ethical codes for man to live by, preventing wars, revealing medical cures to various diseases, enlightening man about the nature of the natural universe etc.) throughout his life.
- And one need only have faith in Jesus' altruism and performance of such "ultimate good deeds" (UGD's), as well as a generally set life by the written ethical codes, to receive salvation.
Notice that everything remains the same in Christian Theology, only that faith in the blood sacrifice has been replaced by faith is Jesus' altruistic UGD's.
II. The Camcorder Objection (for lack of a desire to brainstorm)
Instead of having Jesus killed on a cross as the act of salvation, faith in Jesus' [i]miracles and ethical codes could have been substituted as that which warrants salvation.
God could have given Jesus a camcorder to bring down to earth, and teach man how to use it and distribute tons of copies of the videos, and performed miracles on the tapes as evidence - which would be substantial reason for belief, rather than the writings of four anonymous gospels forty years post-occurrence.
Faith in the authenticity of the distributed films and Jesus' miracle workings would merit eternal life, and Jesus' revealed parlor tricks would have been the salvation act.
-------
There ya go - two alternatives (one seemingly fine, the other dumb but still reasonable along basic/general lines [heh]) - that God could have taken besides the sacrifice on the cross as the redemptive act.
Now, to deal with objections.
Objection #1: Movie Ratings And Subjectivity
It may be objected that movie ratings are subjective, and thus this argument provides no real objective evidence for the incoherency of the Christian conception of God. There are two counter-points I wish to make to this charge:
(1) Movie-Ratings As Symbolical Representations Of The Problem
The individual who makes this objection is not really grasping the real argument here. The argument builds itself on the extreme violence, torture, and bloodshed that are expressed in the gospel narratives and in Gibson's movie. Any individual who would deny that these sources do not contain extreme violence would seem to have some screws loose.
(2) Movie-Ratings As Not-All-That-Subjective-Anyway
While movie ratings may be said to be somewhat subjective, there are basic outlines that the Motion Picture Association of America and other movie critics use to determine what a particular film should be rated. Thus, the rating of the POC is not all that subjective at all - and again, those who would feel it does not deserve it's current rating based on those objective outlines would seem to have some screws loose in their head.
Objection #2: Modified Unknown Purpose Defense
Secondly, The theist *can* come up with a sort of modified Unknown Purpose Defense, saying that God would know that no such examples of other beneficial/benevolent plans that I've provided above would've worked out and that therefore the R rating was the only available option.
Only problem is - there is no reason at all to believe my UGD objection wouldn't work out, nor that there aren't many more available due to God's omnipotence. The theist would have to refute my objection first, as there is no reason to believe it wouldn't have worked (and it is entirely rational), and address the issue of God's omnipotent power.
Objection #3: Typical Theistic Meta-Ethics Response
Just as with the Argument From Evil, the theist may say, "Well, where did you get this idea that torturing/murdering/crucifying people is wrong and antithetical to benevolence? You're assuming an objective standard of good, thus necessitating God's existence."
The claim that objective standards of good necessitate the existence of God are controversial at best (in my opinion, they are entirely faulty) - but the non-believer need not submit himself to admitting the existence of an objective good in the first place - but could simply say that they are arguing within the Christian's own worldview. That is, the atheist could make this argument as an internal critique of the Christian belief system, showing how their own standard of good and God's omni-benevolence is antithetical to Jesus' blood sacrifice.
Consequently, due to the faultiness of the objections to this argument and the valid alternatives provided that would've been enacted rather that the blood sacrifice if the Christian God existed, it is to be concluded that PANG stands, and the Christian God is incoherent, and therefore cannot exist.
[Insert self-complimenting statement here]
- Laz