Logical absurdity and self-contradiction in the concept of God

[Ion]

Similarly:

1. Human gifted with FREE WILL is FREE to exercise his will in any way, for good or evil.
2. Human who is not allowed to do evil does NOT have FREE WILL.

Therefore, a human with free will who is not allowed to do evil is nonsense–does not exist.

The rape victim, molestation victim, murder victim, starvation victim, etc. live(d) in a world of humans gifted with free will. The rapist, molester, and murderer chose evil.

At creation and throughout earthly time, God could have:

1. created ONLY those humans that He foreknew would choose good
2. created humans without free will

I think God put in the apple the knowledge of good and evil especially so we can guide our free will. At the time of creation we didn’t know good from evil

 

[Ion]

1. created ONLY those humans that He foreknew would choose good
This is a nonsense, because it means “God created only those humans that He foreknew would (choose evil (in the garden) then choose good)”. Plus, creation started only with Adam and Eve.

 

[Tyrion]

By “metaphysically possible” I mean actually possible in the real world. There are some things that are logically possible (such as, “The President of the United States is a Corgi”) but not metaphysically possible (such as, “The President of the United States is, indeed, a Corgi!”).

Well, I am glad I asked. What do you mean that in real life it is impossible for a “corgi” to become president? It is simply not legally allowed at this time, but laws can be changed in a heartbeat. And people could exercise their right to “write-in” and then that dog would become president - just like Caligula’s horse (Incitatus) became a senator.

As things are today, even an extremely smart, 12 years old genius could not be elected, since he is not of the legal age, but, laws can be changed.

Or, let’s consdier, that due to the pervasive hostility toward atheists, it is “impossible” toady that an atheist would elected to be president, even though it would be perfectly legal. Again, customs can change.

The only obstacle against a “possible world” is a logical or physical impossibility. If we cannot agree on this point, it is useless to go on. The concept of “possible world” is a very useful tool, and the ONLY requirement is that the state of affairs would not be logically contradictory. The idea of “metaphysically impossible” is simply nonsense.

But this is precisely what I mean. Any isolated individual can logically freely choose the morally good in any circumstance, and not do something evil. It’s not just a matter of “adding” people, because to add isolated individuals is basically just to multiply the original situation. What I’m suggesting is that we are not dealing with isolated individuals but those in community who compete over certain limited resources. In these kinds of situations, it is less doubtful that individuals will freely choose to never commit evil actions.

And this is where you are wrong. Free will cannot be contingent upon the decisons of others, since it would not be free any more. Let me illustrate with a simple example. Take two people, called A and B. They both face a dilemma. There are four possible worlds:

1. both A and B choose the moral option.
2. A chooses the moral option, and B chooses the immoral option.
3. A chooses the immoral option, and B chooses the moral option.
4. both choose the immoral option.

Now the two dilemmas can be independent, or they can be related, it simply does not matter. If option #1 cannot be actualized (for whatever reason), then we need to consider option #2. Person A chose the moral option, and by virtue of his choice person “B” cannot choose the moral option - as such he has no significant free will. Before you ask, the concept of free will presupposes that in a morally significant scenario the agent has the option to choose either the moral or the immoral choice. (Not that the person is free to choose a blue tie or a red tie).

So it is exactly the “free will” which makes option #1 possible - and thus there is a possible world, where both agents (everyone!) chooses the moral option.

The only objection against this proof is that “two” is a small number, and “maybe” with larger numbers the same logic does not hold. Of course that objection is incorrect. Nowhere was the number “2” exploited.

Suppose that we already have a possible world, with “n” moral dilemmas, and all of them are solved in a morally proper manner. Let’s add one one dilemma. There are only two options:

1. either there is a possible world, where the “n + 1”-st dilemma is also solved morally, or
2. there is no such world - meaning that the “n +1”-st dilemma can only be solved immorally - but that denies free will!

The employed method is called “mathematical induction”, where we prove that a certain property inherits from any arbitrary “n” to the next “n +1”-st case. The same could be done with the binomial theorem, of course.

First, the number of moral agents is not relevant. The same person may face none, one or more dilemmas.

1. A possible world is one where there are no moral agents at all. Naturally, in this world there are no moral dilemmas, so this world cannot contain “evil”.
2. Another possible world could be with unlimited number of moral agents, but without moral dilemmas. Example could be the “garden of eden”, without the prohibition against the “tree”. If there are no “rules” to obey, or disobey, there are no moral problems, as such no evil.
3. Since these are possible worlds, the problem is solved. Of course there are people who insist that such “trivial” solutions “do not count”. So we can accommodate them.
4. Let’s consider a world with exactly “n” moral dilemmas. Each dilemma can be decided either morally or immorally. The number of possible worlds where exactly “k” of the dilemmas is solved morally is (n over k), which is n! / (k! * (n-k)!), where k = 0, 1, 2, … ,n - 1, n. The number of possible worlds is exactly 2[sup]n[/sup] - see the binomial theorem. If “k” equals “n”, we have a world, where each dilemma was solved morally (no evil). If “k” is less than “n” then we do have at least one immoral decision and so there is “evil”.

But there is no reason to assert that “k = n” is somehow “impossible”.

So, no matter how we view it, there are zillions of worlds, with unspecified number of moral argents, and unspecified number of moral dilemmas, where all the dilemmas are solved morally. God, of course can “preview” all the worlds, and choose any one of those.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So, no matter how we view it, there are zillions of worlds, with unspecified number of moral argents, and unspecified number of moral dilemmas, where all the dilemmas are solved morally. God, of course can “preview” all the worlds, and choose any one of those.

Conveniently forgetting the quality of those who live in these possible worlds and the motives they have for choosing the moral option. Perhaps the personal character of the agents is more important to God than the mere fact that they always make moral choices. If always making moral choices is contingent upon a certain personality type (for example, people pleasers), perhaps God prefers personality types that choose good as an aspect of who they are rather than merely to please others. This universe where people choose the good is completely consistent with being a universe where peer approval is the highest motive for doing the moral thing and because everyone is doing the moral right thing that is the thing everyone does. Yet this is very consistent with a universe of shallow individual’s whose “love” is likewise shallow. God may have other reasons for not going with logically possible, but rather with depth as opposed to mere consistency.

 

[jonathan_hili]

The only obstacle against a “possible world” is a logical or physical impossibility. If we cannot agree on this point, it is useless to go on. The concept of “possible world” is a very useful tool, and the ONLY requirement is that the state of affairs would not be logically contradictory. The idea of “metaphysically impossible” is simply nonsense.

Well, if the Corgi example doesn’t impress you, what about: “The President of the United States is a can of Coke”. I mean, there’s nothing logically contradictory or impossible about that, but wouldn’t you agree that is metaphysically impossible? Or another example might be time travel, which is not logically impossible but I do think it’s metaphysically impossible.

I looked it up and was actually amazed that there is a website that compared logical possibility with metaphysical possibility. It’s here:
vspages.com/logical-possibility-vs-metaphysical-possibility-5215/

The idea of “logical possibility but metaphysical impossibility” isn’t nonsense and lots of philosophers take it seriously.

I agree, that the only obstacle to a “possible world” is a logical or physical impossible, and the latter is what I mean by a metaphysical impossibility. While certain conditions may be logically possible, they can never be metaphysically instantiated.

And this is where you are wrong. Free will cannot be contingent upon the decisions of others, since it would not be free any more.

I don’t know what to say to this. Again, I’m not talking about free will being dependent on the decisions of others; nor am I talking about isolated individuals (which is what your equation deals with). What I’m saying is when you put individual human beings, built as we are, in communal situations, it creates a totally different environment from the one presented by such equations. It’s not something you can work out with mathematics but rather with imagination.

 

[dranzal]

1. created ONLY those humans that He foreknew would choose good
This is a nonsense, because it means “God created only those humans that He foreknew would (choose evil (in the garden) then choose good)”. Plus, creation started only with Adam and Eve.

Please realize that I was offering possible “creation plans” that the God-second-guessers might think were better than what God actually did.

The two choices mentioned were not intended to be taken as GOOD ideas. They certainly must not have been because God did neither.

Of course, therefore, they are nonsense. That IS the POINT.

 

[Ion]

…
Or, let’s consdier, that due to the pervasive hostility toward atheists, it is “impossible” toady that an atheist would elected to be president, even though it would be perfectly legal. Again, customs can change.
…

Yep, tell it to the North Koreans…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What is absurd is that this conversation ever got off the ground. A perfect illustration of the foolishness of the children of this world whose poor condition illustrates the need of the Divine Revelation God has given us. Because of this need, the existence of the Christian God is an absolute necessity. Therefore there is no contradiction. Without God we can’t get off first base. Linus2nd

 

[jonathan_hili]

Strangely, Linus, we are yet to see any real examples of contradictions involved in existence of God, only vague assertions.

 

[Sair]

Yep, tell it to the North Koreans…

Or the Catholic Church, for that matter!

 

[Tyrion]

Well, if the Corgi example doesn’t impress you, what about: “The President of the United States is a can of Coke”. I mean, there’s nothing logically contradictory or impossible about that, but wouldn’t you agree that is metaphysically impossible?

No problem there either. People can make humorous choices if they so desire. A can of Coke could be a better president, since it would be unable to make dumb decisons.

Or another example might be time travel, which is not logically impossible but I do think it’s metaphysically impossible.

Traveling back into the past involves the grandfather paradox. One the other hand, we ARE traveling into the future, one day at a time.

I looked it up and was actually amazed that there is a website that compared logical possibility with metaphysical possibility. It’s here:
vspages.com/logical-possibility-vs-metaphysical-possibility-5215/

The idea of “logical possibility but metaphysical impossibility” isn’t nonsense and lots of philosophers take it seriously.

I read it, and found nothing useful. It states that most philosophers do not differentiate between “logical” and “metaphysical” possibility, and does not give any examples of “metaphysical” impossibilities.

I agree, that the only obstacle to a “possible world” is a logical or physical impossible, and the latter is what I mean by a metaphysical impossibility.

Then why worry about the “meta” prefix?

While certain conditions may be logically possible, they can never be metaphysically instantiated.

I have a suspicion that most (if not all) physically impossible states of affairs can be formulated as logical impossibilities and vice-versa. Example: it is impossible to have a temperature below zero Kelvin. It is physically impossible, since at zero Kelvin the Brownian motion of the molecules stop. But is can be said that it is also a logical impossibility, since there is no “negative” vibration of the molecules. Or to say that it is impossible to have a square circle, since these two attributes are physically different. There can be no physical object moving faster than the speed of light, since the force required would be infinitely large. And yet, there is a logical impossibility there, since faster than light traveling would involve traveling back in time, with the problem of the grandfather paradox.

So far I could not find an example of something that is logically possible, yet physically not.

I don’t know what to say to this. Again, I’m not talking about free will being dependent on the decisions of others; nor am I talking about isolated individuals (which is what your equation deals with). What I’m saying is when you put individual human beings, built as we are, in communal situations, it creates a totally different environment from the one presented by such equations. It’s not something you can work out with mathematics but rather with imagination.

You are very close to understanding. The individual decisions are independent from each other, HOWEVER the environment in which they are made are contingent upon the plethora od other decisions. The mathematical model is this: “suppose you take one coin and flip it 100 times”. Obviously the outcomes are independent from each other. Now, take 100 coins, and toss them up in the air. They will collide, bounce off from one another - but - the outcomes are still independent from each other. Just because coin “23” lands with “heads up” it has no bearing on the result of coin “72”. I know it is not very easy to understand in an intuitive fashion, one might think that the conglomerate of 100 coins is “somehow” different, and more complicated, but it is not.

 

[Ion]

So far I could not find an example of something that is logically possible, yet physically not.

Tyrion, you abuse not only the terms and their definitions but logic itself. At least you gave up mr. Randi.

 

[jonathan_hili]

You are very close to understanding. The individual decisions are independent from each other, HOWEVER the environment in which they are made are contingent upon the plethora od other decisions. The mathematical model is this: “suppose you take one coin and flip it 100 times”. Obviously the outcomes are independent from each other. Now, take 100 coins, and toss them up in the air. They will collide, bounce off from one another - but - the outcomes are still independent from each other. Just because coin “23” lands with “heads up” it has no bearing on the result of coin “72”. I know it is not very easy to understand in an intuitive fashion, one might think that the conglomerate of 100 coins is “somehow” different, and more complicated, but it is not.

I understand the equation, Tyrion, I just don’t think it takes into account how human nature works. Human nature and moral decision making isn’t anything like tossing a coin. The issue we are looking at is could God have created human beings so that they would not commit an evil act. Now, I think He could have. However, I am suggesting as a possibility to counter this (I don’t necessarily think it’s right) that given the environmental conditions and the nature of humanity, certain factors may work to inhibit morally good actions and promote morally evil actions. Individuals still have free will under these conditions, yet the likelihood of evil increases, such that, it is virtually certain.

But I think we got off the point somewhere. Wasn’t the point of this thread that God is logically absurd or self-contradictory? I still don’t think we’ve considered that issue much.

Oh, here’s a cheeky one! It is logically possible that God doesn’t exist, but it is metaphysically impossible that God doesn’t exist.

Oh oh, and the reason I prefer “metaphysical” to “physical” is because it isn’t necessarily physical, as in my example above.

I guess another example might be: “It’s logically possible that I do not exist, but it is not metaphysically possible”. Yet another example is the statement: “Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its existence.” Now, that’s logically possible, as is its contradiction: “Not everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.” However, the latter is also metaphysically impossible.

 

[Tyrion]

I understand the equation, Tyrion, I just don’t think it takes into account how human nature works. Human nature and moral decision making isn’t anything like tossing a coin.

Of course not. It was only an illustration to show that just because something is very complicated, it does not invalidate the independent outcome of individual units (be they human decisions, or flipped coins).

The issue we are looking at is could God have created human beings so that they would not commit an evil act. Now, I think He could have. However, I am suggesting as a possibility to counter this (I don’t necessarily think it’s right) that given the environmental conditions and the nature of humanity, certain factors may work to inhibit morally good actions and promote morally evil actions. Individuals still have free will under these conditions, yet the likelihood of evil increases, such that, it is virtually certain.

There is no such thing as “virtually certain” when one considers God’s “infinite” powers.

But I think we got off the point somewhere. Wasn’t the point of this thread that God is logically absurd or self-contradictory? I still don’t think we’ve considered that issue much.

That is true.

Oh, here’s a cheeky one! It is logically possible that God doesn’t exist, but it is metaphysically impossible that God doesn’t exist.

And how do you plan to substantiate that? If we start to look at the possible worlds, and consider the idea that God is a “necessary being”, (who exists in ALL the possible worlds), then it will be blindingly obvious that God cannot exist.

Oh oh, and the reason I prefer “metaphysical” to “physical” is because it isn’t necessarily physical, as in my example above.

It would be nice to see some arguments for “non-physical existence” outside the realm of concepts, because I have never seen one.

I guess another example might be: “It’s logically possible that I do not exist, but it is not metaphysically possible”.

Again, you forgot about the different possible worlds. Do you really think that you exist in all the possible worlds?

Yet another example is the statement: “Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its existence.” Now, that’s logically possible, as is its contradiction: “Not everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.” However, the latter is also metaphysically impossible.

It just so happens that it is physically possible to have some brand new causal chain, which is NOT caused by any prior events… I leave it to you to figure it out.

 

[jonathan_hili]

And how do you plan to substantiate that? If we start to look at the possible worlds, and consider the idea that God is a “necessary being”, (who exists in ALL the possible worlds), then it will be blindingly obvious that God cannot exist.

Well, if God is a necessary being (which I think the Ontological Argument proves), then if He exists, He must necessarily in all possible worlds. Therefore, God - if He exists - must be metaphysically necessary, although his existence is not logically necessary (that is, denying it is not contradictory to logic).

It would be nice to see some arguments for “non-physical existence” outside the realm of concepts, because I have never seen one.

Well, what about moral values? By concepts, I presume you include mathematics, logic, etc.? What about human beings, or do you believe we are wholly physical, i.e. material?

Again, you forgot about the different possible worlds. Do you really think that you exist in all the possible worlds?

I meant for the person uttering the statement.

It just so happens that it is physically possible to have some brand new causal chain, which is NOT caused by any prior events… I leave it to you to figure it out.

Really, I’d like to see one, but it would have to contradict the dictum that “whatever begins to exist has a cause for its existence”.

 

[Love4All]

It just so happens that it is physically possible to have some brand new causal chain, which is NOT caused by any prior events… I leave it to you to figure it out.

No, it isn’t. Tyrion won’t see this since he has me blocked, but, one of you others should call him on this. This is, first of all, an absurd statement, and second of all, an unacceptable arguing technique. “It’s a sophisticated intellectual thing, you wouldn’t understand!”

 

[Tyrion]

Well, if God is a necessary being (which I think the Ontological Argument proves), then if He exists, He must necessarily in all possible worlds. Therefore, God - if He exists - must be metaphysically necessary, although his existence is not logically necessary (that is, denying it is not contradictory to logic).

It all hinges upon the concept of “necessary” existence. Those who advocate that there is “necessary existence” face a very, very hard task. They need to examine ALL the possible worlds, and prove that there is “something” that exists in ALL of them. On the other hand the task of the skeptics is very easy. All he needs to do is find TWO possible worlds, which are distinct, which have NONTHING in common, and voila! - necessary existence is proven to be bogus! Can you find an example? If not, let me know.

Well, what about moral values? By concepts, I presume you include mathematics, logic, etc.?

Of course. None of those are ontologically existing entities. They do not exist indepently from out minds.

What about human beings, or do you believe we are wholly physical, i.e. material?

This question reveals a lot about the misunderstanding of materialism. Physical, material existence of ontologially existing objects does not deny the existence of attributes and relationships - which are not physical objects themselves, but they cannot exist without those physical objects.

The attributes of the objects - for example their number - exists independently from the observer. So, there are “two” apples, even if there is no one to observe it. But the concept of two does not exist without someone who recongizes this fact. There is no “middle C” sound without someone who can hear, only a certain vibration of the air. There is no color “red”, only a reflected light of certain wavelength.

Two planets (for example) can reside in relation to each other, so that one of them is “behind” the other - but ONLY from the point of refernece of an observer.

There is no “distance” as an ontological object, but distance cannot exist without ontological objects.

So there are all sorts of “non-physical” entites “out there”… but all of them rely on the physical underpinning of actual objects.

(By the way, I do not wish to go off on a tangent here, but the phrase “exists” is totally undefined in conjunction with God. The proposition “God exists” is simply meaningless.)

Really, I’d like to see one, but it would have to contradict the dictum that “whatever begins to exist has a cause for its existence”.

As usual, ther are all sorts of “metaphysical ASSUMPTIONS” floating around, and most people never dream of questioning them. What you quoted is one of them. Let me give you a hint for an example which will PROVE that the assumption is false: “think about something that is NOT caused by any external agent… which is FREE of such influence…” Did you get it?

 

[jonathan_hili]

It all hinges upon the concept of “necessary” existence. Those who advocate that there is “necessary existence” face a very, very hard task. They need to examine ALL the possible worlds, and prove that there is “something” that exists in ALL of them. On the other hand the task of the skeptics is very easy. All he needs to do is find TWO possible worlds, which are distinct, which have NONTHING in common, and voila! - necessary existence is proven to be bogus! Can you find an example? If not, let me know.

Not at all. Necessary existence for some things is relatively simply. For instance, basic mathematical equations and logical statements will be necessarily true in all possible worlds. Likewise, God, because of who He is, if He exists, must do so necessarily in all possible worlds. Notice, I’m not saying God necessarily exists, but if He exists, He does not necessarily because God cannot be a contingent, dependent being.

This question reveals a lot about the misunderstanding of materialism. Physical, material existence of ontologially existing objects does not deny the existence of attributes and relationships - which are not physical objects themselves, but they cannot exist without those physical objects.

The attributes of the objects - for example their number - exists independently from the observer. So, there are “two” apples, even if there is no one to observe it. But the concept of two does not exist without someone who recongizes this fact. There is no “middle C” sound without someone who can hear, only a certain vibration of the air. There is no color “red”, only a reflected light of certain wavelength.

Be that as it may, “mind” is a very different thing than a concept or relation. Whereas these others are dependent on matter, it is unclear that mind is dependent on matter. Indeed, if mind were dependent on matter, it is further unclear how it is separate from matter.

As usual, ther are all sorts of “metaphysical ASSUMPTIONS” floating around, and most people never dream of questioning them. What you quoted is one of them. Let me give you a hint for an example which will PROVE that the assumption is false: “think about something that is NOT caused by any external agent… which is FREE of such influence…” Did you get it?

Ummm if you’re saying something like “free will” or “free thought” as an example, then there is a problem. Thoughts that begin to exist do have a cause, namely, the thinking self. If there were no thinking selves there would be no thoughts. Likewise, wills and desires are caused by the being who wills and desires, they don’t just pop out of thin air.

But perhaps I’ve mistaken your point. Could you make it clear?

 

[ivebeenshown]

It all hinges upon the concept of “necessary” existence. Those who advocate that there is “necessary existence” face a very, very hard task. They need to examine ALL the possible worlds, and prove that there is “something” that exists in ALL of them. On the other hand the task of the skeptics is very easy. All he needs to do is find TWO possible worlds, which are distinct, which have NONTHING in common, and voila! - necessary existence is proven to be bogus! Can you find an example? If not, let me know.

Well… existence would exist in all possible worlds.

 

[Tyrion]

Let’s try to wrap this up, if we can. I have a lot of other stuff to do, so I cannot concentrate on this board.

Not at all. Necessary existence for some things is relatively simply. For instance, basic mathematical equations and logical statements will be necessarily true in all possible worlds.

Except that they do not exist. We do not examine is a certain proposition is true or not, we must find out if they exist or not. And propositions are NOT ontological entites. What you say sounds like the concept of “abstract objects” proposed by some philosophers (following Plato’s footsteps, maybe). In a possible world without any sentient beings those “mathematical equations” simply do not exist. Those philosophers assert that we do not “create” those abstractions, merely discover them. That leads to the crazy idea that Shakespeare did not create Hamlet, he merely “discovered” the “abstract object” of Hamlet. What would it mean that Fermat’s last theorem “exists” in a world where there are no living beings?

Likewise, God, because of who He is, if He exists, must do so necessarily in all possible worlds. Notice, I’m not saying God necessarily exists, but if He exists, He does not necessarily because God cannot be a contingent, dependent being.

This is a misunderstanding. The “necessary” existence is not be the opposite of “contingent” existence. Is simply would mean that it exists in all the possible worlds. Even if an object only exists in one possible world, it may not be contingent upon another object.

Be that as it may, “mind” is a very different thing than a concept or relation. Whereas these others are dependent on matter, it is unclear that mind is dependent on matter. Indeed, if mind were dependent on matter, it is further unclear how it is separate from matter.

The same way as “walking” is separate form the legs. There can be no “walking” without the legs, yet walking is not the same as the legs. Again, relationships, attributes and activities are non-physical entities, yet they cannot be separated from the physical framework.

Ummm if you’re saying something like “free will” or “free thought” as an example, then there is a problem. Thoughts that begin to exist do have a cause, namely, the thinking self. If there were no thinking selves there would be no thoughts. Likewise, wills and desires are caused by the being who wills and desires, they don’t just pop out of thin air.

But perhaps I’ve mistaken your point. Could you make it clear?

Another misunderstanding. If our decisions are “free”, then they cannot be CAUSED. Sure, the existence of the thoughts is contingent upon the physical brain, but the thoughts are not CAUSED by it. As such every free decision starts a new causal chain.

Anyhow, here are two possible worlds, which have no intersection. World “A” contains ONLY ONE physical object, a quark of a specific flavor - it does not contain anything else. World “B” also contains ONE quark of a different flavor - nothing else. The intersection of these two worlds is an empty world (null-world), and so there is no entity which would be in EVERY world. Therefore the concept of “necessary existence” is empty. Do not forget that any world is a possible world which does not contain a logical impossibility. As a matter of fact, the “empty world” (which contains no objects at all) is also a possible world.

Well… existence would exist in all possible worlds.

Existence is not an ontological object, it is just a concept.