The Fallacy of Biblical Stories, Part 8: God, the biggest fallacy of them all?
Up until now, the fallacy of biblical stories series has focus on specific biblical stories. For Part 8, I will examine the one thing that connects them all: God. After all, God is the central figure in the bible. He's the main man. The head honcho. The big Kahuna. The top banana. Numero uno. Well, you get the idea. But he's always broke and needs money (George Carlin reference). In the bible, God is purported at times to actively intervene (or interfere) with people and events. Other times, he takes a back seat and observes while someone else plays his middle man. I think Al Pacino's character said it best in The Devil's Advocate (1997, Warner Bros.):
" Well, I tell ya, let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He's a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do? I swear, for His own amusement, His own private cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look, but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow. Aha ha ha. And while you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is He doin'? He's laughin' His sick, f*ckin' *ss off. He's a tight-*ss. He's a sadist. He's an absentee landlord .
But that begs the question: Does the God of the bible exist? Is the God of the bible real? Or is God just another fallacy like the stories I've covered thus far? After all, God is a concept which has permeated human cultures and societies throughout history. The belief and worship of God can be traced back thousands of years. While the belief in God helped bring communities closer together or used to explain natural phenomenon which ancient humans did not understand (it also divides communities and societies too), it's unlikely that the God of the bible actually exists. After all, the previous bible stories covered did have possible alternative explanations for their particular events that did not necessitate God. That means God isn't actually necessary and casts doubt as to the actual existence of God. While the focus of this article will be on the monotheistic God, it can also be applied to any gods that other cultures believed in and worshipped. So let's look at God and see if he's just another fallacy. I'll try to keep the explanations as brief as possible.
1. There is no objective, empirical evidence for God : Religion and belief in God has existed in human societies for thousands of years. Yet, in all that time, not one religion or person has ever substantiated any claim for the existence of God. One would think that over thousands of years of belief and worship of god/s, one would at least be able to come up with a shred of empirical evidence to substantiate the basis of belief and/or claims made based on it. But that clearly not the case. The best anyone can come up with is usually along the lines of belief, a feeling, or simply accepting God exists because someone told them so. But that is subjective and anecdotal and is not actual evidence. Without any evidence, there is no logical reason to assume God exists, or has ever existed.
2. God is a supernatural entity : That is an explanation I sometimes hear explaining why there cannot be evidence of God. God exists outside of our physical universe (in another dimension perhaps?). But if that is the case, then God cannot interact or appear in our physical universe, as he is often depicted of doing (frequently) in the bible. If God could interact and affect our physical universe or our world, then by default he is no longer supernatural and can thusly be detected or evidenced. We can observe and explain natural phenomenon. But there is nothing to empirically suggest a divine entity is behind it. The more we are able to explain our world and understand it, the less God is needed as an explanation.
3. The bible says so : That is perhaps the weakest "evidence" for God. R eligious texts or sources are often cited as "proof" of God. What some people fail to understand is that citing such works as "proof" is not actually proof of anything. It's a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies like that do not make a compelling case for the existence of god/s. It's essentially ancient people writing down their beliefs and trying to sell it to you, nothing more. Or maybe because such individuals are "authorities" on God or their religion, people simply accept whatever they claim, no questions asked. Also, many cite "miracles," unusual or extreme events, or their own "experiences" as proof of God. Of course, such things are subjective and anecdotal, based on something along the lines of "because I (or they) said so." Such experiences are often personal and based on emotion and/or ignorance. And no, using the bible to prove god does not count, as that is circular reasoning.
4. God as a contradiction or paradox: God is depicted with certain attributed befitting a deity of his status, namely: all powerful (omnipotence), all knowing (omniscience), and everywhere (omnipresent). However, these attributes comes certain logical contradictions. First, regarding omniscience, it is apparent that god becomes surprised by the actions of us mere mortals in the bible. He says don't do this or do that and then seems angry when we do not obey, even though he already knew we wouldn't. Of course, an omniscient god also negates the possibility of free will. But that is an entirely different discussion. Also, if god is all knowing, can God learn anything new? Does God know what he's going to do tomorrow and can he change his plan? Being omnipotent, God is essentially a cosmic He-Man. One would need to be all powerful to create the universe and all of existence, right? But I am reminded of a paradox: can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it? Can God create a square circle? Think about that carefully before you answer. If God is omnipresent, does that mean God is in Hell too (irony alert here)? Mark Noble brings up an interesting point regarding omnipresence, " If said entity [God] was to be in all possible places at once, said entity would occupy every single occupiable location in both the cosmic and the quantum. Every component, of every thing would be entirely occupied by one thing.
Therefore everything would have no other ingredients than this sole-entity. Would not everything then be ONE thing? leading to the truth that - everything is said entity. If god is everywhere, then God is Everything, And if God is everything, then everything is God ?" Now there's an interesting thought. God is the ultimate peeping Tom too. I guess omnipresence means God does not need a mirror to check himself out. God has himself covered.
Basically, the bible portrays God as performing feats that are logically contradictory or impossible, based on the attributes assigned to God. Now, if you take away those attributes so God is not infinitely powerful, knowledgeable, or everywhere at once, then there are no contradictions or paradoxes. A God without a God-Mode is more plausible than the one as depicted in the bible.
5. There were lots of other gods before God : I know I said I would focus on the monotheistic God and not on other gods. But bear with me on this one. Before the idea of a singular God became popular, many cultures such as the ancient Greeks and Egyptians believed in and worshipped other gods. Many of these gods has specific functions or duties in their respective societies. And there was often a "ruling" god over the other gods, like Zeus in ancient Greek mythology. So it's not implausible that somewhere along the way, someone decided to streamline the pantheon by having one God do everything. It certainly simplified belief and worship practices. Essentially, it's an ancient one God fits all sale. And clearly many people bought it. Since these gods predate the monotheistic god, it's not surprising that they would lead to the concept of only one God.
6. But billions of people worldwide believe in and worship God : An argumentum ad populum fallacy . 'Nuff said.
So, if the God of the bible is capable of existing outside of our space-time universe as a supernatural entity and/or is capable of performing feats that are logically impossible, as God is not beholden to logic, then that means God is unknowable. That means no one, including biblical authors or the people of then and now, are capable of knowing or understanding God in the slightest. Especially if there is no evidence of God. So any claims, writings, or explanations about God are totally unfounded and lack and support or credibility. It's basically pure guess work or pure imagination that caught on and became popular. However, if God does exist within our space-time or has limitations, then it is possible to evidence God and understand something about God, even if a little. But that means God is not the God of the bible as God is portrayed. Either way, the fallacy of God is quite apparent.
Tags
Who is online
157 visitors
There could be a god. Just not the one you think or imagine. Either way, I remain unconvinced without evidence.
But Gordy, if there isn't a god, who's going to bless The United States of America?
What amuses me is that there are people around here who worship Trump.
By the way, Devil's Advocate was a pretty good movie - Pacino sure fit the image. "My favourite sin - vanity."
Very good movie.
He made a good point about vanity. One could consider it the root of all sin
That's what we have Trump for.
The @ss kissing of Trump seems quite prevalent.
Agreed
"When about a third of the people saw that Jesus was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around conservative Republicans and said, “Come, make us a god who will go before us. As for this fellow Jesus, who nobody's seen for 2000 years, we don’t know what has happened to him.”
2 The Republicans answered them, “Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me.” 3 So a third of the people took off their earrings and brought them to the Republicans. 4 They took what they handed them and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a golden fat man, fashioning him into a total tool. Then they said, “This is your god, conservative Christians, who brought you up out of liberal progressive secular rule!” - Exodus 32:1-4 (paraphrased)
Yeah, I've seen a picture of it.
That certainly seems to have some basis of truth.
I find it rather telling that the God of the bible is depicted with the same emotions and emotional failings as humans. That should raise a red flag about the veracity of God. It's as if God is the mirror of the ancient men writing about him, but with superpowers.
I know, right? God is not human, so why does he display so many human emotions and fallibilities?
Exactly. One would think an omnipotent deity would be above such petty things. And yet, the bible depicts a God who is petty, vindictive, narcissistic, jealous, angry, ect.. All human characteristics.
My favorite sin used to be vanity but vanity takes lots of work and is very expensive so switched over to gluttony and sloth.
The rules are much easier and a new pair of underwear on occasion is my only clothing expense.
I'll take lust, aka a normal human drive. It activates automatically and is quite easy, and fun, to utilize
Uhh....why does Trumps' golden calf have utters? Is it a half-way transgender?
Well, we established elsewhere that for God to have made both man and woman in his image, he'd have to be intersex. Makes sense that other gods created by man would be the same.
His followers gain their sustenance from sucking on his teats 4 at a time - better than just one at a time, don't you think? Not everyone is like that guy who molested the gorilla.
Hmm...I thought God made Man in his own image, and made woman using one of Adams ribs. So, can it be said that God made woman in his own image? And if he made woman in Adams' image through one of his ribs, would she not be a he too?
I wonder if Trump charges them for each teat they choose? He never gives anything for free ya know.
She would be a transgender clone, but without the benefit of surgery, it seems to me that she'd still look an awful lot like Adam. And even with surgery, she couldn't have become pregnant, so no Cain, Abel, or Seth.
There could be a god. Just not the one you think or imagine.
There could also be a perfectly reasonable explanation for why that god does not communicate with humans, ever. Maybe the god is only concerned for squirrels, and humans are as inconsequential and meaningless to it as squirrels are to humanity’s numerous concepts of god. Or maybe the god’s only concern is for vegetation, and all other life forms are only here simply to exhale and otherwise provide the life-giving, precious CO2 that makes it’s true children thrive. If a plant could talk to us, it might say “I can’t believe you can’t converse with god, we talk all the time.” The possibilities are endless, but I have less than zero reasons to believe in a god that cares about humanity. If it exists and cares at all, then it needs to stop failing.
I think God only speaks to dolphins.
I’ll take Sea World over church any day of the week.
Funny how some people claim that God speaks to them?
A big if.
Or through them...
I was thinking Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy when I said God only speaks to dolphins
Thanks for the fish.
Swam with dolphins once. Like a friendly wolf pack. One (playfully) tore my snorkel and mask off and then brought them back completely destroyed.
Great analysis as usual.
The notion of God being supernatural as an excuse for why there is no evidence always strikes me as desperate. It just amazes me that people are able to limit their thinking to one-sided logic: to see only one side of a logical situation and ignore the other. In this case, as you note, God is ostensibly interacting with the physical world even today. He certainly did so in a grand manner per the writings of ancient men. But today he is, by some, the force that elects our leaders, engages in divine acts, etc. So God clearly, absolutely is believed to interact with the physical world. Yet when it comes to evidence, well, that is impossible because God is supernatural.
Thank you.
Indeed. What's amazing is that somehow, despite no evidence and being supernatural, ancient men were able to write about God as if they had intimate knowledge about God. Some people even today actually think they know God or speak for God. It boggles the mind.
But somehow, we have a biography on God in the form of the bible.
Fear to superstition to mythology are the basics of all religions.
The "fear" part is instrumental in the brainwashing.
Indeed it is.
Why can't God interact with the physical world if he is omnipotent? I'm confused by that
It is a nonsense excuse. On one hand the individual making the argument wants to show that God is real and speaks of their own direct experiences (never specific by the way and never evidenced) and then that recorded in the Bible. Yet on the other hand that individual explains away thousands of years with no evidence by claiming evidence is impossible since God is supernatural.
It is another having it both ways contradiction.
My question is out of context with the rest of your comment. My apologies. I went back and re-read your comment at least twice, and once out loud. I see my mistake.
I was about to argue that God is God and can do anything She wants...kinda like Q on Star Trek. One cannot pin human attributes on God because She is not human. We don't know what God is if She exists
Which led me to point out the contradictions and paradoxes mentioned in the article.
And yet, humans not only claim (often with certainty) that God exists, but also applies certain attributed to God that no one could possibly know. And that's without any evidence whatsoever.
Think about this. Where does all of our information about God come from (basically)?
Answer: The Bible. A book written by ancient men with pens (h/t to TiG). So all those paradoxes and contradictions are caused by men who didn't read what the other men were writing.
If people were honest about themselves, they would admit that a belief in God is a superstition....illogical and undefined. And it's all based on emotion, no intellect needed.
Exactly. What's laughable is that some will claim the bible is the "word of God." I sure do not see God's signature in it.
As is/was belief in all other gods, past and present.
You are just too damn cute Trout!
The existence of God is not at all dependent on the accuracy of Bible stories.
True. But when one defines their god as that which is defined by the Bible, the integrity of the Bible comes heavily into play.
If one defines God as, for example, the sentient creator of the universe (no additional attributes), then the stories in the Bible are irrelevant because the god in question is not that defined by the Bible.
Bottom line, how one defines 'God' makes a hellofalot of difference when discussing the existence of same.
I can define a god that is real and provide evidence of same.
The various religions are obviously human creations. Whether any or all of them had divine inspiration is probably unknowable.
Yup nobody knows if a divine sentient entity actually exists.
But some people sure pretend or act like it does, even though they cannot actually prove it or provide evidence.
Unlike certain other individuals who make claims for a God.
It isn't so much about the existence of God as it is about how God is portrayed in the bible. Although, the two may be connected. If the bible is not accurate, then how God is depicted may not be accurate either, if at all. This can include claims of God's abilities or existence itself. I've always questioned biblical accuracy, as many stories are easily explained without the need for a divine intervention. That lends to the fallacy of God as well.
As are the various God/s.
If there actually was a "god" and I met it, I'd do my best to kick its lame mass murdering ass.
That reminds me of the Star Trek DS9 episode where Cmdr Sisko punches Q. That was a great moment.
By definition god is always portrayed as eternal. If humans think that mortality is a gateway into their own eternal existence in a new realm, then what makes them different from God at that point? Upon death they become eternal and equally powerless to affect change or even communicate with life in this existence, just like God. It’s all so mind numbingly pointless.
As Rick Sanchez (Rick & Morty) says, "when you know nothing matters, the universe is yours,"
If it gives one comfort to have faith, I don't see it being pointless
Emotional comfort is one reason why people believe in a God. But that only demonstrates the subjectiveness of belief or the claims for a God. It's based on emotion rather than reason.
What if it gives them comfort to the point that they are giving money that they can’t afford to lose to televangelists? Happens all the time because they are easy targets.
It's sad, but there's nothing that can be done about it.
Then they have been conned. That's the risk of allowing emotion to override reason.
financial decisions based on emotion rarely work out. some people learn that, others don't.
I'd say most decisions based on emotion have a higher chance of not working out. It's certainly not rational.
I see religion as being a dangerous thing.
That is quite easily demonstrable too.
Disproving God is like wading against a river of shit - always more shit coming down the pipe.
You have to do it on a case by case basis based on the definition presented by the believer - but there are tens of thousands of Gods, and Christianity alone has tens of thousands of branches - each making different concrete claims about their deity. The approach you take when debating the existence of the Mormon version of Christianity might be different than the one you would take in approaching the god of Spinoza. In reality - since religions make concrete claims - once one such claims has been disproved - that should be the end of it - but in reality religions generally just form some new branch which claims that particular claim was just allegorical - or a mistranslation - or somehow the Devil is responsible for the evidence being contradictory. Many believers will default to defending something closer to a Spinozan God with one breath - since an undefined God of nature which is indistinguishable from no God is easier to defend - but then claim that as evidence for their particular brand of divine cracker believing madness with the next breath.
It's not for one to disprove a claim. It's up to the one making the claim (with certainty) to prove, or at least provide evidence to support their claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But it also depends on how one defines god. The God of the Bible as it is depicted is a logical contradiction. In effect, that "disproves" that particular version of a God. That's not the same as saying there is no God at all. As I first noted, there could be a God. Just not the one that is commonly portrayed.
I agree, but it is not really about disproving but rather encouraging believers to think about what they are believing and why. Do they believe this because of words from other human beings? If so, why? Why trust the mere words of ancient superstitious men and those with agendas? Why trust the words of indoctrinated modern people? What a human being opines is not relevant; what is relevant is what that human being can evidence (or, ideally, prove).
Religion historically has been an extremely effective device for controlling the masses. It remains so today, sadly, in spite of the extraordinary level of knowledge available compared to what ancient people had. Religions have been perfecting their game for thousands of years and clearly the developed tactics work even with 21st century, intelligent human beings.
If there is a god, I would find that to be the most important, most interesting thing in life. But after thousands of years (and thousands of gods) and countless billions of believers, nobody has been able to even provide credible evidence that any of these gods exists. Why, then, do people believe these stories told by other human beings?
If people actually thought (rationally) about it, they may not be believers.
I'm sure that's one reason.
Because those with agendas or those indoctrinated are essentially predators. They prey on peoples ignorance, gullibility, and/or emotions to push their brand of religious belief or delusion. This is quite apparent with televangelists, as an example.
That would be logical. But we know people are often not logical.
The fact that so many people fall for religious based tactics brings "intelligent" into question. But I know what you mean.
Because they either fill in gaps of knowledge (even if the information is wrong), appeal to emotions, or prey on fear. Or maybe people are just plain nuts or don't know any better? Who knows?
As we have discussed, I think the greatest factor is that human beings (all of us) naturally seek comfort. When faced with the scariest of realities such as death, we tend to be very wishful thinkers. Religions all promise grand rewards, comfort, certainty. Unabashed reality, in contrast, offers no guarantees of comfort, no sentient entity who has our back, and a finality of death. It is much easier to believe (hope) about comforting thoughts than face the harshness of our reality.
In the past, ancient people knew very little about all the scary things happening (volcanoes, weather patterns, disease, neurological disorders, etc.) and so religions stepped in with answers. They demystified the scary unknowns of life and this alone is comforting. I certainly understand why religions have taken off and have lasted for so long.
What is surprising, however, is that they continue even now. I guess George Carlin was right: the bullshit stories of religions are incredibly effective ... "Holy Shit" — Carlin.
I think you are correct.
Many also promise suffering, retribution, and despair, for eternity, if one does not follow said religion. Fear can be a great motivator too.
Many cannot seem to handle reality.
What boggles the mind is that today, with all our accumulated knowledge and understanding, we still cling to religion and religious myths.
A comedic genius wise beyond his years.
There’s no point in debating the Spinoza concept of a god. It is genuinely and inherently inoffensive. It’s the organized religions that are inherently offensive to one another and non-belief itself.
Watch any religious debate - and that's the strawman argument you're most likely to see from the religious side. They start by claiming a specific deity which has defined traits, an established place in history, and actual interactions with the world, but then rather than defend those positions in a serious debate they retreat to defending a god who is indistinguishable from no God - like some poorly crafted untestable scientific hypothesis.
Or they continue to proclaim their God is real and has specific traits while ignoring any logical contradiction or rebuttal and saying one needs to believe or have faith. Essentially, it's saying God is real and has specific traits because wishful thinking.
I think for Part 9, I'll focus on Sodom & Gomorrah. After covering all these stories so far, does anyone else think the bible reads as a big collection of theological disaster movies? I mean, The Great Flood was essentially the biblical version of Waterworld, starring Noah as biblical Kevin Costner.
Another thought is the fallacy of the Bible itself. The Bible self-claims to be divine. There are myriad fallacies in that claim.
True. But there's really nothing to contradict those fallacies. So it might make for a short article. Of course, some will simply ignore the contradictions and fallacies by claiming one needs faith to understand it. As if that somehow validates the Bible's claims. It's a total disconnect from logic. Given how well you spot and point out biblical contradictions, such an article is right up your alley, as you could do it better justice than I. Just a thought.
Hell, Gordy, there has been almost no meaningful debate on your articles. It is mostly the old game of attack the messenger, nit-pick, strawmen, etc.
But, anyway, I was just tossing it out for consideration.
Yes, I've noticed the standard tactics. A thoughtful debate would be most welcome. Of course, pointing out biblical fallacies might be uncomfortable to some, so they react emotionally rather than rationally. I suspect pointing out the fallacy of the Bible itself will garmer a similar response. Clearly biblical proponents are unable to muster any meaningful rebuttals or alternative explanations to the points made in these articles.
Thank you for that. I appreciate the consideration. But like I said, I think that's one topic where you're much better suited to analyze than I.
If you actually read the bible and not cherry pick like many "followers" do, that God is not worth the time to piss on. It's vengeful, unloving, vindictive and childish. It is responsible for far more evil and death than the Satan. And yet people love it.
The "followers" are suffering from a massive case of Stockholm Syndrome.
Funny how God has many human attributes.
I've asked some theists what Satan has done that is so "evil," especially compared to the evil God has done as described in the bible. No surprise I don't get much of an answer, other than justification and defense of God's own actions.
Or self delusion.
From what I have observed over the many years, most theists know very little about their religions. They certainly know what they have been taught, but their educations typically lack the deep dive that provides the rationale behind the beliefs.
And this makes sense. If most theists did really seriously explore and contemplate their beliefs, I suspect they would no longer be theists. There will always be the few who find ways to bridge the cognitive dissonance, but I suspect most will just slowly discard nonsense until they find that they really no longer accept what they have been told.
I've long thought it true that "God is made in man's image".
Possibly because religions do not like being questioned or challenged. Doing so may be viewed as a lack in faith and subject to God's punishment. It's basically "believe what you're told, no questions asked."
I believe that is true. I don't think most Christians realize that the early thinkers in their religion considered the Biblical tales to be allegorical, not literal.