Logical absurdity and self-contradiction in the concept of God

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Why? It is exactly the basic definitions that I disagree with.

Why? We disagree with your definitions. But you are in our turf. Use our language.

When I debate in another forum, I use the language and terms being used in that forum. I may disagree with the terms, but then I will state my disagreements in the language used in that forum.

I expect others who go to our forums to have that same type of respect.

Let’s use the same principle as it is being used in court. If one can decide beyond any reasonable doubt that a certain instance of suffering is unnecessary - then it IS unnecessary.

The problem is, you are in our court.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Who says that an “interference” is needed? The old proverb: “an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure” is still valid and wise. There is no need to interfere at all, as long as God uses his “omniscience” and simply does not create those who would do “evil”. (Of course it is a different problem to decide what is “evil”).

Because of free will, the possibility exists that everyone is capable of evil and at some point will commit evil. This is something of what Catholics mean by Original Sin, that we have a predilection to evil or going against “the Good”. If this possibility exists, then you need to argue that a good God would never have created human beings at all.

Good people can be allowed to behave as freely as they wish. Only “bad” people need to be filtered out. Soooo very simple.

But you’re assuming that “good people” are good 100% of the time. Do you know any such person? I can only think of one or two!

 

[PRmerger]

Third, an immunization shot is NOT the same as rape, torture and murder… not even analogically.

LOL!

I see that you do not have the ability to think in the abstract here.

Let’s take a very simple analogy.

Christmas tree : ornament :: earlobe : earring.

No one could fail to see this as a proper analogy.

What you are doing is saying, “How dare you equate a magnificent Christmas tree with a fleshy piece of cartilage! A Christmas tree is NOT the same as an earlobe!”

Ya think? No one is saying that a Christmas tree is the same as an earlobe. It’s an analogy.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, I think a daddy that holds his child down to receive his shots is, indeed, “a very good person.”

You don’t?

I most certainly do NOT.

You’re not going to hold your child down to receive his shots? Or, am I going to presume, you’re not going to get your child immunized? Or perhaps you’re going to wait until he can understand the intricacies of the immunology system and wait for him to give you his permission to be stuck with 5 needles?

First, that “daddy” failed the child with a simple explanation (fit to the age of the kid).

What a 5 year old understands is this, “This is going to hurt, son, but it’s necessary to keep you healthy. It helps your body learn to fight off bad germs.”

And if he’s bratty he’s going to respond with kicking and screaming and “I hate you! You’re a big meanie!”

Sounds just like the equivalent of some grown up atheists in response to God’s love, to me.

 

[jonathan_hili]

LOL!

I see that you do not have the ability to think in the abstract here.

Let’s take a very simple analogy.

Christmas tree : ornament :: earlobe : earring.

No one could fail to see this as a proper analogy.

What you are doing is saying, “How dare you equate a magnificent Christmas tree with a fleshy piece of cartilage! A Christmas tree is NOT the same as an earlobe!”

Ya think? No one is saying that a Christmas tree is the same as an earlobe. It’s an analogy.

Good point, PR, but I think the dis-analogy is the perception on the part of the recipient, rather than the giver. That is to say, what is meant by morally intolerable pain. It can’t obviously be simply the physical, emotional or psychological pain. There must be under-girding moral value.

(i) God should not permit rape not simply because it is painful but because it is morally wrong.
(ii) God (or a loving father) can permit immunisation because although painful it is not morally wrong.

I think that’s where an analogy might break-up. Having said that, I think it is morally justifiable to permit certain immoral evils if it prevents an even greater immoral evil (that is, the deprivation of free will to persons).

 

[Peter_Plato]

Nope. “Evil” is intentionally causing unnecessary harm to a being with a nervous system. That is the definition of “evil”, not a capricious decision of someone, whose attitude is “might makes right!”

There are multitudinous problems with this definition.

1. The word “unnecessary” begs the question regarding God’s role because it assumes the POV of a being with a nervous system as the arbiter of evil. Yet, if God exists as the Creator of all, including the moral sensibilites of beings with nervous systems, then there is no reason to warrant the exclusion of God’s POV in the determination of evil and arbitrarily award that distinction to beings with nervous systems.
2. This definition actually legitimizes some forms of rape where no “unnecessary harm” is done. Take the example of a genteel rapist who plies the would-be victim with affectionate attention, drugs her into a state of euphoria and provides a “safe” contraceptive. The victim would have been none the wiser after the fact and had experienced what some would call a pleasurable time. According to Tyrion’s definition, no evil would have been perpetrated here precisely because no physical harm was done. The rapist might even insist that the act had the air of necessity about it because he had no power to resist carrying it out.
3. This definition completely recasts evil as its consequences and not as the intent or will of the agent committing the evil. The rapist is not by this definition ‘evil’ in any sense, only the consequences of his act were. Harboring the intention to rape, torture or mutilate is not evil, only the actual physical harm done is. Obviously, this is contrary to Christ"s teaching that even having sinful thoughts is evil in itself.
4. The nervous system grounds for determining harm is somewhat tenuous. Are mere affronts to the sensitivities of such a being to be counted as evil or only when there is measurable physical damage? If sensitivities are to be counted as the standards then these are “flexible” and relative. Try putting your hand under cold water before dipping it in hot water. Perceptions based upon the nervous system are often inconsistent between individuals. One person’s debilitating anxiety is another person’s incentive.
   On the other hand, if only physical damage is the measure then why exclude beings without nervous systems that could suffer physical damage? Could trees and rocks suffer evil, then? Or do you mean only damage to the nervous system itself, which lets off the genteel rapist?
   This point takes us back to the “unnecessary” condition. Unnecessary according to whom and under physical, emotional or merely capricious standards?

Don’t get me wrong. I do agree to a definition of evil as tied to harm done, I simply don’t agree that having a nervous system is the qualification that allows humans to have anything like a final say in the determination of what counts as evil; or harm, for that matter.

What having a nervous system does do is make us biased in our definition of evil. The possibility of suffering biases our view of evil towards that which makes us suffer - a very prejudiced perspective. One example of this bias is that we can condone millions of abortions as inconsequential because, we rationalize, fetuses do not have fully developed nervous systems like “we” do. Of course, the privilege of having such a system makes it appear that we are the “elite” determiners of morality, when in fact we are not.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think that’s where an analogy might break-up. Having said that, I think it is morally justifiable to permit certain immoral evils if it prevents an even greater immoral evil (that is, the deprivation of free will to persons).

To extend this point, a bit: any definition of evil must rest on an adequate definition of the “good.” Evil, as you have noted, is the privation of good. By making that statement, it becomes critical to then define what the good is, since evil would be what detracts from the good or prevents it from happening.

The problem with defining evil, as Tyrion did, with reference to a specific biological entity (beings with nervous systems) is that it constrains the meaning of “good” merely to that which is conducive to the well-being of entities with nervous systems. This completely rules out, by definitional fiat, the possibility of a greater teleological good as an aspect of creation, which sheds a different light, than Tyrion could allow, on instances such as the deaths and sufferings of soldiers in battle against an evil power being necessary and even “good” towards bringing down that evil power and restoring the good for all.

Relative to a greater teleological good, God may deem human suffering as a necessary aspect of bringing about the greater cosmic good. Tyrion’s argument attempts to nullify this possibility by defining the good as tied to human biological makeup. It sounds enticing because we are human, biologically speaking. However, soldiers fighting on the side of the evil power would, in Tyrion’s view, be just as wrong or right as those on the good side. In his view, the best scenario would entail it didn’t matter who won as long as no one was injured or died. Surrendering to evil could be the right course because, then, human neurological systems would be spared.

Just as a thought experiment, I wonder how Tyrion would handle Christ’s three temptations in the wilderness? Given that the good is defined by him as what is conducive to human neurochemistry, I don’t see that Tyrion, using his own logic, could make any sense of why Jesus resisted the temptations.

“And when the tempter came to Him, He said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.” Matt 4:3

“And saith unto Him, If thou be the son of God cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning Thee; and in their hands they shall bear Thee up, lest at any time Thou dash Thy food against a stone.

**“Again the devil taketh Him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them:

“And saith unto Him, All these will I give Thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship Me.

“Then saith Jesus unto him, Away with you, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.” Matt 4:8-10
**

(My apologies for speaking of Tyrion in the third person, as if he wasn’t privy to this conversation, but I am convinced by his lack of engagement with my points that I am on his ignore list for suggesting that he break out of his egoshell and venture beyond its constraints. One thing I will have to say is that his “egg” has a fully integrated logical structure to it which is why he is convinced it provides him with complete protection against supernatural or “alien” modes of thought. So, the reason I am referring to him obliquely is because his ignore shell has placed him beyond my vocal range, i.e., he likely can’t “hear” my logic because he has placed himself out of earshot.)

 

[jonathan_hili]

Oh, the definition of evil as “intentionally causing unnecessary harm to a being with a nervous system” is terrible. I mean, it would practically remove the problem of evil, since no-one really claims that God “intentionally causes unnecessary harm to beings with a nervous system”.

And then we come up with some obvious problems. What if the rapist, in raping the young girl, didn’t intentionally want to harm her but cause her pleasure? In this case, he isn’t doing anything evil since his action isn’t to intentionally cause harm. What makes it worse, though, is the use of “unnecessary”. Does this mean intentionally causing necessary harm is okay? If that’s the case, then torture is justified and not evil, since it is intentionally causing necessary harm.

Sorry, Tyrion, but where did you find this rum definition for “evil”?

 

[Tyrion]

But you are in our turf. Use our language.

The problem is, you are in our court.

You have 2 possible courses of action. One is to convince the moderators to ban everyone who does not accept the “catholic” definition of basic terms. Two would be to put everyone on “ignore” whom you do not like. The choice is yours.

 

[Tyrion]

Because of free will, the possibility exists that everyone is capable of evil and at some point will commit evil. This is something of what Catholics mean by Original Sin, that we have a predilection to evil or going against “the Good”. If this possibility exists, then you need to argue that a good God would never have created human beings at all.

From free will ONLY the possibility of “evil” follows, not its actuality. Do you understand the difference? (Of course it is futile to argue about the “original sin”). Most people are not sociopaths, not rapists, not murderers, not child molesters… they are simply decent people, who might not be “saints”, but who are most certainly just fine to have as neighbors, friends or family members.

But you’re assuming that “good people” are good 100% of the time. Do you know any such person? I can only think of one or two!

Even one is sufficient to PROVE that free will does not LOGICALLY lead to evil acts. If something is not logically impossible, even the inadeqately defined onmipotence shows that such a state of affairs can be instantiated.

Of course I am not suggesting to have only “super-saints”. Only normal, decent people. Do I know such people… yes, thousands of them.

 

[Tyrion]

Oh, the definition of evil as “intentionally causing unnecessary harm to a being with a nervous system” is terrible.

Obviously it is impossible to find agreement. After all in “catholic-speak” it is “evil” to engage in sex with your spouse, if the “position” is not open to conception, even if the woman has no uterus, or ovaries… and as such conception is physically impossible. On the other hand, it is perfectly fine, moral and upringt to perform a genocide, kill all the men, women and the male children (but keep the virgins as sex-slaves) if God orders you to do it.

I mean, it would practically remove the problem of evil, since no-one really claims that God “intentionally causes unnecessary harm to beings with a nervous system”.

I do. Of course I was a bit hasty in providing the definition, since I thought that it is not necessary to get down to the kindergarten level. I left out part of the phrase “intentionaly causes or ALLOWS…”. In the reality where I live, if someone has foreknowledge about a rape, or a terrorist attack, AND has the power to stop it, AND fails to do so, that person is regarded as morally culpable and convicted for it.

If you would check out the synonyms of “evil”, you would find: wicked, malevolent, malicious, vile… etc.

And then we come up with some obvious problems. What if the rapist, in raping the young girl, didn’t intentionally want to harm her but cause her pleasure?

Ah, so now you start to talk about an imbecile with an IQ of about 60?

What makes it worse, though, is the use of “unnecessary”. Does this mean intentionally causing necessary harm is okay?

Necessary means (amazing that I must really explain such obvious things) that the result of the action brings forth some “greater good”, which cannot be achieved without the harm, and the amount of the “harm” cannot be lessened without losing that benefit.

Sorry, Tyrion, but where did you find this rum definition for “evil”?

In reality, using reason and logic.

 

[Love4All]

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.

If God did not create anyone who would later sin, would you exist?

Do you draw the line somewhere between your own existence and that of your favorite “psychopath?” Where exactly? And how do you justify drawing it there?

It seems to me that the closer a person is to the perfect sinlessness of God, the more, not the less compassion they will have on sinners. In other words, those who alone would exist if your scenario were implemented would still want you to exist despite your sins, and would want you to receive grace so as to overcome your sins.

Grace is freely available to all. The first grace is prayer. You have available to you right now, in this very moment, all the grace you need to pray. Say, “please love me, God. Amen.” If you said that just now, you prayed, and if you prayed, you accepted a grace to pray, and so now you know the answer to “where is grace?”

True, no one can accept grace who does not receive it. (Explicit knowledge is another matter. One can pray without being aware that to pray is a grace.) But, you cannot claim not to have received any. But if you do not pray, then you have rejected the grace you received to pray, and that, with free will. So shouldn’t God eliminate you? Yet in His Mercy, here you still are.

Grace does not erase the past, but good action now can repair for bad action in the past. And good action is impossible without grace.

 

[Tyrion]

If God did not create anyone who would later sin, would you exist?

I am NOT talking about “sin”. Sin is just another undefined religious concept. I would be perfectly happy with eliminating those people who volitionally cause unnecessary harm, suffering to others. The rapists, the child molesters, the embezzlers, the murderers… and their ilk. What is so difficult to understand here? I suggest you read my posts directly above.

Grace is freely available to all.

That is not an answer to my question. I was asking: “what is grace”? How do I recognize it?

 

[jimmy]

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.

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?

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. 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.

Lanister, the problem is that all concepts can be considered vague. Ideas that you consider concrete, like justice and mercy, aren’t so concrete. People regularly disagree on what is just. I even disagree with myself on what is just. On the one hand I think that justice would simply be the rehabilitation of an evil person so that he completely transforms himself to act in the proper fashion. A murderer repents of what he does and tries to do what he can to make up for his error. But on the other hand, there is a vindictive side that says the murderer should be punished with the same or worse pain than he caused his victim.

Your assertion that the statement ‘God is love’ is meaningless makes sense, but it comes from within a particular perspective or mode of thought. Similarly the assertion that 'God is love, comes from a particular perspective and has a context within which it is asserted. The Christian starts within the context that he was created by God for the purpose of loving God. That informs any definition that is subsequently declared of God. God is love, but that. Can only be considered Along with a sense of teleology or purpose.

 

[Love4All]

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.”

I disagree with PRMerger that we ought to shut off our brains and just accept reality as unknowable. I think, rather, it is possible to understand some of the reasons for what happens. That said, your objection betrays a lack of understanding certain things.

‘why little Jane “had to” be kidnapped, raped and tortured to death’

First, it is not true that that “had to” happen. It didn’t have to happen, but it did happen. Why?

One solution, an easy one, is simply to say, “there is no God.” If there is no God, then there is no loving purpose behind Creation at all, and there is no reason to expect that things like that would not happen. This is, as I say, an easy solution, because if there is no God there is no dilemma to resolve. There is injustice in the world because people commit injustices, and unless human justice is carried out on the perpetrators, they will get away with it. Why? Because they wanted to. A more interesting question in such a scenario is, why ask why? Isn’t it obvious? Cause and effect. Someone wanted to rape Jane, Jane was powerless to fight off her attacker, so Jane got raped. What is wrong with that?

The question, “what is wrong with that?” is serious. I have more to say on this topic, but initially I’d like to get your (name removed by moderator)ut on that question. I am not suggesting that a human being should not care. Any human being who hears about it can easily say, “I would not want that to happen to me,” and can derive compassion from that recognition. But why should the Universe care? Why should there be any law in the universe preventing rape? The situation without God is that human beings punish rape by human law because in general, everyone agrees that they would not want it happening to them. For the practical rapist, this means, either kill your victim, or skip town. Or, suffer the consequences, which are far less desirable than the pleasure of the rape.

My point is this: you seem to have an idea that there is something “wrong” with Jane getting raped and killed, such that if the Universe itself could prevent it, it should. Where are you getting this idea of yours?

 

[Love4All]

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

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.

By violating their free will?

 

[Love4All]

Funny. So “rape, torture, mutilation” happens to the victim for their own good?

Good can come out of evil. Ask Saint Maria Goretti.

 

[Love4All]

Kicking them out of the Garden, and condemning their descendants to suffering was very much irreversible harm.

How will that fly among Catholics? We believe that God reversed the harm completely.

 

[Love4All]

Except that injustice happens to just people.

So you’re saying that God uses collective responsibility.

No.

 

[Love4All]

No, but neither is the pain suffered by the child getting a needle for their own good. It is an unintended and undesirable consequence of the vaccination. The good is the health of the child who will not be susceptible to getting the full fledged disease as a result of the painful vaccine.

PR’s point is that evils such as rape and torture are unintended and undesirable consequences of the free agency of human moral beings.

I would further argue that free agency is an infinitely valuable quality, the essential aspect of personal identity. It makes us who we are as subjectively aware beings. Without it we would be no more aware of being alive than a rock or a table is.

It is the good of personal identity that God wills us to have even if he must allow evil as a result, just as a parent must allow the pain suffered by their child receiving a needle for the good of protecting their child from a serious and potentially debilitating disease.

In a sense, for God, the alternative to free will is to debilitate every human moral agent by rescinding the conscious awareness of every human in order to prevent willed evil.

Animals have awareness without free will. Animals are superior to rocks and tables. Awareness does not entail free will.