Is the Christian God self-contradictory?

[atheos_sum]

Defining the concept of god is not an optional chore to be undertaken at the theist’s convenience. It is a necessary prerequisite for intelligibility. Assuming that the theist does not believe his theism is nonsense, he has the responsibility of explaining the content of his belief. Failing this, to state that “god exists” is to communicate nothing at all; it is as if nothing has been said.

Consider the following dialogue.

Mr Jones: “An unie exists.”
Mr White: “Prove it.”
Mr Jones: “It has rained for three consecutive days–that is my proof.”

If this exchange is less than satisfactory, much of the blame rests with Mr. White since his demand for proof is premature. So, before we get into any discussion of “proving it” and “countering it” someone should give a definition of God.

 

[Ghosty]

There are quite a few, and i’m sure others will have their favorites. however, I have always thought these four attributes, when applied to the same deity, are contradictory.

–omniscient
–creator of all
–benevolent
–wrathful

You’ll have to explain what you mean by “wrathful”, because I’ve never seen that explained as a “Divine Attribute”. In fact, it’s defined as a deadly sin, which automatically means it can’t apply to God. Now, God demonstrates wrath, but that’s completely different from my understanding of “wrathful”.

You’ll have to explain what you mean before I can answer, since you already state that having three out of four works, and right now we’re stuck with just three

Also note that we’re not arguing about whether we can prove that God exists, but rather whether or not the Catholic conception of God is self-contradicting.

 

[atheos_sum]

Ghosty:

You’ll have to explain what you mean by “wrathful”, because I’ve never seen that explained as a “Divine Attribute”. In fact, it’s defined as a deadly sin, which automatically means it can’t apply to God. Now, God demonstrates wrath, but that’s completely different from my understanding of “wrathful”.

You’ll have to explain what you mean before I can answer, since you already state that having three out of four works, and right now we’re stuck with just three

Also note that we’re not arguing about whether we can prove that God exists, but rather whether or not the Catholic conception of God is self-contradicting.

I believe you will find this word used in (among other places) Romans 2:5-6

The basic idea that i’m trying to get at is that the Christian God has the power and will to commit souls to eternal damnation, or at the very least, to punish them in some sense. Many Christians would consider this “just” but it is also wrathful.

 

[Ghosty]

I believe you will find this word used in (among other places) Romans 2:5-6

The basic idea that i’m trying to get at is that the Christian God has the power and will to commit souls to eternal damnation, or at the very least, to punish them in some sense. Many Christians would consider this “just” but it is also wrathful.

Here’s what we find in those verses:

5 By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, 6 who will repay everyone according to his works:

What is being described is not wrathfulness, but Justice. Justice, as a virtue, demands paying in kind for deeds: good for good, bad for bad. Wrathfulness, from a virtue perspective, is the undue application of wrath, applying wrath beyond what justice demands. This verse precludes the notion that wrathfulness is an attribute of God, because it says that God repays justly according to one’s works. Perhaps you are trying to say that there is a contradiction between Justice and Mercy?

 

[atheos_sum]

Ghosty:

Here’s what we find in those verses:

What is being described is not wrathfulness, but Justice. Justice, as a virtue, demands paying in kind for deeds: good for good, bad for bad. Wrathfulness, from a virtue perspective, is the undue application of wrath, applying wrath beyond what justice demands. This verse precludes the notion that wrathfulness is an attribute of God, because it says that God repays justly according to one’s works. Perhaps you are trying to say that there is a contradiction between Justice and Mercy?

Sorry, but this was a very weaselly post.

are you saying that God is never wrathful? are you saying God never punishes humans for their conduct? are you denying “divine retribution”? Where does the “wrath” in this verse come from then?

And, no, i’m not saying justice and mercy simply are contradictory. remember, everything is within context of those other attributes i listed.

 

[Ghosty]

are you saying that God is never wrathful?

Yes, if wrathfulness is understood as being undue, vehement punishment.

are you saying God never punishes humans for their conduct?

No. God punishes according to our deeds, which is in accord with both Justice and Mercy.

are you denying “divine retribution”?

No. Divine Retribution is both Merciful and Just.

Where does the “wrath” in this verse come from then?

Wrath means anger and retribution. Anger and retribution are contrary to neither Justice nor to Mercy.

remember, everything is within context of those other attributes i listed.

That’s fine. We still need to define “wrathful” then. If you don’t mean what I described above, then please explain what you do mean, because it may or may not have anything to do with God depending on the conclusion. I remind you of what I said in the previous post:

Wrathfulness, from a virtue perspective, is the undue application of wrath, applying wrath beyond what justice demands.

 

[atheos_sum]

this has been the plight of nearly every christian i confront with this.

usual responses:

• deny or downplay the significance of an attribute
• forget that “creator of all” presupposes he’s “outside of time”
• forget that each attribute is within the context of the others
• introduce some disorderly notion of causality
• “God works in mysterious ways…”
  all of these are problematic.

 

[Ghosty]

atheos_sum:

this has been the plight of nearly every christian i confront with this.

usual responses:

• deny or downplay the significance of an attribute
• forget that “creator of all” presupposes he’s “outside of time”
• forget that each attribute is within the context of the others
• introduce some disorderly notion of causality
• “God works in mysterious ways…”
  all of these are problematic.

No, no, no. The problem here is that you are applying attributes without defining them, and without consulting whether or not Catholics even believe in those attributes. Define it, and we can work. I’m not the one backing out of this, I’m trying to get you clarify what you mean so I can reply without putting words in your mouth.

EDIT: I’m also from the Seattle Metro area, actually in Seattle itself. Where are you at?

 

[atheos_sum]

Ghosty:

Yes, if wrathfulness is understood as being undue, vehement punishment.

No. God punishes according to our deeds, which is in accord with both Justice and Mercy.

No. Divine Retribution is both Merciful and Just.

Wrath means anger and retribution. Anger and retribution are contrary to neither Justice nor to Mercy.

You are being so vague.

to simplify your argument:

wrath=anger and retribution
anger and retribution = justice and mercy
God = just and merciful
but
wrath = undue punishment

and if undue punishment = evil
then, God = evil

there is something terribly wrong with this. You brought it on yourself. Notice that this wasn’t my argument to begin with, we went off on a tangent, but your own defense imploded in on itself.

Ghosty:

That’s fine. We still need to define “wrathful” then. If you don’t mean what I described above, then please explain what you do mean, because it may or may not have anything to do with God depending on the conclusion. I remind you of what I said in the previous post:

Does “wrathful” sound unpleasant? I’m not sure why you are denying this. And why do you define it as “undue, vehement punishment” if you believe God is just and merciful?

God displays wrath, therefore he is wrathful.

I would work with “divine retribution” since you accept that. This is the theological phraseology and it really is quite synonymous with “wrathful.”

but this is just like every other debate. i’m going to bed.

 

[atheos_sum]

Again, God’s wrath

Romans 1:18-32

and it’s even titled in the NIV “God Wrath Against Mankind”

 

[claydoc33]

simple: it’s impossible to fully understand God. so don’t rack your brain tryin!

 

[Ghosty]

You are being so vague.

to simplify your argument:

wrath=anger and retribution
anger and retribution = justice and mercy
God = just and merciful
but
wrath = undue punishment

and if undue punishment = evil
then, God = evil

Where did I say this? I said that, by my understanding, wrathfulness is undue punishment. Your illogic is showing itself here. In the verses you cite it explicitely says that God’s wrath is not undue, therefore by my own definition God’s wrath is not wrathful. If you insist on using my definitions rather than providing your own, then at least get them right. I’m still waiting for your definition of wrathful, since you listed it as an attribute of God.

there is something terribly wrong with this. You brought it on yourself. Notice that this wasn’t my argument to begin with, we went off on a tangent, but your own defense imploded in on itself.

I haven’t even made a defense yet! I’ve been asking for your definition so we could actually begin a discussion. I’ll defend when you actually make a clear assertion. I refuse to put words in your mouth, or meanings to your words that you do not ascribe them yourself. I simply ask that you show the same restraint and curtesy for me.

Does “wrathful” sound unpleasant? I’m not sure why you are denying this. And why do you define it as “undue, vehement punishment” if you believe God is just and merciful?

Now this is interesting. I haven’t yet denied that God is wrathful by your definition, precisely because you haven’t said what wrathful is. I provided my understanding merely as an example, and I’ve said repeatedly that I’d rather work with your definition once it’s established. The most interesting thing here is that you ask why I define it as “undue, vehement punishment” if I believe God is Just and Merciful. The problem here is that you are ascribing your list of Divine attributes to me, and we haven’t even established that your list applies to the Catholic conception of God. I haven’t accepted your list yet because I don’t know precisely what it means, so you’re making an implication out of nothing.

God displays wrath, therefore he is wrathful.

Ahhh, finally You are defining wrathful as “having wrath”. Now we can get to work. If wrathful is understood as “having wrath”, and not “undue, vehement punishment”, then I can accept, and even attest, that God is wrathful.

I’ll answer your challenge in the next post.

 

[Ghosty]

Since we can see in the passages you’ve cited that God’s wrath is always based on Justice, and these passages even emphasize this point, wrath can’t be said to contradict Justice. Indeed, Justice demands wrath in the case of evil actions, so to be without wrath would actually contradict having Justice. See this entry in the Summa regarding anger. Now, Justice and Mercy are not at all contrary, and since wrath is a necessary component, if Justice and Mercy are not contrary, then wrathfulness and Mercy can’t be contrary. You can see how Justice and Mercy fit together here. Now keep in mind that I’m assuming that by benevolent you include merciful, so if you don’t mean that, let me know; the definition of goodness in traditional Catholic theology is perfection, but I’m straying from that since most people today do not mean perfection when they say “good”.

Now let’s go back to your list:

–omniscient
–creator of all
–benevolent
–wrathful

We’ve seen how benevolence, meaning willing good (“bene” = good, “volent” = will) is compatible with wrathfulness, and in fact necessitates wrathfulness. As Thomas Aquinas argues:

"Justice and mercy appear in the punishment of the just in this world, since by afflictions lesser faults are cleansed in them, and they are the more raised up from earthly affections to God. As to this Gregory says (Moral. xxvi, 9): “The evils that press on us in this world force us to go to God.”

So, are these things compatible with being the “Creator of All”? Quite so, in fact. Benevolence is demonstrated by God creating anything at all. By the very act of creating God is showing His generosity because nothing that creatures do requires that they be created. In fact, they have to be created in order to do anything at all. We can see that to be the “Creator of All” requires Benevolence, and benevolence requires a component of wrathfulness from the quote above.

So are these three things compatible with omniscience? Yes, in fact omniscience demands that things be created in order for them to be known. One can’t know that which does not exist, so in order to know all things pertaining to the world, the world would have to be created. Creating the world necessitates benevolence, and benevolence requires a measure of wrath.

So we can say the following without any contradiction at all:

God knows all things, and all things are created by God by virtue of His benevolence, that itself necessitates wrath.

If you meant something different by any of these terms, please let me know. I pushed ahead only because you said you would be in bed, but I’m happy to make amends to this if my assumptions as to your meanings prove incorrect.

You also asked if Catholics base the capital sins on Thomas Aquinas work. They are most effectively illustrated and explained there, yes, but remember that capital sins are not a part of Catholic dogma, meaning that they are definitions required to upheld precisely as described by Aquinas. Rather, Aquinas tried to illustrate the principle sources of what was already regarded as sinful behavior as described in Scripture, and called these the “Seven Capital Vices”, from which we get the “seven deadly sins”.

 

[need_to_know]

PhilVaz:

I’m not much into philosophy, but I assume you mean does omnipotence contradict omnipresence contradict omnibenevolence contradict omniscience, etc.

Can somebody explain to me how these things contradict one another? I’ve read about it in books, but never really understood the concepts. (Not omnipotence contradict omnipresence contradict omnibenevolence contradict omniscience, etc. - I know what the words mean, but not how they contradict each other).

 

[need_to_know]

PhilVaz:

I’m not much into philosophy, but I assume you mean does omnipotence contradict omnipresence contradict omnibenevolence contradict omniscience, etc.

Can somebody explain to me how these things contradict one another? I’ve read about it in books, but never really understood the concepts. (Not omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, etc. - I know what the words mean, but not how they contradict each other). I’d be willing to hear replies from Christans/Believers and Atheists/Non-Believers alike.

 

[atheos_sum]

Ghosty:

Where did I say this? I said that, by my understanding, wrathfulness is undue punishment. Your illogic is showing itself here. In the verses you cite it explicitely says that God’s wrath is not undue, therefore by my own definition God’s wrath is not wrathful. If you insist on using my definitions rather than providing your own, then at least get them right. I’m still waiting for your definition of wrathful, since you listed it as an attribute of God.

I think you are trying to cover up the fact that you weren’t initially aware that God is described by Paul as wrathful. Perhaps you conventionally understood wrathfulness as undue punishment, so by definition (so you thought) God cannot be wrathful. Do you read the scriptures? God is also jealous, by the way, something that people probably wouldn’t normally associate with God.

My definition is “wrath” isn’t anything special. The wrath of God should be defined simply as “God’s punishment for sin.”

Ghosty:

I haven’t even made a defense yet! I’ve been asking for your definition so we could actually begin a discussion. I’ll defend when you actually make a clear assertion. I refuse to put words in your mouth, or meanings to your words that you do not ascribe them yourself. I simply ask that you show the same restraint and curtesy for me.

Now this is interesting. I haven’t yet denied that God is wrathful by your definition, precisely because you haven’t said what wrathful is. I provided my understanding merely as an example, and I’ve said repeatedly that I’d rather work with your definition once it’s established. The most interesting thing here is that you ask why I define it as “undue, vehement punishment” if I believe God is Just and Merciful. The problem here is that you are ascribing your list of Divine attributes to me, and we haven’t even established that your list applies to the Catholic conception of God. I haven’t accepted your list yet because I don’t know precisely what it means, so you’re making an implication out of nothing.

Perhaps it wasn’t a defense, but rather some kind of smoke screen. Perhaps you weren’t aware of God’s wrath, and this would be understandable that you should ask. But I was suspicious that you knew all too well.

Ghosty:

Ahhh, finally You are defining wrathful as “having wrath”. Now we can get to work. If wrathful is understood as “having wrath”, and not “undue, vehement punishment”, then I can accept, and even attest, that God is wrathful.

I’ll answer your challenge in the next post.

And of course one who displays wrath is in fact “wrathful.” This isn’t some huge breakthrough. The ending “ful” does not mysteriously define the word it modifies. I’m puzzled that you’ve been haranguing me for a definition, when somehow this works for you. You’re willing to accept the definition of wrathful as “having wrath”? This is absurd. Would you accept the definition of “widgetful” as “having widget”? No of course not, you don’t know what “widget” is to begin with.

At any rate Wrath is “God’s punishment for sin.”

 

[Ghosty]

atheos_sum: I make a post using your definition to show that those things are not only non-contridictory, but in fact contingent upon eachother, and rather than respond you just harp on the definition that I abandoned?

That’s pretty poor form, atheos_sum. I already accepted your definition, and more importantly responded to your original point.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Truth is truth.

Conflicts are imaginary.

There are many self-contradictory sounding things, but that’s what happens when you are a literalist who can’t think beyond the English language and into the Cloud of the Unkowing.

I have faith that the things that seem to conflict are explained somewhere in that Cloud, which is the direction I have to go to find the real teachings of the Lord.

Alan

 

[atheos_sum]

Ghosty:

atheos_sum: I make a post using your definition to show that those things are not only non-contridictory, but in fact contingent upon eachother, and rather than respond you just harp on the definition that I abandoned?

That’s pretty poor form, atheos_sum. I already accepted your definition, and more importantly responded to your original point.

In the other post, you presented these attributes in a very dry, Sunday-school fashion and said that they do not contradict.

The trouble is you do not see the contradictions I am pointing out. Although I have not pointed them out to you, it isn’t difficult to see them. Perhaps at first glance they look compatible, but under a sober and scrupulous eye they are revealed as contradictions.

Once I tell you what i have in mind, nearly all of your statements (for example, “benevolence is demonstrated by god creating anything at all”) cease to be valid.

(will continue on next post)

 

[atheos_sum]

In the first place, I’m going to dispel any misconceptions you might have about what I consider to be the relationship between God and Time. Now, as I lay these premises out I am assuming for the sake of argument that God exists. So I’m not going to say before every sentence, “assuming God exists.” From now on, it will be assumed true.

Since God is the creator of all, this presupposes his “infinitude” with respect to time. In other words, God is eternal or has existed always, whereas his creation—the universe—is finite and was created at some point. Since God is the creator of all but himself, he is the creator of time as well.

A question which I am often asked is: “So what does it mean to say God existed before the universe, since “before” indicates time?”

This is a valid question, and one that requires some imagination.

Trying to measure time before there was “time itself” is a bit like trying to measure of beaker of water under the surface of the ocean. What do you measure with respect to what?

So we have to use a different metaphor to understand how God existed before the creation of the world. I use a notion of “states”

The “primary state” is the state where God existed “before the creation of the universe.” This is a state that must have existed because the universe is not infinite and God created it. So there was some state in which only God existed and in which the universe did not exist.

The “secondary state” is the state after God created the universe. Therefore this state consists of the universe and God. We exist and God exists in this secondary state. But by definition we, the universe, could not have existed in the primary state.

No theologian would disagree with this, I would hope. I have read some William Craig and he uses some similar notions, albeit to describe something else. So if you think this is smoke and mirrors, read it again and reflect.

In this respect, we are exercising our imaginations more than the Holy Scriptures, because in fact, the bible uses these sorts of time-bound notions. I believe you will find Paul saying something like “before the foundation of the world” or “before the creation of the world” in Ephesians chapter 1: 3—4. What could Paul mean, since there was no time “before” the creation of the world? So, if you have quarrels with me on this point, you have them with Paul too.

So you should not point out that I have said “existed in the primary state” and say this is a contradiction because “existed” implies time. Language is sometimes a difficult medium to convey such an argument. I use “existed” because I am speaking from a human perspective–and an english perspective. I will avoid speaking from God’s perspective (with respect to time) because this could only lead to confusion. We don’t speak God’s language, obviously. I also use words like “before” and “after” because i don’t think there are better words to describe this without creating confusion or without creating a complex structure of jargon.

pardon me if this all seemed like rambling or excessive buttressing, but I simply need to make myself clear.