Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?

[Ella S.]

You sound like you think you know the mind of God, but really you think nobody knows the mind of God.
I like what you said about no god being necessary to explain any scripture's existence. There needs to be more than scriptures. God needs to confirm that person who claims to have spoken for God.
God confirmed Jesus by His resurrection and Jesus showed His disciples that God had confirmed Him and so they believed and did as He told them to do, spread His message to the world.
Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy through what He did in life and in His resurrection and fulfilled what He had told His disciples would happen to Him, His crucifixion, death and resurrection.
So people even 2000 years later still believe and spread His message to the world.

We have no evidence of a resurrection. At the most, we have the same quality of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus as we do the resurrection of Osiris and Dionysus, which is to say that we have an account of it happening within the context of a mythical narrative. "Mythical" here meaning "folklore with supernatural elements," not "false," although mythical might as well mean false. We have a pretty good understanding of where myths come from and how they develop without affirming the truth of their supernatural content, and any number of these processes are a more likely explanation of the resurrection myths than a literal resurrection.

There's simply no good reason to believe that the resurrection is anything more than a myth. However, even if it wasn't a myth, someone coming back from the dead is not proof that they were a messenger of God. God is, again, not a necessary explanation for such an event. The naturalistic explanations, such as swoon theory, are a priori more plausible than the supernatural ones because the supernatural either doesn't exist or it is incredibly rare. Even if we discount all of these, what about opposing supernatural explanations, such as Jesus being a sorcerer?

These are not presented as counter-arguments to the resurrection being caused by God. Even if you disproved every alternate theory, the point still remains that you have not demonstrated a direct link between a resurrection and God. There's no real connection between the two. There's no reason why a resurrection would entail the existence of God, much less that the person resurrected was a messenger of God. Even within the mythical accounts, Lazarus was also resurrected, and he wasn't a messenger of God.

As for prophecy, most of the prophecies Jesus supposedly filled were not considered to be prophecies about the messiah, but were instead attributed to him by Christians post-hoc, whereas most of the actual prophecies about the messiah went unfulfilled by Jesus with a promise that he would fulfill them after his Second Coming. Within the texts themselves, Jesus actively contradicts a number of messianic prophecies, such as the Davidic bloodline. Jews have been poking holes in the claims of Jesus's fulfilled prophecies for about as long as Christianity has existed.

It also fundamentally misunderstands what prophecy was to the ancient Jews. It wasn't fortune telling. It was more like giving people warnings about the consequences of their behavior or what needed to be done before a goal could be achieved. Many of the prophecies "failed" to make accurate predictions even within their own narratives, because they weren't meant to demonstrate omniscience or future-telling.

Much like with the resurrection, though, this is a complete and total red herring. Even if you could prove that the prophecies accurately predicted the future, that again does not get us any closer to proving that they came from God. More examples could be given about alternative explanations for successful predictions, and again many of these are naturalistic such as the use of ambiguous language and survivorship bias. It's just not enough.

So not only is there no basis for your additional claims, but even if there was it would still make no difference. The claim that Jesus was a messenger of God would remain baseless.

ETA: Not to mention that this supporting evidence isn't supporting evidence at all, but are claims that directly come from the scriptures themselves. You can't use the same text as supplementary evidence for itself.

I don't think I know the mind of God. I just know that you don't and that, if this is the best argument you have for the validity of your chosen messenger of God, then that pretty much ends the debate there because it's not even a valid argument.

 

[Trailblazer]

As far as I'm aware, none of the people claiming to speak for God have ever been able to back up their claim.
That depends upon what you mean by 'back up their claim.'

If you mean 'prove' that it came from God, no man can ever do that, but that does not mean it did not come from God.

ETA: I don't think any of them that I have investigated have ever even remotely come close, if I'm being honest. It's why I feel quite comfortable chalking them up to baseless claims; as far as I'm aware, there is no basis to affirm anything they say.

I think people forget too often that the scriptures they pull from didn't come straight from the mouth of a god, but instead they came from the tip of a pen guided by a human hand. No god is necessary to explain any scripture's existence. They all make sense as the product of people and the human mind.

It all depends upon how people view the scriptures. They all make sense 'to you' as the product of people and the human mind, and the Bible appears that way to me, but the Qur'an and the Writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah do not appear that way to me. They appear to come from a divine source.

 

[Trailblazer]

The assumes we were created by an all-knowing, all-wise God though. The question I responded to (back in post #151) was wider than that; Whether our existence has a purpose, independent of who or what created or caused that purpose to exist. That purpose could be literally anything (or nothing).

I prefaced that with "Hypothetically speaking, if" so I was not assuming anything.
Yes, hypothetically speaking, our purpose could be literally anything (or nothing).
We could also have more than one purpose, we could have several purposes.
Different people could have different purposes.

It could be that there is no purpose to our lives, that we are born and we die, but that makes no sense to me.
Even minerals, plants, and animals have a purpose, so why would humans have no purpose?

If, in the wider context, our existence has a purpose, how do you think we would know what it is?
If our existence has a purpose(s) wouldn't you want to know what it is?

Even if we do accept the all-knowing, all-wise creator God, the purpose of creation could well not actually be for all humans (even if we have been told that is the case).

I guess you mean, given that kind of God, all humans might not have the same purpose for existing. That is an interesting proposition, as animals certainly serve different purposes for existing. However, since humanity is one species I believe we all have the same purpose, to know and worship God.

I see the value in knowing what we can know about God if that is possible, because we would want to know what we are believing in, putting faith and trust in, but I question the need to worship God. God does not need our worship since God has no needs, so it is supposed to be for our benefit. I just haven't figured out what that benefit is. I am told I cannot get to heaven if I don't love God, but I cannot force myself to love God.

The idea is that if we love God we will love other people, because we will see the attributes of God reflected in them, but I don't think it is necessary to love God in order to love other people as evidenced by the fact that atheists love other people and they don't even believe in God. I also know I am capable of loving people even if I don't love God, because I do love people.

Even if that God is also omni-benevolent, and generally wants good things for humans, that doesn't mean a positive or pleasant existence for us (during and/or after life) is the overall purpose of the whole thing. We could just as easily be a means to an end or a irrelevant side-effect. It always struck me as arrogant to assume that the whole of creation must be all about us.

I do not believe that a positive or pleasant existence for us (during and/or after life) is the overall purpose of our lives. If it was, there would not be so much suffering in this life. However, I believe that joy and gladness and no more sorrow will be what we experience in the afterlife if played our cards right in this life.

It also strikes me as arrogant to assume that the whole of creation must be all about us. If God created all of creation the rest of creation should matter too. The belief is that since humans have the capacity to reflect God's attributes to a superlative degree humans are elevated above other species. I understand that as a concept but humans also have the capacity to do horrific things that no animal would ever do. For example, animals only kill for survival, they do not kill or rape for selfish reasons such as monetary gain or pleasure.

I appreciate and respect that is what you believe, and similar to (though often with key differences) what other people believe. That is only belief though. It is distinct from the question of what actually is or could be and doesn't automatically lead to any right or better way to act in life (which is the underlying flawed assumption behind the initial thread topic).

No, I don't think that "knowing and loving God" and following His teachings and commandments automatically leads a person to more moral behavior than a person who does not do so.

 

[Truthseeker]

The idea is that if we love God we will love other people, because we will see the attributes of God reflected in them, but I don't think it is necessary to love God in order to love other people as evidenced by the fact that atheists love other people and they don't even believe in God. I also know I am capable of loving people even if I don't love God, because I do love people.

That shows that you love God, in my opinion, if indeed you to some extent love them for their attributes that reflect God, and I'm sure you do. If atheists love people's attributes that reflect God's attributes then they love God to that extent. Believing in God is not required to do that.

 

[Ella S.]

That depends upon what you mean by 'back up their claim.'
If you mean 'prove' that it came from God, no man can ever do that, but that does not mean it did not come from God.

I mean justify the claim using Bayesian epistemology and/or inductive argumentation, so that one forms a strong argument for their conclusion. It need not be in formal syllogistic or propositional format, but it should follow the same general principles of reason and evidence.

A deductive argument would work, too, but I don't think that applies here.

It all depends upon how people view the scriptures. They all make sense 'to you' as the product of people and the human mind, and the Bible appears that way to me, but the Qur'an and the Writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah do not appear that way to me. They appear to come from a divine source.

I don't think it's a matter of interpretation. If you apply logical analysis to a dataset, the valid conclusions you can draw from that dataset are the same no matter who is analyzing it. For instance, given:

1. All men are mortal

and

2. Socrates is a man

Then there is only one valid conclusion that follows from these premises: that Socrates is mortal. You cannot use these premises to argue that Socrates is not mortal; Socrates is a man and therefore he is mortal because all men are mortal.

So the question then becomes, which one of us has missing data, which one of us has misinformation, and/or which one of us is committing some error in reasoning? There is only one correct answer. Either these scriptures came from a divine source or they didn't. So one of us must be wrong in our analysis of the data, either because we do not have the right data or because our analysis is faulty.

Of course, you are free to believe whatever you want. I'm not interested in converting anyone. But just saying that you disagree without providing a counter-argument doesn't further the discussion on the topic and it doesn't bring either of us closer to figuring out which of us is wrong.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So the question then becomes, which one of us has missing data, which one of us has misinformation, and/or which one of us is committing some error in reasoning? There is only one correct answer. Either these scriptures came from a divine source or they didn't. So one of us must be wrong in our analysis of the data, either because we do not have the right data or because our analysis is faulty.

When it comes to believing in God, it is not just about logic and analysis of data, it is about what is in our "hearts" also.
If one analyses data, the result will vary, depending on the initial hypothesis.

If we start with an initial hypothesis of "God does not exist", it is unlikely that any data can prove it to be wrong.

..and if we have an initial hypothesis "God exists", it then becomes an issue of which scriptures are more likely to be true or false .. a different question.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

​

I'd suppose this depends on what you view as moral behavior but I thought I'd ask the question to see what people would say.

It is easy to justify one's personal morals but I'd like you to consider the world at large. Is the world becoming more moral or less moral?

And, does this have anything to do with the decline of religious belief?

Unfortunately, I don’t think the world in general is becoming “more moral”. But I don’t believe it’s “less moral” now than previously either. We may hear of more stuff today and more stuff may be easier to uncover, but that’s all.

Secularism has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of “good” atheists and “bad” religious people out there and that too has always been the case.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[HonestJoe]

It could be that there is no purpose to our lives, that we are born and we die, but that makes no sense to me.

In what way doesn't it make sense exactly? You've already accepted that it is as possible. I think you mean it is an uncomfortable and disconcerting concept (and I agree) but that is just something we need to deal with. I don't think it's healthy to try to pretend negative possibilities or realities simply don't exist.

Even minerals, plants, and animals have a purpose, so why would humans have no purpose?

In what way do they have a purpose (in the grand context we're talking about here)? There are things we use them for but that isn't the same as them having a fundamental a purpose. Also, humans are animals so why wouldn't we have the same kind of purpose as (other) animals, albeit maybe on a different scale?

If, in the wider context, our existence has a purpose, how do you think we would know what it is?
If our existence has a purpose(s) wouldn't you want to know what it is?

I don't think we can know, even if (we think) we want to. That was the whole point of my initial post. Lots of people believe, assume or claim different fundamental purposes for humanity (or a subset of it) but they're all ultimately speculation (or lies) based on their individual preferences or motives and thus no more (or less) worthy than any other human ideas.

I see the value in knowing what we can know about God if that is possible, because we would want to know what we are believing in, putting faith and trust in, but I question the need to worship God.

I don't think we can know anything about God. Indeed, I think the concept is typically constructed in that way, that's why several religions literally have some kind of concept of God being unknowable or fundamentally beyond us. That is precisely why faith is a key requirement. It isn't about answering the big questions, it's about closing them off and not worrying about them.

God does not need our worship since God has no needs, so it is supposed to be for our benefit.

Again, you believe that but you can't know. It is perfectly possible that there is something (God or otherwise) out there that needs or uses human belief or faith in some way, and it may or may not be for good reasons.

The idea is that if we love God we will love other people, because we will see the attributes of God reflected in them, but I don't think it is necessary to love God in order to love other people as evidenced by the fact that atheists love other people and they don't even believe in God. I also know I am capable of loving people even if I don't love God, because I do love people.

I agree, but I do think this is one of the intentions for the creation of religions and that can often play a practical role in supporting a good society. The problem is that, like any tool or system, it can also be misused for harmful or selfish purposes too.

It also strikes me as arrogant to assume that the whole of creation must be all about us. If God created all of creation the rest of creation should matter too. The belief is that since humans have the capacity to reflect God's attributes to a superlative degree humans are elevated above other species.

That is still essentially the same arrogance though. Raising humans as being somehow more important than anything else essentially comes from the same place as assuming there must be some kind of fundamental purpose to our existence. We feel the need to believe that because the alternative is depressing.

I understand that as a concept but humans also have the capacity to do horrific things that no animal would ever do. For example, animals only kill for survival, they do not kill or rape for selfish reasons such as monetary gain or pleasure.

I don't think that is true. Many animals do horrific things for no apparent benefit. Of course, they generally aren't consciously aware of that but act out of instinct that is just misplaced in context (for example, domestic cats will kill small birds and rodents and bring them home as instinctive hunting behaviour, even though it isn't necessary for them to do so).

Humans have similar instincts and we still act on them (more often than we realises). We uniquely also have the creative intelligence to wilfully act against those instincts or indeed follow through with them but in expanded and developed ways. The consequences are different (and often more significant) but as a core principle, we're really no different to the cat proudly dropping a dead bird on the doormat.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Then why not look for another version of God?

I've yet to find one. Or two.

 

[Ella S.]

When it comes to believing in God, it is not just about logic and analysis of data, it is about what is in our "hearts" also.

No, it isn't. Feelings don't justify beliefs, only the logical analysis of data does. It doesn't matter if we're talking about God, the shape of the earth, or how to treat the flu. Any claim about a factual matter must be substantiated through a reasonable approach to the evidence.

This includes all claims about whether something exists. It doesn't matter if that's a particular strain of virus, a species of animal, a celestial body, or God. All claims that something exists in reality must substantiate themselves through an argument based in observation. Otherwise, under epistemology, you are not justified to believe it.

You can believe in things that you don't have proper justification for, sure. That's a really, really stupid idea, but I can't stop you.

If one analyses data, the result will vary, depending on the initial hypothesis.

If we start with an initial hypothesis of "God does not exist", it is unlikely that any data can prove it to be wrong.

..and if we have an initial hypothesis "God exists", it then becomes an issue of which scriptures are more likely to be true or false .. a different question.

This is not how hypotheses work. A hypothesis is a prediction about what experimental data you expect to see. Neither of these are hypotheses. They're claims.

Claims aren't within the realm of scientific investigation, but they are instead within the realm of logic. They must be formally proven with the relevant premises or, in other words, concluded from a logical analysis of the data.

So we cannot accept the conclusion that "God exists" until it has been justified. Otherwise, it is merely a baseless assertion.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, it isn't. Feelings don't justify beliefs..

I never said that they did .. I said that it is a part of the "package", when it comes to the topic of religion.

All claims that something exists in reality must substantiate themselves through an argument based in observation. Otherwise, under epistemology, you are not justified to believe it..

We cannot justify belief in non-material phenomena, because it is non-material?
..seem like a circular argument, to me.

So we cannot accept the conclusion that "God exists" until it has been justified. Otherwise, it is merely a baseless assertion.

The trouble with that, is that what happens to us after we die .. and in this life also .. if we ignore a "possible" God.

 

[Ella S.]

I never said that they did .. I said that it is a part of the "package", when it comes to the topic of religion.

And it shouldn't be, because it has nothing to do with justifying those beliefs.

We cannot justify belief in non-material phenomena, because it is non-material?
..seem like a circular argument, to me.

We can pretty easily justify beliefs in immaterial phenomena. We have great reasons for believing in gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism, heat, and so on, none of which are material.

You're the one bringing materialism into this. I'm not a materialist. Your comment here also assumes that, if God exists, God isn't made of matter. Which is a pretty bold implicit claim when you can't even demonstrate that God exists to begin with.

The trouble with that, is that what happens to us after we die .. and in this life also .. if we ignore a "possible" God.

Unfortunately for you, because you aren't an evangelical fundamentalist and you instead choose to worship the devil under the false religion of Islam, you get to be hung by your tongue in a pot of boiling tar for all eternity. Guess you should have hedged your bets more carefully with Pascal's Wager!

Or, oh, I dunno, what if all theists go to Hell? That's a dangerous possibility to ignore. Maybe you should deconvert and become an atheist to avoid that terrible afterlife!

We can make up all sorts of absurd consequences, but they're meaningless ghost stories until you back them up.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't think it's a matter of interpretation. If you apply logical analysis to a dataset, the valid conclusions you can draw from that dataset are the same no matter who is analyzing it. For instance, given:

1. All men are mortal
and
2. Socrates is a man

Then there is only one valid conclusion that follows from these premises: that Socrates is mortal. You cannot use these premises to argue that Socrates is not mortal; Socrates is a man and therefore he is mortal because all men are mortal.

Yes, Socrates is mortal because Socrates is a man and all men are mortal.
However, that only applies to the physical body of Socrates. According to my beliefs, the souls of all men are immortal so the soul of Socrates is immortal.

So the question then becomes, which one of us has missing data, which one of us has misinformation, and/or which one of us is committing some error in reasoning? There is only one correct answer. Either these scriptures came from a divine source or they didn't. So one of us must be wrong in our analysis of the data, either because we do not have the right data or because our analysis is faulty.

You are correct in saying that either these scriptures came from a divine source or they didn't.

However, it can never be proven that they came from a divine source nor can it be proven that they did not come from a divine source. As such, to assert that they did or did not come from a divine source is an error in logical reasoning, since it can never be known if they came from a divine source or not.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

Of course, you are free to believe whatever you want. I'm not interested in converting anyone. But just saying that you disagree without providing a counter-argument doesn't further the discussion on the topic and it doesn't bring either of us closer to figuring out which of us is wrong.

Sorry if I am not provide a counter-argument. I have been in a funk lately owing to the death of my late husband. I was doing okay for a while but not so much lately, which is one reason I have not been posting as much on RF lately. I do what I can but I don't like taking on more than I know I can handle, since it is very easy for me to do that.

All that said, the only counter I have is what I said above.

 

[Trailblazer]

So we cannot accept the conclusion that "God exists" until it has been justified. Otherwise, it is merely a baseless assertion.

Anyone who asserts that God exists (or that God does not exist) is making a baseless assertion, since it can never be proven either way. As such, to make either assertion is an argument from ignorance.

Whether or not God exists can only be justified in one's own mind, it can never be proven as a fact.

 

[Ella S.]

Yes, Socrates is mortal because Socrates is a man and all men are mortal.
However, that only applies to the physical body of Socrates. According to my beliefs, the souls of all men are immortal so the soul of Socrates is immortal.

Fair enough. That's a proper restriction of the principles.

You are correct in saying that either these scriptures came from a divine source or they didn't.

However, it can never be proven that they came from a divine source nor can it be proven that they did not come from a divine source. As such, to assert that they did or did not come from a divine source is an error in logical reasoning, since that is the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

You cut off the most important parts of the explanation of what an Argument from Ignorance is. "In debates, appealing to ignorance is sometimes an attempt to shift the burden of proof." and "the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

The page goes on to mention how a null result can be used as evidence of absence, and that a null result itself is an absence of a particular result.

So let's step back a second. First, you have to recognize that the Argument from Ignorance is an informal fallacy. That means that it doesn't point to any particular error in formal structure, but is instead a general kind of error in content that leads to an error in form. If the null result is not an example of an Argument from Ignorance, despite being a lack of evidence used to prove the falsity of a statement, then what is the Argument from Ignorance referring to?

Well, you have three examples. It's used to shift the burden of proof. When you reject the best explanation because it isn't an absolute proof or you affirm the truth of something because it has not been disproven, that is an Argument from Ignorance. So, if you're going to bolster your claim that these scriptures have a divine source by pointing out that I can't disprove that, then you are the one making the Argument from Ignorance.

On the other hand, recognizing that a claim has not demonstrated itself to be true is not an Argument from Ignorance. In fact, according to the Law of Excluded Middle in logic, if something is not true then it must be false. This directly contradicts your interpretation of an Argument from Ignorance as being a form of false dichotomy, because the dichotomy is not false. In fact, the Wikipedia page you linked to alludes to this, too, when it mentions contraposition as a valid form of argument, which is exactly the principle that I'm using to say that it is false that these scriptures were divinely inspired.

 

[muhammad_isa]

We can pretty easily justify beliefs in immaterial phenomena. We have great reasons for believing in gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism, heat, and so on, none of which are material.

Einstein showed us otherwise

Unfortunately for you, because you aren't an evangelical fundamentalist and you instead choose to worship the devil under the false religion of Islam, you get to be hung by your tongue in a pot of boiling tar for all eternity..

Maybe .. I shall have to take my chances.
The think about Islam, is that a Muslim is not safe from punishment in this life or the next.
Without God's forgiveness, we are doomed. We cannot depend on our righteous behaviour to get to paradise, as it falls short.
..It shouldn't stop us from trying, though..

We can make up all sorts of absurd consequences, but they're meaningless ghost stories until you back them up.

The proof of the pudding, is in the eating .. keeping it up is the hard part .. we are only human, after all.

 

[Ella S.]

Anyone who asserts that God exists (or that God does not exist) is making a baseless assertion, since it can never be proven either way. As such, to make either assertion is an argument from ignorance.

Whether or not God exists can only be justified in one's own mind, it can never be proven as a fact.

I can provide proofs that God does not exist. These proofs are subject to being disproven through counter-argument, but they remain proofs nonetheless.

If God is the creator of the universe, then that means he created time, since spacetime is the fabric of the universe. Under modal logic, this is temporally impossible, because causes always precede their effects at a prior point in time. In order to cause time to exist, it would already have to exist before itself, which is a contradiction.

If God is omnipotent, then can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it? Could God then lift that rock? This demonstrates an inherent contradiction of omnipotence, which is often used as one of the defining traits of God.

If God is omnipotent, then nothing is necessary for him. If God is omnibenevolent, then God would desire to relieve all unnecessary suffering. Since there is suffering, we can only assume that such a God does not exist.

If God is supernatural, then he can be disproven using Bayesian epistemology. Every supernatural claim that has been thoroughly investigated has turned out to be false, which means that the prior probability of any supernatural claim being true is incredibly low. This means that the likelihood that God exists is lower than the likelihood that he doesn't.

Those are just my four favorite ones. None of them are the Argument for Parsimony that you seem to be attacking here, which is used by a variety of agnostic atheists. I am not an agnostic atheist, though. I am a strong atheist. I claim that I know that there is no God, and these above proofs are some of the major reasons why I am confident in saying that.

 

[Ella S.]

Einstein showed us otherwise

Nope. Einstein provided revolutionary evidence for a good chunk of the phenomena that I listed.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..If God is the creator of the universe, then that means he created time, since spacetime is the fabric of the universe. Under modal logic, this is temporally impossible, because causes always precede their effects at a prior point in time. In order to cause time to exist, it would already have to exist before itself, which is a contradiction..

..so something is wrong with your first premise.
Try God OWNS time, instead.

If God is omnipotent, then can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it? Could God then lift that rock? This demonstrates an inherent contradiction of omnipotence, which is often used as one of the defining traits of God.

This is a problem in communication.
"omnipotent" does not include the logically impossible, as otherwise communication becomes meaningless.

 

[Ella S.]

..so something is wrong with your first premise.
Try God OWNS time, instead.

Nonsense.

This is a problem in communication.
"omnipotent" does not include the logically impossible, as otherwise communication becomes meaningless.

There certainly is a problem in communication; you missed the point entirely. It's a proof that a particular model of God is impossible, which is the one in which omnipotence does include the logically impossible. As much as you might disagree, it's fairly common to define God as a being with unlimited omnipotence.

Of course, I also don't address pantheist or dualist conceptions of God in my proofs, either. "God" can refer to so many different concepts that I have to, for the sake of argument, narrow down the concepts to the most widely used ones.

If you would like to argue for igtheism, you're free to do so.