in this part I'll move on to size
questions about what I believe now he
asked what exactly do you believe now of
gods do you affirmative Li believe that
any god or gods do not exist if yes how
certain are you what gods does this
belief apply to and why do you hold this
belief
well I affirmative Li believe the Prince
Phillip volcano God doesn't exist
villages on the South Pacific island of
Tanna believe that Prince Phillip who
stopped by Vanuatu in the 1970s
fulfilled their legend of a divine
volcano spirit who would take the form
of a pale skinned man and travel far in
search of a powerful wife however
seriously they might believe this we can
show he's not that deity there deity
originates from Tana Prince Phillip
originated from Corfu with such easy
falsification it's clear why we don't
tend to hear such down-to-earth God
concepts these days the ideas that have
survived posit God's progressively
further out of reach from mountains
volcanoes and oceans to space and beyond
to abstract metaphysical locations with
an expanding physical and philosophical
distance that substantially obscures any
possibility of evidence or
falsifiability I'll be looking at
unknowable claims in the third video but
even with all these supposedly
unreachable God's we can still ruin out
many concepts in much the same way we
can with the Prince Philip God by
identifying fatal contradictions and
discrepancies a basic example of the
kind of pleasure I'm talking about is
the one between the concept of Omni
benevolence and the concept of Hell
infinite compassion does not condone or
abide infinite torture there's a similar
clash with beings who proposed as both
intrinsically immortal and intrinsically
omnipotent the concept of omnipotence by
itself has had philosophers debating for
centuries over various proposed
paradoxes such as the task of creating
rock that can't be lifted or creating a
square circle with arguments about
whether the paradox lies not in the
omnipotence but in the task itself which
mavar ADIZ refers to as pseudo tasks but
I'm looking at a task that contains no
logical impossibility killing yourself
it's something we humans are capable of
so we have the conflict if gods can kill
themselves they can't then be
intrinsically immortal on the other hand
if they can't kill themselves they're
not omnipotent this combination of
characteristics is fatal the being can't
be both it's been put to me that if the
omniscient being is intrinsically
immortal then to ask it to kill itself
is again asking a logically impossible
feat even an omnipotent being can't do
things which conflict with its own
nature omnipotence now moves from being
the ability to do anything - the ability
to do anything that doesn't conflict
with the beings other properties problem
is by that definition i'm omnipotent i
have the ability to do anything that
doesn't conflict with my other
properties for instance by myself i
can't fly or breathe water not because
i'm not omnipotent but because for me
those things are logically impossible
based on my physical and psychological
properties to ask me to do them is
unfair the word almighty seems to be
making something of a comeback but this
nebulous term doesn't provide sanctuary
it might appear to offer the biblical
account of the Tower of Babel or Babel
if you prefer offers an interesting
little commentary on human omnipotence
it was written that at the time humans
only spoke one language and they decided
to build a city with a tower that
reached to heaven Genesis 11 verses 5
and 6 describes the biblical God coming
down and saying if as one people
speaking the same language they have
begun to do this then nothing they plan
to do will be impossible for them he
then thwarts that possibility by
confusing their language so they
couldn't understand each other nothing
they plan to do will be impossible for
them it doesn't get much plainer than
that
that's omnipotence to find freewill and
omniscience present another
contradiction some suggest an omniscient
being could deliberately restrict his
knowledge to facilitate its own free
will but to restrict knowledge
immediately destroys omniscience some
suggest that it could simply know the
consequences of every possible course of
action it might take making it free to
choose this line of argument is an
immediate non-starter for those who
propose timeless gods who perceive the
past present and future simultaneously
those who propose gods that operate
within time sometimes suggest these
deities know only the past and present
the future is a mystery even to them but
this contradicts the supporting text of
their religion for instance in Psalm 139
verse 4 we have the line before a word
is on my tongue you Lord know it
completely then later in verse 16 your
eyes saw my unformed body all the days
ordained for me were written in your
book before one of them came to be
in Isaiah 46 verse 10 he always depicted
declaring the end from the beginning
a passage echoed later on in chapter 48
verse 3 I foretold the former things
long ago my mouth announced them and I
made them known then suddenly I acted
and they came to pass this describes a
being who knows not just what could
happen but what will happen and
furthermore the active part it will play
in that plan it's difficult to argue how
being who knows not just every physical
fact but all of our private intentions
could fail to predict the future even if
we were generous enough to grant mind
matter deity with both of these covered
in divine claims what other variables
are left to inject uncertainty and the
problems with omniscience don't end
there Alfred Hitchcock found the process
of shooting his films a tedious
mechanical exercise he felt had done all
his creative work already with the
writing and storyboarding visualizing
the movie right down to his final cuts
likewise an omniscient creator has done
all of his creative work already before
it sets its creation in motion from the
moment of creation everything is
quintessentially mechanical taking the
three Bible stories mentioned in part 1
omniscience means the God of the Bible
would have known that Adam and Eve would
have been confused by the serpent into
disobeying him there could be no anger
in response to this event anger reflects
a sentiment that something's happened
that shouldn't have happened but on
omniscient being who knows before it
sets his creation in motion how
everything will turn out can feel no
more anger than we can feel anger when
we consciously allow a brick to fall
from our hand and descend under a force
of gravity to smash a plate same with
the flood God's apparent disappointment
at his creation is impossible
disappointment is the non fulfillment of
what one hopes an omniscient being
doesn't hope it knows we told the angel
of the Lord stops Abraham from killing
his son saying now I know that thou art
a god-fearing man now I know an
omniscient God would have known all the
time for omniscience to be true stories
involving divine surprise emotional
reaction or reassessment must be false
for those stories to be true omniscience
must be false whatever the case the
combination is fatally incompatible it's
an aporia a path that leads nowhere
it'll be clear that a lot of
contradictions spring up around the
prefix Omni
claims of beings who can do everything
know everything be everywhere possess
infinite compassion etc might have
seemed impressive when they were
proposed but when we attempt to
integrate them especially in view of a
reality chock-full of immorality and
suffering these ill-conceived concepts
collapse under the weight of their own
over ambition perhaps the pinnacle of
over ambition is the idea of perfection
there's a lot of disagreement about what
attributes a perfect being would possess
some argue that it would be perfectly
imperfect others argue it would be
perfectly detached etc whatever the case
perfection sets up considerable problems
Matthew 7 verse 18 puts the point
succinctly the good tree cannot bear bad
fruit and a bad tree cannot bear good
fruit a perfect God creates a perfect
human and imperfection comes of it how
can a perfect being sin we can't just
say because it just decides - why would
it decide - what possible need would it
be serving the answer and imperfect need
and where did the imperfect need come
from when we work back to find the point
of transition from perfection to
imperfection the problem is unworkable
free will or no free will perfect beings
human or divine don't make imperfect
choices those who argue they do are
arguing that a good tree can bear bad
fruit the problem extends to imperfect
revelation some argue that it isn't
their God's revelation that's imperfect
but human error in conveying that
revelation in arguing this they
unwittingly highlight the nature of
their deities imperfection the woefully
error-prone method by which it's chosen
to reveal itself some suggest there's
grand design behind this imperfect
revelation an argument proposed by one
Michael Murray for the judeo-christian
God is that it has to remain hidden to
preserve our moral freedom he argues
that if we were powerfully aware of the
truth of God's existence would be
coerced into moral behavior choosing
good would be irresistible several flaws
here for starters various figures
purported to have had direct experience
of their God had no trouble disobeying
him a prime example is Cain who spoke
directly to Yahweh and yet went on to
kill his brother and let's not forget
the supposed epitome of evil Satan
you've also got to ask what happens to
moral freedom when you get to heaven
another argument defending in perfect
revelation suggests that revelations are
deliberately obscure because gods want
people to search them out
but with the proliferation of available
good concepts the scope of what's being
asked here is impossibly vast you're out
in the middle of nowhere you're told the
truth is out there you just have to
search for it there's a big wildering
number of signposts around you each
claiming to be the right way you pick a
direction or more likely have it pick
for you and start walking you walk for
miles but there are no guards
occasionally you meet people along the
way who say you chose the right
direction although they can never say
how far you have to go after many miles
the truth finally dawns on you there are
people in every single direction he'll
tell you exactly the same thing their
path is the right one and you just have
to keep walking it now becomes clear the
task is impossible you have a limited
number of years in your life you could
spend them all walking in the same
futile direction you could spend them
all trying multiple futile directions
and obviously the length of time you
spend on each journey is divided by the
number of directions you try it's
impossible to investigate every idea in
any depth so requiring any depth of
investigation sets an impossible
condition what's being proposed is a
game of pure chance you could say my
atheism is a refusal to play an
impossible game the unknown purpose
defense is often presented as a
catch-all fallback argument it asserts
that there is a purpose but it's unknown
two points here one the unknowable
purpose defense cuts both ways yes an
unknown purpose can't be criticized
it can't be assessed in any way but that
also destroys any claim that the purpose
must necessarily be benevolent or
morally good to establish that requires
that the purpose is understood those who
evoke the unknown purpose defense give
up any grounds to refute suggestions
that the purpose could be perverse
callous or sadistic to whatever the
unknown purpose is supposed to be as
I've shown we can still rule out
unworkable purposes and that's enough in
itself to refute whole classes of divine
claims rather than defend their gods
some prefer to blame the non-believer
some suggest God never answered when I
was a Christian because I was testing
him or because I didn't have enough
faith bugs wrong I didn't need proof I
already believed I wanted a relationship
and it was a mark of my utter faith that
I fully believed I could have won
critics have also asserted that God was
talking to me and I just wasn't hearing
him let's get this straight there's me
receptive and faithful there's the
Christian God I believed in equally came
for a relationship with me aware of
exactly what it would take to
communicate that to me but he decides
instead to talk to me in a way he knows
full well I can't hear what bizarre
pointlessness reminds me of those scenes
he sometimes get in comics where
characters explained things to
themselves they already know for the
benefit of some invisible observer these
are just a few of many contradictory
concepts that can be ruled out this is
about contradictory concepts concepts of
perverse or sadistic gods aren't
contradictory in themselves there's only
a contradiction if other irreconcilable
attributes are proposed when we rule out
contradictory concepts we're left with
concepts of gods who are unwilling
and/or unable to reveal themselves to
every human and that means any system
proposing punishment for non belief is
irretrievably unjust I'll end by
returning to the issue of how certain I
am that these gods don't exist the
objections I've given in this video are
based on rational contradictions but
there are those who see even logic and
reason as based on contingent divine
rules this harks back to the subject of
omnipotence some like William of Occam
saw omnipotence expressed in two forms
potential absolute ur and potential or
Donata with absolute power the deity is
free to choose to actualize any
possibilities but once they're decided
on the deities ordained power kicks in
ie it plays by its own rules and
restricts itself from exercising
absolute power as a side note isn't it
remarkable how specific we're getting
about exactly how these gods operate
it's important to bear in mind the
question of how this detailed
information about incorporeal beings was
arrived at anyway
some argue that we only experience logic
reasoning justice morality in the form
we do because the gods just set it up
like that some argue that the gods don't
even have to obey the law of
contradiction allowing them for instance
to undo past events so that they never
happened
as mentioned before arguments that
allude to the unknown cut both ways
those arguing against the use of reason
and logic on the premise that they're
divinely arbitrary should notice the
ground crumbling beneath their own feet
firstly this argument creates a paradox
in that its reasoning against the
validity of reasoning the premise
destroys itself secondly when discussing
the existence of incorporeal beings for
which by definition there
be no physical evidence to discount the
tools of reason and logic leaves no
resources for asserting the existence of
gods
so how certain am i that these kinds of
contradictory concepts don't exist I'd
say I'm certain beyond reasonable doubt
in the final part of this video triptych
I'll be looking at claims I believe to
be unknowable
[Music]