The Thought Experiment that Disproves the Existence of the Christian God.

By Atlas Bergeron 6/24/06

First we must assume that there is a God, for the sake of argument; since as of yet there has been no way to scientifically or philosophically prove such a principal. This God possesses the characteristics of being Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omni benevolent; or All knowing, all powerful, and all good (hence the Christian God). At some point in time (whatever that word would mean to such a being) this God decides to become creative. It builds planets, stars, and living beings, among other things. Now why would it want to create other beings? To answer this we must ask another question: why would he give such beings free will.

For what reason would a God give beings free will? If he is omnipotent, couldn't he simply wish them to do anything and they would do that; is that not the definition of Omnipotence? What an all knowing God would find, however, is that some things cannot be forced no matter how much power you have. Love is one of those things. I will not go into great detail describing love; but for the sake of argument we will use the word love to mean the completion of values between two people, it is a response of values. For instance, a man loves his friend because his friend holds similar values and philosophies in life, thus completing his own philosophies. He loves his wife for the same reason, except the love also takes the form of sexual desire, intensifying such a connection. He loves his God because He is the completion of such values, his God resembles everything that is good and true.

So God creates Man; the great story of Adam and Eve, so that he can be loved, and he endows them with free will for this purpose. However, while giving them the ability to love and enjoy their own life, he gives them the ability to make mistakes and faulty reasoning, i.e. to sin. The story is all very interesting, but I will not go into great detail here. All that is needed is that Adam and Eve both commit a sin; thus being banished from the garden.

After they have eaten off the tree, God promises them a savior, someone who will save them from this sin in the future. Now this is where 'God's' reasoning gets strangely (and impossibly) irrational. Save them… from whom? Save them… from what? From Satan? No, it is not Satan who dictates who goes to heaven and hell. Save them… from sin? This is not quite right either, for it was God who decided that sacrifice was necessary; there was no reason to create such a rule in the first place. God (supposedly) decided to create a rule that in order to be forgiven of sin people must sacrifice animals to him; knowing full well that down the line of history he would decide to sacrifice himself to the creation that he has made. Now I must ask, for what reason would God create the necessity of sacrifice to forgive sin, if he were to later crucify himself (i.e. Jesus) to make love the only necessity to sin? It's like glorifying self-mutilation; for no reason other than to mutilate oneself, because God did not need to be sacrificed.

He did not have to be crucified in order to forgive, since it is he who made the rule as to whether anybody has to sacrifice anything to anybody in order to attain forgiveness from him. It is not rational to create a life form for the sole purpose of love, and then when they sin, to sacrifice yourself in order to forgive them, when you can simply forgive them without sacrificing anybody, especially yourself, because it is you who decides that something must be sacrificed. If the end result was the desire to forgive your creation for simply loving you, then why did you not do that in the first place? After God mutilates himself in the name of some irrational cause, Christians simply have to A. recognize that God exists and then B. love him, to obtain forgiveness. But the necessity of Jesus' sacrifice was not necessary, because the only person dictating the necessity to sacrifice is Jesus himself (or his Father, but they are one no matter how you look at it). Sacrifice is not like love; for what reason do you have to have sacrifice in order to have forgiveness? It is logical that free will is necessary to have love; but love should be the only thing necessary for forgiveness.

And for what reason would anyone destroy himself for no reason. If Christians still believe that God acted the way he did; then they fail to see another primary contradiction. God told them that they shall not kill; which, if I am not mistaken, also includes themselves (it is a sin to commit suicide or harm oneself for no reason). If God does do this, then he is lying, or being a hypocrite, both impossible statements of the Christian God. In other words, by Christianity's own morality (even beyond the morality of reason) God would not mutilate himself for no reason!

Thus the Christian God as the church describes him cannot exist; because his actions contradict his eternal nature. If there were a God that possesses the characteristics of knowing all and being all-powerful; then he would not mutilate himself for no reason. He makes the rules on the necessity of sacrifice for forgiveness; why would he make such a rule if he were to sacrifice himself?

The discussion is open, you respond.

One response came from twistedlibra, you can see it on the reviews.

The response partly supported my point, but the main point of the article that went against mine was that Jesus sacrificed himself to demonstrate love. To respond I have a short story (parable if you wish).

A successful businessman has a son, whom he loves very much (remember my definition of love. It is not because his son exists that he loves him, but because his son is searching for similar values). The son comes to him asking for a loan of fifty thousand dollars to start a restaurant that he believes will be very successful. The businessman believes in his son, and loans him the money. Three years of hard work latter, the son comes back with only thirty thousand dollars, twenty short of the entire loan. The restaurant failed, and he was only able to recover this fraction from it.

Which one of the following should the father do to demonstrate "love".

A. Call the police and send the son to jail, whipping him until he pays the debt. This is one of the things that the old testament God did, and was said to possess 'love' (examples include killing all the Egyptians even though he hardened pharaoh's heart, forcing the Israelites to wander through the desert for forty years, and causing them to all speak different languages in the Tower of Babel.)

B. Tell the son that he must pay back the debt with interest within a certain time period. This is another thing the old testament God supposedly did, although I don't know how an animal sacrifice really paid back a debt of sin that humans could not avoid. This was also in libra's review, as why would God expect us to pay him back for a sin that we are not capable of not committing?

C. Tell the son that the debt is forgiven, because the father loves the son. This is a selfish act, as it would be a gift to the son for his love; as he would be doing it because being around this person gives him happiness. The father would know that it is not the money which is important, but the true effort of trying to obtain that which is best for those one loves, and allowing them to work for that effect.

D. To exclaim that sacrifice is always necessary in order to forgive debt, then proceed to cut off his own arm in order to fulfill that exclamation so that the son's debt can be forgiven and he can 'demonstrate' his 'love'.

D is supposedly what Jesus did, sacrificed himself because he (or his Father, but yet again, they are one) had exclaimed that sacrifice was necessary to forgive debt (i.e. sin). I know that it would be a horrible sight to see a person whom I love mutilate his arm for no apparent reason, and because I loved them I would probably submit them to an insane asylum. And since I do not believe that God is crying for help (although this is apparently what Christians believe), I can only conclude that if there were a God he would either take the form of B or C. Although B is rational in this context (if you borrow that means you're you promise to eventually pay back), in the context of God, it is not. If God were rational, he would take the course of C because the child (in God's case) really doesn't owe him anything, since it was by his own nature that he sinned and he would have created for the purpose of living (you can only truly live if you hold the highest values to be true or are truly searching for those values. Assumedly the highest values would be the what God holds, since that is one of his properties, therefore you would love him by holding the highest values), and a person is living (i.e. loving), even though they are making mistakes.

Thank you for your response twistedlibra, I believe that you are searching for truth.