Okay, before I start out, let me make two things clear:
1. This is only a proof against certain Gods, such as in Christianity and Islam. It is not a proof against many other religions, or the deistic God. It is also not a proof that atheism is true, for this exact reason.
2. In general, the proof only applies to an omnipotent, omniscient God, who created the universe and gave us free will. If the God you believe in does not fit that description, then this proof does not apply to you. (But feel free to reply anyway, of course!)
Summary of the proof:
It is not possible for there to exist an omnipotent, omniscient God, who created the universe, to have given us free will. Such a God cannot exist.
Therefore many religions, including Christianity, must be false.
The full proof:
P1 God created the universe.
P2 God is omniscient.
P3 God is omnipotent.
P4 Humans have free will.
#1. At the instant of creation, God already knew everything that would ever happen in his universe. (By P1 and P2)
#2. God designed the universe in exactly the way he wanted it. (By P1 and P3)
#3. Everything that ever happens in our universe is exactly what God intended. (By #1 and #2)
#4. Everything that ever happens in our universe is/was God's choice. (By #3)
#5. The outcome of every choice you ever make was already predetermined by God. God is responsible for everything. (By #4)
#6. You are not actually responsible for any of your actions; at best, your free will is an illusion. (By #5)
#7. Humans do not have free will. (By #6)
#8. Contradiction. (By P4 and #7)
Common false responses to this proof:
A"#4 is wrong, because God gave us free will!" - No. You are missing the point entirely. #4 follows directly from #3. Unless you can explain how it actually does not (or explain why #3 is false), it is illogical to simply claim "but God gave us free will, therefore #4 is false".B"But you already assumed that God gave us free will, so of course it makes sense to do that!" - You don't seem to understand how logical proofs work... Here's another simple example of one:
P1 All cows are black.P2 Daisy is a cow.P3 Daisy is white.
#1 Daisy is black (By P1 and P2)
#2 Daisy is not white (By #1)
#3 Contradiction (By P3 and #2)
Can you see how I have not used P3 anywhere in the proof, except in the final conclusion that there is a contradiction? Do you agree that the logic is all correct, and that it follows a very similar pattern to my original God proof? It is NOT logical to say "#1 is wrong, simply because it disagrees with P3"!
Now look back at the original God example. It is the exact same thing, pretty much.
C"But God exists outside of time, so there is no contradiction." - Huh? This is an extremely common response, despite it making no sense whatsoever. God being outside of time (which, I agree, is true) is irrelevant. It makes no difference to the logic in the proof.D "(Due to quantum physics) our universe is NOT predetermined, therefore God didn't choose everything..." - This is a red herring. If God does not know the outcome of any quantum events, then he is not omniscient. Hence we can still conclude that the universe is all predetermined; even if it appears random to us.E "God COULD know what choices we are going to make, but he chooses to block that own knowledge from himself" - If this is true, and God is forced to block his own knowledge of things, then he is not omnipotent.F "The future does not exist. God does not know things that do not exist. Therefore God does not know the future" - Another red herring. God must know the outcome of every single event in the universe. He knows exactly where every atom in the universe is. He knows exactly what the future will be, even if this future "does not exist, yet".
That's it, for now. If any other incorrect responses come back, I'll add them to the list.
Until then, feel free to make me look like an idiot and prove me wrong. If you can.
Monday 11 April 2011
Democracy does not work.
The reason I say this is simple: Because (the majority of) people vote for what they think is best for them, rather than what a more educated (or specialised) person may know is best for them.
For example:
People will vote to lower taxes, because they don't like paying them.
People will then demand better healthcare, despite the lower budget.
People will then complain to keep cigarettes cheap, so they can smoke as many as they want.
People will then expect the NHS to give them expensive operations, free of charge, after they damage their health by smoking.
People will then complain about how the NHS is in debt.
In makes no sense!!
If medical/financial experts made all the big decisions (even if it was against the general public's will), money would be spent far more sensibly.
Another example:
Some people vote to go on the Euro, because they want to be part of a more united Europe.
Other people vote to stay off the Euro, because they like the idea of a "British" currency.
This is all irrelevant to the real issue!!
If financial experts were the only ones responsible for making this decision, even if it went against the general public's will, we could go on/stay off the Euro for purely financial reasons!
My idea for how to solve the problem:
What if democracy were taken to a more advanced level, where only specialists in various subjects were allowed to vote for what choices our country takes?
We could have a "voters society for healthcare", a "voters society for finance", a "voters society for crime", etc. (These are just rough ideas, obviously - they could be fine tuned.)
In order to become a member of one of these societies, you would have to pass a fairly short educational course on the topic - to show that you have enough of an understanding to be able to vote intelligently.
And to save time, some people would get automatic membership - e.g. doctors can vote for healthcare, bankers can vote for finance, etc.
We would still have political parties/a prime minister, who everyone could vote for, but their primary roll would become more about public speaking than actually making big decisions.
In fact, to be honest, looking confident on camera is exactly what the general election is increasingly becoming about anyway!
So yeah, that's my rough idea. But I'm hungover and I can't be bothered to proof-read this.
For example:
People will vote to lower taxes, because they don't like paying them.
People will then demand better healthcare, despite the lower budget.
People will then complain to keep cigarettes cheap, so they can smoke as many as they want.
People will then expect the NHS to give them expensive operations, free of charge, after they damage their health by smoking.
People will then complain about how the NHS is in debt.
In makes no sense!!
If medical/financial experts made all the big decisions (even if it was against the general public's will), money would be spent far more sensibly.
Another example:
Some people vote to go on the Euro, because they want to be part of a more united Europe.
Other people vote to stay off the Euro, because they like the idea of a "British" currency.
This is all irrelevant to the real issue!!
If financial experts were the only ones responsible for making this decision, even if it went against the general public's will, we could go on/stay off the Euro for purely financial reasons!
My idea for how to solve the problem:
What if democracy were taken to a more advanced level, where only specialists in various subjects were allowed to vote for what choices our country takes?
We could have a "voters society for healthcare", a "voters society for finance", a "voters society for crime", etc. (These are just rough ideas, obviously - they could be fine tuned.)
In order to become a member of one of these societies, you would have to pass a fairly short educational course on the topic - to show that you have enough of an understanding to be able to vote intelligently.
And to save time, some people would get automatic membership - e.g. doctors can vote for healthcare, bankers can vote for finance, etc.
We would still have political parties/a prime minister, who everyone could vote for, but their primary roll would become more about public speaking than actually making big decisions.
In fact, to be honest, looking confident on camera is exactly what the general election is increasingly becoming about anyway!
So yeah, that's my rough idea. But I'm hungover and I can't be bothered to proof-read this.
I hate women
I hate women. I really do. Every time I look at them, I wish I was blind. When they're chatting with people about nothing in particular on their phone. When they're constantly touching up their stupid makeup and taking up my time rifling through their stupid purse. When they whine to me about their period. When they blither on and on about some artist/film/musician nobody else gives a f ucking f uck about. When they cry and expect your personal sympathy. IT MAKES ME WANT TO KILL PUPPIES.
But most of all, I hate them because they're smug, hyperactive little bitches made that way by our shithole society. Look what uncontrolled feminism and the media has done to them: they think they're superior. They can call the shots. All their crying about relationships is merely them fu cking up; any girl can get any guy she wants if she tries.
When girls are feeling down, they can have any man they like and f uck him. Even if they have no friends in the world, even if they are pathetic, ugly whores (which most are), they could strike up a conversation with any guy in a club and make him theirs. But a lonely, pathetic man is hated by women. They know they're better than him. They give him nothing. Even though they know he suffers from his biological urges, they sit and laugh and do nothing for him. They get to choose who is happy and who is sad.
We need a new holocaust.
But most of all, I hate them because they're smug, hyperactive little bitches made that way by our shithole society. Look what uncontrolled feminism and the media has done to them: they think they're superior. They can call the shots. All their crying about relationships is merely them fu cking up; any girl can get any guy she wants if she tries.
When girls are feeling down, they can have any man they like and f uck him. Even if they have no friends in the world, even if they are pathetic, ugly whores (which most are), they could strike up a conversation with any guy in a club and make him theirs. But a lonely, pathetic man is hated by women. They know they're better than him. They give him nothing. Even though they know he suffers from his biological urges, they sit and laugh and do nothing for him. They get to choose who is happy and who is sad.
We need a new holocaust.
Abortions and euthanasia, double standards
People have abortions because they don't think they can handle the burden of a child at that particular point in their life. Anyone can have an abortion as long as their pregnancy has not reached more than 24 weeks, regardless of how healthy the baby would potentially be. However, for mentally handicapped babies, euthanasia is illegal.
Looking after a mentally disabled child takes a lot of tax payer's money, and many of them are completely dependent on one or more people for their continued survival. If a mother cannot handle the burden of looking after someone who requires 24/7/365 attention for the rest of its life, then shouldn't she should be allowed to make a decision on its life? Not all mental handicaps can be detected before 24 weeks. It's a terrible double standard, it shouldn't make a difference whether or not the child is born or unborn.
Why can we kill the fetus (which has far more potential) for it being an inconvenience, but not kill the handicapped person, which is an inconvenience with little or no potential?
Why hitting women is okay
Let me start off by saying that I don't beat my girlfriend or anything like that. I'm not saying it's okay to just hit a woman because you're pissed at her. [Unless she just made a shitty sammich] Anyway, I'm talking about retaliation. Let's begin.
Since as early as the late 18th and early 19th century, women have been fighting for equality. In the 19th century, women fought for the right to vote. You may have heard of something called the "Suffragette movement" or something of the like. This was where women mainly in America strived to have voting rights, and took a step towards equality. We've come a long way since then. These days, women are found in almost every work field. As early as 65 years ago, some jobs were unthinkable for women to hold. Such as military, government, construction, etc.
Women mostly held jobs as teachers, nurses, homemakers, etc. Basically what I'm trying to say is, women have come a long way.
Now, after over a century of bitching and moaning, women are now considered "equal" to men. (At least politically). Meaning, employers cannot discriminate against women based on the fact that they're women.
So, now women have all sorts of rights and all is well, except, that is, when it comes to physical violence.
If any of you have ever been to either a pikey estate, a drunken party, or a club, you know some women [especially intoxicated] like to pick fights not only with other women, but with men as well. So, here's the question: Is it okay to hit women if they're hitting you?
The answer: Absofuckingloutely. If a woman is physically attacking you, and they don't stop, I'm all for decking them. If some crazy drunk bitch tries to hit me in the face a few times, she's getting dropped. I don't give a fuck about those "Mummy said don't hitgirls" philosophies. It's bullshit. Women fought so hard and so long for equality. Now, they've got it, but they expect to have MORE rights than men. Where's that put us? What the fuck sense does it make to be attacked and do nothing about it? Sure, some females may not pack as hard of a punch as males, but it still hurts to get punched square in the nose.
All I'm saying is: Women, stop fucking bitching and expecting society to say it's "unethical" or what the fuck ever, to hit women. Like I said, I don't beat up my girlfriend, but if she conscientiously tried to harm me, I would lay her the fuck out. It's honestly a fucking joke to say that you're not supposed to hit women.
I'm not a sexist, and I'm not for violence against women solely for the fact that they're women. I'm just saying, it's fucking bullshit to be told not to hit them if they hit you first. I don't care who it is, if someone starts a fight with me, I'm fighting back.
If they want special treatment, they should stop their goddamn bitching and crying about rights. They have every right in the world, except the right to get a fucking black eye for starting shit. Ridiculous.
Also, what the fuck is it with feminists being all against porno and shit? Actually, fuck it, I'll make a different post on that, later.
So, who's with me? I don't want any of your gentleman bullshit. I'd like you guy's opinions on why it is/isn't okay to retaliate with force to a woman if she's hitting you.
Anyway, discuss.
Since as early as the late 18th and early 19th century, women have been fighting for equality. In the 19th century, women fought for the right to vote. You may have heard of something called the "Suffragette movement" or something of the like. This was where women mainly in America strived to have voting rights, and took a step towards equality. We've come a long way since then. These days, women are found in almost every work field. As early as 65 years ago, some jobs were unthinkable for women to hold. Such as military, government, construction, etc.
Women mostly held jobs as teachers, nurses, homemakers, etc. Basically what I'm trying to say is, women have come a long way.
Now, after over a century of bitching and moaning, women are now considered "equal" to men. (At least politically). Meaning, employers cannot discriminate against women based on the fact that they're women.
So, now women have all sorts of rights and all is well, except, that is, when it comes to physical violence.
If any of you have ever been to either a pikey estate, a drunken party, or a club, you know some women [especially intoxicated] like to pick fights not only with other women, but with men as well. So, here's the question: Is it okay to hit women if they're hitting you?
The answer: Absofuckingloutely. If a woman is physically attacking you, and they don't stop, I'm all for decking them. If some crazy drunk bitch tries to hit me in the face a few times, she's getting dropped. I don't give a fuck about those "Mummy said don't hitgirls" philosophies. It's bullshit. Women fought so hard and so long for equality. Now, they've got it, but they expect to have MORE rights than men. Where's that put us? What the fuck sense does it make to be attacked and do nothing about it? Sure, some females may not pack as hard of a punch as males, but it still hurts to get punched square in the nose.
All I'm saying is: Women, stop fucking bitching and expecting society to say it's "unethical" or what the fuck ever, to hit women. Like I said, I don't beat up my girlfriend, but if she conscientiously tried to harm me, I would lay her the fuck out. It's honestly a fucking joke to say that you're not supposed to hit women.
I'm not a sexist, and I'm not for violence against women solely for the fact that they're women. I'm just saying, it's fucking bullshit to be told not to hit them if they hit you first. I don't care who it is, if someone starts a fight with me, I'm fighting back.
If they want special treatment, they should stop their goddamn bitching and crying about rights. They have every right in the world, except the right to get a fucking black eye for starting shit. Ridiculous.
Also, what the fuck is it with feminists being all against porno and shit? Actually, fuck it, I'll make a different post on that, later.
So, who's with me? I don't want any of your gentleman bullshit. I'd like you guy's opinions on why it is/isn't okay to retaliate with force to a woman if she's hitting you.
Anyway, discuss.
Want a kid? Apply for one
STUPID PEOPLE DON'T THINK ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES BEFORE THEY HAVE SEX. IF THEY'RE STUPID ENOUGH TO HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX THEN IT'S PROBABLE THAT THEY'RE TOO STUPID TO BRING UP A CHILD. THE CHILD THEN GROWS UP UNDISCIPLINED AND STUPID, AND FINDS SOMEONE ELSE STUPID THAT WAS BOUGHT UP THE SAME WAY AND HAS A BARRAGE OF CHILDREN. MORE NEW KIDS, AGAIN AND AGAIN AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
It should be mandatory for every female to have a coil fitted before puberty. Then in the future, if she wants to have children, she takes a competency test and has her domestic situation assessed by a government worker. If she passes the test then a license is granted to have the coil removed for 1 baby. After the birth, the coil is re-fitted. If she wants more children then she has to take the tests again.
The test would ask questions of both the mother and the father to make sure that they're planning on staying together and they're not complete idiots. Also, they have to be financially stable enough to have children. If you can't afford 4 children, then you won't fucking have 4 children.
Some people may argue that putting the regulation of reproduction in the hands of the government is taking away a basic human right, but I disagree. Most people don't deserve a basic human right. We have mid-teen whores everywhere reproducing like rabbits because they're too fucktarded to know what a condom is.(It's nothing to do with a lack of awareness either, we get a ridiculous amount of sex and health education at school.) The children of these chavs grow up in relative poverty, have little or no motivation to succeed in life, end up on drugs, and in prison. It's a tragic waste of human life and a drain on our society. Extreme measures have to be taken to stop this, left wing bullshit solves nothing.
Prove me wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)