3 new arguments disproving Christianity
Argument 1: Ontological DISproof of God
1) Assume existence is a property
2) God is the greatest being imaginable
3) Therefore, whatever is greater than God has the property that it does not exist.
4) Imagine another being G' with all of the properties of God, but does not exist.
5) by 3 it follows that G' is greater than God.
6) But 5 contradicts 2, since we could imagine G' to be greater than God.
Therefore, either 1, 2 , 3, or 4 is false.
Let us examine this argument, I agree that it is a bit crude.
If 1 is false, then existence is not a property, which renders the believer's Ontological Proof impotent. Since existence is not a property, then it makes no sense to consider another being greater just because it exists, which is the crux of the Ontological proof.
If 2 or 3 is false, then well, the case is closed. If 4 is false, then it follows that G' must exist.
So, which one is false? Clearly, it is 1 which is false, but let us see why. I will agree that 2 is correct, that if God exists, then He is the greatest being imaginable. I also agree that from 2 it follows that nothing greater than God exists, assuming God exists. So, why can we take 4 to be an acceptable statement?
It may be said that 4 must be false because then from the argument it follows that G' must be identical to God. However, this is false because G' does not exist, and if God were to be identical with G' then it would follow that God does not exist either. Is it true that we can imagine this G', with all of the properties of God, but is not God? Yes of course, because God is the greatest thing imaginable, it follows that whatever is as great as God does not exist. This is exactly what G' is, a being which is as great as God but does not exist. Furthermore, it is possible to imagine G' since we have assumed that existence is a property. Therefore G' is not greater than God since G' does not exist. However, once we introduce premise 3, our contradiction surfaces.
Argument 2: The Ketchup Argument
If God were benevolent, he would want to implement a fair system of reward and punishment for the afterlife. If God were omniscient, he would know how to make this plan. If God were omnipotent, he would be able to implement this plan. This now leads us to ask, is the present system fair?
Let us take the Christians to be correct. Let us say that the only things one must do in order to get into Heaven is believe in God, and do X. Let us say that this is the present system of reward and punishment. Whoever believes that God exists, and does X goes to Heaven. Whoever does not either believe that God exists or do X does not get into Heaven. Here, we can take X to be anything which the believer likes. If X means to accept Jesus as your saviour, do good deeds, sacrifice your first born, or all of the above, then so be it. Whatever X is has no real bearing on my argument. So, whatever is in season with the believers about what will save you, then agree that this is what X represents.
Therefore, in order to be saved, one only needs to do the following: believe in God, and do X. Seems pretty simple. It also seems pretty fair, highly even. I can understand how it may seem like this, I mean all you have to do is believe that God exists, and then do X. Too bad this view is wrong.
Let me ask a believer, why do you like ketchup? If you do, then why do you like it? You might say because it tastes good. Fair enough, but why does it taste good to you? Because it is sweet? Then why does something which is sweet taste good to you?
If I were to inquire enough, we would come to the conlusion that you just do like ketchup. You cannot explain it, you cannot account for its origin, you just put it on your fries and it makes them taste good.
On the other hand, I despise ketchup. I can't stand the smell or taste of it. However, I also concur that I cannot explain this. I just do not like ketchup, nothing more.
So, we have come to know several things. You like ketchup, and I don't. Both of us do not know why we feel like we do. Now, could we have choosen otherwise? That is, could you choose to not like ketchup and can I choose to like it?
It seems to me that desires are one thing which cannot be chosen. They can be muted, avoided, restrained, but we cannot choose to desire or not desire. Or else if they could be chosen, then what would we be able to do? Desire as we do not desire? Like what we do not like? This would be absurd, so it follows that desires are not chosen.
Furthermore, the fact that we just 'do' like ketchup or 'just don't' shows that this desire was not chosen. It seems as if you were just built to like ketchup and I built to not like it. I cannot stress enough how much I hate ketchup.In summation, you like ketchup, I hate it, we both 'just' feel that way, and neither one of us could have chosen otherwise.
So what if Salvation was based on whether a person liked ketchup or not?
Then it seems that the whole system of reward and punishment would be unfair, and thus God could not be benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Relief, the believer rejoices! Thank GOD that salvation is not based on whether someone likes ketchup or not! But in a sense, isn't it really based on the same principles?
Let me ask the believer, why do you believe God exists? Because it made sense in church? Because the arguments for it were sound to you? Because you read the Bible and because it seemed true to you? Well whatever caused you to believe that God exists, I can in turn ask this: why do you believe that?
In the end, the believer can only come to the conclusion that he 'just does' believe God exists. And in the end, I can only conclude that I 'just don't' believe that God exists. And by the same reasoning as in the ketchup argument, both of us could not have chosen otherwise.
So what if salvation was based on whether you believed God existed or not?
But it is...it is. I do not think I need to elaborate on the consequences of this. I feel you can draw them on your own.
Argument 3: The Problem of Existence
This is perhaps the stronger of the three arguments, yet also the most complicated. Assume God is benevolent. He would not want us to suffer, or at least he would want our suffering to be rewarded. Existence is suffering. If God loved us, then we would not exist. But we do exist. Therefore, God does not love us. I will elaborate on the validity of this argument.
Let us explore exactly what non-existence entails. If you did not exist, then obviously you could not feel anything, nor experience anything. You could not suffer, and you could not experience joy. Seems pretty saddening. Now examine existence.
Existence is marked by this: definition. Anything which exists is in someway constrained. Physically, anything material has dimension, limits, and boundaries. It seems then that existence is a restraint; that anything which does not exist has the characteristic that it can be anything at all because it is no particular thing at all.
Now consider what the alternatives of existing or not existing give. Furthermore, assume that if you were to exist that you would go to Heaven.
So, you spend a menial life on Earth. More likely than not you have a pretty awful time. In the end, however, you go to Heaven and attain happiness. Will this happiness be great in magnitute? Of course, it is Heaven. Will it be INFINITE?
No. Humans are finite beings, once we become infinite in faculty we cease to be humans and become God. Thus, in Heaven we will never be infinitely happy because we cannot experience infinity. However, I concur that a person would experience a great amount of happiness.
Compare this to non-existence. Someone who did not exist would not experience any suffering. Well, that seems pretty good. Of course, that person would also experience no joy. That seems like an awful thing, but think about it. THAT PERSON DOESN'T EXIST!!! It makes no difference to him that he did not experience joy, because he does not exist. Since he does not exist, he cannot feel or think, and therefore cannot feel that he is missing something.
The point lies in this: happiness is not wanting anything more. If you are truly happy, you would not want anything more. Since we are finite beings, we cannot experience infinity and thus in Heaven we will not have everything. We could not experience everything and therefore we will want more. However, if you did not exist you would not want anything more, in fact you CANNOT want anything more. Therefore, a human will only be truly happy if he did not exist.
If God loved us, he would want us to be happy. If we exist, we cannot be happy. We do exist, therefore we cannot be happy. It follows that God does not love us...
Let me offer you another version of this argument. Suppose you were to find a horse in the wilderness. It is a beautiful animal, which impulses you to catch it and make it your pet. You build a nice stable for it, give it enough to eat, etc. You say you love the animal. Is the animal free?
I think most of you would agree that the animal is not free. No matter how nice the fence is which keeps the horse in, it is still a fence. If you truly loved the animal, you would want it to be free. Actually, this is not strong enough. If you really loved the horse, then it would be free. The horse is not free, therefore you do not really love this animal.
Now challenge God with this. Believers scream at the top of their lungs about the infinite Love of God. They speak of the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross, dying for our sins, etc. I will agree, this is AN expression of Love, but ultimate far from. If God truly loved us, the way in which believers claim, we would not exist.
Believers argue that God wanted us, that he made us for his own pleasure. I argue that if God really loved us, he would sacrifice his own happiness for our greater well-being. This is analogous to the mother and father letting their child go to college, like setting a bird free after you have mended its broken wing. If God love us, he would set us free. From what prison would he set us free from? Existence. To what freedom? Non-existence. I ask believers to pray with me now: God, let us go, game over man, enough is enough, don't you get it, life has never been so pointless as when there is a point to it.
This, I am certain, is the true expressing of Love. I cannot resist the old cliche: Love sometimes means letting go. I think it is appropriate in this instance. Dying on the cross? Anybody can do that. In fact, many have. But how many people can will our non-existence? Furthermore, God could come back as Jesus and die again on the cross as much as he wants. He could do this an infinite amount of times. However, he could only grant us non-existence once.
I ask now, which gift is greater? Non-existence appears to be a unique gift. Whereas a crucifxion lasts for only a couple of days, non-existence is forever!
If God loved us, we would not exist.
But we do exist.
Conclusion
My problem with Christianity, and most afterlife oriented religions, is the ultimate greed upon which they feed and perpetuate. The promise of eternal life is universal and ironically tragic. Sure, religions impulse men do to good deeds, but it does this through an ultimate greed. This vile greed is centered upon the most ludicrous and empty of promises: eternal life.
More life is given as the solution to an unhappy one. A Christian once asked me what I wanted most out of life. She said that she wanted joy, which was the only thing God could give her. I said I wanted nothing, I wanted to live non-chalantly. Greed disguised as good faith, greed disguised as concern for your fellow man.
Nothing is what I want. Any low life can give you something. Even when someone forgets your birthday and does not give you a present, he still gives you something. He gives you indifference, for example. But no one really ever gives you nothing. And IF God existed, this is what I would ask him for. Nothing, to the fullest extent of the word.
