God Paradoxes

[lpetrich]

There are numerous paradoxes associated with the idea of an omnimax god, some familiar, some not as familiar. Here are some.

Omnipotence:
Can God make a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?
Can God microwave a burrito so hot that he couldn't eat it?

A related one is:
What would happen if an irresistible force met an immovable object?

Omniscience:
Does God have direct experience of committing sins?
Does God have direct experience of anything that his structure keeps it from experiencing? Like experiencing having a body and everything associated with it.

Also:
Can God change?
Can God stop being God or commit suicide?
Doesn't God get bored?
Doesn't Got get spoiled by never having setbacks or other difficulties to overcome?
Doesn't God get spoiled by a lack of challenges or supposed character-building experiences?
Doesn't God get spoiled by not needing any willpower to resist temptations or face danger?
Since God is supposedly uncreated, doesn't he lead a purposeless, meaningless, empty, and miserable existence?

Does God have an existence like the main character in the Twilight Zone episode "A Nice Place to Visit"? A small-time street thug winds up in a place where he can have everything he wants, but after a while, he gets bored and wants to check out "the other place". His host then tells him that he is in "the other place".

The philosopher Carneades concluded that an omnimax god cannot be completely virtuous, because some virtues depend on having limited capabilities.

If God never feels tempted to do anything bad, does that mean that God will never display the virtue of resisting temptation?
Since God is invulnerable, does that mean that God never needs to have any courage?

Then, of course, the Problem of Evil.

 

[Bronzeage]

The real problem of omnipotence is it cannot be fully understood by the less than omnipotent. The omnipotent being is not bound by space or time, which means it exists everywhere at all times. For the human brain, this is a very difficult concept, since we exist in a single point in space, which constantly moves forward in time, but never backward.

As for virtuous, and omnipotent being could no more be virtuous than it could be tiny. Virtue is a human construct. We would like for the Omnipotent to be virtuous, because this would add an element of predictability to the puzzle. The same goes for all other valued human traits such as courage.

Compiling a list of God's paradoxes does nothing to reveal God's nature, but it does reveal a lot about human nature.

 

[Valjean]

Omniscience presupposes foreknowledge of the actions (and sins) of everything which will ever be created. It nessessitates predestination and, I should think, a pretty bored God.

 

[AJ113]

When creationists insist that the universe and its contents must have been created because it couldn't have come about randomly, I never grow tired of pointing out their intellectual dishonesty by failing to apply the principle to the creator itself. Never makes any difference though, of course.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

When creationists insist that the universe and its contents must have been created because it couldn't have come about randomly, I never grow tired of pointing out their intellectual dishonesty by failing to apply the principle to the creator itself. Never makes any difference though, of course.

That's so true about creationists. I think it's simply an intellectual limitation, which is why they're creationists.

 

[remez]

When creationists insist that the universe and its contents must have been created because it couldn't have come about randomly,

What do you mean by randomly?

You think it did happen randomly?

I never grow tired of pointing out their intellectual dishonesty by failing to apply the principle to the creator itself.

What principle?
Are you referring to the KCA?
I know of no argument that principles randomness.

Never makes any difference though, of course.

You and joedad are inferring lack of intelligence. Yet neither you have presented an argument matching any theistic argument I've witnessed.

You suggest this conversational event is common to you.

So please present this argument your are referring to and we'll examine it's intelligence.
I'm guessing you and joedad are the ones that have it messed up.

You too joedad.

 

[AJ113]

Ok I'll try again:

Creationists often state that the complexity of certain naturally occurring phenomena - for example trees - is evidence that they must have been created. Yet they fail to apply that principle to the creator itself. i.e. who created the creator?

I used the term 'randomly' because that's the most common term creationists use in my experience. When they say 'random' in this context they mean 'not created'.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

When creationists insist that the universe and its contents must have been created because it couldn't have come about randomly, I never grow tired of pointing out their intellectual dishonesty by failing to apply the principle to the creator itself. Never makes any difference though, of course.

That's so true about creationists. I think it's simply an intellectual limitation, which is why they're creationists.

One answer I have seen posted is that the Universe is material but God is spirit and not material and nonmaterial worlds operate by different rule.

 

[Bronzeage]

That's so true about creationists. I think it's simply an intellectual limitation, which is why they're creationists.

One answer I have seen posted is that the Universe is material but God is spirit and not material and nonmaterial worlds operate by different rule.

This is basically a variation on the alien spacebats principle. Any solution is possible if we can suspend the laws of physics and observable nature.

The human brain uses metaphors to craft ideas. We take something we understand(at least think we do) and use this to explore something larger, smaller, whatever. The problem with the God thing is, the only metaphor we have for an omnipotent being, which is independent of space and time, is the human consciousness. Unfortunately, this is a difficult thing to wrap a human mind around.

If there is such a being, we have to accept the idea of an entity that is everywhere, all the time. Such a being is not restricted by the laws of physics as we understand them.

This makes discussions about God rather pointless. Instead of discussing God, we just argue with each other about somebody's idea of God.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

When the word God is used, if it is not defined, its not really a useful word. Every definition of God, broad or dogmatic is in fact a definition, more or less, some definitions more detailed than others. So one is always debating ideas about God, even skeptics who must debate one or more definitions of God. Unless you work with a definition so broad its a useless strawman.

The problem with defining God is, that even a seeming simple and well defined definition always has deeper issues, which medieval theologians discovered and explored for centuries. Is God impassive (lacking emotional states)? Does God's intellect or will predominate his thoughts and acts? And on and on. The problem is, as William of Okham and others discovered, logic does not deal with the existence of God very well, so all we can say is what revelation tells us. An idea that has its own problems.

Thus we have no evidence God exists, and it seems to be an impossible task to develop evidence. Or even a truly good definition of God.

One thing all can agree on is that there seems to be a material Universe out there. But not necessarily a God. And defining God as necessary soon develops problems of its own.

 

[Tigers!]

When the word God is used, if it is not defined, its not really a useful word. Every definition of God, broad or dogmatic is in fact a definition, more or less, some definitions more detailed than others. So one is always debating ideas about God, even skeptics who must debate one or more definitions of God. Unless you work with a definition so broad its a useless strawman.

The problem with defining God is, that even a seeming simple and well defined definition always has deeper issues, which medieval theologians discovered and explored for centuries. Is God impassive (lacking emotional states)? Does God's intellect or will predominate his thoughts and acts? And on and on. The problem is, as William of Okham and others discovered, logic does not deal with the existence of God very well, so all we can say is what revelation tells us. An idea that has its own problems.

Thus we have no evidence God exists, and it seems to be an impossible task to develop evidence. Or even a truly good definition of God.

One thing all can agree on is that there seems to be a material Universe out there. But not necessarily a God. And defining God as necessary soon develops problems of its own.

Would you please be able to outline the steps from the statement
"The problem is, as William of Okham and others discovered, logic does not deal with the existence of God very well, so all we can say is what revelation tells us. An idea that has its own problems."
to
" Thus we have no evidence God exists, and it seems to be an impossible task to develop evidence. Or even a truly good definition of God."

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What do you mean? If logic doesn't deal with it well, how do you need more than a single step to get to the conclusion that you can't develop evidence? What else would you be using besides logic to develop evidence?

 

[4321lynx]

There are no God paradoxes as he/she/it does not exist.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

When the word God is used, if it is not defined, its not really a useful word. Every definition of God, broad or dogmatic is in fact a definition, more or less, some definitions more detailed than others. So one is always debating ideas about God, even skeptics who must debate one or more definitions of God. Unless you work with a definition so broad its a useless strawman.

The problem with defining God is, that even a seeming simple and well defined definition always has deeper issues, which medieval theologians discovered and explored for centuries. Is God impassive (lacking emotional states)? Does God's intellect or will predominate his thoughts and acts? And on and on. The problem is, as William of Okham and others discovered, logic does not deal with the existence of God very well, so all we can say is what revelation tells us. An idea that has its own problems.

Thus we have no evidence God exists, and it seems to be an impossible task to develop evidence. Or even a truly good definition of God.

One thing all can agree on is that there seems to be a material Universe out there. But not necessarily a God. And defining God as necessary soon develops problems of its own.

Would you please be able to outline the steps from the statement
"The problem is, as William of Okham and others discovered, logic does not deal with the existence of God very well, so all we can say is what revelation tells us. An idea that has its own problems."
to
" Thus we have no evidence God exists, and it seems to be an impossible task to develop evidence. Or even a truly good definition of God."

Romans 11
³³ O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
³⁴ For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?

From Paul onwards, the problems of God have always ended up with having to admit God is inscrutable. And theologians have tied themselves into knots trying to explain God. Augustine time and time again had to admit that God was inscrutable and not open to logic. Luther and others have been forced to concede that point. Duns Scotus and others such as William of Okham simply admitted the obvious, God was incomprehensible to our minds as theological puzzles multiplied. Aquina and Anselm struggled with trying to logically prove God's existence, but since Kant and Hume, the idea that natural religion could prove God's existence has been dealt heavy blows by philosophy and theology. Today, one can fill libraries with writings trying to prove God's existence and other issues and the consensus among serious philosophers of religion is that we have no more evidence now than when Plato in his book "The Laws" essentially invented natural religion. Even Luther and Calvin had to resort to God's incomprehensibility when backed into logical corners.

Unfortunately, many key writings of people like Okham or Duns Scotus or al Ghazali are not available on the net for study on these issues.

What this all is about is what is called natural religion. Again, it starts with Plato who tries to demonstrate God's existence to atheists. "The Laws", Book X.

By the way, Wikipedia's 'definition' of natural theology is pure crap.

Theologians and philosophers today still expend considerable amounts of ink just trying to formulae definitions of such concepts as omnipotence, omniscioence et al in attempts to come up with definitions that avoid the problems such propositions leave in their trail, with little success.

Today we have the term skeptical theism, that we cannot understand what God thinks and why he does what he does.

We have puzzles from concepts of God's simplicity and aseity, his impassivity and other problems little known to the general public that have created problems for centuries. God's grace and his predestination of all things and his eternal providence and free will have created insolvable problems for theologians. Some of this comes about when people like the British Monk Pelagius claims we have free will, causing Augustine to oppose him, an argument that is still stirring up trouble. Logic simply fails us and this is not new.

People like Samuel Clarke and William Paley are well known English thinkers who tried to set natural religion on firm ground. Kant was well known for admitting all of this was a failure and that we needed to abandon attempts to prop up failed proofs and develop better. At this time, man theologian simply are trying to create ways to prevent the concept of God from being judged a failure, and creating gaps where we might posit God exists.

 

[4321lynx]

You can abolish the paradoxes by saying that god suffers from Afluenza or Omnipotenfluenza.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

You can abolish the paradoxes by saying that god suffers from Afluenza or Omnipotenfluenza.

The standard for many theologians for centuries has been that God is so far beyond our understanding that such paradoxes are meaningless. That somehow, there is an answer to all of this we may not ever know until we ascend to heaven. This has long been an answer to avoid acknowledging the fact that God seems t be an incoherent concept.

Isaiah 55
⁸ For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But the problem with religion is that it doesn't end there. It says that God is inscrutable and unknowable, but then goes on to tell you who he is and what he wants. That's where all the silliness starts.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

But the problem with religion is that it doesn't end there. It says that God is inscrutable and unknowable, but then goes on to tell you who he is and what he wants. That's where all the silliness starts.

Because we have revelation telling us some things about God. But then the problem is, which revelation? And of course we have many revelations, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Mormonism and on and on. Since it is obvious many of these revelations must be false and errors, we must now ask the believers, since there are so many obviously false revelations, how do we known that all such revelations aren't false.

The burden of proof now shifts.

1. Prove revelation exists.
2. Show us hard proof of which revelation is true if any.
3. Avoid circular reasoning. To demonstrate revelation can be possible, we need to demonstrate God exists.
4. But you cannot use revelation to demonstrate that God exists since revelation is not proven to be possible and trustworthy.
5. we need evidence, not claims of mere possibility.
6. It is not acceptable to speak of possibility and then demand we disprove mere possibility. No shifting of burden of proof.

 

[4321lynx]

Or god/gods is/are child/children with ADD.
YHWH,Allah, and the "Triple Threat" Christian god could just be poor sick kids of Lord Adonai...

 

[fromderinside]

But the problem with religion is that it doesn't end there. It says that God is inscrutable and unknowable, but then goes on to tell you who he is and what he wants. That's where all the silliness starts.

Yeah that, but only to us and of us. The rest is woo woo as far as we're concerned.