Vexen Crabtree 2015

vexen

Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Vexen Crabtree 2015
vexen

God is Impossible and Self-Contradictory

A new page! "God is Logically Impossible: The Argument for Atheism from Incoherence"

The contents menu is:



In addition to there being no evidence for god(s), the Argument from Incoherence holds that the very concept of god is self-contradictory and impossible, therefore, theism is false and atheism is true. Omnipotence and omniscience contradict free will and themselves are logically impossible; its omniscience is impossible for it to validate and there are questions about its own being that it itself cannot answer (therefore, nothing can be omniscient). If it is a perfect being, then, there is no need to do any creating. If it is eternal and immutable, then its very thoughts are eternal and immutable - in other words, it has no mental states. If its basic emotional, behavioural and instinctive drives are all fixed (i.e., not created by itself, therefore, not under its own control, and unchanging), then it is hard to imagine how the being, existing in a world without stimulation nor change, can be conscious at all. Without free will, morality, omniscience the remaining "god" is only an automaton: a being that follows necessity and logic. But the concept of a creator god is even more problematic - for this 'creator of everything' must have inherent traits that it itself did not create. It must be intelligent and rational (therefore, it can't have created intelligence nor logic). It must have desire, drives, motivations, an amazing omniscient thinking mechanism, and it can't have created itself. So it seems impossible and untrue to say that "everything must have a cause, therefore there is a god". Each property of god is itself a contradiction of the idea that god is the sole creator. All those uncreated self-traits lead to an impossibly unlikely situation where a complicated and multi-faceted being is invoked in order to explain a Universe that is said to be too complex to have self-created. The very concept of a creator god contradicts itself, and is impossible and incoherent. The First Cause of everything is not a god at all, it is merely the natural laws of an atheistic universe.

  • 1

Lee

(Anonymous)
Curious: you say God cannot exist, cannot have free will, etc., basing this on logic.

Is logic a higher truth? In a universe without God, all you have is chaos, and logic itself didn't exist until man thought it up. It exists only in the abstract, in the minds of men. Since logic is therefore a creation of man's, what gives it its authority to settle debates? Debating would be simply setting up rules, listening to men argue, and determining which one followed the rules better than the other.

I believe in God, therefore I believe there is order to the universe and the laws of thought. Logic, as we see it, is a reflection of God's mind. We may very well be bound ourselves by the rules of logic, but we only know what we see. In any event, God's existence is the only reason I have to hold logic to be authoritative.

But if I didn't believe in God, if logic is just a bunch of rules made up by men, I don't see its importance other than as a very limited tool. Neither do many of the so-called postmodern philosophers, who seem to be saying that meaning in life is whatever meaning you give it, and logic be damned.

Christian theologians are quite aware of the apparent conflict between omniscience and free will, yet the Bible does seem to indicate that a) we are held responsible for our misdeeds and b) that we are incapable of being good without God first giving us the insight and desire. That appears to be a contradiction. The question is whether we let our logical powers beat themselves up over it, or simply admit we don't fully understand the mind of God.

I'd be interested in your thoughts. You express yourself very well, and I find little of the snarkiness in your writing that infests the typical atheistic screed.

Lee

(Anonymous)
> "But it cannot be "morally good". It if it perfectly good then it always makes the most perfect choices and therefore has no free will."

The unstated assumption here is that there can be only one perfect choice. What if there are several? What if there are many? The choice on whether to create the world, for example. I don't see why it was necessary for the Lord to create us, other than for His pleasure, or why something else that pleased Him just as much might not have been done instead. If I go to a great restaurant and the specials happen to be two of my favorite dishes, I might have a hard time deciding, but I don't agonize over whether the choice not taken was the better choice. I have two excellent choices, I'll take one of them, life is good. But by your view, one of them was the perfect choice and the other was wrong, regardless of my perception.

Think of morality as doing and saying those things which build and maintain relationships. Perfect morality would be reflected in a perfect relationship. There is only one religion that even allows for a perfect relationship, and that is Christianity. Father, Son and Holy Spirit have existed forever, and are joined together in one God, expressing perfect love toward one another.

Morality is based on that relationship. Eternal, unchanging. Jesus said that the Old Testament could be summarized as: love the Lord with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. I.e., relationships.

By contrast, with a monadic god (e.g., Allah), there would presumable have been some time x before which he made his first creation. At that moment of creation, morality would have sprung into existence, so even Islam, like atheism, can at best espouse a relative morality -- relative to the existence of relationships.

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account