Is the Christian God self-contradictory?

[Ghosty]

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.

I don’t see the contradictions that you are pointing out, although you haven’t pointed them out to me? You are a master of irony

Please, do share how these things contradict by defining them and demonstrating your point. Keep in mind, however, that what you define them to be may not even be what Catholics consider to be attributes of God in the first place, so be careful in that regard. Just because your ideas contradict does not mean your ideas apply to God.

I look forward to reading your elaboration.

 

[The_Augustinian]

In order to have an intelligent discussion we need to distinguish between categories. Now, there are notions which are contradictory, and there are notions which are incomprehensible.

Take for example the Trinity: the notion of three-in-one is rather contradictory on the face of it. How can a totally simple God be expressed in three Persons? Three gods cannot be one god, and three persons cannot be one person. These are contradictions. However, God is three Persons sharing the same substance or quiddity. This is not contradictory, but simply incomprehensible. From what we know of Persons, and what we know of Beings, there’s a 1:1 correspondence (even with those with multiple personalities; you can only be one person at a time).

Moreover, let’s look at the notion of the Creation: the apparent contradiction of God creating something “outside time” and St. Paul talking of a “time” “before” the Creation. In this case, we need to distinguish the Apostle’s meaning. He was not making a metaphysical statement about time and space; he was attempting to explain the Divine Sonship. It may seem incomprehensible to our minds to think of processions and emanations in God, because in our view these things take time, whether it be a Corpus Christi procession or an emanation of smoke from a thurible. In a strict sense our words are not very accurate. But what other words could we use? Ultimately God can only be explained analogically, and it is rather bad analogy at that.

In conclusion, we should be careful in talking about God. Perhaps it’d be best to become as little children, especially that child, digging in the sand more than a millenia and a half ago, teaching St. Augustine the ways of God.

 

[atheos_sum]

Ghosty:

I don’t see the contradictions that you are pointing out, although you haven’t pointed them out to me? You are a master of irony

Please, do share how these things contradict by defining them and demonstrating your point. Keep in mind, however, that what you define them to be may not even be what Catholics consider to be attributes of God in the first place, so be careful in that regard. Just because your ideas contradict does not mean your ideas apply to God.

I look forward to reading your elaboration.

I was simply pointing out that you were anticipating something other than my argument.

 

[atheos_sum]

The Augustinian:

In order to have an intelligent discussion we need to distinguish between categories. Now, there are notions which are contradictory, and there are notions which are incomprehensible.

Take for example the Trinity: the notion of three-in-one is rather contradictory on the face of it. How can a totally simple God be expressed in three Persons? Three gods cannot be one god, and three persons cannot be one person. These are contradictions. However, God is three Persons sharing the same substance or quiddity. This is not contradictory, but simply incomprehensible. From what we know of Persons, and what we know of Beings, there’s a 1:1 correspondence (even with those with multiple personalities; you can only be one person at a time).

Moreover, let’s look at the notion of the Creation: the apparent contradiction of God creating something “outside time” and St. Paul talking of a “time” “before” the Creation. In this case, we need to distinguish the Apostle’s meaning. He was not making a metaphysical statement about time and space; he was attempting to explain the Divine Sonship. It may seem incomprehensible to our minds to think of processions and emanations in God, because in our view these things take time, whether it be a Corpus Christi procession or an emanation of smoke from a thurible. In a strict sense our words are not very accurate. But what other words could we use? Ultimately God can only be explained analogically, and it is rather bad analogy at that.

In conclusion, we should be careful in talking about God. Perhaps it’d be best to become as little children, especially that child, digging in the sand more than a millenia and a half ago, teaching St. Augustine the ways of God.

In my view, it is a pretty standard for the optimistic theologian to say that God is incomprehensible whenever there appears to be a contradiction.

This is similar to another thread (actually it was this thread) where someone told me that God is a paradox and not a contradiction. My answer will be pretty much the same.

Simply calling it a paradox does not mean it can be resolved. There are, in fact, unresolved paradoxes. And what is the different between a paradox that cannot be resolved and a contradiction? Nothing. I asked, how long should something remain paradoxical before you can declare it a contradiction?

Likewise,

Why should anything merit the status of “contradictory” over “incomprehensible” then? Doesn’t the very fact that we prefer one or the other convey our biases? Why would anything be called a contradiction then?–perhaps every apparent contradiction in the universe is simply the result of its incomprehensibility. Thus there would be no contradictions…? (you should know, I think this view would lead us to a very profound and problematic agnosticism.)

Agnosticism:

If we are seriously going to contend that God is “incomprehensible” then what is the difference between this view and theistic-agnosticism. (in fact, i believe this view of theism actually is agnosticism–veiled of course, but agnosticism nonetheless.)

it would be fun to become as little children in a sand box. but alas, we are old, serious and sober and, above all, inclined to disagree.

 

[The_Augustinian]

If there is indeed a contradiction, then show us the contradiction. Or do you think that we could naturally comprehend everything about God, and Theologians are just using a fancy excuse? My point was that when talking about God, we are talking about someone who is unlike us humans in certain important ways, for example: being outside time, being non-corporeal, having no parts, etc. So, we can only use analogies to describe Him. Sometimes these analogies seem contradictory. However, it is not because of what they describe, but the analogies themselves which are at fault.

How can we talk about the “motives” or “actions” of such a being? In Natural Theology, we cannot. We can only say what God is not. God is not finite, etc. Is this akin to agnosticism? Certainly, in the way that football and cricket are akin because they both use balls. It’s quite obvious to anyone, though, that Theists talk about someone who actually exists.

 

[atheos_sum]

The Augustinian:

If there is indeed a contradiction, then show us the contradiction. Or do you think that we could naturally comprehend everything about God, and Theologians are just using a fancy excuse? My point was that when talking about God, we are talking about someone who is unlike us humans in certain important ways, for example: being outside time, being non-corporeal, having no parts, etc. So, we can only use analogies to describe Him. Sometimes these analogies seem contradictory. However, it is not because of what they describe, but the analogies themselves which are at fault.

How can we talk about the “motives” or “actions” of such a being? In Natural Theology, we cannot. We can only say what God is not. God is not finite, etc. Is this akin to agnosticism? Certainly, in the way that football and cricket are akin because they both use balls. It’s quite obvious to anyone, though, that Theists talk about someone who actually exists.

Well then, if everyone is so anxious to hear the news—that God does not exist—then what are we waiting for?

I have done this formally before, and if you want an account of that, you can read the link I provided (vide supra.) So I’m going to make this quick and painless. If you did not understand what I said above about God and Time, then please reread that first. I’m just going present the contradiction, and since i alreay know there will be objections to it, at this point i’m not at all concerned with how formal it is.

Taken in a somewhat linear order, this is the primary contradiction with those attributes I gave above:

God decided to create the universe from a state in which the universe did not exist. (This, as you recall, I named the “primary state.”) And also recall that God is omniscient. So God was omniscient in this primary state as well, since God does not change. Thus, it is clear that God must have known our fates (soteriologic fates especially) in this primary state (i.e. before the creation of the world.) There are number of different ways we can go from here. For example, Is it not obvious that God then condemned humankind for all its sinfulness upon his decision to create the universe? Or you can introduce the problem of evil: A creator-God is the “uncaused cause” of the universe, but a “cause” nonetheless. And if he knowingly decided to “cause” evil (i.e. people are sinful and as a result of His wrath, go to hell) then God himself must be evil.

Thus,

-omniscience

-creator of all

-benevolence

and

-wrath or “divine retribution”

are incompatible.

Therefore… drum rolls please … This God does not exist.

let the objections begin.

 

[Chrysogonus]

I have found this discussion enthralling. I would like to make a small contribution, if I may.

My understanding of your argument, atheos_sum, is that its essence is, God ordains evil, therefore He is evil (cf. your sentence beginning “And if he knowingly…”) and hence, by a series of logical implications based upon Divine attributes, He does not exist. If I have missed any subtleties of your contention – and I suspect I have done so – please do correct me; however, I will proceed for now under the assumption that my synopsis is accurate.

Rather than resort to my own feeble philosophical faculties, I first attempted to source a Magisterial document addressing this issue, supposing that such a quandary would have been tackled in the past. However, none was forthcoming (perhaps somebody knows of one?). My search was not entirely fruitless, though: a more general hunt did lead to one website (“The Sovereignty of God Over Evil”, Dustin Shramek) that proved to be relevant. §VI is particularly enlightening. Shramek states there that “God is not the positive cause of sin, rather He is the negative cause of sin,” which he then goes on to qualify, and also that God ordains sin “not because He enjoys sin in and of itself, rather He has a greater good in mind.” I would suggest reading the original, as my summary here does not do it justice.

All of these things put me in mind of the felix culpa mentioned in the Exsultet. Would we have been better off had the Fall never occurred? We are taught otherwise. Is God doing evil in condeming unrepentant sinners to eternal suffering, if we accept that sin is a necessary part of the Divine Plan? No; rather it is just. (I realise that the latter of these questions is somewhat trite, but I include it here with reference to the first, and also to atheos_sum’s observation beginning “is it not obvious…”).

I am, therefore, drawn to the conclusion that for God to ordain sin does not necessitate that He have an evil nature, and so does not preclude His existence.

Thank you to everyone for the discussion so far. It has been most thought-provoking, and I am sure it will continue to be so.

• Chrysogonus -

 

[Ghosty]

God decided to create the universe from a state in which the universe did not exist. (This, as you recall, I named the “primary state.”) And also recall that God is omniscient. So God was omniscient in this primary state as well, since God does not change. Thus, it is clear that God must have known our fates (soteriologic fates especially) in this primary state (i.e. before the creation of the world.) There are number of different ways we can go from here. For example, Is it not obvious that God then condemned humankind for all its sinfulness upon his decision to create the universe? Or you can introduce the problem of evil: A creator-God is the “uncaused cause” of the universe, but a “cause” nonetheless. And if he knowingly decided to “cause” evil (i.e. people are sinful and as a result of His wrath, go to hell) then God himself must be evil.

You’re demonstrating a number of misconceptions and presumptions here. Most notably, you are presuming that since God caused Creation, God caused Creation to sin. On the contrary, in order for Creation to be well-made, it had to have the option to sin, as I will explain.

God is the Creator of All, and exists without being created. God is also perfect, in that all God does He does perfectly. Creation is caused by God, and as God is perfect He makes Creation perfectly. Now, Creation can be perfect, but this perfection is of kind, not of absolute; it will be a perfect Creation, but it can’t be God because God is uncreated. God is absolutely perfect, Creation is perfect in kind.

Now, God creates Creation, which is perfect in kind, and part of something being perfect in kind is that it must approach absolute perfection to the degree possible by its nature (a creation can’t create its creator, so if if absolute perfection includes creating everything…) So God imparts the absolutely perfect qualities to creation as is possible, and among these is the quality of Will. An absolutely perfect thing is something that can define itself, and can freely act on the things around it. There are many attributes that approach perfection, but Will is the one that is at issue here. Since there is nothing about being a creation that precludes having Will, and Will is a quality possessed by Absolute Perfection (God), in order for a creation to be perfect in its kind it must possess Will. Another aspect of absolute perfection is knowing, so the creation must know within the bounds of its kind (this is where humanity comes in, and why God states that Creation is finished after we are added to it).

So, not only can God create, God creates perfectly, and a creation that’s perfect in kind requires Will. For Will to be free, it must be able to act without limit beyond that which is imposed by its nature (creation can’t will into existance its creator). The creation, through Will, can turn away from God. This is not a defect, this is a necessary component of Will. Now, the ability to turn away from God is not a defect, but actually turning away is. You can not prevent this turning away, however, without diminishing the perfection of Will, pulling it below the level of “perfection in kind”. Since God creates perfectly, God does not make His creations less than “perfect in kind”.

Now God is omniscient, so He knows that His creation, which is made perfectly in kind, meaning it can turn away from God, will turn away. This is not a defect in God creating perfectly, as I’ve shown, it is a defect in the creation’s free use of Will (and the ability to use it defectively is a necessary component of Will). God also sees, however, that this defect can be repaired (in this case, through the Passion of God Incarnate). God is constantly looking upon the perfect creation, “repaired” and brought back from its self-imposed defect through the Passion and its fruits. We, on the other hand, are in media res, in the middle of a sequence of events, and primarily see the results of creation’s defective choice.

Now, one of your misunderstandings is that Hell is a place where people are punished, which is not absolutely true. It’s much more accurate to say that Hell is certainly punishing, but rather than being a little torture chamber set up in a pocket of Creation, it’s actually the logical result of an act of Will. For Will to be free, one must be able to turn away from perfection. When you have turned away from perfection, what is left? Hell is simply a logical necessity, an aspect of free Will, and the result of being able to know the Creator. Hell is a place of suffering, true, but only by virtue of it being seperated from that which is good and perfect. It is a state of that which is bad and broken. Rather unpleasant, naturally.

God’s wrath is actually corrective, and has little to do with Hell. Wrath is for those who have not made the final choice, and is required for the reasons I demonstrated earlier. Once a person has embraced Hell, they are actually outside of God’s influence, not by any natural limit of God’s power, but in order to preserve the integrity Will. God’s wrath is reserved for those who are within God’s influence, those who have not yet perfectly submitted their Will to rejecting God.

continued…

 

[Ghosty]

continued…

So, where does God’s benevolence come in? Well, as I said previously, in creating at all. Benevolence means “willing good”, and Creation is most definately good in its completed form. Knowing perfection is better than not knowing, or not existing for that matter. God wills creation by virtue of His goodness, and imparts perfect qualities to it as befitting its kind. Everything else follows from that essential Benevolence. The fact that some people turn away and embrace Hell is not an example of God not possessing benevolence, but is actually a necessary component of that benevolence. To allow less would be to impart imperfectly for its kind, and that would to make creation a “broken thing” from its start. Rather, in allowing creation to choose its fate, mitigate the damage of the initial choice through the Passion, and finally allow a complete and final act of Will, God is making creation perfect from the start, and perfect at completion, while we sit in media res twiddling our thumbs and debating such things.

Could creation have chosen to never turn from God? Certainly, but that is not the case that history provides. The fact that creation did, though, does nothing to diminish God’s goodness, and in fact demonstrates His goodness in making a creation that was perfect in its kind.

 

[atheos_sum]

Wow. i didn’t expect a treatise.

Ghosty:

You’re demonstrating a number of misconceptions and presumptions here. Most notably, you are presuming that since God caused Creation, God caused Creation to sin. On the contrary, in order for Creation to be well-made, it had to have the option to sin, as I will explain.

There is an atheist who claims to know something about creation and the necessity of sin named JL Mackie and he wrote the following:

"If God has made men such that in their free choices they sometimes prefer what is good and sometimes what is evil, why could he no have made men such that they always freely choose the good? If there is no logical impossibility in a man’s freely choosing the good on one, or on several occasions, there cannot be a logical impossibility in his freely choosing the good on every occasion. God was not, then, faced with a choice between making innocent automata and making beings who, in acting freely, would sometimes go wrong; there was open to him to obvious better possibility of making beings who would act freely but always go right. Clearly, his failure to avail himself of this possibility is inconsistent with his being both omnipotent and wholly good."

which is exactly what i mean to say.

Ghosty:

God is the Creator of All, and exists without being created.** God is also perfect, in that all God does He does perfectly. **Creation is caused by God, and as God is perfect He makes Creation perfectly. Now, Creation can be perfect, but this perfection is of kind, not of absolute; it will be a perfect Creation, but it can’t be God because God is uncreated. God is absolutely perfect, Creation is perfect in kind.

If God creates perfectly, then as many a Liebnitz has exclaimed, this must be the best of possible worlds. But is it? As I’m sure all Catholics would agree: One less aborted baby, for example, would make it slightly better. Thus, this isn’t the best possible world. This does not pose a problem for atheism, but it does for benevolent creator-gods.

Ghosty:

Now God is omniscient, so He knows that His creation, which is made perfectly in kind, meaning it can turn away from God, will turn away. This is not a defect in God creating perfectly, as I’ve shown, it is a defect in the creation’s free use of Will (and the ability to use it defectively is a necessary component of Will). God also sees, however, that this defect can be repaired (in this case, through the Passion of God Incarnate). God is constantly looking upon the perfect creation, “repaired” and brought back from its self-imposed defect through the Passion and its fruits. We, on the other hand, are in media res, in the middle of a sequence of events, and primarily see the results of creation’s defective choice.

Sorry but that seems entirely wrong to me. You’re going to have to do a bit more buttressing.

Ghosty:

God’s wrath is actually corrective, and has little to do with Hell. Wrath is for those who have not made the final choice, and is required for the reasons I demonstrated earlier. Once a person has embraced Hell, they are actually outside of God’s influence, not by any natural limit of God’s power, but in order to preserve the integrity Will. God’s wrath is reserved for those who are within God’s influence, those who have not yet perfectly submitted their Will to rejecting God.

continued…

Whichever way you slice this piece of cheese (i.e. wrath is for sinners or wrath is for the Inferno and the Purgatorio) God is ultimately responsible for every event, every sin, every demon, every negative salvific consequence. There is no escape from this conclusion.

 

[atheos_sum]

Ghosty:

continued…

So, where does God’s benevolence come in? Well, as I said previously, in creating at all. Benevolence means “willing good”, and Creation is most definately good in its completed form. Knowing perfection is better than not knowing, or not existing for that matter. God wills creation by virtue of His goodness, and imparts perfect qualities to it as befitting its kind. Everything else follows from that essential Benevolence. The fact that some people turn away and embrace Hell is not an example of God not possessing benevolence, but is actually a necessary component of that benevolence. To allow less would be to impart imperfectly for its kind, and that would to make creation a “broken thing” from its start. Rather, in allowing creation to choose its fate, mitigate the damage of the initial choice through the Passion, and finally allow a complete and final act of Will, God is making creation perfect from the start, and perfect at completion, while we sit in media res twiddling our thumbs and debating such things.

Could creation have chosen to never turn from God? Certainly, but that is not the case that history provides. The fact that creation did, though, does nothing to diminish God’s goodness, and in fact demonstrates His goodness in making a creation that was perfect in its kind.

If God were benevolent, He would have created some other world which did not have sin, as JL Mackie has pointed out. If this were not possible, then God is not omnipotent. If God can does this and chooses not to, well, I’m not sure if this would make him evil, but certainly narcissistic.

Nonetheless, since ‘God knowingly created all things’ every sinner who allegedly is condemned to an eternity in hell is an obvious contradiction to our notion of God. But it doesn’t take a sinner’s eternity in hell to cancel the possibility of our benevolent creator-god, the slightest evil in the world is enough to do the trick.

 

[Ghosty]

there was open to him to obvious better possibility of making beings who would act freely but always go right. Clearly, his failure to avail himself of this possibility is inconsistent with his being both omnipotent and wholly good."

This is a complete logical fallacy. One can certainly always choose right, but if one is made in order to only choose right, they have no free will. Catholics actually do believe that one creature did always choose good, and that is Mary. She was not in any way compelled to, however, but freely chose such things.

If God creates perfectly, then as many a Liebnitz has exclaimed, this must be the best of possible worlds. But is it? As I’m sure all Catholics would agree: One less aborted baby, for example, would make it slightly better. Thus, this isn’t the best possible world. This does not pose a problem for atheism, but it does for benevolent creator-gods.

You’re failing to follow the premise through logically. In order for Creation to approach perfection, it must have freedom of choice. Freedom of choice implies the ability to commit sin, and that’s just what Creation did. If it had not had this built into it, it would not have been perfect. That creation chose sin, but that in no way negates the perfection of creation. What you are proposing, at least in the quote by the other atheist above, would in fact negate the perfection of creation.

Sorry but that seems entirely wrong to me. You’re going to have to do a bit more buttressing.

You’ll have to do more than say “it seems wrong” if you want me to address this. That’s not enough information to go off of.

Whichever way you slice this piece of cheese (i.e. wrath is for sinners or wrath is for the Inferno and the Purgatorio) God is ultimately responsible for every event, every sin, every demon, every negative salvific consequence. There is no escape from this conclusion.

Yes there is, and until you actually address the underlying logic, my point will stand. God is no more responsible for sin by creating than a mother is resonsible for her child’s murder by having given birth to him.

 

[atheos_sum]

Chrysogonus:

I have found this discussion enthralling. I would like to make a small contribution, if I may.

My understanding of your argument, atheos_sum, is that its essence is, God ordains evil, therefore He is evil (cf. your sentence beginning “And if he knowingly…”) and hence, by a series of logical implications based upon Divine attributes, He does not exist. If I have missed any subtleties of your contention – and I suspect I have done so – please do correct me; however, I will proceed for now under the assumption that my synopsis is accurate.

Rather than resort to my own feeble philosophical faculties, I first attempted to source a Magisterial document addressing this issue, supposing that such a quandary would have been tackled in the past. However, none was forthcoming (perhaps somebody knows of one?). My search was not entirely fruitless, though: a more general hunt did lead to one website (“The Sovereignty of God Over Evil”, Dustin Shramek) that proved to be relevant. §VI is particularly enlightening. Shramek states there that “God is not the positive cause of sin, rather He is the negative cause of sin,” which he then goes on to qualify, and also that God ordains sin “not because He enjoys sin in and of itself, rather He has a greater good in mind.” I would suggest reading the original, as my summary here does not do it justice.

All of these things put me in mind of the felix culpa mentioned in the Exsultet. Would we have been better off had the Fall never occurred? We are taught otherwise. Is God doing evil in condeming unrepentant sinners to eternal suffering, if we accept that sin is a necessary part of the Divine Plan? No; rather it is just. (I realise that the latter of these questions is somewhat trite, but I include it here with reference to the first, and also to atheos_sum’s observation beginning “is it not obvious…”).

I am, therefore, drawn to the conclusion that for God to ordain sin does not necessitate that He have an evil nature, and so does not preclude His existence.

Thank you to everyone for the discussion so far. It has been most thought-provoking, and I am sure it will continue to be so.

• Chrysogonus -

This was a pleasant and very friendly read through, and by all means welcome to these forums. I see this was your first post so i congratulate you. Your words are so agreeable that i’m hesitant not to object.

However, i will point out the one thing that troubles me: God ordains sin “not because He enjoys sin in and of itself, rather He has a greater good in mind.”

But if sin is not necessary, like he says somewhere else, then why should he have ordained it in the first place? Can’t we have our cake and eat it too?

 

[Ghosty]

If God were benevolent, He would have created some other world which did not have sin, as JL Mackie has pointed out.

No, being a perfect creature necessitates the ability to choose sin, as I’ve demonstrated. JL Mackie is lacking in logical formulation because he does not take into account the necessity that a perfect creature (Creation) must approach to the best of its kind absolute perfection (God).

If this were not possible, then God is not omnipotent. If God can does this and chooses not to, well, I’m not sure if this would make him evil, but certainly narcissistic

First off, omnipotent was not in your list anywhere, so bringing it in now is your mistake, not mine. That being said, one has to assume contradiction in order to make omnipotence fail, and then omnipotence fails as a concept entirely, not just in reference to God.

What you are assuming is that a thing can be created not unto it’s kind, but if a thing is not unto it’s kind, it is not the thing it is, and therefore can not be said to have a kind, and this is an inherent contradiction that ceases to exist. To say that omnipotence can only make according to kind is not at all a limitation, because anything outside of this can’t exist; this definition of omnipotence literally includes “all power”, which is what omnipotence means.

In this case we have perfection, which includes freedom to choose evil. Something that is built without the ability to choose evil has no free will. Could God have created a world in which everything can only choose good by design? Of course He could, but such a creation would cease to be perfect according to its kind. It would be built to be less than perfect in its kind, and God builds perfectly. I explained this in my previous post:

The fact that some people turn away and embrace Hell is not an example of God not possessing benevolence, but is actually a necessary component of that benevolence. To allow less would be to impart imperfectly for its kind, and that would to make creation a “broken thing” from its start.

What you are in fact proposing as an alternative would contradict benevolence, not my example. You would have God create a broken world from the start, one that was not perfect in its kind. The irony is that in saying that we believe in a contradiction, and trying to show it, you are the one proposing a contradiction in its place as an alternative. Meanwhile, the problem you have with our construct is actually the very point that makes ours a paradox rather than a contradiction.

 

[atheos_sum]

Ghosty:

This is a complete logical fallacy. One can certainly always choose right, but if one is made in order to only choose right, they have no free will. Catholics actually do believe that one creature did always choose good, and that is Mary. She was not in any way compelled to, however, but freely chose such things.

It is not a fallacy.

In the first place, there can be no freedom of choice so long as there was an omniscient creator-god. So whatever we are predestined to do should have been “sinless and perfect” in order to warrant saying that “God creates perfectly…”

Ghosty:

You’re failing to follow the premise through logically. In order for Creation to approach perfection, it must have freedom of choice. Freedom of choice implies the ability to commit sin, and that’s just what Creation did. If it had not had this built into it, it would not have been perfect. That creation chose sin, but that in no way negates the perfection of creation. What you are proposing, at least in the quote by the other atheist above, would in fact negate the perfection of creation.

No freedom of choice is possible.

Ghosty:

You’ll have to do more than say “it seems wrong” if you want me to address this. That’s not enough information to go off of.

It is wrong because you still think there is some mysterious way that man can have a freedom to choose anything.

Ghosty:

Yes there is, and until you actually address the underlying logic, my point will stand. God is no more responsible for sin by creating than a mother is resonsible for her child’s murder by having given birth to him.

Here is another mistake i often see.

When you use an **analogy **for this argument, something in your analogy has to possess all the attributes that God has (the ones i stated above) in order for you analogy to even be valid.

The mother in your analogy is not omniscient, she is not wholly good, she is not wrathful. She is the creator of her child, however, but this is the only analgous trait she has with God. And the child has to be analogous to humans, that is, she cannot be innocent, she has to sin.

Assume the following about this mother:

– that she knows the fate of her child (even before she creates it.)
– that she only wishes the best for her child, as all mothers do (she is wholly good in some way)
– that she is the creator of the child and it was wholly her choice. Pretend she had artificial insemination or the like.
– she is wrathful, that is, she will punish the child for any sin it commits.

Now,

Suppose the child is going to murder Bill Frist when he is older (he has something against republicans, who knows) And since the mother knows the fate of the child, this future murder is known to her. But the mother knows that since the child will undoubtedly carry out this murder, if he is created, the mother will have to punish him. But, since the mother hasn’t begotten him, she has the choice.

The contradiction/hypocrisy is obvious.

If she creates him, she will have to punish him, and this will make her a hypocrite and she obviously is not wholly good. So, to maintain her goodness, she cannot create this child.

 

[briand]

I voted no,

Mainly because I believe my view is self contradictory, IE God grants us peace but we should never even hint that we need peace.
God forgives us, but needing forgiveness expresses weakness and we should never ever no matter what appear weak for any reason what so ever.

We need mercy but mercy is for the weak and weakness can not ever be tolerated.

Its like what is preached from the pulpit and what is practiced in the community, for example one should forgive their enemies, but if one shows any type of forgiemess to certain enemies one is a traitor and a coward. (not referring to politics.)

 

[atheos_sum]

Ghosty:

No, being a perfect creature necessitates the ability to choose sin, as I’ve demonstrated. JL Mackie is lacking in logical formulation because he does not take into account the necessity that a perfect creature (Creation) must approach to the best of its kind absolute perfection (God).

First off, omnipotent was not in your list anywhere, so bringing it in now is your mistake, not mine. That being said, one has to assume contradiction in order to make omnipotence fail, and then omnipotence fails as a concept entirely, not just in reference to God.

What you are assuming is that a thing can be created not unto it’s kind, but if a thing is not unto it’s kind, it is not the thing it is, and therefore can not be said to have a kind, and this is an inherent contradiction that ceases to exist. To say that omnipotence can only make according to kind is not at all a limitation, because anything outside of this can’t exist; this definition of omnipotence literally includes “all power”, which is what omnipotence means.

In this case we have perfection, which includes freedom to choose evil. Something that is built without the ability to choose evil has no free will. Could God have created a world in which everything can only choose good by design? Of course He could, but such a creation would cease to be perfect according to its kind. It would be built to be less than perfect in its kind, and God builds perfectly. I explained this in my previous post:

blah blah blah, there is no freedom of choice. your entire argument assumes humans were and are free to choose evil.

i was using omnipotence for another purpose, one that you introduced, about “creating perfectly,” which is a question of omnipotence. so actually, you’re the reason i introduced omnipotence.

my argument does not rely on omnipotence to make its point. i could have added it to the list but it would have been for simplicity’s sake.

Ghosty:

What you are in fact proposing as an alternative would contradict benevolence, not my example. You would have God create a broken world from the start, one that was not perfect in its kind. The irony is that in saying that we believe in a contradiction, and trying to show it, you are the one proposing a contradiction in its place as an alternative. Meanwhile, the problem you have with our construct is actually the very point that makes ours a paradox rather than a contradiction.

i don’t follow you. what is my contradiction.

 

[Ghosty]

In the first place, there can be no freedom of choice so long as there was an omniscient creator-god. So whatever we are predestined to do should have been “sinless and perfect” in order to warrant saying that “God creates perfectly…”

This is actually a fallacy too, because it presumes that knowledge of an action precludes will. I know what you typed five minutes ago, but that does not negate your will in typing it. God, existing outside of time, sees all moments in the same instant, but that does not remove our will in the actions any more than me knowing what you typed five minutes ago precludes you having willed yourself to type. In essence, God knows what we did tomorrow. This is not a contradiction, but a paradox, because being outside of time necessitates this.

My mother example was simply to show absurdity, not to act as a true analogy. Your example, though, fails to address “perfection in kind”, so your contradiction is one created by leaving out an absolutely necessary attribute of the creator. Mine was simply a tongue-in-cheek remark, but your attempt to make it into an actual analogy fails completely for lack of complete composition.

 

[Ghosty]

i was using omnipotence for another purpose, one that you introduced, about “creating perfectly,” which is a question of omnipotence. so actually, you’re the reason i introduced omnipotence.

Being able to create perfectly in kind does not imply omnipotence. A being could be able to create perfectly in kind, but not have any power over the creation once it was created (deism). I assumed God could create perfection in kind because, if God is not able to make things perfect in their kind, then there would not even be a possibility of contradiction in your list. Since you insisted that there was possible contradiction, I simply assumed the required element on your behalf rather than make another refutation that you would say didn’t get to the point.

After all, if God could not create perfection in kind, then knowing everything, creating everything, and being wrathful would not negate benevolence, because God could not be faulted in benevolence for the failings of creation.

i don’t follow you. what is my contradiction.

If God created a world in which it was impossible to sin (not to say a world in which no one chooses to sin), God would negate free will. Since perfection in kind demands that the thing in question approaches absolute perfection according to its kind, and absolute perfection includes freedom of Will (since God, being the “first cause” embodies absolute perfection, the point that nothing can surpass, and God possesses freedom of Will). Nothing about being a creation precludes the possession of Will, unlike the preclusion of the ability of a creation to create everything (since it can’t create its creator), so in order to be perfect according to its kind it must approach freedom of Will as close as possible.

If God is indeed able to make a creation that’s perfect in its kind (and this is necessary for any possibility of contradiction in your list), and God is benevolent (“good willing”), then to create something that was not perfect in its kind (in this case, something without freedom of will), would be a violation of God’s benevolence, because God would intentionally be creating a broken thing. What you are proposing would be just that. It’s not unlike cutting off someone’s legs so they don’t have to worry about falling down, or scooping out their brain so they never have to worry about headaches.

 

[atheos_sum]

Ghosty:

This is actually a fallacy too, because it presumes that knowledge of an action precludes will. I know what you typed five minutes ago, but that does not negate your will in typing it. God, existing outside of time, sees all moments in the same instant, but that does not remove our will in the actions any more than me knowing what you typed five minutes ago precludes you having willed yourself to type. In essence, God knows what we did tomorrow. This is not a contradiction, but a paradox, because being outside of time necessitates this.

My mother example was simply to show absurdity, not to act as a true analogy. Your example, though, fails to address “perfection in kind”, so your contradiction is one created by leaving out an absolutely necessary attribute of the creator. Mine was simply a tongue-in-cheek remark, but your attempt to make it into an actual analogy fails completely for lack of complete composition.

THen quote my analogy. I was going to use one sooner or later anyway.

The solution, you say, is this mysterious “perfection in kind.” So use the analogy i proved and insert “perfect in kind” in order to solve your paradox.