Logical absurdity and self-contradiction in the concept of God

[jimmy]

Sure. I think we are agreed.

Hahaha, it is good to agree.

 

[PRmerger]

Hahaha, it is good to agree.

It’s nice to be nice to the nice–Major Frank Burns

It’s easy to agree with the agreeable–PRmerger

 

[jonathan_hili]

Well, of course it is an attainable, human standard, otherwise he couldn’t live up to it, and would need Sacraments and such. But he himself called his standard,“high.” I didn’t make that up.

Shrugs

This is what he said to me as his standard:

Of course I am not suggesting to have only “super-saints”. Only normal, decent people.

I don’t think that’s a high standard, though admittedly he might.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Sorry, have to shorten quotes - no space

Your argument seems to be…

That’s not really what I’m saying. I’m not saying because it is logically possible, it is inevitable, but rather that not only is it logically possible, it is ontologically probably, which makes it practically certain. For example, if you take a man into an alcohol shop and give him some money, it is logically possible that he might buy a beer - repeat this 1 billion times - and although logically possible, it is not certain, true. But couple with this the ontological fact that he is an alcoholic, and then the logical possibility seems not only just likely but certain, not because there isn’t free will but that knowing what human beings are like, 1/1 billion is going to fall.

Yes, God is not limited by chance, but we are. If God gives us free will, He can’t make us not do something and respect our free will. So, I would see, if you couple the logical possibility with the ontological understand that human beings are morally imperfect, then I think you have practical certainty (though, admittedly, not complete certainty).

Does he now?

He presents scenarios, rather than arguments. I’ll give you one as an example. If you have a man and a woman and some arable land and animals to hunt, all can be well and good. But what happens if you increase the population and, while doing, decrease the available land and animals for food. Then you create competition, which can create violence and warfare. Also, in terms of intellectual development, there are certain periods in a person’s life when he or she is more likely to be combative.

“Possible” and “feasible” aren’t really synonyms. Whereas “possible” is dealing with whether something can be actualised, “feasible” is dealing with whether it can work and is preferred over another option. E.g. “It’s possible that I can catch a plane to work every morning, but not feasible, as I don’t really have the money.”

So, in this case, Dr Craig says that it might not have been feasible for God because the population of the world might have been too small.

Does he argue that there is a possible world with…

That’s a good point, but the reality is that humans are not highly intellectual moral agents. He is dealing with humanity as it is, or was, not some invented humanity. Why? Because considering the constitution of human beings (mind and body), how we procreate, how we need to find food, our communal nature, etc. it might not be possible or feasible to have such a being, capable of love and free will, who would not commit evil.

It terms of mathematical proof, well, it doesn’t say much about us. What Christianity claims is that God created human beings with free will and human beings sinned. It doesn’t claim that God created super-intelligent moral beings with free will but us. Now, I guess what you can argue is that God shouldn’t have created human beings as they are to subvert the reality of evil.

Absolutely! However, your definition of “evil” is not the same as mine.

Okay, we’ll go with yours. So you know someone (of the age of reason) who has not caused unnecessary intentional harm to a being capable of feeling this harm?

That is NOT what I said…

What do you mean “pretend”? How so? And it is not forbidden to engage in extra-vaginal sex, though again that depends what you mean.

The Church teaches that the act of sex is geared towards the unison of a married couple and the procreation of children, and this is the teleology that informs whether certain sexual acts are immoral or not.

Let’s take another example. The act of speech is geared towards truth, telling the truth. Now, let’s say that a person was unable to tell the truth; because of some strange disease he always had to lie. He was aware of this and as much as he tried to tell the truth, he couldn’t, even when he wanted to. Does that make his lying a sin? No, because he can’t control it. But let’s say that on one occasion he wanted to lie and fortunately his desire corresponded with his action of lying. On this occasion, I think, he did an immoral act because his desire was disordered.

Now, with regards to the sex question again, if it is geared towards unison and procreation, even if a couple cannot procreate, any act that is intentionally (deliberately with foreknowledge) committed that would frustrate this end would be immoral.

I know you want agree, but does that make it clear?

The fallacy of “special pleading”. Never fails to show up!

It would only be “special pleading” if it was arbitrary, but when you consider who God is, it isn’t. If I create a statue of a person, no one has the right to destroy it, but I do, because I made it. How is that “special pleading”?

Only because there are beings with nervous systems are affected.

Let’s assume there is no-one with a nervous system on this planet. It’s a beautiful planet, with trees, and flowers, and pretty skies. And we decide to drop bombs all over it and pollute the atmosphere, so that it becomes a dead world. Wouldn’t you say this was “evil”, even though it really doesn’t affect any creature with a nervous system?

(I’d say it is because you are destroying beauty and nature, and these things are evil, even if they don’t affect creatures with nervous systems.)

 

[jonathan_hili]

Nope. The act itself is always neutral…

That’s only a contradiction if you believe all acts are morally neutral in themselves. But the Church doesn’t believe that. Murdering an innocent person - no matter what the circumstance - is always wrong because of the act. Actually “outcome” isn’t one of the pieces in the moral formula for action: it is the nature of the act, the intention and the situation (or circumstance).

How do you know that? This is simply a matter of technology…

But surely there is a difference between amputation (which is an action that is morally neutral) and torture (which is not)? And it’s not a matter of technology. Let’s say you could scan his brain to get the information. While it might not physically hurt him, aren’t you violating his person in some way? Now obviously this isn’t as harmful (at least physically) as torture, and we might accept it, but I can’t think that it’s morally good or acceptable to be invading people’s private thoughts without their permission, even if the outcome was beneficial.

 

[Tyrion]

That’s not really what I’m saying. I’m not saying because it is logically possible, it is inevitable, but rather that not only is it logically possible, it is ontologically probably, which makes it practically certain.

Same thing. “Practically certain” is not “certain”. If you need more explanation, just say so. We are talking about ALL the possible worlds.

Yes, God is not limited by chance, but we are. If God gives us free will, He can’t make us not do something and respect our free will.

There is no need to violate free will.

He presents scenarios, rather than arguments. I’ll give you one as an example. If you have a man and a woman and some arable land and animals to hunt, all can be well and good. But what happens if you increase the population and, while doing, decrease the available land and animals for food.

Very bad example. The available land is not limited, if God wishes to extend it.

“Possible” and “feasible” aren’t really synonyms. Whereas “possible” is dealing with whether something can be actualised, “feasible” is dealing with whether it can work and is preferred over another option. E.g. “It’s possible that I can catch a plane to work every morning, but not feasible, as I don’t really have the money.”

With that kind of “reasoning” someone can say that God never actualized the “evil-free” world, since there would be no fodders for the hellfire, and thus God would “deprive” himself from the pleasure of the stench of burning flesh… which is so pleasing to his nostrils.

So, in this case, Dr Craig says that it might not have been feasible for God because the population of the world might have been too small.

He is wrong. There is no upper limit to the possible population.

That’s a good point, but the reality is that humans are not highly intellectual moral agents. He is dealing with humanity as it is, or was, not some invented humanity. Why? Because considering the constitution of human beings (mind and body), how we procreate, how we need to find food, our communal nature, etc. it might not be possible or feasible to have such a being, capable of love and free will, who would not commit evil.

None of those are logically necessary. God could create total “saints”, if he wanted to. But, don’t worry, even with those “presupposed” attributes, it is STILL possible to have an evil-free world, no limitation on free will and no upper limit to the population, and the world filled in with everyday people.

It terms of mathematical proof, well, it doesn’t say much about us.

Since I did not tell you about that proof, your objection is premature.

What Christianity claims is that God created human beings with free will and human beings sinned. It doesn’t claim that God created super-intelligent moral beings with free will but us. Now, I guess what you can argue is that God shouldn’t have created human beings as they are to subvert the reality of evil.

I could, but I don’t need to. As I said, there is no need to impose special limitations.

Okay, we’ll go with yours. So you know someone (of the age of reason) who has not caused unnecessary intentional harm to a being capable of feeling this harm?

Of course.

What do you mean “pretend”? How so? And it is not forbidden to engage in extra-vaginal sex, though again that depends what you mean.

To behave as if procreation would be possible. I meant no ejaculation within the vagina. Let’s not go into all the clinical details.

Let’s take another example. The act of speech is geared towards truth, telling the truth.

No, it is not. It is simply a form of information exchange, sometimes passing valid information, sometimes not. I am aware that there is no “white lie” in catholicism, but it is nonsense. One does not tell the “truth” under any and all circumstances. Sometime lying is THE moral option.

It would only be “special pleading” if it was arbitrary, but when you consider who God is, it isn’t. If I create a statue of a person, no one has the right to destroy it, but I do, because I made it. How is that “special pleading”?

Your assertion that God “made” us should be substantiated. But suppose you gave that statue to your friend, then you lose “dominion” over it. And our life is “ours”, no matter what the church says.

Let’s assume there is no-one with a nervous system on this planet. It’s a beautiful planet, with trees, and flowers, and pretty skies. And we decide to drop bombs all over it and pollute the atmosphere, so that it becomes a dead world. Wouldn’t you say this was “evil”, even though it really doesn’t affect any creature with a nervous system?

(I’d say it is because you are destroying beauty and nature, and these things are evil, even if they don’t affect creatures with nervous systems.)

There is no such “thing” as beauty. It all depends on the need. During the WWII in South Carolina the pilots performed their training by bombing a small island in Lake Murray. Was that “evil”?

 

[PRmerger]

To behave as if procreation would be possible.

That is not pretense. That is simply understanding an action being directed towards its proper end.

I think this analogy, borrowed from the wickedly funny yet orthodox and trenchant Catholic blogger, Marc Barnes, limns the difference quite well:

Imagine a senior citizens baseball team that shows up to play the 2011 World Series champs, the St. Louis Cardinals. They have absolutely no chance of achieving the proper end of baseball (gaining more runs than the other team), but so long as they play according to the rules their play is still ordered toward its proper end.

No one could look objectively at their game and declare, “They are only pretending to play baseball!”.

 

[Tyrion]

That’s only a contradiction if you believe all acts are morally neutral in themselves. But the Church doesn’t believe that. Murdering an innocent person - no matter what the circumstance - is always wrong because of the act.

Murder is NOT an act. The act would be to grab a gun, point it, and pull the trigger. “Murder” is loaded term. It includes the intent, and the circumstances - and their lawfulness.

Actually “outcome” isn’t one of the pieces in the moral formula for action: it is the nature of the act, the intention and the situation (or circumstance).

Correct. The point is that there are three “legs”. The intent, the ways and means and the outcome.

There is something that needs to be discussed. It is next to impossible to come to some common ground, because our ethical system is totally different. Yours is a “deontological” system, which means it is rule-based, or command based. Mine is approximately a “consequentialist” system (not fully, because in a fully consequentialist system ONLY the result matters, and the “means” is not considered).

Your system is based upon obedience. If the command would tell you to kill your own son (like Abraham) it would be the “moral” thing for you to OBEY, even if your hand would not be stopped at the last moment. As such, the OUTCOME is irrelevant, what matters is obedience.

In my system, both the “means” and the “outcome” are important, while the “intent” is not relevant. Even if someone performs a lot of generous and helpful actions, but his motives are to feel good about it - who cares? The helped ones certainly do not. The spectators? Why would they care?

In your system the outcome is irrelevant. If it happens to be favorable, that is fine. But the point is to obey the rules, no matter what they demand.

But surely there is a difference between amputation (which is an action that is morally neutral) and torture (which is not)? And it’s not a matter of technology. Let’s say you could scan his brain to get the information. While it might not physically hurt him, aren’t you violating his person in some way? Now obviously this isn’t as harmful (at least physically) as torture, and we might accept it, but I can’t think that it’s morally good or acceptable to be invading people’s private thoughts without their permission, even if the outcome was beneficial.

Again, it is not simple. Suppose that a totally impartial computer system would constantly “scan” everyone’s thought processes, and IF it detects and immediate act of violence, then it simple triggers a device to erase that desire. As long as the process is foolproof, there is nothing wrong with it.

But, of course, in my eyes the almost total freedom we “enjoy” is a very bad idea. We do have some limitations on out freedom already. Why should we accept that this amount of limitation is “optimal”?

P.S. Gotta love the “ignore” feature… I can now disregard those posters, whom I do not wish to see…

 

[Love4All]

Then could you please direct me to the post in which I said: “We ought to shut off our brains and just accept reality as unknowable.”

I’m especially interested in the part where you gleaned that I said we need to shut off our brains.

What you posted, that I was referring to, was this:

“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.”

The message I get from this is, “Don’t try to understand. Just accept that it is beyond your capacity to understand.”

I was using hyperbole. Sorry, again.

 

[Love4All]

it can be PROVEN, mathematically, that there is a possible world with unlimited number of moral agents, all of whom have perfectly free will, and NONE of them will commit any “evil” act, no matter how nonsensical the definition of “evil” might be.

You are totally exaggerating, right? If you are not exaggerating, send me the proof in a PM, because I think your statement above is absurd. But not the point, anyway.

Allow me to disclaim, I do not think Craig is the very best apologist. I think he holds certain assumptions, at variance with the truth, that cripple his ability to defend the truth.

Anyway — below you actually touch on the topic itself, albeit indirectly through the Church, so I though I should address what you said.

The church has two contradictory assertions (why am I not surprised?). One is that to decide the morality of an action it is required to take all the circumstances into consideration, the “intent”, the “ways and means” (the action itself) and the “outcome”. Now this is a very well formulated rule. Then there is the other one, declaring that some acts are “evil” in and of themselves. A beautiful piece of contradiction!

There is no contradiction. Part of the first consideration, as you pointed out, is considering the action in and of itself. If certain actions are defined as objectively evil, then that consideration will reveal that the morality of the action is evil, when one considers the action itself as a way or a mean to the accomplishment of the intent.

Example: abortion is intrinsically evil, and cannot be made good. For your first requirement, to consider intent, ways and means, and outcome, the intent may be to avoid bringing a child into a life of suffering, ostensibly a good intent, and the outcome may be not bringing a child into a life of suffering, ostensibly a good outcome, but if the means is aborting the child, then the whole action is evil. I do not see any contradiction in any of this.

 

[Love4All]

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”).

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

How will God prevent the creation of those who would do evil without interfering in the natural order of things?

 

[tonyrey]

It can be PROVEN, mathematically, that there is a possible world with unlimited number of moral agents, all of whom have perfectly free will, and NONE of them will commit any “evil” act, no matter how nonsensical the definition of “evil” might be.

Love4All You are totally exaggerating, right? If you are not exaggerating, send me the proof in a PM, because I think your statement above is absurd.

To regard persons as no more than statistical units is the height of folly!
A fine example of **logical **absurdity.

 

[PRmerger]

What you posted, that I was referring to, was this:

“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.”

The message I get from this is, “Don’t try to understand. Just accept that it is beyond your capacity to understand.”

I was using hyperbole.

I would appreciate it if you didn’t misrepresent my arguments with hyperbole. Especially one as inflammatory as: PRmerger says we should just turn our brains off.

Sorry, again.

Fuh-get about it.

 

[Love4All]

Except that love is only “accidentally,” and not essentially, physical. The Word is bread because of Divine fiat, not because bread is essentially the same as Love.

No one has asserted the absurdity that all bread is Love. I, for my part, have not even advanced the absurdity that Love became bread. I specifically differentiated bread and Bread, and I called Love Bread, to indicate the specific Entity with the appearance of bread that is Love. The whole substance of the bread is, in fact, converted to the Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ. So that, it is no longer bread, but the Body and Blood of Christ. And thus, Love has not in fact become bread. Love, rather, has extended His Incarnation across time and space, and is Present on our altars and in our tabernacles, not indeed as bread, but as Himself. The only thing remaining of bread is the accident of appearance.

Now, the Body and Blood and human Soul of Christ is part of His human nature, which is the human nature of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. That Person is Divine, so it is proper to speak of the Divine Humanity. It is true that insofar as the bread and wine are concerned, it is an accidental conversion (meaning that it does not happen to all bread and wine.) But insofar as the Divine Word is concerned, once the words of consecration have been spoken, the Divine Substance is Present under the veil of the appearance of bread and wine. The Substance is now the Body and Blood of Christ, substantially, not accidentally.

Not all bread is love. Love only under certain circumstances takes on the form of bread.

Not form, appearance only. The form is the Divine Soul of Jesus.

Love does not equal physical because this is not a transitive relationship. It doesn’t apply both ways. If it were, every physical entity would equal Love. Every piece of bread would equal Love. Clearly not the case.

Love has become physical. That does not mean that “love” and “physical” are interchangeable terms. (Why would anyone think so??) Nor does it mean that the whole world has become God. It means that Love, ever since the Incarnation, has been Present to us, physically.

I don’t know how you’re coming up with some of your twists on what I said.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know how you’re coming up with some of your twists on what I said.

Hah! Perhaps he’s using hyperbole?

Sorry, I couldn’t resist. Now it’s your turn to forgive me.

But, really, I’m over it now. :yup:

 

[Love4All]

-]p/-]

A person became incarnate, not a concept. The second person of the Trinity became incarnate, not love. Love is an attribute of God, not a person. It is descriptive.

Have you read Pope B16’s splendid encyclical Deus Caritas Est?

He specifically teaches that Jesus Christ is the incarnate love of God.

I read it a while ago, so i forget most of it, atleast consciously. I am sure it still affects me, because P Benedict’s writings really affected the way I think. But I am sure that he didn’t deny the distinction between an attribute of God and the actual person. By saying Jesus is the incarnate love of God he probably wasn’t asserting a metaphysical equivalence between Jesus and love. God loves man, so He sent his only son. It was an act of love, so in that sense Jesus is the incarnation of love. Similarly john’s epistle calls God love. God is love is a description of God’s acts, not an explanation of His essence.

Sure. I think we are agreed.

Hahaha, it is good to agree.

Wow, so sad. And you guys are both Catholic!?!!??

God is Love. That is a definition. What is God? God is Love. Subject, verb, object.

Why in the world would anyone want to interpret that somehow so that it comes out to mean anything other than what it so plainly and clearly says? A more profound sentence has never been put into language, nor could it. “God is Love,” is the epitome of possible understanding. And it is Catholic Doctrine.

I am bewildered because for more or less my whole life I have always assumed that Catholics, of all people, understood this. It is the entirety of Catholicism — Catholicism, in a nutshell. Everything there is in Catholicism comes from this.

I have two questions for each of you, if you wouldn’t mind enlightening me.

1. What is God?
2. What is Love?

Actually, I have a third question, too.

1. What is Catholicism?

My answers are,

1. God is Love. 2. Love is the Divine Essence. 3. Catholicism is the manifestation of Divine Love. (short version: Catholicism is Love.)

Peace!

 

[PRmerger]

Wow, so sad. And you guys are both Catholic!?!!??

What in the world?

Where did that comment come from, based on the above display of posts?



I can’t answer for jimmy, although it states that he is indeed Catholic…

but, yes, I am Catholic. Baptized as an infant and happily Catholic ever since.

 

[Love4All]

“Possible” and “feasible” aren’t really synonyms. Whereas “possible” is dealing with whether something can be actualised, “feasible” is dealing with whether it can work and is preferred over another option. E.g. “It’s possible that I can catch a plane to work every morning, but not feasible, as I don’t really have the money.”

So, in this case, Dr Craig says that it might not have been feasible for God because the population of the world might have been too small.

Here is one example of something I don’t like about Craig. God is omnipotent. That means He can do any task that presents itself. There are no difficult vs easy tasks for God; God, being Pure Act, does whatever He does without expending any effort or energy whatsoever. Thus the distinction between possible and feasible doesn’t exist for God.

 

[Love4All]

Shrugs

This is what he said to me as his standard:

I don’t think that’s a high standard, though admittedly he might.

Again: the word Tyrion used to describe the level of his standard was, “high.” I didn’t make this up, this is not an interpretation, it is a direct quote.

 

[Love4All]

That’s only a contradiction if you believe all acts are morally neutral in themselves. But the Church doesn’t believe that. Murdering an innocent person - no matter what the circumstance - is always wrong because of the act. Actually “outcome” isn’t one of the pieces in the moral formula for action: it is the nature of the act, the intention and the situation (or circumstance).

Good point! He snuck that one by me. Indeed, the reality (and Catholic Doctrine) is, a human being has no clue what the outcome of his actions might be. We are not responsible for outcomes, that is all God’s doing. We are responsible for intent, and consent.