How do thiests reconcile the contradictions for God's existence?

[coolduude]

For example, how is a thiest supposed to respond to the contradiction that states: can God make a rock so big He can’t lift it?

Or, if God knows everything we don’t have free will.

Here’s a wikipedia article on this:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

Just go down to ‘Arguments against God’.

How is one supposed to respond to these?

Thank you for the help,
coolduude

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

From what I understand…

1. It all hinges upon the proper definition of omnipotent. Omnipotent does not mean all-powerful in the sense that God could contradict His own nature, i.e. will Himself out of existence or create a rock so big that he couldn’t lift it. Basically, He is omnipotent within the realm of reason.
2. Just because God has immediate access to all our future actions doesn’t mean that we are coerced in anyway. We can still choose. He just knows how we will choose.

 

[Southerncross]

For example, how is a thiest supposed to respond to the contradiction that states: can God make a rock so big He can’t lift it?

Or, if God knows everything we don’t have free will.

Here’s a wikipedia article on this:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

Just go down to ‘Arguments against God’.

How is one supposed to respond to these?

Thank you for the help,
coolduude

" Can God make a rock so big He cant lift it " This is a non sequitur i.e. it is asking for a rational response to an irrational proposition . Thus it is not a contradiction - it is simply an illogical proposition . There is no argument against free will - God permits us to exercise our free will - we ( very obviously ) choose good or evil off our own bat . Did God interfere with Hitlers choice to sin grievously or Mother Theresas choice to serve Him ? His grace is there for whoever asks .Its our choice .
[SIGN]Pax et Bonum[/SIGN]

 

[awatkins69]

God is pure act and unchangeable. Since God is pure act that means there is NO POTENCY in God whatsoever.

 

[Thing]

For example, how is a thiest supposed to respond to the contradiction that states: can God make a rock so big He can’t lift it?

Or, if God knows everything we don’t have free will.

Here’s a wikipedia article on this:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

Just go down to ‘Arguments against God’.

How is one supposed to respond to these?

Thank you for the help,
coolduude

Would freewill look like this?

You have a friend who looks like that… http://www.seattlebugsafari.com/Images/African-Millipede-Jason.jpg

…

You can see all the dots at the same time, each dot representing a possibility.
You have Knowledge of everything possible now.
But your friend is still free to wander between any dot it chooses.

Des tht wrk?..

 

[hatsoff]

For example, how is a thiest supposed to respond to the contradiction that states: can God make a rock so big He can’t lift it?

The entity, “a rock so big He can’t lift it,” implies that there is a threshold of magnitude whereby God is unable to lift things. If we specify in advance that no such threshold exists, then the entity in question is ill-defined. In other words, the phrase “a rock so big He can’t lift it” is just incoherent nonsense. So too is any question which includes that phrase.

You might as well ask, “Can God toad the wet sprocket?” It’s just meaningless blather.

Or, if God knows everything we don’t have free will.

Here’s a wikipedia article on this:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

Just go down to ‘Arguments against God’.

How is one supposed to respond to these?

Thank you for the help,
coolduude

In my experience, the most of the popular arguments against the existence of God are either indefensible or else aimed at the wrong target, e.g. a particular theological doctrine, as opposed to God’s existence or nonexistence. The free will argument is an example of the latter. Now, I would go so far as to deny the very coherence of libertarian free will as a concept at all, much less one which is compatible with divine sovereignty. But this isn’t an argument against the existence of God. It’s just an argument for compatibilism, which may possibly be extended into a moral objection to God’s alleged behavior. And that moral objection doesn’t challenge God’s existence at all. Indeed, it too has at least one possible answer.

In my judgment, the problem with theism is not that it can be proved false. On the contrary, many forms of theism seem perfectly consistent, internally. Rather, my biggest issue with theism is that it is not demonstrably true. That is, it lacks sufficient supporting evidence or other rational warrant. As long as that remains to be the case, I am quite satisfied to deny theism.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

The entity, “a rock so big He can’t lift it,” implies that there is a threshold of magnitude whereby God is unable to lift things. If we specify in advance that no such threshold exists, then the entity in question is ill-defined. In other words, the phrase “a rock so big He can’t lift it” is just incoherent nonsense. So too is any question which includes that phrase.

You might as well ask, “Can God toad the wet sprocket?” It’s just meaningless blather.

In my experience, the most of the popular arguments against the existence of God are either indefensible or else aimed at the wrong target, e.g. a particular theological doctrine, as opposed to God’s existence or nonexistence. The free will argument is an example of the latter. Now, I would go so far as to deny the very coherence of libertarian free will as a concept at all, much less one which is compatible with divine sovereignty. But this isn’t an argument against the existence of God. It’s just an argument for compatibilism, which may possibly be extended into a moral objection to God’s alleged behavior. And that moral objection doesn’t challenge God’s existence at all. Indeed, it too has at least one possible answer.

In my judgment, the problem with theism is not that it can be proved false. On the contrary, many forms of theism seem perfectly consistent, internally. Rather, my biggest issue with theism is that it is not demonstrably true. That is, it lacks sufficient supporting evidence or other rational warrant. As long as that remains to be the case, I am quite satisfied to deny theism.

I have this nagging sense that the ultimate proof of God’s existence will hinge on “zero”, or absolute nothingness, the complete antithesis of God.

Not being trained in philosophy, I can’t prove it. It’s something a wise old pastor said to me years ago, as well as being a nagging feeling I can’t shrug off.

In short, it would be proof by negative induction. But I’d need training to formalise it.

 

[hatsoff]

I have this nagging sense that the ultimate proof of God’s existence will hinge on “zero”, or absolute nothingness, the complete antithesis of God.

Not being trained in philosophy, I can’t prove it. It’s something a wise old pastor said to me years ago, as well as being a nagging feeling I can’t shrug off.

In short, it would be proof by negative induction. But I’d need training to formalise it.

Better-educated people than either of us have for millennia attempted to prove the existence of God using a wide variety of methods, and none of them have succeeded in attracting a consensus agreement among their educated peers. Currently, only a minority of philosophers in academia appear to be theists.

 

[Thing]

What do you mean, proof?

 

[buffalo]

Catholics understand God to be almighty - that is He does what He sets out to do.

There are several things He cannot do:

He cannot lie
He cannot sin
He cannot stop loving
He cannot break His promises
He cannot be unjust

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Better-educated people than either of us have for millennia attempted to prove the existence of God using a wide variety of methods, and none of them have succeeded in attracting a consensus agreement among their educated peers. Currently, only a minority of philosophers in academia appear to be theists.

So the argument from majority vote is one of the main reasons for denying theism? I hope that’s not the only argument you got, because that just plain poor in terms of having an intelligent reason to be an atheist.

 

[Oreoracle]

So the argument from majority vote is one of the main reasons for denying theism? I hope that’s not the only argument you got, because that just plain poor in terms of having an intelligent reason to be an atheist.

Actually, the main reason for denying theism never appears in philosophy or politics. That reason is “lack of evidence.” I deny God, Allah, Thor, unicorns, and leprechauns for that reason. You can try to use arguments for “the first cause” and “the intelligent designer” 'til the cows come home, but none of those arguments argue for a particular god–any god that mankind has contrived can satisfy those arguments. The god of the Bible is only “proven” to those who accept the Bible on faith.

“Faith,” by the way, is just a polite word for “guessing.”

 

[hatsoff]

So the argument from majority vote is one of the main reasons for denying theism? I hope that’s not the only argument you got, because that just plain poor in terms of having an intelligent reason to be an atheist.

I made no such argument.

 

[Oreoracle]

Basically, He is omnipotent within the realm of reason.

So, if God created everything, does that mean that he created this “realm of reason” that appears to restrict his ability to exercise his own powers? I’m sorry, but any way you look at it, it seems that you’re saying that reason is above God. If so, then God can hardly be said to be infinitely powerful. If anything, reason would be more powerful than him!

God permits us to exercise our free will - we ( very obviously ) choose good or evil off our own bat . Did God interfere with Hitlers choice to sin grievously or Mother Theresas choice to serve Him ? His grace is there for whoever asks .It`s our choice.

The dispute is not over our ability to choose, but rather our ability to choose freely. Here’s how I look at it: My decision-making is either caused or uncaused. If it is caused, then it is determined by that cause, and so the action that follows from my decision will also be determined, etc. If it is uncaused, then it is, by definition, random. So my will is either determined by previous causes or it is a result of randomness.

The only way to escape this conclusion is to posit some sort of middle ground between “caused” and “uncaused,” but I don’t see any such middle ground.

 

[AlbertBall]

So the argument from majority vote is one of the main reasons for denying theism? I hope that’s not the only argument you got, because that just plain poor in terms of having an intelligent reason to be an atheist.

That was nothing like what hatsoff said. Why is it certain people cannot address what is written, instead making up claims in their mind then arguing against their own made up position?

 

[VeritasSeeker]

For example, how is a thiest supposed to respond to the contradiction that states: can God make a rock so big He can’t lift it?

Or, if God knows everything we don’t have free will.

Here’s a wikipedia article on this:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

Just go down to ‘Arguments against God’.

How is one supposed to respond to these?

Thank you for the help,
coolduude

The examples you listed do not constitute as contradictions. the "‘Can God make a rock so big he cant lift?’ Is meaningless nonsense. Of course God can’t create a rock so big he cant lift because then he would cease to be God. It commits the fallacy of asking a complex question.(i.e Have you stopped beating your wife yet?) It is equivalent to saying God can bring about the existence of a square circle or a married bachelor. For as C.S Lewis once said,

"God’s omnipotence means [His] power to do all that is not
intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him,
but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose
to say, “God can give a creature free will and at the same time
withhold free will from it,” you have not succeeded in saying
anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not
suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the
two other words “God can.” It remains true that all things are
possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things
but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the
weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually
exclusive alternatives–not because His power meets an
obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we
talk it about God.

As for God’s foreknowledge and omnipotence there is no inherent contradiction. Certainly God can know that Person X will do such and such an act without withholding free will from that person.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

That was nothing like what hatsoff said.

Apology. Perhaps the following Quote did not belong to Hatsoff.

Hatsoff - Better-educated people than either of us have for millennia attempted to prove the existence of God using a wide variety of methods, and none of them have succeeded in attracting a consensus agreement among their educated peers. Currently, only a minority of philosophers in academia appear to be theists.

Which, in the context of the first sentence, is meant to imply that Theism has no rational basis, since a only a minority of philosophers are Theist, and thus the arguments put forth can’t be right.

I argue that there are other reasons why people reject theism, and his attempt to make out that rational people are not theists based on the evidence, is debunked.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Actually, the main reason for denying theism never appears in philosophy or politics. That reason is “lack of evidence.” I deny God, Allah, Thor, unicorns, and leprechauns for that reason. You can try to use arguments for “the first cause” and “the intelligent designer” 'til the cows come home, but none of those arguments argue for a particular god–any god that mankind has contrived can satisfy those arguments. The god of the Bible is only “proven” to those who accept the Bible on faith.

“Faith,” by the way, is just a polite word for “guessing.”

What do you mean by evidence? Just as long as you understand that lack of “scientific evidence” is not a rational basis for saying that there is no evidence for Gods existence, since we rationally accept the existence of other things without scientific evidence. Neither is there anything irrational about accepting that which is the most reasonable to believe considering what we know; as in that which makes the best sense of the evidence. As for the first cause argument; it provides logical evidence of a necessary being that transcends time, necessarily has many of the attributes that we understand to belong to the God of Christianity, and is the intelligent cause of all potential reality. Faith is hope and trust in Gods will. Everything that you said here is nothing more than a tired fallacy that you enjoy repeating.

Even without out the first cause argument, there are things we experience as persons that imply objective meaning and purpose that only makes intelligible sense in terms of God as presented in the Christian faith. Perhaps you could argue that implications are certainly not “proofs”, but if we were dealing with any other experience that implied something other then God, you would most probably except the probable reality that they implied. And in the absence of certain and possible knowledge in your life time, you would make an educated “guess”, and certainly not a blind once since it is our experiences that makes the implication of a particular things existence, however indirect it may be. But when it comes to Gods existence, you choose to ignore the implications of your experiences, your moral conscience, because you don’t want such implications to be an objective reality. It is as simple as that.

 

[wanner47]

For example, how is a thiest supposed to respond to the contradiction that states: can God make a rock so big He can’t lift it?

see here: jimmyakin.org/2010/03/theological-connections-ii-the-foundation-stone.html

 

[hatsoff]

Which, in the context of the first sentence, is meant to imply that Theism has no rational basis, since a only a minority of philosophers are Theist, and thus the arguments put forth can’t be right.

You have my word that I did not mean to suggest any such thing.