Logical absurdity and self-contradiction in the concept of God

[Love4All]

At the very least [the dad] is THERE, hopefully comforting that child. God fails to do even that…

Are you now privy to Jane’s interior experience as she died?

 

[Love4All]

Exactly as the “LD” commanded: “do not touch the snakes”.

Clearly, not enough. If the “LD” does not really care if the child will obey or not, then he is not a “loving” parent. Let’s use a real life scenario, not just an analogy. A really loving parent does not leave pieces of wire around, and does not simply command: “do not stick those wires into a live jacket”… he makes those jackets totally and completely inaccessible to the child.

Your analogy breaks down because the LD did not create his child, and is not keeping the snake cage around as a test of obedience. The poisonous snakes in your scenario are simply harmful, not desirable in any way.

By contrast, the Knowledge of Good and Evil was not simply harmful, it was a good thing created by God, and “God looked at everything He had made, and saw that it was good.”

God did not just happen to have that tree lying around, and needed to prevent His kids from messing with it. The Tree was created for man in the first place, and was a test of obedience, which Adam and Eve failed.

So since there is nothing in our lives that could possibly make a proper analogy, all your analogies are going to fail in more or less the same way, why don’t we just cut out the middleman, and talk about what actually happened? So far your use of analogy has only been an attempt to obscure and smuggle in a false assessment of the situation.

That so-called “spiritual death” (whatever it may be) looks like an irreversible harm.

Only to those perishing. Jesus Christ came to Earth with no other purpose but to reverse that harm. It is a pretty glaring lack, to leave Him out of the equation, particularly here.

Where does it lack? Criticism is fine, but let’s see the deatils.

(By the way, if you think that I just “waived” away your “definition”, just read these posts again. I am making it abundantly clear, why is the definition of “God is love” unacceptable.)

It is the definition. There is no God that could be any topic of any conversation we might have, except the One who is Love. If you want to assert an absurdity or a self-contradiction, you’ll have to find it in Love, or else you wouldn’t be finding it in God at all.

I am not at all interested in seeing you point out internal contradictions in concepts that have nothing to do with God, and if you reject “God is Love,” then you are left with only non-God concepts. I would have thought your interest was in showing a contradiction in the actual concept I hold, rather than in one unrelated to it.

Heard, yes. Accept it, no. And an ounce of prevention is STILL better than a pound of cure…

Free will.

According to my - very high - standards, yes. I never hurt anyone knowingly, I always helped those I could. As a matter of fact many times I was “mistaken” for a christian, based upon my behavior, and when I revealed that I am NOT, people were seriously surprised. Obviously I did things that “SOME catholics” consider “evil”, but since “catholicism” is not an authority for me, my conscience is clear.

Ah! I would almost want to ask you, how do you do it? Since I, with my standard, have found myself consistently unable to live up to it, and since you call your standard “very high,” I would love to know how you do it!

Except, unfortunately for me, it seems your “very high” standard is not quite high enough. It seems, you accept behaviors in yourself that the Church calls sinful. Holding that you are impeccable would be one such sin, and you have others, as well. (Otherwise, holding yourself impeccable would not be a sin, but just the truth.)

It seems, you have once again taken the easy way out. If there is no God, then the highest possible moral standard is one you as a human could come up with, and easily attain. Denying God makes your behavior perfect, so why wouldn’t you?

Poor me, I am stuck with actually rectifying my ill behavior, rather than sweeping it under the rug and claiming to be impeccable.

Don’t worry. If anyone accuses you of being a Christian, simply point out to them that you have no sin, and they will immediately change their tune. No Christian makes any such claim.

Anyway, since you are impeccable, are you the standard? Is it is sin for me to think I am a sinner? Would I, with my tainted conscience, make your cut?

Then I would not know about, would I?

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!”

Can I see the source of this definition of evil? I was unaware that there was a neurological component.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

There are several problems with your argument. First you assume you have the sole right of setting the ground rules ( this is typical of your approach on other issues). I for one deny you this right. We will not begin with arbitrary stictures or at least we will not adhere to them. Secondly, you launch into " reasons " why God cannot exist. The assumption here is that no " real " God, the God of Christianity especially, would allow any evil or unpleasantness to exist in the world. That old conard has been answered and has no bearing on " Who God is. "

Others can speak for themselves but I will not be boxed in by pseudo arguments, red herrings, etc. I do not seek to convince you or any other non-believer. There is an infinite chasm between us, one which for some odd reason you blame on either God or those who believe in him and follow him. Be disbelieving by all means, if you wish, but don’t blame it on God or on believers.

The fact that God exists is open to any plain man who has eyes to see with. But beyond that Thomas Aquinas has shown us ( the Five Ways and other proofs ) that God is He Who Is, He is the Pure, Subsisting, Existence which is the First Cause of all composit, existing beings. His definition is : " He Who Is. " And far from being " logically inconsistent, " this definintion is perfectly logical because He is absolutley necessary for the existence of a contingent, limited, ordered universe to exist.

So, as far as I’m concerned, you have absolutely no argument and those who attempt to humour you by answering you are making a big mistake. There are several on this forum who have been here forever and never will agree that God exists, at least it is highly doubtful. So, what is the point? There minds are obviously made up. I wish them well, but it is pointless to argue with them.

Of course there are always those among believers who think they can " square a circle. " To them I wish " good luck, " but you would be better off and get more done by spending two or three hours on your knees. Linus2nd

 

[Love4All]

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

If you wish to point out a contradiction within those basic definitions, you must start from those basic definitions. Angels, for example, do not have nervous systems, and Satan’s tempting a third of the angels to rebel with him certainly caused them harm.

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. Is it possible that we err in that judgment? Yes, and in that case one must have the intellectual honesty to admit the error. As soon as God comes and explains, or a very smart and knowledgable apologist can point out the error, I am ready to “eat crow”. But until that… nope!

All suffering is punishment for sin, including suffering on behalf of others. When there is no more sin, there will be no more suffering.

 

[Love4All]

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.

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!

According to Tyrion, Tyrion is one. And his standards are “high.”

 

[Love4All]

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.

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.

God can create human beings with free will, who may possibly sin. God can create beings without free will, who will never sin. For God to create human beings with free will, who will never sin, requires co-operation on the part of those with the free will.

Since you do not sin, you have the key. Teach us, please!

 

[Love4All]

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 am having a good deal of trouble finding this in the Catechism, can you point me to where? Thanks so much!

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.

I have never seen any definition of evil advanced anywhere, apart from just here, from you, that includes “nervous system” in its definition. It is almost as if you came from some foreign planet where Physicalism had been scientifically proved, and then came here assuming all us humans accepted it. But we don’t.

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

An imbecile has an I.Q. between 26-50. I don’t know the technical word for someone who spouts wrong information while sitting at a computer connected to the internet, where it took me all of five seconds to look up “imbecile.” I guess it would depend on the average I.Q. of such persons?

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.

This is a brand new definition of “necessary,” that’s for sure! Thank you for sharing! Please do advance your own specialized definitions of words you are using non-standardly, that will be most helpful!

Now, to get back to topic, since you alluded to it: God is Pure, Perfect Act. Thus, God’s Justice is Perfect. Thus, the amount of suffering in the world is precisely known to God, and willed by Him as exactly correlating to the amount of sin in the world.

You get a free pass since you never sin. But the only two other humans who never sinned, Jesus and Mary, both suffered horribly in their lives to repair for the sins of others. So, you should embrace your sufferings as a necessary part, in God’s plan, of helping out the rest of us, who unfortunately do sin. Sorry about that — really.

 

[Love4All]

I am NOT talking about “sin”. Sin is just another undefined religious concept.

Not by any stretch of your apparently limited imagination.

I would be perfectly happy with eliminating those people who volitionally cause unnecessary harm, suffering to others.

There is your definition of sin. Keep in mind you advanced it, not me. I know you didn’t intend to define sin with such crystal clarity, but, you did. Now the only problem is that you think you never do such things.

The rapists, the child molesters, the embezzlers, the murderers… and their ilk.

I am of their “ilk.” I would say, “so are you,” but as you do not think you sin, there is no common ground for me to assert such a thing.

What is so difficult to understand here? I suggest you read my posts directly above.

I’ve been reading all your posts.

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

Grace is the impulse and the power to do good.

But I’m sure that you, being immune from sin, have no use for it.

 

[Love4All]

There are several problems with your argument. First you assume you have the sole right of setting the ground rules ( this is typical of your approach on other issues). I for one deny you this right. We will not begin with arbitrary stictures or at least we will not adhere to them. Secondly, you launch into " reasons " why God cannot exist. The assumption here is that no " real " God, the God of Christianity especially, would allow any evil or unpleasantness to exist in the world. That old conard has been answered and has no bearing on " Who God is. "

Others can speak for themselves but I will not be boxed in by pseudo arguments, red herrings, etc. I do not seek to convince you or any other non-believer. There is an infinite chasm between us, one which for some odd reason you blame on either God or those who believe in him and follow him. Be disbelieving by all means, if you wish, but don’t blame it on God or on believers.

The fact that God exists is open to any plain man who has eyes to see with. But beyond that Thomas Aquinas has shown us ( the Five Ways and other proofs ) that God is He Who Is, He is the Pure, Subsisting, Existence which is the First Cause of all composit, existing beings. His definition is : " He Who Is. " And far from being " logically inconsistent, " this definintion is perfectly logical because He is absolutley necessary for the existence of a contingent, limited, ordered universe to exist.

So, as far as I’m concerned, you have absolutely no argument and those who attempt to humour you by answering you are making a big mistake. There are several on this forum who have been here forever and never will agree that God exists, at least it is highly doubtful. So, what is the point? There minds are obviously made up. I wish them well, but it is pointless to argue with them.

Of course there are always those among believers who think they can " square a circle. " To them I wish " good luck, " but you would be better off and get more done by spending two or three hours on your knees. Linus2nd

Excellent post, Linus, thank you! I am one of the stubborn ones, I’m afraid, but your points are well taken and well considered.

 

[jonathan_hili]

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.

Sure, we are talking about possibility. But where possibility exists, actuality follows, especially in the moral realm, given enough time and what we know about the human person and how he behaves.

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.

William Lane Craig argues that while it may be possible for God to create a world of actual persons who do not do evil, it might not be feasible, i.e. that world might include only a small population, or a very primitive level of intellectual development, etc.

Now, it’s also true that most people are decent, I’ll agree there, but the issue is not whether they are decent or not, but whether people do evil, any evil. Do you know anyone who has not perpetrated some form of evil?

 

[jonathan_hili]

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.

Hehe what Catholic teaching are you referring to? Although it is Catholic teaching that sex between spouses, if not open to conception, is evil, this does not mean that a woman with no uterus, or one who is past menopause, engages in evil if she has sex with her spouse. They are open to conceiving, just not capable of it. There is a distinction there.

As for ordering genocide, if genuinely ordered by God (who kills people every second), it is not an evil act since God is the arbiter of life and death. However, I’d suggest (i) the cultural context of OT passages need to be taken into account as well as (ii) their proper interpretation.

Now, I think we can come to an agreed or closely agreed definition of evil, I just don’t think your definition is a very good one, because of the variables involved and what it leaves out. For example, mass deforestation and polluting of the planet is, according to the definition, not evil, but I think we would both consider it so.

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.

Oh, if it’s only a provisional definition, fair enough, I won’t quibble.

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

Well, no, but let’s assume that’s the case, that it is an imbecile with an IQ of 60 who commits a rape because he doesn’t realise it will cause pain. Is the act still evil? Obviously, it is. How culpable the culprit might be is a different question, but we wouldn’t deny the act is evil.

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.

But notice what the result of this is. You have just captured an enemy soldier in war. He knows the location of imprisoned comrades, who are going to be executed, but the only way to get the location is to torture him. Now, a “greater good” is achieved here which could not be achieved without the “harm”. Therefore, does it make torture (in this circumstance, and many other imaginable ones) not evil?

In reality, using reason and logic.

Which is a good source from which to derive definitions, I agree, but I think yours needs a bit more working out.

Sorry if I was a little harsh, Tyrion, I didn’t realise your definition was only preliminary.

 

[jonathan_hili]

According to Tyrion, Tyrion is one. And his standards are “high.”

I don’t think so, and from what he said, I think his standard of “good” is not that high - rather, something like a moderate or general goodness.

 

[PRmerger]

I disagree with PRMerger that we ought to shut off our brains and just accept reality as unknowable

Please do not misrepresent my arguments or you will be reported. Thank you.

 

[PRmerger]

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).

Yes. All analogies fail at some point.

I will add that some atheists here may find the comparison of a father and his 5yr old to God and us to be offensive: “How dare you compare me to a 5 yr old!”

but I think the comparison isn’t offensive enough. The gulf between a father and his 5 yr old is finite while the gulf between God and us is infinite. We will never be able to fully comprehend His reasoning.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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

That is a guess on your part. The hard problem of consciousness remains a hard problem. Animals respond in predictable ways. That does not entail conscious self-awareness. Blind sighted people cannot consciously see but, physically, their bodies avoid obstacles. Their bodies respond to the world around them on an unconscious level but the conscious individual is not aware of that world as far as sight is concerned.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Yes. All analogies fail at some point.

I will add that some atheists here may find the comparison of a father and his 5yr old to God and us to be offensive: “How dare you compare me to a 5 yr old!”

but I think the comparison isn’t offensive enough. The gulf between a father and his 5 yr old is finite while the gulf between God and us is infinite. We will never be able to fully comprehend His reasoning.

Agreed, at least as analogous to the ignorance we have compared to God.

 

[Love4All]

I don’t think so, and from what he said, I think his standard of “good” is not that high - rather, something like a moderate or general goodness.

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.

 

[Love4All]

Please do not misrepresent my arguments or you will be reported. Thank you.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood the argument you were advancing when you wrote,

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.

Are you saying that we possibly can, or cannot possibly understand why there is evil in the world? I am having trouble finding a way to interpret the phrase “we wouldn’t understand it” in any way other than the latter. Help me, please, to understand you? Please don’t report me, I really mean you no harm.

 

[Capuchinfan1337]

God is love and since he gave us free will it shows greatest love in both giving himself up for our sins and free will. Also isn’t it absurd to have your religion as abstract concept of love?

 

[Love4All]

That is a guess on your part. The hard problem of consciousness remains a hard problem. Animals respond in predictable ways. That does not entail conscious self-awareness. Blind sighted people cannot consciously see but, physically, their bodies avoid obstacles. Their bodies respond to the world around them on an unconscious level but the conscious individual is not aware of that world as far as sight is concerned.

I’m relying, not on guesswork, but on Catholic Doctrine.

Incidentally, the “hard problem” is only a problem given the assumption of physicalism, which is untenable to begin with (partly at least due to the “hard problem” it entails!)

If we don’t assume physicalism, there is really no problem, spirit has awareness as an intrinsic property.