Easiest philosophical proof against the "all powerful god of major religion's"?

What is/are they to you?

Here is mine;
Premise's

1. All conscious beings that have desires, drives, and wants, are lacking of some form of experience which their drives, desires and wants derive them self from. Take the desire for sex, food or sleep - the primary reason any conscious being moves in a direction towards them is because they do not yet have them. For example, a person having sex, no longer has a need, want, or desire to have sex because they have arrived at a point where the need has or is being met.

2. All conscious beings that have intention, all have desires, drives and wants which the intention facilitates their satisfaction of.

3. All powerful being's, are by definition, never capable of lacking anything because all powerful beings have the power to be 100% satisfied at all times. If they do lack anything it is their own fault, because they have the power over any other power which is limited to achieve what they lack in their experience.

4. In order to create something one must first have a drive, desire and want to do so, otherwise such a creation occurs by chance which is not what intelligent design presumes and thus not what a 'god' does.

Conclusion

1. If god is all powerful, then he could never have any drive, want or desire, for in order to have these thing's one must be lacking of some sort of experience.


Culminating Conclusion

If god could never have be lacking of any sort of experience(all powerful), which is not in his own power to create, then god could not have possibly created the universe intentionally because he would have no want, drive or desire to do so.

NOTE;

This is just a rough sketch, I'll edit it later.

 

I've used this argument before, the whole idea of 'perfection' willfully creating imperfection is completely asinine. God is a total LIE on all levels of logic and comprehension.

 

Oh definitely. It's really rather easy to show how an all powerful, could never possibly be angry at humans. What could he possibly be angry about that he couldn't resolve with his/her unlimited power??

Yet what does god do when we don't follow his silly little rules in this crazy fucking world?? oh thats rite, cause pain unto us, because you know, he's cool like that.

Any christian would find it impossible to argue against this, but then again, most christians I've met, Anthropomorphize god which is the giving of human qualities and imposing limitations on his power, yet all the while still claiming that their god is perfect, all knowing, all powerful and benevolent.

 

He/She watches us from wherever He/She is and scratches His/Her head, thinking: WTF?

 

?????

 

!!!!!

 

I like Epicurus'
(which goes along some of the same principles

 

Nice, thanks.

The only problem with that one is that you an say that god is still omnipotent but has a plan for the evil.

As in he is testing us, for example, to see how we deal with poverty/starvation in the world.

I like mine better because it deals with desire,drives and wants, as a fundamental characteristic of a being with limited power and hence that god could not possibly expect/want any thing from us.

What do you think, any holes?

 

In short, you can't say that god has a plan for him/her having wants/desires because it automatically relegates him to having limited powers, which be definition contradicts what almost all religious texts say.

 

are you a being of limited power who
creates an all-powerful philosophical proof ?

the all-powerful proof will transform
your first intention into non-intention .

then , you will be a concious being who
can be satisfied with out ever trying . it
is magical . may all blessings flow

here below
.

 

Give me some of what your smoking, man.

No need to be greedy, damn.

 

the confusion of you is un-intentional . i'm just
playing with your philosopher's toy .

another word for un-intentional is innocence .

 

unk:

 

unk:.......unk:...... unk:


............ :guitarist: ..........


can intention create non'intention ?
anarchy has no intention to manipulate

 

If God possesses all things, then God can't be lacking desire, either. It doesn't make sense to say God can't have desire because God lacks nothing. Because God lacks nothing, God would have desire.

 

Nice argument ChangeHappens. I have heard similar arguments from William Burroughs but not quite the same as your argument. Always nice to see some original thoughts on an old question.

Here is a question to consider though. Is it possible for god to act without desire? That is to say, is it only possible for god to create the universe if god first has a desire to do so, or could god have created with no desire to do so?

 

4. In order to create something one must first have a drive, desire and want to do so, otherwise such a creation occurs by chance which is not what intelligent design presumes and thus not what a 'god' does.

If god has a desire, then he creates it out of his own will and thus anyone who goes against his desire, would be doing so based on his own will to have it happen.


Yet the bible and most holy books say that we create sin! How can we create sin, when the only reason we sin is because god willingly gave himself the desire for us to do good???

It's complicated but just read it over a few times, that might get you to understand me. If not, come at me again.

 

Sure but as it is said in most if not all religions, for us to do his version of good in order to achieve restitution and saftey in when we die.

So if you say that this type of god exists, he would not be type of god described in major religious books.

 

"1. All conscious beings that have desires, drives, and wants, are lacking of some form of experience which their drives, desires and wants derive them self from."

- All of this is based on observable phenomena of terrestrial conscious beings. I think it's as much a leap of faith to presume that conscious beings not of this earth and/or plane have desires, drives and wants when we have yet (presumably) to observe them. It's just like Hawking presuming that the universe was created spontaneously by observing the hypothetical ability of certain subatomic particles to spontaneously exist and then not exist.

Which is the more mysterious event?

The origin of the concept of God(s), when the existence of the concept cannot be denied.

The origin of the concept of the "no God(s)", when the existence of the concept can also not be denied.

Is it possible to arrive at a truth by addition, by subtraction, or by observing what is presumably known?

 

People always confuse God with the Christian God. I guess if you grow up in a Christian family, as so many do, it might seem that way.

If God violates free will, you've logically picked apart one concept of God. That's a good way to find what God can possibly be, by ruling out things God can't possibly be.