Why God CANNOT Exist

[The_Catholic]

For a while now I’ve been exchanging emails with an atheist friend of mind. We’ve talked of many things, but he’s convinced that God just cannot exists, and if He does, then He’s a product of nature, and we should be able to find God in nature, but cannot. And if God is outside of Time and Space then He shouldn’t be able to intervene, and if Christ is God then God is also bound by the laws of physics and the universe, so Christ walking on water would be “impossible.”

He says things like:

"If you cannot expect to find god in nature, and yet we humans are bound under natural law, then we humans can never find god. it is like saying god exists outside of the physical universe, we don’t, thus if god does we can never know god.

we can use logic to determine things which god can or cannot do, simply because some things are clearly contraditory, such as god making a shield which is unbreakable, and a sword which can break anything."

I also told him that God cannot do everything, anotherwords He cannot make a rock too big for Him to lift. He said:

"Ah ha, you are using your own moral human brain to say what god can or cannot do? And that is my point.

Atheists are not belittling Theism, they are pointing out the logical fallacy of saying anything is possible, when in reality only some things are possible, since some things contradict the possibility of other things. Either a box is empty, or it is not empty. Binary states."

How should I respond?

 

[Cajetan]

And if God is outside of Time and Space then He shouldn’t be able to intervene…

This is a classic problem. Plotinus (the founder of Neoplatonism) dealt with it at length in his discussions on how the Many or the Composite (Nature) could possibly come from the One or the Absolutely Simple (God), and how the latter could be related to the former in any meaningful way.

One way to look at it is that all “actions” in the Universe have been determined by God, before Creation, but in such a way that God, through and in the laws of nature (aspects of God’s Creation), intervenes in the world and our lives. Divine intervention is NOT a case of God “breaking” the laws of nature, but rather the laws of nature and the determined Universe as they are have been doing the work of God since the beginning of the Universe. Some of us just don’t perceive it; they lack a proper understanding of the Divine Nature.

 

[The_Catholic]

“God, through and in the laws of nature (aspects of God’s Creation), intervenes in the world and our lives. Divine intervention is NOT a case of God “breaking” the laws of nature, but rather the laws of nature and the determined Universe as they are have been doing the work of God since the beginning of the Universe. Some of us just don’t perceive it; they lack a proper understanding of the Divine Nature.”

---

He would say Christ healing a withered hand, walking on water, RISING from the dead are clear contradictions of the universal laws.

 

[iaskquestions]

God just cannot exist, and if He does, then He’s a product of nature

False assumption! Why do you think he is a product of nature? It is the other way round.

And if God is outside of Time and Space then He shouldn’t be able to intervene

Another false assumption. Why do you think he cannot intervene?

because some things are clearly contraditory, such as god making a shield which is unbreakable, and a sword which can break anything.

I have already answered this question in your previous thread. God does not contradict himself.

Ah ha, you are using your own moral human brain to say what god can or cannot do?

No. We are using God’s very own word to understand what God can do or not do. If God says that he is the truth, then he certainly cannot do anything that is false.

when in reality only some things are possible, since some things contradict the possibility of other things. Either a box is empty, or it is not empty. Binary states

Yes, binary states. True or false! God does only what is true! Everything that is true is possible for God!

 

[Cajetan]

He would say Christ healing a withered hand, walking on water, RISING from the dead are clear contradictions of the universal laws.

Indeed, I suspect that he would. However, I would say that the miracles of Christ were perfectly in conformity with the laws of nature. Your friend just fails to see that these particular actions have been INCLUDED IN, by way of universal predetermination, the reality of nature since the beginning of the Universe, and thus that the laws of nature are at least slightly more “complex” than he imagines them to be. There is more to them than what physics has told us or can tell us.

Why, then, are they considered “miracles”? Not because they broke any laws of nature, but simpy because God did them and in a more “personal” way than was His work through and in the laws of nature before and after Christ.

 

[The_Catholic]

False assumption! Why do you think he is a product of nature? It is the other way round.

Another false assumption. Why do you think he cannot intervene?

I have already answered this question in your previous thread. God does not contradict himself.

No. We are using God’s very own word to understand what God can do or not do. If God says that he is the truth, then he certainly cannot do anything that is false.

Yes, binary states. True or false! God does only what is true! Everything that is true is possible for God!

I agree, but man, I know what my friend is going to say, especially to this: “Yes, binary states. True or false! God does only what is true! Everything that is true is possible for God!” He’d say that someone resurrecting from the grave is an impossibility, therefore that would be something God cannot do, cause it is false.

 

[The_Catholic]

Indeed, I suspect that he would. However, I would say that the miracles of Christ were perfectly in conformity with the laws of nature. Your friend just fails to see that these particular actions have been INCLUDED IN, by way of universal predetermination, the reality of nature since the beginning of the Universe, and thus that the laws of nature are at least slightly more “complex” than he imagines them to be. There is more to them than what physics has told us or can tell us.

Why, then, are they considered “miracles”? Not because they broke any laws of nature, but simpy because God did them and in a more “personal” way than was His work through and in the laws of nature before and after Christ.

Interesting

 

[iaskquestions]

He’d say that someone resurrecting from the grave is an impossibility, therefore that would be something God cannot do, cause it is false.

How does he know that it is an impossibility? If something is impossible for him it does not mean that it is impossible for God! How can he say that it is false?

 

[The_Catholic]

How does he know that it is an impossibility? If something is impossible for him it does not mean that it is impossible for God! How can he say that it is false?

i know, an atheist will never understand or admit that. I agree 100%!

 

[1ke]

Debating with atheists one must constantly be on guard for logical fallacies and personally I don’t have time or patience for that.

I suggest that you invest in some books by Frank Sheed-- the king of street corner apologetics. He dealt extensively with atheists.

Also, Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker have a new book out called Answering The New Atheism and I really suggest you invest in this book. They deal with a lot of what your buddy is throwing at you.

 

[The_Catholic]

But he would say “in nature things as that do not occur, therefore it would be an impossibility for God, since He too MUST be a product of nature.”

But it makes no sense to me.

 

[The_Catholic]

Debating with atheists one must constantly be on guard for logical fallacies and personally I don’t have time or patience for that.

I suggest that you invest in some books by Frank Sheed-- the king of street corner apologetics. He dealt extensively with atheists.

Also, Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker have a new book out called Answering The New Atheism and I really suggest you invest in this book. They deal with a lot of what your buddy is throwing at you.

Yeah, I tried ordering Scott hahn’s book but there were not anymore avialible. lol

 

[mlchance]

Remember: Atheism is fundamentally irrational. There is always a level of intellectually sloppiness if not outright dishonesty at the base of any atheistic argument. For example:

He’d say that someone resurrecting from the grave is an impossibility, therefore that would be something God cannot do, cause it is false.

This is hardly demonstrative. If, indeed, it is a fact that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead, the initial premise (that resurrection is impossible) is false. As it stands, there is no demonstration that this initial premise is true. The argument on the whole is rather circular, based on the a priori assumption that miracles cannot happen.

Again, remember: Remember: Atheism is fundamentally irrational.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[iaskquestions]

But he would say “in nature things as that do not occur, therefore it would be an impossibility for God, since He too MUST be a product of nature.”

I have already stated, “What makes him think that God is a product of nature? That’s an assumption, a false one. He cannot prove it!”

Again, to say that “in nature things as that do not occur”, he has to rely on history. He is assuming that since such a thing never occured in history, it can never occur in the future. This is a false assumption!

Imagine what he would do if he saw a mom giving birth to 5 children at one time. Would he say, “Such things don’t happen in nature, so they are an impossibility.” ? Certain things are rare, but that does not mean they’re impossible.

 

[VociMike]

Make him justify his assumptions. Make him prove that the natural world is the totality of existence. Make him prove that if God exists he must be a natural being. And make him prove that the natural and supernatural cannot interact. He can claim anything he wants, but that doesn’t make it true.

 

[Koopa]

Logically, if God created logic, then he is above logic and can make it any way he wants, or even defy logic, but as Cajetan mentioned, it is most likely just that God bends nature and logic to conform to His Will. If He is omniscient then clearly this is possible for Him to do.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Your atheist friend is just substituting the absoluteness of God with his own private absoluteness of “no God” - which is just another competing absolute interpretation of God that only differs in what we hold to be God’s attributes and character. That is he substitutes our notion of God with his own self-centered perspective and ignores or blinds himself to what most Christians can easily discern from the clues that God gives us through nature, revelation, basic human interaction and from core inner conviction. In essence He makes himself “God” without calling himself God. But this god is not God and its name is Hubris.

He is also making quite a few logical errors and is even self declaring his own fallibility (as well as creating another paradox since he asserts himself to be infallible in his assertions). He would not permit logical paradoxes to exist if there was a God but will permit himself the absurd contradiction of being both infallible and fallable in not being able to resolve paradoxes in the same breath. This is absurd of course since he embraces his own paradox in the recognition that humans can’t understand somethings but wants to make absolute statements of the certainty that God can’t exist.

I am more and more convinced that atheism is an irrational and self contradictory sort of condition and malady that is the first stage of madness.

James