Logical absurdity and self-contradiction in the concept of God

[Ion]

Thankfully, this being a Catholic forum, we already have an agreed-upon definition of God. The concept I will be referring to in this thread is the Catholic concept.

The notion has been advanced that this concept is inherently absurd, due to internal contradiction. I’d like to see a demonstration of said contradiction.

I’ll start by offering a few of the alleged contradictions I’ve seen advanced in the past.

1. If God is omnipotent, can He create a rock so big that He Himself can’t move it?

My answer: If God is omnipotent, then He can create rocks of any size whatsoever, and He can move rocks of any size whatsoever. If the size of a rock cannot be specified, then the concept of such a rock is incoherent. What cannot be coherently defined cannot be used in an argument. Then in order for 1 above to succeed as an argument against omnipotence, the question must be answered: how big, exactly, is the specified rock? In order to be too big for God to move, it has to have a size that falls outside the range of “any size whatsoever.” Since there are no sizes outside that range, consequently the size specified is not a possible size of rocks, and the rock specified is incoherently defined, and therefore the argument fails.

A quicker way to defeat this argument is to recognize that the question is the equivalent of, “Can God be both omnipotent and non-omnipotent at the same time in the same way?” Or, “Can any proposition be both true and false?”

The problem is not that there is something impossible for God, the problem is that not every word-string names an entity. An incoherent word-string doesn’t name anything. And a self-contradictory definition is just an incoherent word-string.

1. If God is omniscient, can a human being meaningfully possess free will?

The idea here is that if God already knows one’s choices in advance, then the universe must unfold according to those choices, and necessity is opposite of freedom.

My answer initially is that God’s foreknowledge of a choice does not entail that the universe must unfold that way, but rather only that it does unfold that way, and actuality is not necessity.

But I suspect that some here will be unsatisfied with that refutation.

I also suspect that some here have other examples of alleged internal contradictions in the concept of God.

Well bring 'em on!!!

The paradox is only in your head!
Comes from the way our brain works and the way we see reality. We can’t comprehend and grasp infinity, we can only contemplate it.
The paradox of achiles, was a bottleneck in understanding motion, and was beatifully demoted by Newton and calculus. The lack of knowledge didn’t stop philosophers in their thing, anyway.
Mathematicians consider the study of paradoxes as a source for future development in math.

 

[Ion]

We can know God only through revelations.
If you try and “build up God based on your logical inferences” the result is yourself not God.

 

[davidv]

We can know God only through revelations.
If you try and “build up God based on your logical inferences” the result is yourself not God.

This is not true quite true. Many of God attributes can be discovered through reason.

50 By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation.1 Through an utterly free decision, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. This he does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men. God has fully revealed this plan by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Ion]

This is not true quite true. Many of God attributes can be discovered through reason.

Reason based on revelation, and properly guided.

 

[Ion]

This is not true quite true. Many of God attributes can be discovered through reason.

Perhaps I have this opinion because I have failed into atheism using my natural reasoning. Natural reasoning gets easily corrupted by feelings, wishes, misconceptions, etc

 

[Love4All]

Let the fun commence. True to form, I will already challenge this beginning. God is NOT properly and rigorously defined. It is true that there are quite a few words offered as God’s attributes, but when we start to “scratch” those words, then the problems begin to mount.

As an example, when the “problem of evil” is discussed, and the antagonists challenge the idea of God’s love - since it is compatible with allowing / actively participating in all sorts of atrocities - then there are two usual “rebuttals”. One is that it is a “mystery”, and the other one is that “God is not just a really big, really powerful, really knowledgable human”, he is qualitatively different, so the usual ‘human’ attributes (like loving) cannot be applied to God. God’s “love” is not the same as human “love”. Human love cannot be reconciled with allowing someone to starve or drown, or torture or come to some other “misfortune”. Therefore the term “God is love” is literally meaningless.

And this is where the first problem occurs. As long as one speaks of God in a “positive” manner, his “human” terms are applicable to God, but if the person dares to criticize God, then his “terms” are not applicable any more. The word to describe this attitude is - hypocrisy.

1. God is Love.
2. Love is Free.
3. Therefore, God respects Free Will.
4. All of the problems of the world have solutions that are found in Love.
5. Human beings often fail to accept God’s graces of Love, therefore many of the problems of the world remain unsolved.
6. As more and more human beings begin to accept God’s graces, more and more Love will manifest, and the problems of the world will manifest as being solved by Love, which is God.

As the previous paragraph shows, this is premature. Without properly defining what those attributes mean we are bound to be talking past each other.

Do you see my point?

What is Love?

Now, I am definitely willing to go on. But without a mutually agreeable set of “words” it is futile. I would suggest to start with a set of simple concepts (instead of the hazy omnimax attributes, which could be addressed later), like “justice” and “mercy”. These are simple concepts. I am offering a starting point - subject to your criticisms of course.

Justice - means a balance. An act merits either a reward or punishment (depending upon the act). We speak of “justice being served” if the reward or the punishment is commensurate to the deed. Justice does not allow either too harsh or too lenient punishment. Both would be unjust.

Mercy - is the violation of justice.

No it isn’t. God does not violate Himself. That is like saying miracles are violations of the Laws of Physics. They aren’t, even though I would be surprised if you agreed.

Anyway, God’s Mercy is mitigation, not violation, of His Justice. There is also a deeper meaning of Justice than mere punishment for wrongdoing, there is Justification. God justifies the sinner. Justice is thus uprightness, moral integrity, as its primary definition.

Think of it as moral integrity rather than a mere payback and an mechanical, impersonal equivalence between offense and punishment.

If the punishment for a bad act is too lenient, then justice was not served. (Of course, if the punishment is too harsh, there is no justice either).

Therefore it is logically impossible that a sentence would be both just and and merciful - at the same time in the same respect. Since God is supposed to be “infinitely” just and “infinitely” merciful - these attributes are either the same as their human counterpart - and thus mutually contradictory, or they mean something totally different, and then they are meaningless (or incoherent). Pick your choice.

God’s Mercy is manifest in His Power and willingness to justify us in His sight, even though we are sinners and do not deserve any such favor. In one who has been justified, there is Justice and Mercy together. One whose sins have been taken away no longer deserves the just punishment for sin, because he no longer has any sins. The just punishment is Jesus Crucified.

 

[Love4All]

The parents are held responsible for their children until they grow up. God is infinitrely worse than the worst deadbeat dad. His only excuse is that he does not exist.

Love does not exist? How do you know?

 

[Love4All]

1. God can create a rock with mass m.
2. God can exert force F on the rock.
3. Per Newton’s laws, the rock will then move with acceleration a: a=F/m. For the rock to be lifted, on Earth, a must be bigger than 9.8 m/s^2.
4. God is not limited in F and m, i.e. they can be infinite: F = inf, m = inf
5. In this case, the acceleration a = F / m = inf / inf
6. inf / inf is an undefined symbol. philforhumanity.com/Infinity_Divided_by_Infinity.html
7. The question is therefore meaningless. God both can and can’t create rocks he cannot lift.
8. Assume that God tests His limits creating successively bigger rocks and attempting to move them. Let k be the number of experiment.
9. Assume that the initial rock mass is m0=1kg and initial force F0 = 10N. This results in the acceleration of 10m/s^2, meaning that the rock can be lifted.

10.A. In the first variant of the experiment, God creates k-th rock with mass km0 and exerts force kF0. This results in acceleration a=kF0/(km0)=F0/m0 meaning that every rock can be lifted.

10.B. In the second variant of the experiment, God creates k-th rock with mass k^2m0 and exerts force 16kF0*. The acceleration is therefore a=16kF0/(k^2m0)=(16/k)(F0/m0). This means that rocks 1,2,3,…,16 can be lifted, while rocks from 17 onwards cannot be lifted.

1. Therefore, the correct question is: which increases faster: God’s ability to exert force, or His ability to create more and more massive rocks?

The solution is,

1. God can create rocks of any size whatsoever.
2. God can move rocks of any size whatsoever.

The phrase, “rock so big God can’t move it,” is incoherent, and therefore meaningless. Such a rock cannot be defined and cannot exist.

 

[Love4All]

Being “sorry” would be another mitigating circumstance. Taking it into consideration would be part of the “justice”.

Then, you have answered your own objection. Contrition for sin justifies God’s Mercy on the sinner.

 

[Love4All]

If a “love” allows rape, torture, mutilation etc… it is indistinguishable from hate. If “love” allows the starving to die of hunger, or the sick to suffer and die of his ailment, it is indistinguishable from indifference. God’s “love” is not recognizable as “love”.

I am about to go out and do some shopping. At the grocery store there are 2-3 or 4 homeless people, who live in the nearby forest, in a flimsy tent. They are poor, dirty and miserable. I would not “claim” that I love them. I feel sorry for them, and give them a few dollars every time I see them. Not much of a help, but it helps them a little. Where is God, with his infinite power?

In the little help you gave them.

So, don’t talk to me about God’s “superior love”.

God’s Supreme Love is manifest in the little help you gave those people. If you want God to help them more, help them more. You could also pray for them, and God will help them still more.

 

[Love4All]

Perhaps I have this opinion because I have failed into atheism using my natural reasoning. Natural reasoning gets easily corrupted by feelings, wishes, misconceptions, etc

Then you need to work on your objectivity before you can be an effective philosopher.

The idea that God cannot be known except through revelation is heretical, it denies the Catholic Doctrine that God can be known with certainty through the light of human reason.

 

[Ion]

Then you need to work on your objectivity before you can be an effective philosopher.

The idea that God cannot be known except through revelation is heretical, it denies the Catholic Doctrine that God can be known with certainty through the light of human reason.

It’s no heresy. The word “certainty” make the sentence abusive. The word “can” expresses only the possibility, not the level, and in no way can make you sure of the results of your personal natural reasoning. If you want to be sure, you have to rely on revelation.

 

[Love4All]

It’s no heresy. The word “certainty” make the sentence abusive. The word “can” expresses only the possibility, not the level, and in no way can make you sure of the results of your personal natural reasoning. If you want to be sure, you have to rely on revelation.

Afraid not.

"
God, the source and end of all things,

can be known
    with certainty from the consideration of created things,
    by the natural power of human reason : ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.

"

from papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%202%20On%20revelation

 

[Ion]

Afraid not.

"
God, the source and end of all things,

can be known
    with certainty from the consideration of created things,
    by the natural power of human reason : ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.

"

from papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%202%20On%20revelation

Anyhow, doesn’t make you sure of the results of your personal natural reason.
You are responsible for your reasons, and if you are wrong, is on behalf on your sins.
We know there is infinity, and we didn’t need religion to define it, but we can’t grasp it. When is about it, our mind produce paradoxes. Some were understood, but others not. Even those who are understood, you can take them only as an inference. “Can God make a rock so big he can’t lift it?” is such a paradox.

 

[davidv]

Anyhow, doesn’t make you sure of the results of your personal natural reason.
You are responsible for your reasons, and if you are wrong, is on behalf on your sins.
We know there is infinity, and we didn’t need religion to define it, but we can’t grasp it. When is about it, our mind produce paradoxes. Some were understood, but others not. Even those who are understood, you can take them only as an inference. “Can God make a rock so big he can’t lift it?” is such a paradox.

That question is not a paradox, it is nonsense.

 

[Linux]

That question is not a paradox, it is nonsense.

looooooool!

 

[tonyrey]

That question is not a paradox, it is nonsense.

It is obviously impossible to disprove absurd statements!

 

[Tyrion]

1. God is Love.

Sorry. I was hoping for a serious conversation, not meaningless platitudes.

 

[davidv]

Sorry. I was hoping for a serious conversation, not meaningless platitudes.

Get serious then.

1. Why is it a platitude? and
2. Why is it meaningless?

 

[Love4All]

Anyhow, doesn’t make you sure of the results of your personal natural reason.
You are responsible for your reasons, and if you are wrong, is on behalf on your sins.
We know there is infinity, and we didn’t need religion to define it, but we can’t grasp it. When is about it, our mind produce paradoxes. Some were understood, but others not. Even those who are understood, you can take them only as an inference. “Can God make a rock so big he can’t lift it?” is such a paradox.

“Rock so big God can’t lift it” is, how big, exactly? If you can specify the proper size of such a rock, I will produce one out of nothing. I am that confident in my logic here.