Logical absurdity and self-contradiction in the concept of God

[Love4All]

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:

:flowers:

 

[Love4All]

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.

Note what I have bolded in the quote from jimmy.

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.

Perhaps you only meant to agree with part of what jimmy said? The bolded parts are where I disagree.

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps you only meant to agree with part of what jimmy said? The bolded parts are where I disagree.

We don’t substantively disagree. (Jimmy and I, that is.)

 

[Love4All]

We don’t substantively disagree. (Jimmy and I, that is.)

So. This is on topic for this thread. You find some contradiction in the idea that God is literally, substantially, Love?

To be crystal clear on this:

[Pope Benedict XVI] probably wasn’t asserting a metaphysical equivalence between Jesus and love. . . . God is love is a description of God’s acts, not an explanation of His essence.

Benedict XVI wouldn’t have to assert a metaphysical equivalence between Jesus and Love; Saint John the Evangelist already did that, two thousand years ago, and the Church has believe it ever since. “God is Love” is precisely a definition, rather than a description, of God’s Essence.

 

[PRmerger]

So. This is on topic for this thread. You find some contradiction in the idea that God is literally, substantially, Love?

No. I agree with you 100% that God is literally, substantially, Love.

I agree, essentially, with jimmy, too.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I see the points that you’re making, Tyrion, but I think people approach this issue too abstractly. We are wondering whether it is possible for God to create a world of free human beings who will not commit evil. Now, I’ll admit to the logical possibility, but not the true metaphysical possibility because of what kind of creatures human beings are. That is, I think we have a metaphysical certainty if not a logical one. Or else, to put it another way, we might say it’s logically possible but have no idea whether it’s metaphysically possible.

I really want to emphasise humanity. There may very well be intelligent beings with free will in the universe that do not commit evil (indeed, Christianity holds that angels are like this). However, because of what human beings are, the kind of creature they are, I don’t think it is metaphysically possible for this, even if the logical possibility exists.

Now, to some of your objections

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

But, see, that’s precisely the point I’m trying to make. We can conjecture all sorts of possible worlds but we are dealing with this world, this humanity. Let’s say God didn’t wish to extend it, then we have a problem.

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.

Wow, and I thought we were having a reasoned discussion here, Tyrion. You’ve just let your prejudice show pretty strongly. As I suspected, the problem of evil is usually more emotional than intellectual.

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

Once again, we don’t know this. Logically, perhaps not, but metaphysically with this earth there certainly is.

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.

Okay, give me an example of such a world with (i) limited space and resources, (ii) what we know about human psychology, desires, instincts, etc., and (iii) the reality of the material universe, where there would be no evil. (Again, I’m not denying the logical possibility, just the metaphysical one.)

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

I said it’s beside the point because any mathematical proof is just going to give us a quantitative result or analysis, not a qualitative one, which is what we are interested in.

Of course.

Okay, who is this person that has never caused intentional harm to a being with a central nervous system?

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

Ummm I don’t know where you’re getting this idea from…

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.

Okay, I won’t quibble this point with you.

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.

Haha well, we can go into all sorts of arguments for God’s existence. I was just saying that it’s not “special pleading” from a theistic perspective. If you want to use this argument, that means I’ll have to call “special pleading” everything coming from your worldview but disagreeing with mine, which I don’t want to.

As for our life being “ours”, how do you figure this out? If we are speaking from a naturalistic perspective, if our lives belong to anyone, it is our parents.

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”?

It could very well have been, I don’t the situation.

No such thing as beauty? You don’t really believe that, do you?

 

[jonathan_hili]

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.

Ah, I see what you mean now. Well, then if by act you mean “a single action that is not connected with any intention or circumstance”, how does the Church say that certain “acts” are immoral?

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.

Hehe, I love the way you are telling me what my morality is based on! If mine is based on obedience, yours is based on just as much obedience, it just depends who are obeying, who is your authority.

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?

Are you sure that “intent” is not relevant? If it isn’t, how can anyone be blamed or praised for doing anything?

 

[jonathan_hili]

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.

Hey Love 4 All,

I think the distinction does exist because possible does not equal feasible. By feasible, Dr Craig means “desirable”. If God desires a plenitude, then there might be issues here. Why? Perhaps humans are so constituted that only so many of them can exist in a restricted space with restricted resources before they commit evil. Now this is a possibility, but it is just as much a live possibility as the contrary. This is point Dr Craig is trying to make, and I think it’s a good one.

Person 1 argues: “God is omnipotent and so it is logically and metaphysically possible that He could have created humans with free-will who would not have committed evil.”

Person 2 argues: “Yes, God is omnipotent but while it may be logically possible it may not be metaphysically possible that He could have created humans with free-will who would not have committed evil, all things being considered (that is, what humans are like, the conditions on earth, etc.).”

 

[John_Q_Sinner]

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

This one is my personal favorites, because the reality of a contradiction is nothingness or better stated, non-existence. A rock so big that even God can’t move it, is a rock that does not exist. So, God in not creating such a rock has already accomplished the realities of such a rock’s “existence”.

 

[Love4All]

Hey Love 4 All,

I think the distinction does exist because possible does not equal feasible. By feasible, Dr Craig means “desirable”. If God desires a plenitude, then there might be issues here. Why? Perhaps humans are so constituted that only so many of them can exist in a restricted space with restricted resources before they commit evil. Now this is a possibility, but it is just as much a live possibility as the contrary. This is point Dr Craig is trying to make, and I think it’s a good one.

Person 1 argues: “God is omnipotent and so it is logically and metaphysically possible that He could have created humans with free-will who would not have committed evil.”

Person 2 argues: “Yes, God is omnipotent but while it may be logically possible it may not be metaphysically possible that He could have created humans with free-will who would not have committed evil, all things being considered (that is, what humans are like, the conditions on earth, etc.).”

Sorry, this is absurd. It places arbitrary limitations on God’s omnipotence, which is not limited.

 

[Love4All]

I see the points that you’re making, Tyrion, but I think people approach this issue too abstractly. We are wondering whether it is possible for God to create a world of free human beings who will not commit evil. Now, I’ll admit to the logical possibility, but not the true metaphysical possibility because of what kind of creatures human beings are. That is, I think we have a metaphysical certainty if not a logical one. Or else, to put it another way, we might say it’s logically possible but have no idea whether it’s metaphysically possible.

I really want to emphasise humanity. There may very well be intelligent beings with free will in the universe that do not commit evil (indeed, Christianity holds that angels are like this). However, because of what human beings are, the kind of creature they are, I don’t think it is metaphysically possible for this, even if the logical possibility exists.

This amounts to a denial of both Holy Scripture and God’s omnipotence. Holy Scripture says,

Isaias 11:9
There shall be no harm or ruin on all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be filled with knowledge of the LORD, as water covers the sea.

That is prophecy, and will surely come to pass. None of Craig’s arguments acknowledges this.

Wow, and I thought we were having a reasoned discussion here, Tyrion.

I’m afraid your expectation is unrealistic. Tyrion isn’t here with any reasonable intent. The sooner you recognize that, they easier it will be for you to deal with him.

 

[Gricken]

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!”

That brings up an interesting point. To God, we’re all rebellious teenagers. We don’t understand why he has all those rules, and don’t understand it’s for our own good. To some extent, all of us are that kid that goes “If you really loved, you’d let me do whatever I want!”

 

[Love4All]

Tried to edit but the time limit expired.

Hey Love 4 All,

I think the distinction does exist because possible does not equal feasible. By feasible, Dr Craig means “desirable”. If God desires a plenitude, then there might be issues here. Why? Perhaps humans are so constituted that only so many of them can exist in a restricted space with restricted resources before they commit evil. Now this is a possibility, but it is just as much a live possibility as the contrary. This is point Dr Craig is trying to make, and I think it’s a good one.

Person 1 argues: “God is omnipotent and so it is logically and metaphysically possible that He could have created humans with free-will who would not have committed evil.”

Person 2 argues: “Yes, God is omnipotent but while it may be logically possible it may not be metaphysically possible that He could have created humans with free-will who would not have committed evil, all things being considered (that is, what humans are like, the conditions on earth, etc.).”

Sorry, this is absurd. It places arbitrary limitations on God’s omnipotence, which is not limited.

You wrote, “Perhaps humans are so constituted that only so many of them can exist in a restricted space with restricted resources before they commit evil. Now this is a possibility, but it is just as much a live possibility as the contrary. This is point Dr Craig is trying to make, and I think it’s a good one.”

That is a denial of free will. Your first sentence makes evil inevitable, denying both free will and God’s omnipotence.

The fact is that there is currently still sin and evil in the world, and another fact is, that situation is not permanent or final. The final outcome of history is the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which is the triumph of sinlessness. So all of Craig’s theodicies defending God’s allowing of evil that are based on the ground that it is inevitable, or metaphysically impossible to eliminate, are fallacious. God’s Power is not in fact limited at all, and He can bring about a sinless world with free will intact. His means of doing so is grace, His graces of conversion from sin. Dr. Craig, along with everyone else, has to give up his own sins and start praying the rosary. Then, God will make him a better apologist. There is nothing lacking on God’s part. The lack is in the human beings who with their free will are rejecting rather than accepting grace.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This one is my personal favorites, because the reality of a contradiction is nothingness or better stated, non-existence. A rock so big that even God can’t move it, is a rock that does not exist. So, God in not creating such a rock has already accomplished the realities of such a rock’s “existence”.

Part of the intrinsic problem with this apparent “challenge” to God is the fact that any object made of matter only has weight as an aspect of the gravitational pull from another, usually, larger object. Absent any other object to exert gravitational pull, any object of any size has no weight. It is weightless. So no matter how big an object gets, on its own it is weightless. So God need only exert a tiny force to “lift” any sized object absent gravity. Where is the challenge in that?

Perhaps a more tenable question might be, “Could God create an object so big that he couldn’t create the space necessary for the object to fit inside?” This becomes an issue of whether actual infinite quantities are coherent in themselves.

 

[PRmerger]

That brings up an interesting point. To God, we’re all rebellious teenagers. We don’t understand why he has all those rules, and don’t understand it’s for our own good. To some extent, all of us are that kid that goes “If you really loved, you’d let me do whatever I want!”

'zactly, Gricken. Exactly.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Sorry, this is absurd. It places arbitrary limitations on God’s omnipotence, which is not limited.

Hi Love4All, I don’t think it’s putting limitations on God’s omnipotence, for the same reason logical contradictions don’t put limitations on God’s omnipotence.

We know that God cannot do the logically contradictory because it’s nonsense. Similarly, can God do the metaphysically contradictory? What if there is something about how God made humanity that makes us ontologically predisposed towards certain behaviours, endowed with certain insticts, etc. I don’t think this is far-fetched. Physical beings like us need to eat, drink, feel safe, make love, etc. Now, perhaps there is something about our nature which, when you have a certain population in a certain limited environment, will almost necessitate that, even though we are free creatures, we are going to probably be aggressive towards one another.

Now, I’m not saying this is certain, only that it is as far as we know just as probable as any other reasonable alterative. That’s why Tyrion can’t produce mathematical proof that God could create human beings with free will that would not commit evil. Because, frankly, we don’t know. We know that God is omnipotent, but we don’t really know enough about human nature.

Basically, I think this alternative argues something like: God can’t creature free human creatures while denying their human nature.

 

[Tyrion]

We are wondering whether it is possible for God to create a world of free human beings who will not commit evil. Now, I’ll admit to the logical possibility, but not the true metaphysical possibility because of what kind of creatures human beings are.

Please explain the phrase “metaphysical possibility”. I know what “physical possibility” is and I also know what “logical possibility” is. But I have no idea what “metaphysical possibility” might be.

I really want to emphasise humanity.

The concept of “possible worlds” is much broader than “humanity”.

However, because of what human beings are, the kind of creature they are, I don’t think it is metaphysically possible for this, even if the logical possibility exists.

Well, think about a few points.

1. A possible world is one with only ONE human agent, who faces ONE moraly dilemma. Question: can that agent freely choose either the moral option, or the immoral option? (You can define “moral” as you wish.)
2. I hope you will answer, that yes, the agent can choose the moral outcome. Otherwise he would have had no freedom.
3. Add another moral dilemma. Is there a possible world, in which BOTH dilemmas will be solved morally?
4. Once this is done… ask yourself, where will this end? Is there a hypothetical upper limit, which cannot be reached or surpassed? That God can “only” add “N” people and “M” moraly problems, where each problem will be solved in a “morally proper” manner, but adding either one more person, or one more problem, there will be NO POSSIBLE world, where that problem will be solved morally? And now realize, that it would mean the loss of freedom, if it were so. As long as there is freedom the “extra” added problem can be solved morally. Also observe, that I made no assumption about the characteristics of the argents. They are simple, run-of-the-mill human beings, just like we are.

But, see, that’s precisely the point I’m trying to make. We can conjecture all sorts of possible worlds but we are dealing with this world, this humanity. Let’s say God didn’t wish to extend it, then we have a problem.

Then God is guilty of not doing what is possible. It is his fault that “evil” creeps into the world, due to limited resources.

Wow, and I thought we were having a reasoned discussion here, Tyrion.

Just answer it, please. I purposefully chose a “shocking” example. Craig’s “reasoning” is that MAYBE (!!!) there is some unspecified drawback of that possible world without evil. Of course “maybe” is not argument. And I chose one “possible” drawback to show that Craig’s “argument” is nonsense.

I said it’s beside the point because any mathematical proof is just going to give us a quantitative result or analysis, not a qualitative one, which is what we are interested in.

Since you don’t know what I am going to say, your rejection is still premature.

No such thing as beauty? You don’t really believe that, do you?

Oh, yes, I definitely do. “Beauty” is in the eyes of the beholder.

Ah, I see what you mean now. Well, then if by act you mean “a single action that is not connected with any intention or circumstance”, how does the Church say that certain “acts” are immoral?

Correct.

If mine is based on obedience, yours is based on just as much obedience, it just depends who are obeying, who is your authority.

My “authority” is my own conscience, not some external “authority”. I am aware that the church teaches that one MUST follow one’s own conscience… as long as that conscience is “well-formed” and “informed”. And then - typically - it says that a “well-formed” and “informed” conscience MUST agree with what the church teaches (dogmatically and infallibly). Reminds me of Henry Ford, who said that the customer can choose a car of ANY color, provided he wiches to choose BLACK.

Are you sure that “intent” is not relevant? If it isn’t, how can anyone be blamed or praised for doing anything?

For the act and its consequnces, of course.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What should be the attitude of Christians when confronted with these barbs hurled by unbelievers? " Be not afraid. " and " Stand firm in your faith. " Do not be trapped by the supposition made by them that you must answer their arguments to their satisfaction. Because the sad truth is that they will not accept any answer you offer them. They are professional Sophists ( or perhaps just fellow travelers ) whose sole purpose is to unsettle you in your Faith, if possible. Or perhaps it is just a defence mechanism errected as a rationalization for a life style opposed to God’s plan for salvation.

In any case, your Faith in Revelation is the most certain proof that God exists and that your Faith is True. Hang onto that and never waver. You do not have to answer the skeptic. If he cannot see by your lives that your Faith is True, no rational argument you can offer will make any difference.

The Apostles did not engage in endless and pointless debates based on reason. Their lives and the lives of the Saints should be our model. Our motto should be that of St. Paul, " …I will preach Christ and Him crucified…"

Philosophy certainly has an important place in the life of the Church, primarily as the " Handmaiden of Theology. " And it certainly can bolster the lives of the ordinary Christian, if he is pretty intelligent and well educated. And certainly it has a proper place in apologetics but only in the hands of well trained and highly educated persons, persons who have spent years studying the great philosophers, especially St. Thomas.

But endless arguments here are out of place and accomplish little, except to boost egos.

First of all, if you do engage don’t be drawn into false arguments. Don’t think you have to accept their ground rules and definitions. If they won’t accept your ground rules and definitions, then don’t respond to them.

If they accept your ground rules and definitions ( and this assumes that yours are based on sound philosophy ) then a moderate engagement can be made. But as soon as it is clear that you are dealing with some kind of Sophist, cut off the conversation. Simply tell them that they are not serious and end it, period. Linus2nd

 

[jonathan_hili]

Please explain the phrase “metaphysical possibility”. I know what “physical possibility” is and I also know what “logical possibility” is. But I have no idea what “metaphysical possibility” might be.

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

Well, think about a few points.

1. A possible world is one with only ONE human agent, who faces ONE moral dilemma. Question: can that agent freely choose either the moral option, or the immoral option? (You can define “moral” as you wish.)
2. I hope you will answer, that yes, the agent can choose the moral outcome. Otherwise he would have had no freedom.
3. Add another moral dilemma. Is there a possible world, in which BOTH dilemmas will be solved morally?
4. Once this is done… ask yourself, where will this end? Is there a hypothetical upper limit, which cannot be reached or surpassed? That God can “only” add “N” people and “M” moraly problems, where each problem will be solved in a “morally proper” manner, but adding either one more person, or one more problem, there will be NO POSSIBLE world, where that problem will be solved morally? And now realize, that it would mean the loss of freedom, if it were so. As long as there is freedom the “extra” added problem can be solved morally. Also observe, that I made no assumption about the characteristics of the argents. They are simple, run-of-the-mill human beings, just like we are.

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

This is just a hypothesis, I’m not even sure it really is true. All I’m suggesting is that it is possibly true, and if possibly true, it stands as an alternative by which God is vindicated (at least, in part) from the problem of evil dealing with free choice.

Then God is guilty of not doing what is possible. It is his fault that “evil” creeps into the world, due to limited resources.

I disagree. That is an assumption based on (i) that you know better than God and how all things will turn out as a result, (ii) we would be better off with unlimited resources, and (iii) that we could actually be truly human with unlimited resources. God isn’t morally bound to give us ideal conditions so that we don’t choose evil, anymore than a parent is morally bound to remove their child from any potential influence to pornography.

Just answer it, please. I purposefully chose a “shocking” example. Craig’s “reasoning” is that MAYBE (!!!) there is some unspecified drawback of that possible world without evil. Of course “maybe” is not argument. And I chose one “possible” drawback to show that Craig’s “argument” is nonsense.

Those who are in hell are there because they don’t want to be with God. Whatever they have become, it is anti-God and who He is. If God is going to respect our free will, then He won’t force us to be with Him. It is the rejection of God and this state for eternity that is hell.

Since you don’t know what I am going to say, your rejection is still premature.

Okay, then please present your argument. I have never seen a mathematical argument with qualitative answers before, so this ought to be something.

Oh, yes, I definitely do. “Beauty” is in the eyes of the beholder.

Of course it’s in the “eye” of the beholder, just as truth and goodness are. Just because of our epistemological limits in reaching a consensus on beauty (though not always) it doesn’t follow that ontologically there is no beauty.

My “authority” is my own conscience, not some external “authority”. I am aware that the church teaches that one MUST follow one’s own conscience… as long as that conscience is “well-formed” and “informed”. And then - typically - it says that a “well-formed” and “informed” conscience MUST agree with what the church teaches (dogmatically and infallibly). Reminds me of Henry Ford, who said that the customer can choose a car of ANY color, provided he wiches to choose BLACK.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t your conscience formed by something external? You don’t come up with it yourself. Society, your family, TV, etc. will all help to form your conscience. So, if that’s the case, how is my view of morality based on obedience, when yours is not? It’s a different kind of obedience.

(Not that I’m conceding the point, as I don’t. Have you actually done much study of Catholic moral theology? I studied it for two years at uni. You should read Germain Grisez and see how intelligently he approaches moral issues.)

 

[dranzal]

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.

Similarly:

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

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

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

At creation and throughout earthly time, God could have:

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

We do not possess the knowledge or the capacity for the knowledge of why God created as He did. We do have some knowledge of what He thinks of us questioning Him on His creation. Here, Job, having suffered greatly, is questioning God.

Orphans are snatched from the breast,infants of the needy are taken in pledge. They go about naked, without clothing, and famished, they carry the sheaves. Between the rows they press out the oil; they tread the wine presses, yet are thirsty. In the city the dying groan, and the souls of the wounded cry out. Yet God does not treat it as a disgrace! They are rebels against the light: they do not recognize its ways; they do not stay in its paths. When there is no light the murderer rises,
to kill the poor and needy; in the night he acts like a thief. (Job 24)

From Job 38 and first verse of 40. God continues His admonishment through 38-39, but I didn’t know if I had room:

Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm and said:
Who is this who darkens counsel with words of ignorance?
Gird up your loins now, like a man;
I will question you, and you tell me the answers!
Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.
Who determined its size? Surely you know? Who stretched out the measuring line for it? Into what were its pedestals sunk, and who laid its cornerstone,
While the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Who shut within doors the sea, when it burst forth from the womb,
When I made the clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling bands?
When I set limits for it and fastened the bar of its door,
And said: Thus far shall you come but no farther, and here shall your proud waves stop?

Have you ever in your lifetime commanded the morning and shown the dawn its place
For taking hold of the ends of the earth, till the wicked are shaken from it?
The earth is changed as clay by the seal, and dyed like a garment;
But from the wicked their light is withheld, and the arm of pride is shattered.
Have you entered into the sources of the sea, or walked about on the bottom of the deep?
Have the gates of death been shown to you, or have you seen the gates of darkness?
Have you comprehended the breadth of the earth?
Tell me, if you know it all.
What is the way to the dwelling of light, and darkness—where is its place?
That you may take it to its territory and know the paths to its home?
You know, because you were born then, and the number of your days is great!
Have you entered the storehouses of the snow, and seen the storehouses of the hail
Which I have reserved for times of distress, for a day of war and battle?
What is the way to the parting of the winds, where the east wind spreads over the earth?
Has the rain a father? Who has begotten the drops of dew? Out of whose womb comes the ice, and who gives the hoarfrost its birth in the skies,Do you know the ordinances of the heavens; can you put into effect their plan on the earth? Can you raise your voice to the clouds, for them to cover you with a deluge of waters? Can you send forth the lightnings on their way,so that they say to you, “Here we are?

The LORD then answered Job and said: Will one who argues with the Almighty be corrected?
Let him who would instruct God give answer!

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways—

9For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways,
my thoughts higher than your thoughts. (Is 55)