Attention Christians...

[Truth be Told]

Upon my readings of philosophy of religion I came across a very interesting theistic defense of the "problem of evil" as espoused by atheists and various other variants of skeptic. Now I want to take the time to critically analyze it, and "it" happens to be this:

God cannot do anything logically impossible (like making a round square or a rock that he couldn't lift or putting himself out of existence). If God could do the logically impossible, he would then be both good and evil, hence it would be impossible to even think or communicate with him to begin with.

Pretty sound, right? It seems to be that way. The only major problem with this is that God does do logically impossible things several times in the New Testament (the foundational set of doctrines for the Christian belief system). Numerous examples come to mind: Walking on water, raising the dead, making an abundant supply of bread from one loaf and feeding a crowd of people with numerous fish, etc., etc.

Jesus is of course God in human form, and most of what he does is absolutely logically impossible. It is not observable, testable, and in any material or forensic sense, verifiable.

So then, this must lead into the conclusion that the miracles of Jesus make God both good and evil, and by that token, a defining characteristic of God is that he is deceptive by necessity.

I am curious to see if this can be refuted. I'm waiting to be enlightened here.

[Captain Ochre]

God does do logically impossible things several times in the New Testament (the foundational set of doctrines for the Christian belief system). Numerous examples come to mind: Walking on water, raising the dead, making an abundant supply of bread from one loaf and feeding a crowd of people with numerous fish, etc., etc.

You appear to possess an erroneous notion as to what constitutes logical impossibility. Walking on water, for example, does not create any logical contradiction. You might consider it a contradiction of natural law (which could lead us to a productive discussion as to whether natural law is prescriptive or merely descriptive). So--why do you think things like walking on water are logically impossible?

[nightbringer]

A logical contradiction would be something like "A exists and does not exist simulatenously" because the concept of A existing at time T logically excludes A's not existing at T. But there is nothing logically contradictory in the claim that Jesus walked on water just like there would be nothing logically contradictory in saying that my mum is 1000 feet tall. We might dispute whether these things are physically possible, but that would be a different discussion to whether they are logically impossible.

[Milan]

Yeah, I have a hard time seeing the logical contradiction here. You should try your luck in arguing that Jesus' nature(s?) as both God and human is logically incompatible or inconsistent.

[Sparko]

You appear to possess an erroneous notion as to what constitutes logical impossibility. Walking on water, for example, does not create any logical contradiction. You might consider it a contradiction of natural law (which could lead us to a productive discussion as to whether natural law is prescriptive or merely descriptive). So--why do you think things like walking on water are logically impossible?

Good point. Technology allows us to do many things that were once "impossible" like men flying, or moving at hundreds of miles per hour.

PS - Good to see you again Capt!! Been a long time! Hope you are here to stay for a while.

[ENeGMA]

Upon my readings of philosophy of religion I came across a very interesting theistic defense of the "problem of evil" as espoused by atheists and various other variants of skeptic. Now I want to take the time to critically analyze it, and "it" happens to be this:

God cannot do anything logically impossible (like making a round square or a rock that he couldn't lift or putting himself out of existence). If God could do the logically impossible, he would then be both good and evil, hence it would be impossible to even think or communicate with him to begin with.

I don't know if that follows.

In formal logic anything follows from a contradiction, meaning this is true under standard interpretations of logic.

But if God actually do logically impossible things, then presumably these formal systems wouldn't apply to him: he's violated them, so it doesn't make sense to then see what follows according to the logical rules we've already assumed God to be violating.

Pretty sound, right? It seems to be that way. The only major problem with this is that God does do logically impossible things several times in the New Testament (the foundational set of doctrines for the Christian belief system). Numerous examples come to mind: Walking on water, raising the dead, making an abundant supply of bread from one loaf and feeding a crowd of people with numerous fish, etc., etc.

These aren't logically impossible.

Jesus is of course God in human form, and most of what he does is absolutely logically impossible.

God being in human form is, I think, logically impossible.

I think the Trinity is a contradiction.

It is not observable, testable, and in any material or forensic sense, verifiable.

You're moving from claims about logic to claims about science.

The truths of logic really aren't "observable, testable" or "verifiable" in a "material or forensic sense".

So then, this must lead into the conclusion that the miracles of Jesus make God both good and evil, and by that token, a defining characteristic of God is that he is deceptive by necessity.

I am curious to see if this can be refuted. I'm waiting to be enlightened here.

If you want a contradiction in the Christian notion of God it's best to look for it in the notion of a Triune God.

The Athanasian Creed, for example, is obviously contradictory.

[seer]

The Athanasian Creed, for example, is obviously contradictory.

How so?

[ENeGMA]

How so?

The Text: http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

Implies that the 3 persons share all the same properties.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

Is this the is of identity or of predication?

Well, it can't be the former because of the transitivity of identity. But that can't be it either, for if it were the is of predication then there wouldn't be one God, but 3 things with the property "God". But that's clearly not the case because there's only one God:

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

See?

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

So it is the "is" of identity after all?

But that doesn't work because God the Father and God the Son are not identical.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

They are not three Lords but one Lord but every Person is a Lord and there are three persons, therefore they are three Lords after all.

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord

Go God the Father is Lord, God the Son is Lord, and the Holy Ghost is Lord.

But there are not three Lords.

Another contradiction.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

The 3 Persons are coeternal but one is begotten by another?

The idea of 3 persons in one substance is incoherent.

Does the substance have the property of being God the Father? Yes. So it must have the property of NOT being the Son, since the Father is not identical to the Son. But the substance also has the property of being the Son. So the Father is the Son.

Substances are simples, they don't have parts. So the Persons can't be parts of a whole. Furthermore, that doctrine would be a heresy since God is one, because there's "Unity in Trinity".

Not only that, but the Son is both God and Man. So now part of the substance of God is Man. And the Son of God is wholly man (and wholly God). So God is wholly Man, according to the Athanasian Creed.

There's no way you can take the Athanasian Creed literally without being able to derive a half-dozen contradictions or more.

[justsumguy]

Upon my readings of philosophy of religion I came across a very interesting theistic defense of the "problem of evil" as espoused by atheists and various other variants of skeptic. Now I want to take the time to critically analyze it, and "it" happens to be this:

God cannot do anything logically impossible (like making a round square or a rock that he couldn't lift or putting himself out of existence). If God could do the logically impossible, he would then be both good and evil, hence it would be impossible to even think or communicate with him to begin with.

Pretty sound, right? It seems to be that way. The only major problem with this is that God does do logically impossible things several times in the New Testament (the foundational set of doctrines for the Christian belief system). Numerous examples come to mind: Walking on water, raising the dead, making an abundant supply of bread from one loaf and feeding a crowd of people with numerous fish, etc., etc.

Jesus is of course God in human form, and most of what he does is absolutely logically impossible. It is not observable, testable, and in any material or forensic sense, verifiable.

So then, this must lead into the conclusion that the miracles of Jesus make God both good and evil, and by that token, a defining characteristic of God is that he is deceptive by necessity.

I am curious to see if this can be refuted. I'm waiting to be enlightened here.

I would recommend you considering there being a perfect God. Now whatever you do, don't introduce anything into that consideration that would make the perfect God not perfect...if you do that, then you aren't considering a perfect God.

Then consider that perfect God deciding to create you (I'm not talking about you as a member of a species, I am fully aware your parents are accountable for that). Now...being whatever you think you are (whatever it is that is asking these questions), consider whether or not this perfect God should have done such a thing. If it shouldn't have created you, then simply stop thinking about it because you are wasting your time. If you think there is some validity to your existence, then think about how a perfect God could possibly bring you into existence. Should you have been a direct extension of the perfect God (a square or a circle) or should you be you (the round square).

Only the perfect God can enlighten you regarding the perfect God. I can point you in the right direction.
I realize you are a deist but I am simply answering your post.

[Milan]

Hi guys,

Here's an argument against the trinity using simple identity theses:

(∃x)[Gx & (y)(Gy→y=x)]
Gf
Gs
~(f=s)
[Ga & (y)(Gy→y=a)] (EG).
(y)(Gy→y=a) (Simp)
(Gf→f=a) (Uni. Inst.)
f=a (MP)
(Gs→s=a)
s=a
a=s
f=s
f=s & ~(f=s)

Pretty simple, although arguable in regards to its interpretation of the trinity.

[seer]

The Text: http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html



Implies that the 3 persons share all the same properties.



Is this the is of identity or of predication?

Well, it can't be the former because of the transitivity of identity. But that can't be it either, for if it were the is of predication then there wouldn't be one God, but 3 things with the property "God". But that's clearly not the case because there's only one God:



See?



So it is the "is" of identity after all?

But that doesn't work because God the Father and God the Son are not identical.



They are not three Lords but one Lord but every Person is a Lord and there are three persons, therefore they are three Lords after all.





Go God the Father is Lord, God the Son is Lord, and the Holy Ghost is Lord.

But there are not three Lords.

Another contradiction.



The 3 Persons are coeternal but one is begotten by another?

The idea of 3 persons in one substance is incoherent.

Does the substance have the property of being God the Father? Yes. So it must have the property of NOT being the Son, since the Father is not identical to the Son. But the substance also has the property of being the Son. So the Father is the Son.

Substances are simples, they don't have parts. So the Persons can't be parts of a whole. Furthermore, that doctrine would be a heresy since God is one, because there's "Unity in Trinity".

Not only that, but the Son is both God and Man. So now part of the substance of God is Man. And the Son of God is wholly man (and wholly God). So God is wholly Man, according to the Athanasian Creed.

There's no way you can take the Athanasian Creed literally without being able to derive a half-dozen contradictions or more.

Ok, let me put this in a way that I can understand it. You have three glasses ( let's assume that these glasses represent individual personalities). Now each glass is filled with water (lets assume that the water is spirit or essence, and this is all the water in the universe).

So in a sense it would take all three to make up 100% of the water in the universe. Each glass only contains part of the need water to make a whole. But the water in each glass is 100% H2O - so the water in each glass is fully water, though it would take all three parts to make up all the water in the universe. I'm sure some one would call this heresy.

[ENeGMA]

Hi guys,

Here's an argument against the trinity using simple identity theses:

(∃x)[Gx & (y)(Gy→y=x)]
Gf
Gs
~(f=s)
[Ga & (y)(Gy→y=a)] (EG).
(y)(Gy→y=a) (Simp)
(Gf→f=a) (Uni. Inst.)
f=a (MP)
(Gs→s=a)
s=a
a=s
f=s
f=s & ~(f=s)

Pretty simple, although arguable in regards to its interpretation of the trinity.

Thanks for putting into FOL. I thought about doing that, but didn't feel like it.

[Truth be Told]

I want to thank everybody for their input to this, I can see a counterargument being valid here.

With that said...this brings up another concern of mine which I will duly whip out another thread for.