Many atheists claim that the God described in the Bible is not possible. They raise philosophical challenges meant to show that inherent in the very nature of God are contradictions which make belief in him foolish. This is how a recent challenge along these lines was phrased:"If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete--it needs nothing else. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. Therefore, a perfect being that creates is impossible.”
Challenges like these can be daunting, especially for someone not interested in philosophy. On its face, the challenge appears to have validity, reasoning to a conclusion about God. But in fact what is at play here is the "straw man" fallacy. The challenger sets up a God whose attributes are not those of the God of the Bible, and then argues from that the God we worship could not exist.
Notice what is implicit in the challenge: the skeptic seems to be acknowledging God as an eternal being, but his questions assume that God has no power to control time. Time becomes a force over God, and not one that God created and controls. Consider: the challenger asks "what compelled God to create?" as if God is sitting around for eons wondering what to do. He uses words like "bored," "lonely," "needs," and "desires." Each of these concepts is temporally based: "boredom" means an awareness that one's present circumstances lack sufficient stimulation and an anticipation of changing this condition by engaging in some future activity; "lonely" means an awareness of the lack of others to help bring meaning, activity or joy into one's life; "desires" means an awareness of something lacking and the formation of a plan to acquire that thing in the future. Each of these concepts imply a limited being, a being who lacks something necessary for fulfillment.
With each question, the skeptic betrays that he has not grasped the attributes of the God we worship. The God of the Bible describes himself as the “I am.” Though we cannot, in our limited present circumstances, ever truly grasp what He is, it is apparent that as an eternal being, all times (as we perceive them) are in an eternal "present" to Him. He was never “alone.” Composed of three persons in one being, He is in an eternal loving relationship and has no needs, fulfills all desires and lacks no stimulation. In fact, these concepts are nonsensical to such a being, who created and set in motion what we perceive as the timeline (through the creation of this universe), because each of these concepts makes sense only if viewed from the perspective of a being that is limited or controlled or defined by time.
So, to specifically answer the questions: Nothing "disturbed" the eternal equilibrium. Time was not flowing "against" God and no force can disturb Him. Nothing "compelled" Him to create, because a compulsion would require a source greater than God. He created the universe and this timeline because he chose to for reasons of love. The love he exercised was in the agape sense - not seeking gain, motivated by nothing desired in return. God was not bored or lonely and is and always was complete. There was no disequilibrium.
The challenger might respond by saying that God somehow added to his distinctiveness when he created us. He went from a "before" to an "after." He “changed,” therefore he wasn't "perfect." But this challenge again fails to recognize that God is not trapped by time, but created it. Moreover, it fails to consider what “infinity” involves. As an infinite being, God added nothing to himself by creating, for it is not possible to "add" to infinity. Consider it this way: imagine, for a moment, a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, all of which are filled. An infinite number of new guests arrive seeking lodging. What does the innkeeper do? Is he not “full up?” No, actually, at least not when infinity is involved. He simply moves everyone from the room he or she is in to the room whose number is two times the original room number. By so doing, he opens up an infinite number of new rooms - all odd numbered - for his new guests. The point is that when you are dealing with infinity, limitations simply don't exist.
The challenger’s most glaring error is the claim "A God who is perfect does nothing except exist." This would seem to reduce God to nothing more than a jellyfish – alive, perhaps, but showing few signs of it and simply existing. Infinite perfection is, well, perfection which lacks any limits. This “condition” does not constrain God, and to suggest that it leaves him essentially powerless - he simply "exists" - is to get things precisely backwards.
Posts
20 comments:
So, if something is beyond someone's experience or does not fit into their preconceived belief system, it does not exist. China does not exist. After all, I have never been there. Those pictures and accounts of travel are all done by deluded people wanting me to believe that China exists when I know it really doesn't. The postage stamps in my collection are faked.
And so on.
I'm going to deal with Stormbringer's comment before I come to the actual post.
Stormy, if you think what you've described is what non-believers think, then you've really no business talking about atheism at all, as you clearly have no understanding of it.
Whilst I have never been to China I have met people who have (including people who live there), I could learn the language, I can look at photographs and films of China, I can read up about what it exports and imports, I can type on a keyboard that was made there (which is what I am doing right now), and, if I so choose, I can travel to China and see if for myself.
On the other hand, heaven....
Whilst I have never been to heaven I have also never met people who have, I can't learn the language, I can't look at photographs and films of heaven, I can't read up about what it exports and imports, I can't type on a keyboard that was made there, and, if I so choose, I cannot travel to heaven and see if for myself.
China has a geographical location, population, and GDP that can be easily confirmed. Heaven has none of those things.
To claim that non-believers adopt the attitude you put forward is wrong.
"But in fact what is at play here is the "straw man" fallacy. The challenger sets up a God whose attributes are not those of the God of the Bible, and then argues from that the God we worship could not exist."
That is not the case though, Al. The version of god being used is one regularly put forward by theists, and, in fact, is the one YOUR site has put forward in previous posts.
There is no value in putting up a fake version of your god which can be then easily shown to not exist, nothing can be proved that way. Instead practically everyone who has criticised the points raised on this site has used the commonly accepted model of your god, an all knowing, all powerful being, that has always existed and always will. Note, the use of this model ISN'T a tacit admitting of the existence of this deity, it's merely an attempt to 'level the playing field'.
It is ONLY by using the theists own model of god that non-believers can show the foolishness of believing in such a logically impossible being.
Believers seem to think that atheists are just a mirror image of them, trying to convert the worshipper over to atheism - this is not the case. Most non-believers I know couldn't care less what theists believe, so long as those beliefs don't stray into day to day life and tell non-believers what to do or think. Unfortunately that kind of power is exactly what theists of all stripes seek.
Those of us who engage are often former believers ourselves, and are trying to show you how to get out of the believing prison you've placed yourselves in. We've been where you are now, we've thought the same things as you, we've preached at friends and family, convinced that we held 'the Truth', but we've subsequently learned that we were wrong.
Personally, I go after your claims of omniscience, as an omniscient entity is inherently inconsistant. I note that christians prefer to ignore my challenge, perhaps hoping that no one will notice.
I find your comments to be a bit inconsistent. I drew the question from an atheist’s letter. This may not represent all atheists – since they are unified only in what they don’t believe – but it does represent the views and concerns of some. Specifically here, the concern raised was that a “perfect” God was simply not possible. While you accuse me of creating this version of God, you apparently share the same view, as you end by saying that we believe in a “logically impossible being.”
Additionally, you say that atheists are not “trying to convert the worshipper over to atheism” unless apparently “those beliefs stray into day to day life and tell nonbelievers what to do or think.” You want to liberate us from the believing prison we are in. In other words, you want to tell us what to do and how to think. You want to correct the mistakes we are making. You are doing the very thing you claim you are not doing.
Pvblivs, saying that an “omniscient entity is inherently inconsistent” is an assertion, not an argument. It’s not that we’re ignoring your challenge. You haven’t raised it yet. I'd be more than happy to give it a try if you explain what it is you mean.
"Specifically here, the concern raised was that a “perfect” God was simply not possible. While you accuse me of creating this version of God, you apparently share the same view, as you end by saying that we believe in a “logically impossible being.”"
I say he's logically impossible because he is. God, as described by Christianity cannot exist, he is a self contradiction. If you apply limits to him, bring him into the realm of reality he ceases to be a god. So, you're faced with either an all powerful, all knowing being that can be a god by definition, but is logically impossible, or you have a limited, very powerful being, that exists within the bounds of the physical Universe, but cannot be a god, because it isn't supernatural.
"Additionally, you say that atheists are not “trying to convert the worshipper over to atheism” unless apparently “those beliefs stray into day to day life and tell nonbelievers what to do or think.” You want to liberate us from the believing prison we are in. In other words, you want to tell us what to do and how to think. You want to correct the mistakes we are making. You are doing the very thing you claim you are not doing."
Not at all, you're free to do what you want, and think what you want, all we ask is that you stop trying to force YOUR beliefs onto others. Christians - shut up, stop preaching, stop seeking power so that you can enforce your world view on others, stop trying to convert others. Show us the respect we show you.
Yes, we'll argue with you, but ultimately I couldn't care less what you believe. That doesn't mean I won't call you on it if you post an article that's entirely made up of circular reasoning and/or lies. Your two sites, 'Answers for Atheists' and 'Please Convince Me' are both clearly intended to push Christian views on non-believers, if you want to be left alone simply take down the sites, stop claiming to have proofs or evidence that you do not have, and let non-believers get on with their lives.
Until you do that, you need to be prepared to face a constant stream of non-believers criticising your faith, tearing your arguments apart, and showing how wrong you are. And you can't complain about it, because you've invited us here.
In other words, we will be horrible houseguests and make you miserable because you don't have the right beer in the icebox to please us. Can't escape THAT logic 'cause there's none there.
You say God is a “self contradiction” and that he is “logically impossible.” You tried to support that with an argument that his omniscience and his omnipotence are in conflict. Your argument is fallacious –as we’ve shown in previous posts - because you are employing a straw man, a “God” who is bound by time. Our conversation is, logically, at an end, because you insist on defining God to meet your preconceived view so as to arrive at your preordained result. We should move on to another topic.
We’re “free to do what you want” as long as we “shut up” and “stop preaching.” As I’m sure you know, a tenet of Christianity is to go forth and spread the Good News. Your statement is a contradiction: we can do what we want as long as we don't do what we must. While we are to engage people respectfully (which we do on this site), we are to have – and give - reasons for the hope that is within us. You are free to disagree, and to present your reasons, but telling us to “shut up” is simply an admission that you have no more persuasive position that you can take. You can rest assured that apologists on this site will not try to win an argument by asking the other side to stop talking.
Finally, we do care what you believe. That’s why we try to present the arguments as well as we are able. We may not always succeed, and there are things that we may not get right, but in the end, we believe that these ideas actually matter. As for concern about your “constant stream “ of criticism and arguments being torn apart, that is after all what this site is about. We just ask that you follow the rules of reason, logic and consideration of others that make for an open marketplace of ideas.
Al:
I have presented my argument before on this blog and it was conveniently ignored. The theists pretended that I said nothing. They don't try to argue against it. They don't claim a fallacy. They just pretend it's not there.
But you are quite correct, I did not give an argument in this case. I only described the position the argument I usually give takes and the general result. If I can be assured of your attention, I will be happy to re-make the argument. I don't expect you to go searching for it. But I don't want to take the time if you are just going to ignore it again.
Pvblivs,
I have no intention of ignoring it and I'm sorry if I missed it earlier.
I would be more than happy to attempt a response.
Very well. Then I shall present my argument.
For any given being (at any given time) it is meaningful to talk about statements that are true according to the knowledge and/or beliefs of that being. Assuming that your god exists, then this applies to him as well. That is, it is meaningful to talk about what things are true according to "god-knowledge." Now on the premise of omniscience, the statements that are true according to "god-knowledge" are precisely those statements that are true. However, the statement "This statement is not true according to 'god-knowledge.'" has the character that if your god regards it as true, then it is false and vice versa. In short, he cannot correctly identify the truth value of the statement. Now, I will grant that the statement is contrived. It is specifically set up to be something beyond his knowledge. But that does not lessen the point. Similar statements about your knowledge or mine are valid and demonstrate our lack of omniscience. If he exists, there is something he does not know, even if that something is in no way important to us.
If a being is omniscient, he knows all that there is to know. He cannot be mistaken, for everything he knows corresponds to that which is true. On this, we agree.
However, saying “This statement is not true according to ‘god-knowledge’” does not present a challenge. It asserts nothing. “This statement” has no referent; consequently it has no value as either true or false, for it is saying nothing.
Consequently, God would see it for what it is - a jumble of words. He would not regard it as “true” as you yourself are using that word – as corresponding to reality. He would not regard it as false, except to the extent that it does not communicate anything of value.
You grant that your statement is “contrived,” which essentially means “not genuine” or “unlike reality.” It is nonsensical. You and I can both see its contrived nature. Why would an omniscient being struggle with it?
Now, perhaps I am simply not understanding your point. Your last statement asserts that there is something God does not know. You have not shown what that something is. Please clarify.
"'This statement' has no referent; consequently it has no value as either true or false, for it is saying nothing."
Of course it has a referent. It refers to the statement of which it is a part. In short, I presented a statement that your god will not believe that very statement to be true. Whether he believes it true or not, he is necessarily mistaken. And if he believes, as you claim to, that it is a meaningless jumble of words, he is again mistaken.
Of course you could say that your god is merely practically omniscient, and concede a limitation of little consequence. After all, if the only bounds to my knowledge was an inability to unravel certain statements about my own beliefs, I would be in rather good shape as knowledge goes. But christianity has a sort of vanity to it, and will not admit even so trivial a limitation for its god.
“Of course it has a referent. It refers to the statement of which it is a part.”
Which of course renders it circular and therefore without meaning.
“Whether he believes it true or not, he is necessarily mistaken. And if he believes, as you claim to, that it is a meaningless jumble of words, he is again mistaken.”
You and I both understand it to be meaningless. That’s why you earlier admitted that the statement is contrived, i.e. not genuine. Why would God be any less able than us to see the falsity in it?
“Of course you could say that your god is merely practically omniscient, and concede a limitation of little consequence. After all, if the only bounds to my knowledge was an inability to unravel certain statements about my own beliefs, I would be in rather good shape as knowledge goes.”
Are you unable to unravel this statement? How about this: can God say “There are some things I don’t know?” Yes, he could “say” the words, as long as he also made clear that he was simply “saying” words and not conveying truth. Or, more likely, he could acknowledge the statement as a valid construction of words, but of no applicability to him. You can’t paint God into a corner by requiring him to violate his own nature (eg. "let's imagine God admits he doesn't know something) and then claim that as proof that he does not exist.
Your argument reminds me of a Star Trek episode. Kirk confuses a computer by saying: “everything I say is a lie,” followed by “I’m lying.” The computer, unable to process linearly this illogic, shuts down. You have painted God as a primitive logic device that cannot see the nonsense implicit in such a statement and therefore also shuts down. Our minds are not confused by such illogic; neither is God’s greater mind.
Al:
"Which of course renders it circular and therefore without meaning."
Not so. Do you think the sentence "This sentence has five words," to be without meaning. It has a clear meaning. The statement that I gave also has a clear meaning.
"You and I both understand it to be meaningless. That’s why you earlier admitted that the statement is contrived, i.e. not genuine."
Incorrect. I do not consider it contrived in the sense of not genuine. I consider it contrived in the sense that it is only useful as a counterexample to a very specific claim. Nothing would change based on whether it was true or false. However, "unlike reality" can fit if you are in agreement that god does not exist. While self-reference does not render my statement meaningless, the absence of your god and the equivalent "god knowledge" would. If you insist that the statement is meaningless, then you must assume that your god does not exist.
"You can’t paint God into a corner by requiring him to violate his own nature (eg. 'let's imagine God admits he doesn't know something') and then claim that as proof that he does not exist."
I did not postulate that he admits that he doesn't know something. He could lie about it -- unless I'm correct and he doesn't exist.
"Our minds are not confused by such illogic; neither is God’s greater mind."
We humans have learned not to dwell too long on things we do not and cannot understand. Perhaps you wish to make a similar claim on behalf of your god? I have a little book giving a simple solution to the Rubik's Cube. To my brother (who does not understand it) it is "meaningless." To me, it is a reference that provides a working solution.
Your proposed statement is saying “This statement is truly not true which thereby makes it true.” It is not like “this statement contains five words.” It is more like “this statement contains no English words.”
I hope you really don’t think that a reasonably intelligent person, let alone a perfect one, would be unable to see what is at play. Just because words can be strung together does not prevent the sentence from being incoherent.
“If you insist that the statement is meaningless, then you must assume that your god does not exist.”
This simply does not follow. A statement that is contradictory, incoherent or circular simply proves that reason is operating. Reason seeks to “make sense” of things, but there are many strings of words for which this is not possible. For example, "I am sad only when I am happy" says something about my ability to reason and nothing about whether there is a God.
Your Rubik’s cube example does not help your argument. Rubik’s cube is a puzzle that can be solved, if one can see sufficiently in 3 dimensions. No amount of “how to” books will give meaning to a meaningless sentence. Saying that "God truly knows that this statement is not true but therefore true" is not something we dwell on because we can’t solve it. We don’t dwell on it, and neither does God, because there is nothing to solve.
But the statement is not contradictory. It is the notion that any being can be omniscient which is contradictory. A similar statement about any non-omniscient being poses no problems. The inconsistency stems only from the claim of omniscience.
"A statement that is contradictory, incoherent or circular simply proves that reason is operating."
The statement is not contradictory or incoherent. It is not really meaningful for a statement to be circular, although an argument can be circular if the desired conclusion is placed among the premises.
"Your Rubik’s cube example does not help your argument."
Perhaps it would be useful to note that the Rubik's cube serves only as a backdrop. My point was that the book holds meaning to me, but not to others who don't understand it.
It is just the same as if someone had written an alleged "Book of All Truth." I can construct the sentence, "This sentence is not in the 'Book of All Truth.'" Is it a meaningless sentence? Of course not. And you would have only to examine the book's pages to see whether it was written there or not. This could, perhaps, take a long time. Now, I don't have access to the belief set of your proposed god. But my statement either is there or is absent from there. If your god believes it meaningless, it only means that it is absent from there and thus a true statement; and your god makes a mistake.
"Saying that 'God truly knows that this statement is not true but therefore true' is not something we dwell on because we can’t solve it."
But I didn't say anything of the sort. Please work with the statement I actually provided. Nowhere do I say that, because your god doesn't believe it, he knows it's really true. I say that, if he doesn't believe it, it is really true but that he does not know it. I am not introducing an inconsistency. I am exposing one. If you drop the assumption of omniscience, the contradication goes away. And you'll note that, at the outset, I said that omniscience was logically inconsistent.
"I hope you really don’t think that a reasonably intelligent person, let alone a perfect one, would be unable to see what is at play. Just because words can be strung together does not prevent the sentence from being incoherent."
That's true. For example "book cloak fat penguin" fails to have meaning. However, my statement does not suffer from such a problem. It is a statement about the belief set of an alleged being. Either it is "written" in his belief set and is false, or is not "written" in his belief set and is true.
"But I didn't say anything of the sort. Please work with the statement I actually provided. Nowhere do I say that, because your god doesn't believe it, he knows it's really true. I say that, if he doesn't believe it, it is really true but that he does not know it. I am not introducing an inconsistency. I am exposing one. If you drop the assumption of omniscience, the contradication goes away. And you'll note that, at the outset, I said that omniscience was logically inconsistent."
Maybe I am really missing the point but I do not see why omniscience would necessarily exclude knowledge of false statements or even lies. My understanding is that an omniscient being possesses all knowledge, so I do not see why God would be precluded from being aware of knowledge and reason that we ourselves possess, even with such a statement.
I think it refers to God knows the statements A=A, A!=B (!= means not equal, BTW), A!=C, A!=D etc... but does not know A!=A, A=B, A=C, etc...
God not know A=B, but he knows A!=B. False knowledge is not in his mind, but he knows if something is false by knowing the corresponding true statement that that statement is false.
Thank you for the explanation, Trent C. I believe I understand but I still do not see where the problem lies as Pvblivs related it.
"The statement is a simple one about the set of beliefs of a proposed being. Either the statement is among those beliefs and is thus false, or it is not there and is true. Either way, there is a truth that your god does not know...You cannot have a collection of all and only true statements, because for any given collection , the statement "This statement is not part of collection ." is reasonable, but the collection will be wrong about it."
For an omniscient God, a statement that says "This statement is not part of 'God's knowledge'" appears to be unreasonable statement due to a misstep. God has all knowledge and knows everything that is true or false, and nothing exists outside of His knowledge.
Maybe I am still missing something but "This statement is not part of 'God's knowledge'" sounds like "This number is not a part of all numbers." However, a number is included in all other numbers and so the sentence appears unreasonable.
Anyway, thank you again for the help!
Post a Comment