And breath’d such life with kisses in my lips, that I reviv’d, and was an EMPEROR

It never ceases to amaze me that so many religious people lecture others as if they believe what they teach is the absolute truth. One of the major problems in respect to this is not that the things teach are possibly incorrect; it is that these people don’t address the flaws/issues in their teachings at a suitable extent, and omit them from their teachings. Nonetheless, when the situation comes up to discuss these issues/flaws, the responses are always subjective invalid interpretations. For example, in answering why X leads to Y; “It is because X comes from/is required from G, therefore that’s why X leads to Y”. Explanations from the book in response to flaws in the system (which comes from the book); believing someone that they’re rich just because they say so. The issue isn’t really answered, merely covered up and blurred. A circular logic of death, it’s guaranteed to make any rational person a moron.

No one ever asks “Why do I believe in this religious system, and not the other?” or “Why do others believe in their religion, and not mine?”. No, it’s not simply the assumption that “everyone has their own beliefs and we should abide by it”. Because everybody thinks they think rationally, which leads to the conclusion that someone has to be wrong, it’s just a matter of finding out why you’re wrong and why the other person is right. Just because one thinks they’re right/wrong does not make it so. But personally, it’s quite entertaining to see ignorant people acting they’re as if not.

The Nequeological Argument

nequeo (latin): not to be able, to be impossible

If you google “nequeological” on the internet, chances are you won’t find a definition. That’s because it’s not a real word. It’s a word I made up for this philosophical argument I have came up with quite some time ago last year. Chances are, this argument is one that has not been written down before or named (though possibly theorized) by anyone. But if anyone DOES find that this is not the case, please message me. Like the 'Ontological Argument' that I have criticized against in a previous thread, I’ll illustrate the Nequeological Argument in simple form.

Also, if anyone thinks this to be ‘another’ anti-religious thread. I take my hat off to you. Congratulations, you have the intelligence quotient of a piece of toast. This thread (the entire blog in this matter) is not intended or aimed to be anti-religious; it is ‘pro-truth’ (so to speak). If a religion isn’t outrageously flawed there would be nothing to talk about, it is my fashion to point out these shortcomings and flaws so that people are able to be less ignorant when they read it as it gives them a new perspective to think about. Only an ignorant person believes without question; ignorant people/ignorance is a negative force in this universe. The premise of this thread (and this entire blog in that matter) is to go beyond the fabrication of illusion and ignorance (a common product of religion I must say), and explore such issues not contemplated upon by the normal person (you).

Edit: 21st May 2007. Premise 2, 3, 4, and 5. Just thought that I need to elaborate on a point as I felt I didn't write it properly, and change the wording of the premises to make the whole argument better.

Premise 1. Under this system, God exists.

Obviously. If ‘he’ didn’t there wouldn’t be religion and this thread wouldn’t exist. Note that the characteristics of God is omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipresence. Any violation to any one of these characteristics proves that God does not exist, and that a flaw exists in the religion meaning it can't be true (as the system is created by God and hence perfect/flawless. any violation to this demonstrates that it's not true), as it indicates a contradiction.

Premise 2. Impossibility in the physical world does not exist.

Under this system of God, anything is possible. Therefore, impossibility does not exist in the real/physical world by the systems definition. Because if it did, then God would not exist (and miracles would not happen) because it violates ‘his’ nature.

For example, if there is an impossible thing, then God is not omnipotent as ‘he’ is limited in his power/ability. It would also infer that God is not the greatest, as ‘he’ too has limits. Something that has limits cannot be perfect/greatest/God.

Premise 3. The concept of impossibility exists.

It is certain that the concept of impossibility exists, purely because we can think of it. For example, A cannot be B at the same time, or objects cannot at the same time be another object. We as human beings hold what is conceptualized as impossible. However, because God is omnipotent anything is possible. Physically (Premise 2), A can be B, an apple can be an orange at the same time (issue too philosophically complex to be understood by the average person.)

Edit: Just to elaborate, this is a common explanation of God's omnipotence in the physical world by expert Christians/Catholics/theists/religious philosophers. Of course, the notion that there can be a four-sided triangle, that God can create something greater than himself, that 'he' can destroy himself and come back into existence, or create a stone that can't be lifted is beyond the realm of logic, rationality, and common sense. I said that it's "too philosophically complex to be understood by the average person" because to actually understand how these people theorize these arguments is in fact too complex to understand by average people. Premise 2 in truth is not true, but for the sake to acknowledging these fine philosophers/theists/Christians/Catholics (though one may perhaps see them as delusional and irrational) and their arguments, and for the sake of argument, I made it sound that it's true. So I apologize for the confusion. :)

Premise 4. As everything is possible under this system, impossibility therefore is not possible (or impossible) in the physical world.

This is self explanatory. But how do we know that impossibility per se does in fact exist? We know because we have a concept of it, we know it exists because we know what it is.

Premise 5. Therefore, impossibility in fact exists (conceptually & physically). [Premise 2. is not true]

Premise 6. ‘God’ by definition therefore can not logically exist. Because the nature of the religious system contradicts itself (that God is omnipotent); the system in which ‘God’ exists in consequentially contradicts his own existence. [Premise 1. is not true]

As always, feel free to critique this (via comment or email, anonymity can be arranged). I encourage it. It's better than socializing within one's religious group circle (i.e. Christian groups), oblivious from outside perspectives, seeping deeper in ignorance.

: )