The Impossible God

Welcome

Phil Stilwell — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:20:34 +0000

Thanks for dropping by!
I hope to soon add many more arguments demonstrating the logical incoherencies found in mainstream Christian beliefs. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. I was once a very devoted Christian who now hopes many others can experience the joys of a myth-less life.
-phil stilwell (editor)

Faith’s Failure: epistemic certainty

Phil Stilwell — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:28:20 +0000

P1: The degree of belief/disbelief in any proposition must map to the calculated balance of relevant confirming/disconfirming evidence as assessed by the epistemic agent for that belief/disbelief to be deemed rational.
P2: A human epistemic agent accesses the world subjectively, and therefore is necessarily limited to subjectively obtained relevant confirming/disconfirming evidence when entertaining a proposition (rather than having an objective view and understanding of the totality of all the confirming/disconfirming evidence).
P3: For a human epistemic agent, the calculated balance of relevant confirming/disconfirming evidence for a given proposition necessarily falls on a continuum inside the poles of absolute confirmation/disconfirmation to qualify as rational. (P1 & P2)
P4: Any rational belief/disbelief of a human epistemic agent in a non-tautological proposition necessarily falls on a continuum inside the binary poles of absolute certainty. (P1 & P3)
P5: Any source that promotes binary and absolute belief/disbelief for human epistemic agents is promoting irrationality. (P3 & P4)
P6: The Bible promotes binary and absolute belief/disbelief for human epistemic agents. (Acts 16:31 / Acts 8:37 / Romans 10:9 / John 3:16 / Mark 11:24)
CONCLUSION: The Bible promotes irrationality. (P5 & P6)

An Absurd Justice: jesus’ fortunate celibacy

Phil Stilwell — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:03:38 +0000

P1: Divinity cannot simply forgive disobedience without bloodshed because the righteousness of a divinity demands the eternal torment of the disobedient.
P2: Jehovah was divine.
P3: Jehovah cannot simply forgive disobedience, but must instead eternally torment the disobedient. (P1 & P2)
P4: Jesus was divine.
CONCLUSION: Had Jesus married and had a disobedient son, he would have been forced by his righteousness to eternally torment his son. (P1 & P4)

Faith’s Failure: blind is better?

Phil Stilwell — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:26:10 +0000

P1: Jesus considered those who believe with less confirmatory evidence more blessed that those who believed with more evidence. (John 20:19-31)
P2: Falsehoods are more likely to have less confirmatory evidence at their disposal than have truths.
P3: Those who believe with less confirmatory evidence are more likely to believe falsehoods.
CONCLUSION: Jesus considered those who are more likely to believe falsehoods more blessed. (P1 – P3)

_{The notion of faith is absurd.}

Divine Innumeracy: “substitution”?

Phil Stilwell — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:27:30 +0000

P1: Christ paid the substitutionary price for our sins.
P2: Christ paid 3 days of physical and/or spiritual death.
P3: The price for our sins is 3 days of physical and/or spiritual death. (P1 & P2)
P4: Sinners can pay for their sins with 3 days of physical and/or spiritual death.
P5: Sinners remain damned even after 3 days of physical and/or spiritual death.
CONCLUSION: Jehovah cannot do math, is unjust, or is a myth. (P3 – P5)

_{Why do sinners remain separated from god after legitimately paying their 3 days of physical and/or spiritual deaths?}

Divine Impotence: forgiveness w/o blood?

Phil Stilwell — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 09:07:50 +0000

P1: Jehovah demands that humans forgive each other without bloodshed.
P2: Jehovah would not demand something that is not possible.
P3: Forgiving without bloodshed is possible. (P1 & P2)
P4: Jehovah cannot forgive without bloodshed. (Hebrews 9:22)
P5: There is something possible that Jehovah cannot do. (P3 & P4)
CONCLUSION: Jehovah is not omnipotent.

_{The bible clearly states that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. Why? And why can (and must) humans forgive without shedding blood? Absurd. Especially in the face of claims of Jehovah’s love for humankind.}

An Absurd Justice: jesus in the jungle?

Phil Stilwell — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 09:48:18 +0000

P1: No sinner is redeemed from eternal torment without accepting Jesus’ redemption.
P2: If a young sinner who tells a single lie dies without ever hearing of Jesus’ redemption, he cannot accept Jesus’ redemption from eternal torment.
P3: A young sinner who tells a single lie and dies without ever hearing of Jesus’ redemption will be eternally tormented. (P1 & P2)
P4: It is possible that a young person who told a single lie may now have died and be experiencing eternal torment.
P5: The god Jehovah who condemns the young sinner who tells a single lie then dies to eternal torment, also claims to be both loving and just towards that sinner.
P6: Jehovah never lies.
P7: Condemning someone who tells a single lie then dies to eternal torment does not mean that one does not love or justly treat the liar. (P5 & P6)
P8: “Love” and “justice” mean the same thing to Jehovah as they do to humans.
P9: A man who condemns his lying son to eternal torment can rightfully claim to both have loved and have justly treated that son. (P7 & P8)
P10: No rational human would say that man who condemns his lying son to eternal torment can rightfully claim to both have loved and have justly treated that son.
CONCLUSION: Either Jehovah or all of rational mankind is very confused on the definitions of “love” and “justice”.

_{Why do sinners remain separated from god after legitimately paying their 3 days of physical and/or spiritual deaths?}

Moral Incoherencies: an objective morality?

Phil Stilwell — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 06:57:06 +0000

P1: Slavery was once deemed morally permissible by Jehovah.
P2: Slavery is now deemed morally impermissible by Jehovah.
CONCLUSION: Jehovah has not provided an unchanging objective morality.

_{Objective morality, if existent, most certainly does not originate with Jehovah.}

Divine Innumeracy: 1 = billions?

Phil Stilwell — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:53:20 +0000

P1: The penalty for Adam’s sin is Adam’s eternal damnation.
P2: Adam’s punishment for his sin could be paid for only by a sinless redeemer.
P3: Christ was sinless until he redeemed Adam by taking on Adam’s sin.
P4: Christ, having taken on Adam’s sin, is no longer a candidate sinless redeemer.
P5: Christ could not have paid for the sins of more than one human. (P1, P2, P3 & P4)
P6: There are billions of sinners in the world needing a sinless redeemer.
CONCLUSION: Christ did not pay for the sins of the whole world. (P5 & P6)

_{Christ had to die a human death to redeem humans. But Christ had only one human death to offer. And how could he have been resurrected after 3 days if the wages of the sins of those he came to redeem is a death longer than 3 days? Absurd.}

Divine Innumeracy: 3 days = eternity?

Phil Stilwell — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 02:43:55 +0000

P1: A just god does not allow unjust suffering.
P2: Jehovah is a just god.
P3: Jehovah’s penalty for sinning entails suffering eternal damnation.
P4: Jehovah’s just penalty for sinning entails suffering eternal damnation. (P1 – P3)
P5: Christ was made human to redeemed sinners by paying the just penalty for sinning.
P6: Christ experienced, at most, 3 days of damnation.
P7: 3 days of damnation is less than the just eternal damnation sinners must suffer.
P8: Christ did not pay the just penalty for sinning. (P5 – P7)
CONCLUSION: Christ did not redeem sinners. (P4 & P8)

_{It’s tiring to hear all the various incoherent reasons offered for the arbitrary 3 days of Christ’s death, a pseudo-substitution for the sinner which falls far short of any coherent definition of the “wages of sin”.}