Sins as Crimes

Imagine you have a son mid-puberty. He appears to grow another inch every day, but his vocal cords are struggling to keep up with the man he is becoming. You’ve had the “birds and bees” talk, but whatever knowledge or values you managed to impart were filtered through the teenage mind. One day the police come to your door with a warrant for your son’s arrest. They take him into custody and make his bedroom a crime scene. You don’t get a full explanation until you follow the police cruiser to the station. Internet traffic monitoring provided just cause to make the boy a suspect for multiple counts of pornography viewing. Their CSI team then did a blacklight sweep and discovered suspiciously placed sperm discharges. Your son goes to court and is found guilty of both consuming pornography and masturbation, both serious felonies. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole.

In this alternate reality, not only are watching porn and beating off crimes, they carry the same penalty as the crimes of rape and murder. Replace the word “crime” with “sin” and “police” with “God” and this alternate reality mirrors the divine judgement as described by many religious denominations. Catholicism, for example, considers porn, masturbation, rape and murder interchangeable as mortal sins--meaning that if any of these go unrepented God will send you to hell.

My question to theists is this: would you be comfortable with your government judging crimes the same as you believe God judges sin? I doubt anyone could truthfully answer “yes,” which implies that they’d be fine with their son being hauled away in the above scenario. If I were to guess, I’d say I won’t get many theists answering this question at all. To make this easier, allow me to address what I suspect will be their two main issues with the hypothetical.

“God judges, man should not.” Okay, then I assume you are comfortable with revoking all laws of man. From now on no earthly repercussions for murderers and rapists, let God sort them out. Not ideal? Okay, moving on.

“God sacrificed his only Son to save us from the punishment we deserve, providing we repent and/or accept Jesus as our Savior.” Applying this to our analogy, anyone convicted of a crime, be it masturbation or murder one, will be let free as soon as they admit to the crime and ask forgiveness. This will free up the prisons and put everyone at risk by, again, effectively taking away earthly consequences. I understand that for most religions the asking for forgiveness is ideally sincere and paired with an honest attempt to never sin again, but theists must also admit that the attempt nearly always fails and cite our sinful (or in this case criminal) nature as the cause. Same applies here. A stricter reading of this issue would make the criminal in question need to beg forgiveness from the State, worship either the arresting officer or the President of the State, and act in service of the State until they die in order to escape the sentence of life in prison. God, if he exists in any capacity similar to the beliefs of Abrahamic religions, is no more just or merciful or loving than a totalitarian government with 24/7 surveillance and absolute enforcement. Knowing that I once thought otherwise is a testament to the power of indoctrination.

Would I Play By God's Rules If I Knew He Was Real?

If I could know that the Christian God exists, would I worship him? Let’s explore the angles.

Why I should not worship Jehovah:

Regardless of apologetic talking points, the God of the Bible is imperfect. He makes mistakes and he contradicts himself. Between creating a talking serpent that thwarts his own plan and feeling the need to sacrifice himself (or his son, depending on who you ask) to change his own rules of eternity, God has done little to inspire worship. I would also have to excuse divine choices that I fundamentally disagree with--like allowing anyone to suffer infinitely for finite sins. I imagine some of those suffering I even knew in life. Complying with God’s wishes and humbling myself to him would be like a German with freshly dead Jewish friends admitting allegiance to Hitler.

Why I should worship Jehovah:

While their commitment to extreme punishment for those they consider distasteful is on par, God and Hitler have some major differences. God forgives and shows mercy as long as you follow his strict criteria. I doubt Hitler would consistently allow Jews to live even if they all agreed to become Nazis. Also, unlike Hitler, we wouldn’t be here if not for God. The man upstairs also managed to impart some positive life lessons, so perhaps the Almighty deserves at least as much respect as my parents. More than this, the nummero uno reason why I am compelled to worship Jehovah is because I will go to hell if I don’t. Yes, heaven also factors in, but the stick is more compelling then the carrot in this case.

Weighing the options. I completely understand the anti-theists who call God evil, but I wouldn’t go that far. Yes, he kills humans, but I kill bugs. I eat cows and chicken and delicious, delicious pigs. I don’t consider myself evil so I would be hypocritical to call God evil. We are inferior to him in all respects (unless you include human-centric morality.) I can call God irresponsible, unfair, even cruel--but not evil. When it comes down to it, I would be completely unprincipled and play according to God’s rules, yet I think I would. I’m not proud of it. I am fully aware how that makes me a Nazi, but I’m also aware how it doesn’t. I like to think I would have sacrificed everything to fight Hitler even as a German under the pressure of death and threat to my family. I think I would because I could have rationalized that Hitler could be overthrown and any contribution to that cause is worth anything. I can’t rationalize that the Almighty can be overthrown. It’s right there in the name, all mighty. I would worship an erratic tyrant and try desperately to convince others to follow suit because no cost or benefit in our x number of years on earth compare to the forever after. To keep some scrap of dignity I would tell myself that one day in heaven I’ll be able to talk some sense into God...that won't happen. Mostly because Jehovah doesn’t fucking exist.

No Interpersonal Revelations

Doubting Solo

This week’s meme got my thinking about Han Solo one-liners.

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. 

Kid, I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other, and I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen *anything* to make me believe that there's one all-powerful Force controlling everything. 'Cause no mystical energy field controls *my* destiny. It's all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense. 

I've got a bad feeling about this.

His quotes apply wonderfully to our world but I can’t quite embrace him as a skeptical role model because, in the Star Wars universe, his is dead wrong. The “hokey religion” in question, the Force, is true. Han had the right idea to doubt the Force because Jedi were inactive during his formative years making the extraordinary claims of the Force a matter of faith. He, rightly, came around when he witnessed his new friends levitating shit.

Theists seem to think atheists are close minded and in denial. We aren’t, we just need that demonstration. It is within God’s power (supposedly) to levitate objects and bend natural law, theists should pray to get him to do it. If I saw someone using the Force I’d immediately drop my career in favor of Jedi training. Likewise, you better believe I’d become a Christian.

Want to convert me? Use the Jesus, theists. If he can’t do it, you might want to rethink his power, influence and existence.

God's Professed Power

Here’s a question for theists: Is God’s power fundamentally beyond understanding?

Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clark wrote “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” To a cave man, an iPad would appear magical. To us, an alien hologram would appear magical. Neither are magic, but both are so beyond the understanding of the viewer that any realistic explanation is out of reach. According to many theists God’s miracles are also not magic, but not because they are within our understanding. Rather it’s because they define magic as either illusions or fiction. I can’t disagree. Magic is either illusions or fiction, so I will continue to call God’s work magic until I have good reason to believe otherwise.

For the sake of this inquiry, lets say there is a God and that he can and occasionally does perform acts beyond our understanding. The key word here is our understanding. We know enough to land crap on Mars and clone donkeys, which is awesome, but we don’t yet have a “Theory of Everything.” Could some future, smarter version of humanity understand how God parted seas and raised the dead? If so, shouldn’t you, as a Christian who believes this stuff, be trying to figure it out? Not only would success validate your beliefs, it would likely make you rich and famous. Yes, it’s a long-shot that you would indeed succeed, but it is certainly a more worthwhile venture to “know the mind of God” as Einstein put it than to tell God what He already knows via prayer.

Conversely, if it is impossible for us to ever understand the process of miracles no matter how intelligent we become, why is that so? What property is it that category of knowledge possesses that no other information has? I know it’s a strange question, but it’s a valid one that applies to anything claimed to be supernatural.

I have a theory.* Since religion relies on faith, doctrine was invented to provide a learning barrier about the primary topic of the religion itself--God. This effectively squelches the pursuit of intellectual curiosity. If knowledge of God was discovered, then faith in God is extinguished; faith in God is needed for heaven, so knowledge of God removes the possibility of religion’s promised reward. Ignorance is bliss, and, as implied by most religions, necessary. The intended function of doctrine that makes understanding God and His power either impossible or damning is to discourage followers from trying to understand it. Truth seekers become science deniers while churches maintain their flock and bank accounts.

*The above is a theory in the colloquial sense and not by the scientific definition. It’s actually appropriate to say this is “just a theory,” but if you do so, please provide one of your own.

Faora Doesn't Get Evolution

I admit, I’m a strange bird. I’m always keeping an eye out for content for this blog which has me coloring even the most secular interactions in my day-to-day as metaphors for religion. When I see something that inherently does have religious themes, I’m so distracted about how to leverage it into a post that I stop living in the moment. This weeks opening movie, Man of Steel, has inherent Christian themes--yet I barely realized until retrospection. This goes to show, as much as I think about Jesus, I think even more about Superman.

Spoilers follow.

Sure, Man of Steel depicts Kal-El as a miraculous birth who grows up to stand beside stainglass windows of JC and float out of space ships crucifixion-style, but as I said before, I barely noticed in the awesomeness that is Superman. The only thing that bothered me enough to take me out of the flick was a mid-fight speech in which General Zod’s right-hand woman waxed poetic about the merits of evolution over morality. To sum up, she said that their military core of Kryptonians had evolved past the more primitive concept of morality and that history shows that evolutionary progress always wins. *Heavy sigh.* Can’t we save the evolution talk for the X-Men? It’s kinda their thing.

Faora, Zod’s follower, has an oversimplified view of the Theory of Evolution that I would expect from a Christian fundamentalist, but not so much from a member of a highly advanced civilization. First off, it’s nonsensical to say that only Zod’s sect is lacking in morality seeing how Kryptonians at large clearly have morals--see exhibit A, Jor-El. Evolution doesn't so dramatically effect a threesome of criminals and leave out the general pop. It just doesn't work that way.

Second, Zod has a sense of morality, just not the sense of morality. He clearly cares for the people of Krypton in that his purpose until the final battle is to either save them or repopulate them. It could be argued that Zod only cared about certain bloodlines, but then so did Jor-El. Super-Dad opts to save his own bloodline while Zod, presumably, could have saved many, just not all. (I realize that Jor-El allowed for future generations of Kryptonian bloodlines through the Codex in Kal-El’s cells, but that eventuality is a long-shot compared to Zod's pro-active use of the Codex.)

And third, the message is oversimplified to the point of falsehood. “Evolving past morality” implies that we also evolved to morality. This means, to her villainous logic, that altruism is a trait that was once selected for survival, but then stopped being selected. I can’t think of how that such a change could have occurred within the Phantom Zone--especially when only a single generation was trapped. If I didn’t know better, I’d say Feora was victim of a Texan education.

Of course, I’m over thinking this, but propagating a message that couldn’t be true in their world or ours to a theater-going public that already largely buys into it is a bad thing. It’s made worse when churches are capitalizing on it by quoting the film as part of their Jesus was the first superhero campaign. I just hope Man of Steel 2 isn’t subtitled “The Passion of the Clark.”

Of Course I Care

“If you could meet any historical figure, who would it be and why?” I was asked this question by a friend the other day when we were both feeling especially hypothetical. It’s one of those probing questions that come up every once in while to gleam insight about someone that regular conversation would never gleam. It also prompts me to use the word gleam, which is an awesome word. Gleam.

Anyway, my answer was and is “Jesus.” My friend, a Christian, likewise answered Jesus. He wanted to meet the son of God and be blessed, forgiven, and/or taught by him. My friend assumed my reasons for meeting JC were similar. He didn’t know that I was an atheist. Setting the record straight, I said that I wanted to meet Jesus to know who he really was--expressing my skepticism of the bible. My friend was a little taken back but evenutally followed up with another question. “As an atheist, why would you care about meeting Jesus?”

It’s a good question considering many nonbelievers are fairly tuned out of religion in general. To me, the baffling question is “how can anyone not care?” There are really only two options, both of which are extremely compelling in their own way. The first is that there is a god. I started off talking about JC, but really the possibility of any god should be a topic of interest. If it’s true, it means we live in a world not confined to the material where literally anything is possible. It’s kind of like living in a Tolkien novel that may continue after death. If I believed, I imagine I would pursue the ins and outs of doctrine and the historocity of miracles with even more rigor than I explore secular ideas.

Option two is that there are no gods. Initially this seems mundane, but consider that if this is true, it means the vast majority of humanity, past and present, base their lives around some variation of a wildly ambitious lie. They effectively believe that magic is real and that stories as fantastic as the most outrageuous fiction are historically accurate. In a psychological, sociological, anthropological, neurological and just-plain-logical sense--that’s incredible...and a more than a little unnerving.
We all argree that one of these options is true. So to the apatheist too apatheistic to even know or care that he or she is an apatheist, I ask again, how can anyone not care?

Explanations

A natural explanation is always better than a supernatural explanation. This goes for theories, hypothesises, guesses, hunches anything--if it relies on the natural it is preferable by the sheer fact that we know that the natural exists and don’t know the supernatural exists. This will remain true until we have proof of miracles, repeatable experiments in clear violation of natural laws, or something to confirm that magic is real.

This may seem obvious, but the religious rarely apply the rule to the claims of their church. For instance, Christians often claim the best evidence supporting their faith is the empty tomb of Jesus Christ.* This is really the linchpin of Christian apologetics. While whether or not there ever was an empty tomb as described in the bible is debatable, if we assume the resting place of JC was revealed to be empty--there are so many better explanations than resurrection. Examples follow.

• Early Christians could have removed the body to propagate the resurrection lending validation to Christianity.
• Authorities could have lied about the true location of Jesus’ tomb to keep Christians away.
• Secretly Christian authorities could have kept the body for themselves in hopes Jesus’s reputation for healing was valid postmortem.
• A bear inside the tomb could have eaten Jesus’ body.
• Aliens could have removed the body just to mess with us.

There are good reasons why these scenarios are unlikely, but I find them all more likely than the divine reanimation of Jesus’ corpse. Each explanation, outside of the last option, we know could happen. They are consistent with our experience of reality. We have evidence that the man we now refer to as Jesus existed. We have evidence that this man had followers with an interest in spreading his word. We have evidence that government employees sometimes act outside or against their duties. We have evidence that religious motives can drive people to lie and break the law. We have evidence that bears exist and eat any available meat when hungry enough. Some of this evidence is not ironclad, but it’s something. This is enough to show that the above options (outside the alien bit) are possible, if not probable.

The problem with positing a divine resurrection is that we can’t even say that it is possible. We’d need evidence that both God exists and that the dead can rise, neither of which we have. In fact, brain activity returning days after brain death is contrary to everything we know about neuroscience. The heart beating again after rigamortis sets in is in direct conflict with biology. This brings me back the the alien option. Clearly an alien moving JC is excessively unlikely, but is it possible? Well, just as we don’t have evidence for divine resurrections, we don’t have evidence of intelligent alien life, but there’s a difference. Aliens are not in conflict with science. There’s nothing that prohibits life starting and evolving on another planet. Because of this, an advanced race with seemingly no motive for abduction taking a religious leader is possible while said religious leader getting up and walking away from a crucifixion is not.

*In my experience, apologists most often refer to the empty tomb as evidence supporting their faith, more so than even eye witness accounts of Christ risen. It’s as if they realize that accounts of witness could be fabricated yet believe there is still an empty tomb somewhere sealed from 2000 years of tampering that we can use as “exhibit A.” This obviously isn’t the case. There are plenty of natural explanations for eye witness accounts that are more valid than divine resurrection by the same rule referenced above--most notably that they are, in fact, fabrications.

The Last Moral

Meet Bob. he’s the last person on planet Earth. Due to a massive Goat Flu epidemic or a hydronuclear summer or a quantum-volcano eruption, the vast majority of the world’s population has expired. Bob, who was held up in an adamantium mine shaft or a bug-out bunker or an abandoned Blockbuster, managed to survive when no one else could. Good for Bob.

I pose this unlikely scenario to ask this question: is morality relevant to Bob moving forward? Christian apologists argue that morality is an objective truth that transcends human experience. If this is accurate then hypothetical Bob still has valid morals to follow. Granted, most Biblical laws don’t apply to Bob’s situation. He can’t very well kill, steal from, or covet his neighbor’s wife, for example; he has no neighbor. However, Bob can surely violate some religious rules. He could masturbate, he could make a false idol, he could have any number of impure thoughts, or he could attempt to make love to an irradiated buffalo corpse (which, incidentally, is a great way for him to speed up the inevitable extinction of humanity.)

According to secular definitions of morality, Bob can do no wrong in his lonely existence. Morality as the right way to interact with others, is meaningless without others. As the last living creature with the capacity to define morality, Bob can do whatever he damn well pleases.  It takes at least two minds for a code of conduct to be agreed upon or for morality to emerge. At least that's how I see it.

P.S. It’s worth noting that I declared “It takes at least two minds for morality to emerge” to an apologist during a standard “moral argument for God” debate--and he agreed with me! I was shocked until he counted God as one of the minds. Does that mean that we’ll have to agree to disagree to agree?

P.P.S. I imagine God’s Mind gets capitalized as with every divine trait. Maybe Divine should be capitalize as well, it’s unclear. I’m sure they’d go ahead a subscript words mocking God if they could.

On Persecution

After the man we know as Jesus kicked the bucket, his followers had a hard road ahead. The ruling class was largely unimpressed by the alleged miracles and sought to suppress speech and action that could be seen as revolutionary or offensive to their god of choice. Early Christians would meet in secret for their safety at a kind of church speakeasy. I imagine the first rule of Christ Club was that you did not talk about Christ Club. When met with a newcommer, they faced a dilemma. Should they turn away a person of faith or reveal themselves to a potential sting operation?

I doubt what follows is the invention of the secret handshake (especially since hands aren’t involved,) but it was likely an early iteration of the concept. Here’s how it went down: A Christian would draw an arch in the sand with his sandal, then a second Christian would reveal himself as a friend by drawing an intersecting arch--making what we would recognize as the Jesus fish in the sand.

A Catholic priest told me this story. It may or may not be true. I don’t have a great track record gaining accurate information from clergy. Since this tale contains no miracles and Snopes wasn’t around back then, I’ll at least accept it’s premise. Christians were persecuted. They are still persecuted in some parts of the world, Muslim countries for example. You know who else are persecuted in Muslim countries? Atheists and Jews and, well, non-Muslims. Every minority viewpoint that runs contrary to the majority is persecuted.

What gets me is that Christians in America still say they are persecuted. Relatively speaking, that is ridiculous. We just came out of an election year where one of the more accepted-as-kooky Christian sects. Mormons, had a candidate that almost won! To the so-called persecuted Christians out there, what chance would an open atheist have had running on the Republican ticket? None. Zero. Come 2016, there isn’t a political advisor in the country, Democrats included, that would recommend coming out as atheist prior to election.

“Coming out.” We actually have a name for the reveal of our divine disbelief. Technically, we share the term with gays...who I should mention are far better represented in the media then atheists. Out of the 20 proud atheists I've interviewed, only seven use their full real name--or should I say at most seven, I haven't confirmed even those names aren't aliases. Each blogger has put a ton of time into their projects and can barely take credit of them because of the association to their real life could bring negative consequences. It's sad. And here I am, Grundy. No, my parents weren't mean enough to name me Grundy, but if they knew the extent of atheist activism I engage in, I would never hear the end of it. I am forced to live with an alias and not teach my mom how to use a computer.

If you're a put-upon Christian or make-believe martyr, I don't want to hear it. My country is one where those who don't accept a history of magic are pariahs.

The Vampire Clause

What To Give The God Who Has Everything?

I’ve written before about how the omni-traits of the Christian God make him logically impossible. We've got the common paradox asking whether God could create a stone so heavy even he couldn’t lift it. Then we've got paradoxes that show God is in some ways less capable then us puny humans. For example, I can make a sandwich so big that I couldn’t eat it, which God shouldn’t be able to do without exposing a limitation. I can also commit suicide, which is off the table for any eternal being.

Now, beyond the paradoxical, I thought of another way Jehovah can’t be omnipotent--because he either needs or wants glorification. A common theme of the bible and therefore Christianity is the call for humanity to worship the Almighty and give all glory God. This is obviously very important to the big guy. My question is: can a being who needs or wants for anything be omnipotent? I’d be interested in my readers thoughts on this.

Shave and a Faith Cut

Little known fact about Occam, he labeled his razors.

Magic Salvation

The Twofold Problem of Fairness

Christians believe, by definition, that there is but one way into heaven and that is the acceptance of Jesus Christ. From here, there are as many disagreements as there are churches. I picture a sliding scale with “live according to Christ’s teachings” on one side and “have complete faith that Jesus died for our, and, more importantly, Adam and Eve’s sins” on the other. Most Christian traditions value both ends of the spectrum, but all seem to implicitly or explicitly place more weight on one more than the other. I’d argue both premises for the most widely distributed religion in the world are flawed by something I call the problem of fairness. In fact, I will argue it, right now.

Let’s look first at “live according to Christ’s teachings.” This is already ambiguous in that the biblical carpenter sends mixed (if not contradictory) messages about how to live. While a problem in it’s own right, it doesn’t factor into my argument from fairness, so let’s imagine Christ’s message is wholly positive and consistent with modern values.

The problem of fairness lies in the fact that not every person has the same opportunity to be good. A poor child without a positive role model--say with a deadbeat dad and an alcoholic mother--statistically has a much higher likelihood to sin than an upper-class kid with an intact family. I’m talking about the BIG sins here--theft, rape, murder--harmful deeds rather than the less-than-honorable thoughts some theists claim are their equal.

Ask yourself, why would God judge someone born into a culture that doesn’t value ethics and must sin to survive as harshly as someone who wants for nothing and was raised into a compatible moral code? As the world is, the Almighty needs to grade on a curve. If He was truly fair, we’d all be put on the same playing field and terms like “the cycle of violence” would have no meaning.

On the other end of the spectrum we are more concerned with belief and less with sin, yet the problem of fairness is still in full effect. For a child born into the “correct” faith of such-and-such flavor of Christianity, indoctrination makes acceptance of Christ natural, but consider a Indian kid who dies before he is ever exposed to religion outside Hinduism. Consider people of a different place and time isolated from evangelization. Consider someone like me who has a skeptical disposition and seeks truth in the form of evidence and logical consistency. If, in fact, it’s Christ’s way or the highway to hell, God has screwed us all with a scarcity of or an aversion to the one true God.

Atheists often cite the problem of evil as a defeater of a benevolent God, but I tend to opt out of this cliche despite it’s obvious truth for two reasons. First, Christians often have a response chambered from their apologetic source of choice--usually placing the responsibility of evil on man, citing free will or the fall from Eden. While neither avenue is valid (considering that God’s omnipotence in regards to the future implies a lack of free will and the fall was preceded by evil serpents) the chambered response shows they’ve heard it all before and have defended their mind against conflicting input. Second, an atheist admitting that evil exists at all will prompt some Christian debaters to detour the conversation to the argument from morality because they only define “evil” in terms of their religion. I’d rather the debate stay on topic. Replacing “evil” with “fairness” is both more specific and more accurate for my biggest problems with religious dogma.

Sadly, the world isn’t fair. This leaves two options: the universe is unguided and shit just happens, or the universe is guided by a force unlike what the Abrahamic religions have to offer.

I Have So Many Questions...

Pretty Much How I Feel

by the great George Hrab.

Sylogisming

I've been asking theists which argument for God they find most compelling. So far, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is leading the pack. I find this sad. I've already said why, then I said why again, but I'll try a different way of looking at it today.

Again, here is their argument.

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe had a cause.

Maybe apologists just like arguments formulated as obvious sylogisms. That's fine. Here's one.

1. Everything that exists is finite.
2. The universe exists.
3. Therefore the universe is finite.

From this argument we can conclude that God, defined as an eternal being, doesn't exist.

Admittedly, this argument has a few problems. Apologist Glenn helped me hash them out in the comments of his blog. I'll post what is relevant, but you're welcome to view the original exchange here.

• The premise 1 is not demonstrated. You would have to show that it is true that everything in existence is indeed finite. One of the main points we are trying to demonstrate is whether or not all things are indeed finite, and this sylogism assumes it from the start.
• If this sylogism is trying to be used to conclude that an eternal creator cannot exist, then the conclusion is assumed in premise 1, and is therefore circular. It would then be saying, ’1: Everything in existence is finite, therefore a non-finite does not exist.’ A tautology at best.
• The conclusion 3 does not contain the conclusion that an uncaused effect can happen, nor that an infinite string of causes is possible, or that a creator cannot exist. 3 merely says that whatever is assumed in “universe” in 1 is finite.
• This sylogism does not negate the fact that everything that has a beginning is caused. Even if we call it valid, it merely concludes that the universe is finite, not that a finite thing does not need a cause.

Smart guy, Glenn, he just doesn't apply his keen mind to arguments he agrees with. His first and second points can be applied almost word-for-word to the Kalam. “Everything that has a beginning has a cause” is an assumption, exactly as “everything in existence is finite.” They are both somewhat justified assumptions. They are both generalizations taken from what we know about reality and applied to what we don’t know. How is “everything in existence is finite” any less demonstrated than “everything that has a beginning has a cause?”

Glenn's third and fourth points are valid, but my sylogism doesn't set out to disprove a creator or the Kalam, only an eternal creator, which it does. If God is not eternal, then he needs a cause according to the Kalam Argument. Either both arguments both work here or (as I show below) neither do.

The law of conservation of energy shows something is not finite. If energy cannot be created nor destroyed within a closed system, that implies it is eternal within the closed system. This only tells us that individual quantum particles could be eternal, while the chemistry or biology or whatever they eventually form can't be. I've already discussed how quantum mechanics breaks the classical logic that both these sylogisms really on. The second problem is that eternal in this case can only be defined as lasting as long as the universe. The law of conservation of energy only works for closed systems, in this case that's the universe. Just as causality only works in relation to our perception of time, this law only works in relation to a predefined space. Before the Big Bang, there is no time or space, so both arguments are void.

Thanks for reading, I wish you all a happy and healthy armageddon. I'll see you in hell.

...or more likely in a couple days.

For God So Loved the World that He Drowned It

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:15-17

but first...

I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.
Genesis 6:16-18

God's timing always confuses me. Why was Jesus born when he was? Was it because humanity really needed saving at that point? If so, didn't humanity really need saving in Noah's day? I thought the reason God sent the flood was because they were so sinful. Jesus probably could have helped then. Unless of course, they were beyond saving....but if this is beyond God's abilities, then why call Him omnipotent?

Mortality Week: Could God Kill Himself?

Could God create a stone so heavy even He couldn’t lift it? How does God know what it is like to learn if He has always known everything? These are just a couple examples of logic busting paradoxes that an idealized deity runs into. I’ve posed these questions to apologists who explain them away as illogical...but that’s kind of the point. If they think God can hold his omnipotent title while being confined by logic, fine. Thinking about mortality this week, I thought of a new question. Could God kill himself?

There is nothing illogical about this question. Suicide is something you or I can do fairly easily (although I don’t recommend you try.) I’ve reached out to a few high-profile apologists with this question. No answers. None. I’ve never gotten such a lack of feedback from these people.* I guess it’s because they know the repercussions of the question.

I’ve come to realize that I may never be able to convince a true believer that God is imaginary, but if this question can convince them that God is either mortal or less-than-omnipotent, I’m at least making some headway.

From my understanding, the biblically accurate answer is that yes, God could kill himself. We are made in his image, so anything we can do, he should be able to accomplish. A theist might argue that God can’t sin and suicide is a sin. To this I say that He clearly sins in the bible by wiping out masses of people on more than one occasion. The theist would then either have to grant me that God sins or take the stance that anything God does is inherently not a sin, which makes suicide not a sin if and when God commits it. This isn’t a question of whether God would commit suicide, it is a question if He could.

Any theists who would like to weight in on this, please do so in the comments or by email or on Twitter or by...carrier pigeon? Anything, just show me how I’m wrong. Until then, let’s just agree that your God ain’t what He used to be.

Upon further Googling, I realize that I'm not the first to ponder this question--even though I arrived at it organically. The only answers out there from the theist perspective I have already covered or fall under the "puny humans can't comprehend God" category. These same people then go on to explain all about God...paradoxes within paradoxes.