Inquisitive Atheists - "Is The Christian God Logical?"

Home Atheism About Me The Bible Jesus God Islam The Wall Evolution
Polls News Quotes Humor Hate Mail Nice Mail Contact Fa.v Links Webrings FAQ Misc.

Adobero: What a silly arguement ... "God can not create a spherical cube, therefore I conclude He is not able to exist." hehe, God is restricted by what, the laws of physics? And of course a Contingent Being could never Create a Necessary One ... now could it?

I see two logical fallacies that render this portion of your rebuttal pointless. You paraphrase me as saying, "God can not create a spherical cube, therefore I conclude He is not able to exist." You’re right, that is a silly argument. What you’ve done is the strawman fallacy. You’ve altered my position in order to make it much easier to attack. I never claimed that God can’t exist because he cannot create a spherical cube. I asserted that god is not omnipotent. Lack of omnipotence doesn’t equal the nonexistence of a god.

The second fallacy is " . . . a Contingent Being could never Create a Necessary One . . . now could it?" This is the meaningless question fallacy. The concept of a Necessary Being will not allow for a Contingent Being to create it. It’s kind of like asking if a verbal word can say a mouth. The verbal word can’t produce a mouth, because the mouth by definition is necessary to produce a verbal word.

Adobero: OMG ... this is hardly a convincing argument. Basically our writer is telling us that Omnipotence and Transcendence cannot be cohabitants ... because Transcendence requires one to be, a dare I say, a "Spirit". And then goes on to say that a Spirit can not be Omnipotent. OR perhaps our writer is claiming to have some superior knowledge of the Spirit world. "Spirits can't have bodies so that makes them less than all powerful" ... is this really what

the writer is postulating here?Am I missing something?

I never mentioned the word spirit. I was discussing a being, which exists outside of space and time, nothing more. Whether or not that is defined as a spirit is up the individual. I define transcendence is unknowable. I can’t call it a spirit because to the human mind, a state that exists outside of space and time isn’t possible for us to comprehend. It’s a state that we cannot experience and our senses cannot fabricate for our examination. Our logic can only tell us that without space and time, according to what we know about reality, movement and thinking wouldn’t be possible. If something can’t think or move outside of space and time, it can’t be omnipotent, which is the only logical conclusion we can draw (if we are to accept the notion that such a sate exists and something can exist in it). Technically speaking, since we have no concept of transcendence we have no reason to think such a state exists. To posit that a god exists in such a state is nothing more than making an opinionated statement. It is no more valid than me saying when socks are lost they go to a state of transcendence. Both are ridiculous claims, because they are irrational. Neither can be supported, neither needs refutation. Until a transcendent state can be established, we can’t coherently discuss anything to do with it. That includes assuming it exists or that anything exists in it. This is something I grappled with as I was deciding whether or not to include transcendence in the paper. Perhaps I should clarify that when I speak of transcendence, I’m giving the Christian an illogical win. I’m allowing that transcendence is a possible state, I’m allowing that it exists, I’m allowing that the Christian god is transcendent.

Adobero: My my, such a theologian. Lets see, God knows all knowable things ... there, hows that?

This alters omniscience. There is a difference between limitless knowledge and knowing all possible things. If God can only know all possible things, we are left to wonder how it is that God knows what is in our hearts. It isn’t possible for our inner most thoughts to be known by others. They’re contained in our head, and only escape if we allow them. It isn’t logical that our secret desires, thoughts, prayers can be known by a creature that can only know all possible things.

Adobero: Of course the future cannot be yet known ... UNLESS, you are able to predestine it to come about.

This paper argues that the attributes given to God are incompatible with one another. Not against omniscience alone. You still haven’t corrected the issue that God’s omnipotence clashes with the attributes of free will and omnipotence.

Adobero: Could it be that God is Spontaneous ... choosing to predestine certain things as He sees fit and also allowing you to make choices ... free from any coercion from Him?

No. If God is spontaneous, he can not possibly be omniscient.

Adobero: Think of it like this, God being Omnipotent can do or NOT do as He pleases. The same applies to Omniscience ... He can know or NOT know as He pleases as well. See, it would be the knowing that predetermines. Not knowing, would allow for your free choices. Does that make sense to you?

God is omnipotent and has the ability to do or not do as he pleases. This is free will.
God is omniscient and can know or not know anything. This not knowing is alluding to God’s omnipotence and His limitless power to omit knowledge from his own mind. Once this is done, God is no longer omniscient. Not knowing is the only that that will open the door to free choices. Omniscience slams the door shut. If you say that god chose to not know, you are admitting that god is not omniscient.

Adobero: Of course the "Omnibenevolent" argument is neutered because its based on a false premise ... "that God predestined man to fall by placing "choices" is his path."

God did place choices in the path of man. God placed the tree of knowledge and gave Adam and Eve the option of obedience or disobedience. The very minute a rule is made, a choice is made available: obey or disobey. Again, this paper is to be taken as a whole. My argument from omnibenevolence is only an argument when the entire paper is considered: omnipotence, omniscience, and free will are particularly critical when dealing with God’s omnibenevolence. The argument is that the attributes assigned to the Christian god are contradictory. You haven’t resolved any of these contradictions.

Adobero: Reminds me of an old comic, Flip Wilson. "The devil made me do it", he would say. But the writer above places all blame of a God that he claims doesnt exist. Well then, tell me ... why do Atheist make choices for evil? They can't blame God or the Devil.

Evil is a very vague word, making it somewhat difficult to understand your specific meaning behind the question. Why do atheists make wrong or bad choices, choices with negative consequences? Because we’re human beings. Atheists don’t try to blame a god or a devil, we don't believe in them. We are accountable for our own actions, most of us recognize this.

Adobero: And tell me something, if you were God, how would you create a man able to make choices of his own volition and yet never choose to inflict evil or harm on another? Looks like you are seeking a contradictory God after all.

God created all things. I would have never created an opposition to "goodness". If Lucifer rebelled, it is only because God allowed the possibility of rebellion. This has nothing to do with free will. If God created a universe in which rebelliousness did not exist, not even free will would allow disobedience. Much like free will doesn’t allow humans to jump to the nearest star on a pogo stick. It isn’t possible. If I were a God with the powers of the Christian God (pretending it was logically possible) I would not have created a universe in which "evil" was a possible option.

Or I wouldn't have created at all. If creating meant that billions would suffer miserable lives and die, most of them being sent to an infinite punishment by me, I would not create.

This is a response to a rebuttal to "Is The Christian God Logical?" Click here to read the whole rebuttal that I am responding to. Adobero1's (Sam) words will be in.