The Impossible God

Just a few of the logical absurdities of the square triangular god of the incoherent christian bible.

Faith’s Failure: epistemic certainty

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)


Filed under: Faith's Failure

Faith’s Failure: blind is better?

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.

Filed under: Faith's Failure, , , ,

Commenting Guidelines

Anyone may respond to the arguments with rigorous argumentation and evidence. No one may offer unfocused unsubstantiated affirmations of their beliefs. The assumptions in the posted arguments reflect mainstream Christian beliefs. If you have another view of the topic that you feel better reflects the mainstream position, provided that in the form of a syllogism.

Your Golden Square Triangle

This site does not waste time debating Christians over the logical possibility of miracles, the nature of the singularity, or the historicity of Jesus. If you argue that the square triangle in your pocket is made of gold, and produce genuine gold flakes as evidence, we still know with absolute certainty that you do not have a golden square triangle in your pocket.

If the biblical god is logically incoherent as this site argues, we can stop there. Enough of the silly games Christians play by diverting attention away from Jehovah's inherent absurdities and towards issues such as an incomplete evolutionary theory as if that will somehow redeem an incoherent Jehovah.

Top Posts