Logical absurdity and self-contradiction in the concept of God

[Love4All]

“(v) [God is impossible] only if the concept of such a being is self-contradictory or logically absurd.”

Since (v) is true - this being is self-contradictory AND logically absurd… (vi) is incorrect, and thus God does not exist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well bring 'em on!!!

 

[snarflemike]

My favorite answer to the Big Rock question is “Yes, and at the same time, he can move it.” Leave the contradiction in their laps.

 

[Linux]

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

No. Omnipotence does not mean that one can do the metaphysically impossible. It doesn’t even mean that God can do everything that is logically conceivable. It simply means that God can do everything that is logically true of omnipotence. For example Its not logically true of omnipotence that God can cease to exist. That is not a limitation; but rather God cannot cease to be precisely because he is omnipotent. A no-thing is not omnipotent, because it is nothing at all. God cannot change because he is omnipotent. God cannot create a rock so big he cannot lift it because he is omnipotent. Logical impossibilities are not true limitations.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No. Omnipotence does not mean that one can do the metaphysically impossible. It doesn’t even mean that God can do everything that is logically conceivable. It simply means that God can do everything that is logically true of omnipotence. For example Its not logically true of omnipotence that God can cease to exist. That is not a limitation; but rather God cannot cease to be precisely because he is omnipotent. A no-thing is not omnipotent, because it is nothing at all. God cannot change because he is omnipotent. God cannot create a rock so big he cannot lift it because he is omnipotent. Logical impossibilities are not true limitations.

The rejoinder to this was added by Edward Feser on his recent Catholic Answers radio show appearance. His reply was that if someone posing this argument insists that God ought to be able to do the impossible in order to be omnipotent then the answer is to simply add that yes God can both make a rock heavier than he can lift and, by the atheist’s own argument, do the logically impossible by also lifting that rock. The argument simply defeats itself using its own logic.

 

[Tyrion]

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[Linux]

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.

Human responsibility is contextually different to Gods responsibility. There are different responsibilities that a being may have relative to his or her nature or relationship to something. That is not a controversial point, although I am sure that it doesn’t suite you pragmatically speaking.

And this is where the first problem occurs.

Nope. It really doesn’t.

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.

Love by definition is both mercy and justice; this is not human legalism. Mercy and justice as invoked by the courts is applied analogously to God within a human context, but they do not flow from the same foundation. The judgement of the human court is not founded upon love but rather it is founded upon a mixture of pragmatism and utilitarianism insofar as the purpose is to protect the state and the economic or social goals of its citizens (survival). But God as love can be both merciful and just in the context of fulfilling the purpose for which he made human beings - Sainthood in the form of the beatific vision (to be in perfect union with the Love of God). His creation of the universe is merciful and his judgement of the universe is Just. How those two factors play out in temporal terms is determined by the natural end for which creation was made. Your rant above does not take those facts into consideration. In fact you lack the necessary conceptual skills to comprehend the facts I have stated and thus have resorted to straw-men and red herrings fallaciously touting victory while not having a clue about what you are attempting to refute.

 

[Tyrion]

Human responsibility is contextually different to Gods responsibility. There are different responsibilities that a being may have relative to his or her nature or relationship to something.

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

Love by definition is both mercy and justice; this is not human legalism.

By “what” definition? Yes, there comes the “time-honored” tradition of redefining simple everyday terms, when reality becomes inconvenient. That is exactly what I was referring to when I wrote the post to Love4all. And you immediately reinforced it.

 

[Phil_Marinus]

Goodness me…
There are people about that look to deeply into an issue or belief …
I think this is one such argument …
Believe because you have faith, it does’nt matter weather god would create a rock so big he could’nt move it… it’s all relative to size… how big is God ? how big could a single rock get.
our sun looks really big, but put it up against a really big one and it then appears small,
making our planet tiny. then making humans microscopic … then how tiny would a flea be compared to the massive sun… becomes mumbo jumbo talk…
just believe because it’s better than any alternitive…

 

[aux1]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Linux]

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

In a human context, humans have an obligation to look after Gods creation which includes children. You simply want God to take responsibility for our actions as humans, but in fact it is humans that need to take responsibility if they wish to be with God in heaven.

By “what” definition? Yes, there comes the “time-honored” tradition of redefining simple everyday terms, when reality becomes inconvenient. That is exactly what I was referring to when I wrote the post to Love4all. And you immediately reinforced it.

And you are simply rejecting definitions that are not convenient to your will to atheism. That’s not in and of its self a refutation. It is merely your wish that any belief that inconveniences you is wrong.

 

[jonathan_hili]

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.

Hmmm I don’t see how “mercy” is a violation of justice. “Mercy” in the Christian sense has been understood as compassion for those who are sorry. God is infinitely merciful because, if we are sorry, He has compassion on us and can therefore be lenient, etc.

Now, does this violate justice? Not at all. Why? Because in the condition of genuine penitence, for a being who is love, justice is mercy.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Also, God’s love being different from human love doesn’t mean it is any less but greater. Our love and understanding of it is conditioned by finiteness, and therefore can - and sometimes is - not really love at all: it can be immoderate, unjust, etc. But God’s love is not so conditioned, so it makes His love infinitely greater. As creatures made in God’s image and likeness, our positive attributes, like love, are imperfect reflections of His. Therefore, we can understand something of God’s love through our own love - though only fully through the revelation of Christ - although we can never completely comprehend it.

 

[Tyrion]

Hmmm I don’t see how “mercy” is a violation of justice. “Mercy” in the Christian sense has been understood as compassion for those who are sorry.

That is not a problem. Let’s consider an example. Suppose that someone performed a “misdeed”, which requires a “just” punishment. The judge takes ALL the pertinent circumstances into consideration, both the aggravating ones, and mitigating ones. By weighing the evidence and the circumstances he comes to the conclusion that the proper, “just” punisment is exactly 20 slaps on the wrist. If he delivers this verdict, then it was a 'just" verdict. If, however, he would deliver a verdict of 30 slaps, thet would NOT be just, it would be excessively harsh. On the other hand, if he would take “mercy” - for whatever reason, and deliver a verdict of 10 slaps, that would also be unjust, becuse the deed deserved exactly 20 slaps, not more and not less.

Any deviation from the “just” amout is “unjust”… what else could it be?

God is infinitely merciful because, if we are sorry, He has compassion on us and can therefore be lenient, etc.

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

 

[Tyrion]

Also, God’s love being different from human love doesn’t mean it is any less but greater.

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”.

 

[tonyrey]

Hmmm I don’t see how “mercy” is a violation of justice. “Mercy” in the Christian sense has been understood as compassion for those who are sorry. God is infinitely merciful because, if we are sorry, He has compassion on us and can therefore be lenient, etc.

Now, does this violate justice? Not at all. Why? Because in the condition of genuine penitence, for a being who is love, justice is mercy.

“Forgive us** as** we forgive those who trespass against us” is a unique and sublime reconciliation of divine mercy and justice…

 

[tonyrey]

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

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

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

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

A question undermined by the fact that the Creator is not subject to physical laws…

 

[Linux]

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”.

If God’s love impedes human responsibility and accent to sainthood, then that is not love. Sometimes it is good to choose the lesser of two evils even when the lesser is a great evil. If Gods continuous interference impedes the natural end to which created things are in act, then that would not be the lesser of two evils even if God prevents rape. Also that God does not act in a manner that you would prefer is not evidence that God does not act at all. Perhaps the building of the Church, the prophesies, Jesus’ death and resurrection, and* less interference in human affairs*, is a greater good especially if it fosters virtues such as personal responsibility.

So, in order for your argument to be a refutation, you would have to prove that there could have been a greater number of saints (the purpose of Creation) had God created a different universe in which his presence is known and is always forced on the will of sinners. Otherwise you cannot say or prove that God is wrong for creating this kind of world.

 

[tonyrey]

If Gods love impedes human responsibility and accent to sainthood, then that is not love. Sometimes it is good to choose the lesser of two evils even when the lesser is a great evil.

Those who complain of injustice would be the first to object if they lost their freedom to choose how to live!

 

[jonathan_hili]

That is not a problem. Let’s consider an example. Suppose that someone performed a “misdeed”, which requires a “just” punishment. The judge takes ALL the pertinent circumstances into consideration, both the aggravating ones, and mitigating ones. By weighing the evidence and the circumstances he comes to the conclusion that the proper, “just” punisment is exactly 20 slaps on the wrist. If he delivers this verdict, then it was a 'just" verdict. If, however, he would deliver a verdict of 30 slaps, thet would NOT be just, it would be excessively harsh. On the other hand, if he would take “mercy” - for whatever reason, and deliver a verdict of 10 slaps, that would also be unjust, becuse the deed deserved exactly 20 slaps, not more and not less.

Any deviation from the “just” amout is “unjust”… what else could it be?

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

Well, you’ve just answered your own question. God’s mercy is His justice. That is, for those who are genuinely repentant, God has mercy and this is then just. I don’t see what the problem is.

 

[jonathan_hili]

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”.

That’s a good question with only a vague answer, unfortunately. I assume you’ve looked into responses to the problem of evil. Obviously, none are fully satisfactory but they help understand why God permits some evils.

For example, the classical “free will” defense:

• terrorists hijack a plane, and threaten to kill passengers on board
• God turns their knives to butter, so they can’t do any harm and are eventually overcome
• now the terrorists are in prison, full of hate and anger, which is also a form of evil
• so God turns their brains to butter
  Not an appealing scenario.

Then there’s our inability to know the future, and how some evils might contribute to greater good for individuals and for many more people. Of course, you could point out the seemingly gratuitous evil, and that’s tough, I’ll admit. But then, if you believe in the eternal life to come, a life resplendent with unimaginable joy, and suffering can help us attain this, it might be worth it.

But you’re right, it doesn’t help us deal with the problem either emotionally or fully intellectually.

I think, though, this is where Christians can point to the cross. You ask: “Where is God, with his infinite power?” And the answer is: “There He is, hanging on a cross, all bloody and torn.” It was in the cross that early Christians saw Jesus as God. Why? Because it demonstrated His incomparable love. So, in all the rape, mutilation, sexual assault, violence, starvation… God is there with the sufferer, because He too suffered.

That might mean nothing to someone who seeks a purely satisfactory intellectual answer. I don’t think anyone will ever get one or give one. But, strangely enough, the poor and suffering themselves reach out to God during these times of suffering, and God certainly hears them.

(As a slight addendum, I think to deny God because of the problem of evil creates another problem, that is, how to justify objective morality - that is, even the existence of moral values and truths - without a grounding in divinity. I’ve never seen it successfully done.)