Logical absurdity and self-contradiction in the concept of God

[Love4All]

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

Allow me to join in your disappointment. I was hoping for more than dismissive hand-waving. I guess it’s the best you’ve got.

 

[ivebeenshown]

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

Excuse me fellow person, this is from the Catholic Catechism:

**1847 **"God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us."116 To receive his mercy, we must admit our faults. "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."117

Mercy, as I understand it, is not a negation of justice, but a form of justice. It would be just to inflict death upon a murderer, unless the murderer was truly repentant, in which case it would be just to forgo the penalty of death.

I will add that in hell, which is true death for a human soul, there is not one repentant soul nor ever will there be.

 

[snarflemike]

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”.

Describe in some detail how the world would be different if God behaved in the way you think he must (if, of course, he existed).

 

[Ion]

“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.

As the sentence is formulated we do not have to answer this question.
We do not really know that the sentece is coherent or not, because we do not have an inner understanding of infinity. Without the visible contradiction, we might have assumed it is coherent.

 

[Love4All]

As the sentence is formulated we do not have to answer this question.
We do not really know that the sentece is coherent or not, because we do not have an inner understanding of infinity. Without the visible contradiction, we might have assumed it is coherent.

1. God is omnipotent.
2. To move rocks is a power.
3. Thus there is no rock “so big God can’t move it.”
4. Thus “rock so big God can’t move it” is incoherent and thus meaningless.

You are incorrect to state, “we do not really know. . .” Yes, we do. That is part of the beauty of logic.

 

[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?

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

I have encountered this objection before. It appears to be based on the following argument. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

1. God is omnipotent.
2. God is Love.
3. If 1, then God has the power to correct every injustice in the world.
4. If 2, then God has the desire to correct every injustice in the world.
5. Yet there is injustice in the world.
6. Therefore, either ~1 or ~2.

A dressed-up version of Epicurus’s classic.

And undeniably, there is injustice in the world, but does it therefore follow that either God is not omnipotent or God is not Love? Let us introduce a few more points:

1. Injustice in the world is the result of free choice.
2. Love entails respect for free choice.
3. Therefore, if 2, God will find a way to correct injustice without violating free choice.
4. That way is Grace.

God has both the power and the desire to correct injustice in the world, without violating free will, through grace. Grace is the power and the desire to correct injustice in the world, beginning in oneself. As such, grace is Love, and as such, Love itself is the solution to the problem of injustice in the world. And since God is Love, God is the solution.

So, so very very far from proving the non-existence of God, what the Argument from Evil actually does is to prove the moral necessity of God. The Problem of Evil is precisely the Problem of the Rejection of God. It is proof that there is not enough co-operation with grace, and thus not enough love in the world. In that roundabout way it is a proof of the absence of God, but the absence of God is not God’s fault. God is absent from situations in the world because human beings don’t want God involved. Human beings reject grace, and so reject God, and the result is injustice in the world, because God is absent from the world, because human beings with their free will reject grace.

 

[PRmerger]

If a “love” allows rape, torture, mutilation etc… it is indistinguishable from hate.

This sounds like a grown up version of what I often hear from bratty 5 year olds after getting their kindergarten shots, “If you loved me, Daddy, you wouldn’t have held me down and let them torture me with 5 needles. I hate you. You’re a big meanie!”

 

[jonathan_hili]

This sounds like a grown up version of what I often hear from bratty 5 year olds after getting their kindergarten shots, “If you loved me, Daddy, you wouldn’t have held me down and let them torture me with 5 needles. I hate you. You’re a big meanie!”

I don’t think so, PR Merger, I think Tyrion makes a good point, which is difficult to reconcile.

However, I think he’s wrong in that allowing evil is indistinguishable from hate. It is actually very distinguishable, the fact that we can distinguish between the two makes that obvious. Furthermore, there are lots of examples in our daily lives where we allow evils but we are neither perpetrating hatred nor cooperating with evil (in the moral sense).

 

[Sair]

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.

So what is this, exactly? I am aware of the concept I grew up with, but this was very much a personal, emotive being - a someone, only a single entity made up of three distinct persons, which may be considered contradictory in itself, since it runs counter to the logical concept of identity.

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.

It’s quite true that there are incoherent word-strings that don’t have any referent in any experiential reality. So what do you mean when you say the word ‘God’? Does it have an actual meaning, a referent in experienced reality, or does it simply label a concept you can’t really define?

 

[Tyrion]

This sounds like a grown up version of what I often hear from bratty 5 year olds after getting their kindergarten shots, “If you loved me, Daddy, you wouldn’t have held me down and let them torture me with 5 needles. I hate you. You’re a big meanie!”

The proper analogy is very different. There is “loving dad” (LD) who places an open cage (filled with pretty, but poisonous snakes) into the easy reach of his 5 years old kid. He warns the kid not to touch them. The kid - as kids are wont to do - will reach out and grabs one, which bites the kid’s arm. “LD” does not use the perfectly safe and painless antidote, rather he takes an axe, and chops off the kid’s arm. And then throws him out of the house, with the “excuse” that the kid “rejected” him… That is the story of Genesis… One more remark, “LD” does not really stand for “loving” dad… rather “lunatic” dad.

Only a lunatic person would consider unlimited (to be more precise: barely limited) freedom a good, smart and loving arrangement. The amount of freedom must be very seriously curtailed, to allow learning, but no irreversible harm. Since you are a mother, I am very sure that you do not allow your kids to touch a very hot surface in the name of “one must not curtail the freedom”. Am I incorrect in this assumption?

 

[Sair]

I don’t think so, PR Merger, I think Tyrion makes a good point, which is difficult to reconcile.

However, I think he’s wrong in that allowing evil is indistinguishable from hate. It is actually very distinguishable, the fact that we can distinguish between the two makes that obvious. Furthermore, there are lots of examples in our daily lives where we allow evils but we are neither perpetrating hatred nor cooperating with evil (in the moral sense).

There is in our own experience an appreciable difference between willingly performing what we consider wrong actions, or evil, and behaving in such a way that these kinds of actions are possible for others.

The question then becomes one of why we find ourselves co-operating with evils or merely allowing them - and the answer generally is that we are limited in our capacities: either our awareness of the evil being perpetrated, or our ability to counter it.

A being with the stated attributes of the Christian God would not have such limitations.

The difference between willingly doing evil and merely standing by and letting it happen is cancelled out by the omnipotence and omniscience attributed to God as defining characteristics. We can see this through our own legal concept of negligence - anyone who knows about an abuse of some kind and is in a position to prevent it is held culpable, at least to some extent, for the perpetration of said abuse if they don’t do their best to prevent it.

What’s God’s excuse? The only one good enough, all things considered, is that he doesn’t exist…

 

[Tyrion]

Excuse me fellow person, this is from the Catholic Catechism:

**1847 **"God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us."116 To receive his mercy, we must admit our faults. "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."117

The catechism is irrelevant to a non-catholic.

Mercy, as I understand it, is not a negation of justice, but a form of justice.

Have you ever heard the phrase: “I throw myself on the mercy of the court”? It does not say: “I throw myself on the justice of the court”. The peson acknowleges the guilt, and asks for leniency, not for a “just” sentence.

I will add that in hell, which is true death for a human soul, there is not one repentant soul nor ever will there be.

Which travel agency organizes a guided tour of hell, so we can learn about it personally?

 

[Tyrion]

1. Injustice in the world is the result of free choice.
2. Love entails respect for free choice.
3. Therefore, if 2, God will find a way to correct injustice without violating free choice.
4. That way is Grace.

Unlimited (or barely limited) freedom is a very bad idea. Of course our freedom is limited, but not limited enough. Obviously one can allow a lot of freedom to those who will not “misuse” it. One does not need to handcuff everyone, just because there are a few thieves. And this is when the “omnimax” attributes turn on you and bite you on your “behind”. God (allegedly) can know beforehand who will misuse the freedom, and could simply not create those people who do not “deserve” it. Personally I would not miss those psychopaths and sociopaths… would you?

Where is that “grace” you speak of? I cannot accept or reject anything unless I know about it. And no “grace” can undo the past injustices. Not even God has an “undo” button on his keyboard.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think so, PR Merger, I think Tyrion makes a good point, which is difficult to reconcile.

However, I think he’s wrong in that allowing evil is indistinguishable from hate. It is actually very distinguishable, the fact that we can distinguish between the two makes that obvious. Furthermore, there are lots of examples in our daily lives where we allow evils but we are neither perpetrating hatred nor cooperating with evil (in the moral sense).

The point is: God could explain to us why he is allowing evil in the world, but we wouldn’t understand it. It would be like trying to explain the intricacies of immunology to a 5 year old.

 

[PRmerger]

The proper analogy is very different. There is “loving dad” (LD) who places an open cage (filled with pretty, but poisonous snakes) into the easy reach of his 5 years old kid. He warns the kid not to touch them. The kid - as kids are wont to do - will reach out and grabs one, which bites the kid’s arm. “LD” does not use the perfectly safe and painless antidote, rather he takes an axe, and chops off the kid’s arm. And then throws him out of the house, with the “excuse” that the kid “rejected” him… That is the story of Genesis… One more remark, “LD” does not really stand for “loving” dad… rather “lunatic” dad.

That is the scenario that a 5 year old might glean from reading Genesis, without the loving guidance of his mother.

Perhaps you have forgotten that you are on a Catholic forum, in dialogue with (mostly) Catholics?

We do not read Genesis outside the lens of the faith that gave us Genesus.

Only a lunatic person would consider unlimited (to be more precise: barely limited) freedom a good, smart and loving arrangement. The amount of freedom must be very seriously curtailed, to allow learning, but no irreversible harm. Since you are a mother, I am very sure that you do not allow your kids to touch a very hot surface in the name of “one must not curtail the freedom”. Am I incorrect in this assumption?

You are absolutely right about unlimited freedom being a bad thing.

Were you under the misapprehension that Catholicism proclaims that unlimited freedom is a good thing?

 

[PRmerger]

The question then becomes one of why we find ourselves co-operating with evils or merely allowing them - and the answer generally is that we are limited in our capacities: either our awareness of the evil being perpetrated, or our ability to counter it.

Or, like the loving father holding down his 5 yr old for his immunizations, there is a greater good that he knows about that the 5 yr old cannot understand.

 

[jonathan_hili]

There is in our own experience an appreciable difference between willingly performing what we consider wrong actions, or evil, and behaving in such a way that these kinds of actions are possible for others.

The question then becomes one of why we find ourselves co-operating with evils or merely allowing them - and the answer generally is that we are limited in our capacities: either our awareness of the evil being perpetrated, or our ability to counter it.

The difference between willingly doing evil and merely standing by and letting it happen is cancelled out by the omnipotence and omniscience attributed to God as defining characteristics. We can see this through our own legal concept of negligence - anyone who knows about an abuse of some kind and is in a position to prevent it is held culpable, at least to some extent, for the perpetration of said abuse if they don’t do their best to prevent it.

What’s God’s excuse? The only one good enough, all things considered, is that he doesn’t exist…

Hi Sair,

I’d like to address what you said. Your contention, from what I’m reading is:

(i) We co-operate with or allow evil because we are incapable of doing anything to counter it, or else we are unaware of the evil and/or how to prevent it.

(ii) God would be at least negligent because He should know what evil is going to be done and should, if loving, then work to prevent it or stop it.

I think both are problematic responses to the issue.

There are many occasions when we co-operate with and allow evil even though we are fully aware of what is happening and we could very well stop it. For example, my friend is cheating on his wife. I’ve spoken to him about not doing it but he replies that he has it under control. Now, I could tell his wife what is happening - which may stop the adultery - or I could push him into a corner and beat him up or shout at him until he sees some sense. However, if I do neither of these things, am I perpetrating evil or being negligent? I don’t think so. Why? For the obvious reason that there is a limit to how much I can reasonably and morally interfere in my friend’s life, or his wife’s life. Perhaps this limit has been crossed, perhaps not.

Now with regards to God, the question becomes: what’s the limit? If God can conceivably interfere to stop people committing evil, where does He draw the line? What evils should He prevent and what evils shouldn’t He? What then becomes of our free will and ability to act as autonomous moral beings?

For me, these kinds of questions help us to see, in some circumstances, why God might allow evil - which is the question you posed above.

I think this is at least one possible reason, so the atheistic charge I think can’t be sustained on this claim alone.

Also, to take account of what PR Merger said, I think he has a point. If there is a qualitative difference between God and ourselves; moreover, if God’s omniscience allows Him to understand and perceive reality in a fuller way, that takes into accounts not only past, present and future actions, but also hypothetical situations, a person’s state of mind or soul and what eternal consequences certain actions result in, we know from the outset that any attempt to fully settle this question will be futile. We can get near or take educated guesses but we will never have a definitive answer.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You are absolutely right about unlimited freedom being a bad thing.

Were you under the misapprehension that Catholicism proclaims that unlimited freedom is a good thing?

My suspicion is that unlimited freedom is an aspect of the omnimax attributes of God in the sense that God has no constraints placed upon him and is therefore truly free. So unlimited freedom in principle is not a bad idea, in itself. It only looks like a bad idea from the perspective of beings who have no identity from which to act. That is what human beings are. That lack of real personal freedom, I also suspect, is why we do not know God. We do not have an identity from which to exercise unlimited freedom so we see it as a risky enterprise.

Evil is not the result of the exercise of freedom, it is the result of pseudo-freedom or misplaced desire for actual freedom.

The answer to Tyrion’s alleged issue with God is that our destiny is to find unlimited freedom in him as an aspect of finding who and what we are. We can only find ourselves, our true identities within the unlimited freedom that is God. It is a risky enterprise, but one worth taking. Tyrion is a Bilbo Baggins type who would prefer to stay home and have tea and crumpets because adventures in freedom, in his view, are a messy business to be avoided. He would rather stay inside the eggshell of hs own defined space like a chick refusing to hatch. The problem is that the interior ego (egg) will soon begin to reek as it was not designed to be a lasting abode.

Tyrion’s preaching against God only makes matters worse because he is convincing others to remain in the precarious situation of having to endure the cause of their own suffering which will result in even more frustration and “lashing out” as those who take his advice begin to experience the futility of their existence trapped inside their own egos.

This is, incidentally, the reason why Tyrion is both anti-freedom and anti-God. He doesn’t understand either one. He only understands and feels safe inside the machinations of his own mind, his own ego egg.

The answer is to point to what real freedom means. That is the freedom that Christ showed and that the saints demonstrate in their lives. A freedom that does not commit evil regardless of what evil is perpetrated on it. A freedom that rises above suffering to act only out of the eternal freedom that is infinite love.

 

[Tyrion]

The point is: God could explain to us why he is allowing evil in the world, but we wouldn’t understand it. It would be like trying to explain the intricacies of immunology to a 5 year old.

And how do you know that? I missed the last session when God came and tried to explain why little Jane “had to” be kidnapped, raped and tortured to death…

Of course your post is nothing new. It is the standard reply of the “fifth officer” from here:

“Look, there’s really no point in my trying to explain the details to you,” said the fifth officer, who we had nicknamed ‘Brainiac’ because he had an encyclopedic knowledge of literally everything and an IQ way off the charts. “There’s an excellent reason for why I did not intervene, but it’s just way too complicated for you to understand, so I’m not even going to bother trying. I mean, you admit you are nowhere near as knowledgeable as I am, so what right do you have to judge? Just so there’s no misunderstanding, though, let me point out that no one could care about Ms. K. more than I did, and that I am, in fact, a very good person. That settles that.”

 

[Tyrion]

That is the scenario that a 5 year old might glean from reading Genesis, without the loving guidance of his mother.

Perhaps you have forgotten that you are on a Catholic forum, in dialogue with (mostly) Catholics?

We do not read Genesis outside the lens of the faith that gave us Genesus.

That is your problem. Other people see reality without special “guidance”. Your :guidance" seves only misdirection.

You are absolutely right about unlimited freedom being a bad thing.

Were you under the misapprehension that Catholicism proclaims that unlimited freedom is a good thing?

When was the time that the church exclaimed: “this amout of freedom is simply too much!”. You are all on the side of keeping the rapist, murderers, sociopaths and psychopaths “alive” and intact, when God could simply cure them without anyone being aware that such a cure was administered.