Logical absurdity and self-contradiction in the concept of God

[Love4All]

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?

Love, to me, is a physical Being, not an abstract concept.

 

[PRmerger]

Love, to me, is a physical Being, not an abstract concept.

 

[Tyrion]

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.

Your argument seems to be: “if there is a possibility, then - given long enough time and sufficiently many agents - it is LOGICALLY INEVITABLE that some ‘evil’ action WILL happen!”. Of course you are wrong. A very high probability does not equal certainty. God is not limited by chance.

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.

Does he now? Does he present an actual argument, or does he declare this “ex-cathedra”? First: “possible” and “feasible” are synonyms - so his distinction is ridiculous. Second: this is not a “numbers game”. Third, intellectual development has nothing to do with it.

He admits that it is possible to have a world with free agents, who are all able to commit ‘evil’ acts, but they simply do not commit them. Then he says that in some respect this world has certain “drawbacks”. Hogwash!

Does he argue that there is a possible world with - say - 23 higly intellectual moral agents, who all behave in a morally upright fashion, but if God would add a 24th agent then ‘evil’ would INEVITABLY creep into the creation? God - with all his omnimax attribute is unable to find 24 morally upright people? It would require a somewhat longer post, but 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.

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?

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

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.

That is NOT what I said. Even if the couple is physically unable to conceive, they are REQUIRED to pretend (effectively lie to themselves), and they are FORBIDDEN to engage in extra-vaginal sex - because doing that is “evil”.

No, my friend, from where I sit, this definition of “evil” is … well… let’s choose a relatively neutral word… unacceptable.

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.

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

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.

Only because there are beings with nervous systems are affected.

Obviously, it is. How culpable the culprit might be is a different question, but we wouldn’t deny the act is evil.

Nope. The act itself is always neutral. 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!

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”.

How do you know that? This is simply a matter of technology. If there is no other way, and you must perform an amputation to save someone’s life, the method of anesthesia is important. In the middle ages there was no other way than to give a bullet to clamp down while the amputation happened. Today, with all the sophisticated methods at our fingertips, it would be horrible to offer to “bite the bullet”.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Firstly, I don’t report people who mean me harm.

I report people who don’t follow forum rules.

Regarding understanding why there is evil in the world: just apply the analogy I’ve been proferring. A good father can offer an explanation to a 5 yr old as to why she is getting immunized. He can offer an explanation as to why he is holding her down in an apparent union with the nurses/medical assistants. The 5 yr old will understand at a 5 yr old’s level. The 5 yr old can understand “bad germs make me feel bad. My daddy says that these shots will help make the bad germs not make me feel bad.” That’s all she can understand.

Similarly, God can offer us some explanations as to why there is evil in the world, and we can understand with our limited finite mind. But compared to His Infinite Wisdom, our understanding is infinitesimal–even less than a 5 yr old’s understanding of immunology.

As St. Augustine said, “Si comprehendis, non est Deus”. If you understand him, he is not God.

NB: the above is light year away from your distillation of my argument: “we ought to shut off our brains and just accept reality as unknowable.”

 

[Capuchinfan1337]

Love, to me, is a physical Being, not an abstract concept.

Therefore what you do in the eyes of all Abrahamic religions is idolatry since you replace God for an abstract concept since love does not in all probability does not mean the same thing it does for me as does to you.

 

[Love4All]

Therefore what you do in the eyes of all Abrahamic religions is idolatry since you replace God for an abstract concept since love does not in all probability does not mean the same thing it does for me as does to you.

1 John 4:8

“God is Love.”

 

[Love4All]

Firstly, I don’t report people who mean me harm.

I report people who don’t follow forum rules.

Regarding understanding why there is evil in the world: just apply the analogy I’ve been proferring. A good father can offer an explanation to a 5 yr old as to why she is getting immunized. He can offer an explanation as to why he is holding her down in an apparent union with the nurses/medical assistants. The 5 yr old will understand at a 5 yr old’s level. The 5 yr old can understand “bad germs make me feel bad. My daddy says that these shots will help make the bad germs not make me feel bad.” That’s all she can understand.

Similarly, God can offer us some explanations as to why there is evil in the world, and we can understand with our limited finite mind. But compared to His Infinite Wisdom, our understanding is infinitesimal–even less than a 5 yr old’s understanding of immunology.

As St. Augustine said, “Si comprehendis, non est Deus”. If you understand him, he is not God.

NB: the above is light year away from your distillation of my argument: “we ought to shut off our brains and just accept reality as unknowable.”

The above, wasn’t what that comment of mine was directed to.

But I apologize for offending you. That’s the best I can do.

 

[wittgenstein]

I am confused. What do you mean by love= a physical being? This “love being” has a weight and volume?

 

[Peter_Plato]

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.

You would then have to show that animals are spiritual beings in the same sense that humans are to claim Catholic doctrine entails animals are conscious.

Catholic doctrine does not hold that animals are self-aware or conscious, only that they are alive. Aquinas and scholastic philosophy in general holds that all living things have a soul or “anima,” which is the principle that animates or gives life to them. None of these entail self-awareness. Self-reflection comes as an aspect of reason or the capacity to think, along with the capacity to transcend physical reality, which is possible by self-reflection.

I think it was Augustine and other early Church Fathers who first proposed human self-consciousness as mirroring the Trinitarian reality of God. The Logos (Christ) is the perfect “Self” image of the Father - who proceeds from the Father’s complete and eternal knowledge of his own Being.

It is not an unreasonable step to propose that being made in God’s image entails this capacity to “know thyself.” It is not clear that animals have this because if they could it would mean the capacity to know one “self” as an “object” of sorts. An object that could then rise above the causal order and originate novel activity, i.e., exhibit creativity. Clearly animals do not demonstrate creativity in the same sense that humans do.

Sparrows, for example, do not, on an individual basis construct a variety of nests, adorn themselves uniquely or, generally, behave as creative individuals. They act in ways that are quite predictable for their genus and species. Ditto with all animals. Humans are atypical, as a biological entity, in this respect.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I am confused. What do you mean by love= a physical being? This “love being” has a weight and volume?

I am likewise confused by the claim that God is physical, unless some very idiosyncratic implementation of the world “physical” is at play here.

This would be a Mormon belief, but not a Christian, nor, particularly, a Catholic one.

 

[Love4All]

I am confused. What do you mean by love= a physical being? This “love being” has a weight and volume?

The Original Word, is Love. This is not to say that the Word is spelled, l- o- v- e, but rather to say that the Substance of the Original Word is the Substance of Love. The spelling of that Word, is another matter entirely.

To spell the Word, we do not name its Substance, but its Name.

According to Saint John, the Word became Flesh and dwelt among us. So the Name of the Word is, Jesus.

Jesus, then, in the Flesh, took bread and spoke the words, “This is My Body.” Since He is the Incarnate Word, when He speaks a word of command, that command is carried out. He proved this by commanding the wind and the sea to be quiet, and they were quiet, and He demonstrated quite a few other words of command, as well. So when He took the bread in His hands and spoke the words, “This is My Body,” that which was in His hands was then His Body, no longer bread but Bread.

So the substance of the Original Word has now become Bread, and that Bread is a physical Being in the world now. It resides in all the altars and tabernacles of the Church.

Thus, Love is a physical Being. And that is the Love that I worship. That is the essence of my religion of Love. Others call it Catholicism, but I call it Love, because I do not define membership in the True Religion by the Baptismal rolls. I hold, rather, that all those who love, truly, are members of the One Religion that is Love. Coming to explicit faith in the Church is only a matter of time and instruction.

 

[Love4All]

You would then have to show that animals are spiritual beings in the same sense that humans are to claim Catholic doctrine entails animals are conscious.

Well, they breathe, right? Breath is spirit.

Catholic doctrine does not hold that animals are self-aware or conscious, only that they are alive. Aquinas and scholastic philosophy in general holds that all living things have a soul or “anima,” which is the principle that animates or gives life to them. None of these entail self-awareness. Self-reflection comes as an aspect of reason or the capacity to think, along with the capacity to transcend physical reality, which is possible by self-reflection.

First, I do not think that life implies self-awareness necessarily. But awareness, yes, the animals possess that. Self-awareness is perhaps what started the whole mess in the first place. The state of original Innocence was lost, it seems to me, in some act that resulted in Adam perceiving himself in a new way, as somehow separate from the rest of the world. Thus, “I was afraid, because I was naked, so I hid.”

Secondly, I do not think that self-awareness confers on us any (magical?) ability to “transcend physical reality.” I think, no matter what we do, we stay physical. Except die, perhaps. But no one I currently speak with face to face has done that yet.

I think it was Augustine and other early Church Fathers who first proposed human self-consciousness as mirroring the Trinitarian reality of God. The Logos (Christ) is the perfect “Self” image of the Father - who proceeds from the Father’s complete and eternal knowledge of his own Being.

It is not an unreasonable step to propose that being made in God’s image entails this capacity to “know thyself.” It is not clear that animals have this because if they could it would mean the capacity to know one “self” as an “object” of sorts. An object that could then rise above the causal order and originate novel activity, i.e., exhibit creativity. Clearly animals do not demonstrate creativity in the same sense that humans do.

Sparrows, for example, do not, on an individual basis construct a variety of nests, adorn themselves uniquely or, generally, behave as creative individuals. They act in ways that are quite predictable for their genus and species. Ditto with all animals. Humans are atypical, as a biological entity, in this respect.

Indeed, but I was not asserting anything to the contrary.

 

[Love4All]

I am likewise confused by the claim that God is physical, unless some very idiosyncratic implementation of the world “physical” is at play here.

This would be a Mormon belief, but not a Christian, nor, particularly, a Catholic one.

“And the Word was made Flesh, and dwelt among us.”

“Take this, all of you, and eat it, for this is My Body, which will be given up for you.”

Very physical, very Catholic. The Mormons and the Protestants don’t have it, even though the same words are in their Bibles. Go figure!

 

[PRmerger]

I am confused. What do you mean by love= a physical being? This “love being” has a weight and volume?

Love became Incarnated.

We are talking about Jesus. A physical being.

 

[PRmerger]

The above, wasn’t what that comment of mine was directed to.

But I apologize for offending you. That’s the best I can do.

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.

 

[jimmy]

-]p/-]

Love became Incarnated.

We are talking about Jesus. A physical being.

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.

 

[Peter_Plato]

“And the Word was made Flesh, and dwelt among us.”

“Take this, all of you, and eat it, for this is My Body, which will be given up for you.”

Very physical, very Catholic. The Mormons and the Protestants don’t have it, even though the same words are in their Bibles. Go figure!

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.

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

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.

 

[PRmerger]

-]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.

 

[jimmy]

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.

 

[PRmerger]

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.