How the "Infinite" God is illogical

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I found this while searching the web. I hope you like: it is a detailed rebuttal of the properties, and therefore the existence, of an "infinite" (omni) God through logic.

Link

I've been formulating this in my head for a while now, and it makes sense in there...

God is defined traditionally as all powerful, all knowing, wholly good and responsible for creation. Indeed, it seems hard to define God as anything else other than at least one of these concepts

If we can prove that no being can possess these attributes we can say that God, as traditionally defined, does not exist. I aim to do this.

Firstly we should define what we mean by each term.
All powerful - God can do anything which is logically possible.
All knowing - He knows all that has been, all that is and all that will be
Wholly good - By good I take to mean maximising good in so far as to eliminate evil, so by wholly good I mean to maximise good in so far as to eliminate evil.

All powerful
Given the definition the fact He can't make a circle a square is no limit to His power. The fact He couldn't make a tree fall down would be. When we ask the following question however, we can see that no being can be all powerful. Can God create beings which, once created He can no longer control? If He can, then once He has created them, He is no longer all powerful, as He cannot control His creations. If He can't, then He is not all powerful as there is something which He cannot do.
There is nothing illogical about the question, indeed it is suggested by most theist to have already happened, therefore to say He can't do it as it falls outside the realm of logic isn't a valid excuse. So either way you look at it, God can't be all powerful.

All knowing
So we have concluded that God isn't all powerful, but He still is all knowing and wholly good. Now clearly God still has some power if he can create the universe, just not ultimate power. So God creates the universe, and being a wholly good God he would not want evil to befall his creation. Clearly it does, in both natural form; hurricanes, tsunamis, disease etc... and in moral form; murder, rape, theft etc... Now one might clear God from responsibility by saying, well if He were all powerful He wouldn't allow this, as He isn't there is not much He can do. However being all knowing God should realise that the creation of the universe will result in evil. Being wholly good, God would not want this, in fact a wholly good God would not create a universe where evil occurred. So as it stands, God creates the universe, but being wholly good doesn't want evil. However He knows He cannot prevent it as He isn't all powerful, and He knows that it will occur. So in this situation a wholly good God would not create the universe. But the universe has been created, evident in the fact that I'm here writing this. So the only conclusion, given that God is wholly good, is to say He must not know about the evil, otherwise He wouldn't have allowed it by creating the universe. So God is not all knowing.

Wholly good
Now we have established that God isn't all powerful, nor all knowing. But He still created the universe. And the evil that exists is either due to His lack of knowledge of it, or given his knowledge of it his lack of power to remove it. In creating the universe it is obvious God must have both some knowledge, i.e. of how to create a universe, and some power, i.e. the power to do so. Now as previously claimed a wholly good God would not create the universe if he knew it would cause evil. For this to be true we have to contend that eliminating evil or the lack of evil is a good in itself. I think this is true, as most people admit that it is good when a society is free from crime, or good when an evil is eliminated. So given this, if God knew of one single instance of evil in the universe he would have to abstain from creating this universe as it would go against his wholly good nature. So we have to contend that God knows of no evils that happen in the world. So God is still wholly good, although ignorant and powerless to all evil. I don't think its unreasonable to suggest that if God wasn't all knowing, he wouldn't know He had limitations. For instance you can't claim to know everything when you don't, you would always know that there were things you didn't know. So God knows his knowledge is limited. Hence He knows that in this world He has created the possibility of evil is real, even if he doesn't have conclusive proof of it. Now a wholly good God would not even allow the possibility of evil to befall His creations, as this would possibly go against His wholly good nature, and He wouldn't take that chance. So a wholly good God would not create the universe. But again clearly the universe has been created, so God cannot be wholly good.

The first argument holds true, regardless. The second argument suggests that God is wholly good, a claim the third argument refutes, but is not reliant upon this. All it relies upon is that God is more in favour of good than evil. For if this is so, then he will prefer good over evil at least most of the time, so even if He did prefer evil when He created the universe, hence not caring that its creation would entail evil, He would, when preferring good again, see his mistake in creation and destroy the universe, which would be good in the sense it prevented all possible evils. The third claim is reliant on the fact that we attribute creation to God. This claim is essential to theism, and if theists drop it, their whole concept of God loses all meaning as He is essentially a spectator in the game of life.

Writing this out in full, I am suspicious of its completeness. I am not claiming this 'theory' to be true, but instead by posting it inviting criticisms, amendments and responses. Even if only to establish I'm spouting a load of mince...

Discuss.

[boofhead]

All powerful - God can do anything which is logically possible.

Error. Why does human logic apply to God?

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Error. Why does human logic apply to God?

"Omnipotent" means that a God can do everything in our Universe that is logically possible, as it would be impossible for him to the logically impossible simply because it is logically impossible. A sky cannot be green and blue at the same time, and no matter how you try to downplay this as being a mere human short-sighted rule, it is an essential rule for all things in the Universe.

If an infinite God is illogical, then we know it will be impossible to find it.

[boofhead]

"Omnipotent" means that a God can do everything in our Universe that is logically possible, as it would be impossible for him to the logically impossible simply because it is logically impossible. A sky cannot be green and blue at the same time, and no matter how you try to downplay this as being a mere human short-sighted rule, it is an essential rule for all things in the Universe.

If an infinite God is illogical, then we know it will be impossible to find it.

"Logic" is a human construction. To see how flimsy that term is just look at the scientific "truths" that have been overthrown over time, despite absolute surety beforehand.

Regarding the colour of the sky. Think colour-blindness. Also, think of non-human creatures and how they see the sky. Do they see what we see? Or are their perceptions any less truthful?

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

"Logic" is a human construction. To see how flimsy that term is just look at the scientific "truths" that have been overthrown over time, despite absolute surety beforehand.

There's no truth above theory, boofhead.

Thus, as framed by Mohr (2008), it is commonly misunderstood that there are known truths that are superior to theories. If this is actually the case, then the seemingly "known truth" is actually a theory itself. One theory may be superior to another in terms of its approximation of truth, but both statements are theories. Scientific tests of the quality of a theory include its conformity to known facts and its ability to generate hypotheses with outcomes that would predict further testable facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...iable_theories

We do live by our human constructions, obviously, but the very dynamic way that science works means it is being currently updated with innovation, rather than a frozen thing that does not get better as our perceptions improve.

Regarding the colour of the sky. Think colour-blindness. Also, think of non-human creatures and how they see the sky. Do they see what we see? Or are their perceptions any less truthful?

Limitation. The sky is still blue. There are colours which we humans don't see, although certain animals (and even people with genetic problems) can see.

That human perception is limited, of course it is. But the problem is that using it as an excuse to define God as perfectly possible still doesn't fit, as if we're trying to assert the unverifiable, then the probabilities that there's a God in the Abrahamic way are still small. Why? Because it has to share room with every single thing that might be there, and which are neither proved nor disproved.

In this same way, the probability that "God" is there is equal to the probability that a statue will walk several steps from its place. Possible? Yes. But so significantly improbable that it can be dismissed.

[boofhead]

There's no truth above theory, boofhead.

An extreme statement, to say the least. When a person dies, there is no 'theory' involved.

We do live by our human constructions, obviously, but the very dynamic way that science works means it is being currently updated with innovation, rather than a frozen thing that does not get better as our perceptions improve.

Dynamic within our limitations. Innovative likewise. I don't know if you've ever done linguistics, but I assume you've studied philosophy and logical equations. also. We humans can't even think of word or concept without bringing connotations or other tainted notions into it.

Limitation.

Indeed, even human 'logic'.

The sky is still blue.

To you. Who says we are right? 'Logic', or our limited perceptive powers?

That human perception is limited, of course it is. But the problem is that using it as an excuse to define God as perfectly possible still doesn't fit, as if we're trying to assert the unverifiable, then the probabilities that there's a God in the Abrahamic way are still small. Why? Because it has to share room with every single thing that might be there, and which are neither proved nor disproved.

Proof or disproof are still limited by our capacity to perceive. You place too much weight upon human ability. When we post we are limited by language, experience, thought.

And you suggest the Universe should be likewise bound?

[Irishman]

"Logic" is a human construction. To see how flimsy that term is just look at the scientific "truths" that have been overthrown over time, despite absolute surety beforehand.

Compliance with the law of contradiction is necessary for existence. A realm which contains a contradiction is Logically Impossible, this is to say there is NO possible configuration of the universe which could satisfy this condition.

It is not "human logic", it is a necessary prerequisite for existence.

[boofhead]

Compliance with the law of contradiction is necessary for existence. A realm which contains a contradiction is Logically Impossible, this is to say there is NO possible configuration of the universe which could satisfy this condition.

It is not "human logic", it is a necessary prerequisite for existence.

Irishman, all you did was restate Voltaire's comment in different words.

If you are a human then your logic is human, and therefore limited. Our "logic" isn't the logic of the Universe. We are but men.

[Irishman]

Irishman, all you did was restate Voltaire's comment in different words

He was right! It needed repeating because you obviously didn't understand the first time...

Contradictions, by definition, cannot exist. It is a rule of the universe, because, given definitions of items, two cannot contradict.

It IS a fundamental rule of the universe.

[Kritias]

God must follow the rules he set for the universe when he created it, otherwise his actions would contradict each other to the universe's ultimate destruction; that is if we accept that God did not just created it and then let it be but that he intervenes with the universe constantly. So, in a sense, God's power is limited ergo he's not omnipotent.

On the contrary, about the all-knowledge and wholly good parts of the provided theory: Believers could say accurately that God uses evil, which he knows it exists as he allowed its existence in the first place, to further his divine plan. As for example, a parent beats his child to discipline it but still loves it, similarly God sends to his children (that is us) evils to test them etc. Both these points do not deny the fact that God can use evil means to further a good one, his master plan for human salvation. Also, who knows if God foresaw that the ultimate outcome of the universe would be a positive one, despite the fact that it would pass different stages of evil to reach that ultimate good? As it is said, the purpose justifies the means.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

God must follow the rules he set for the universe when he created it, otherwise his actions would contradict each other to the universe's ultimate destruction; that is if we accept that God did not just created it and then let it be but that he intervenes with the universe constantly. So, in a sense, God's power is limited ergo he's not omnipotent.

On the contrary, about the all-knowledge and wholly good parts of the provided theory: Believers could say accurately that God uses evil, which he knows it exists as he allowed its existence in the first place, to further his divine plan. As for example, a parent beats his child to discipline it but still loves it, similarly God sends to his children (that is us) evils to test them etc. Both these points do not deny the fact that God can use evil means to further a good one, his master plan for human salvation. Also, who knows if God foresaw that the ultimate outcome of the universe would be a positive one, despite the fact that it would pass different stages of evil to reach that ultimate good? As it is said, the purpose justifies the means.

Just a little note, Fabius, but I don't know if it was Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine who said that God is not "omnipotent", in the sense that he couldn't destroy himself or create something more powerful than him.

The purpose of this reflection is not to entirely disprove God, but the notion that an "infinite God" is possible.

An extreme statement, to say the least. When a person dies, there is no 'theory' involved.

Re-read what I posted.

To you. Who says we are right? 'Logic', or our limited perceptive powers?

It is a fundamental rule of the Universe, and despite our human limitations, nothing has been found to contradict it. on the contrary, our scientifical theories have made excellent progress within the framework of logic, whereas you can't prove concretely anything without using it. It falls on what I said.

Proof or disproof are still limited by our capacity to perceive. You place too much weight upon human ability. When we post we are limited by language, experience, thought.

And you suggest the Universe should be likewise bound?

Read Irishman's notes, and also know that things about our perception cannot be definetely proved, thus reaching us with no conclusions. What if there's a metaphysical universe where there's no law of causality, for example, it again falls on statistical probability for the existence of things. Hardly something that can ever be accepted as definite.

[boofhead]

Contradictions, by definition, cannot exist. It is a rule of the universe, because, given definitions of items, two cannot contradict.

It IS a fundamental rule of the universe.

We need contradictions if we want to live. To compete is to grow.

[Irishman]

We need contradictions if we want to live. To compete is to grow.

I don't think you understand the definition of a logical contradiction.

[Amorphos]

interesting thread but old arguments, i have seen better before on this forum.

i don’t see how any of this disproves an infinite god! infinity is unbounded where existence is bounded. the problem is in attributing omni’s to it which is illogical, one cannot logically add a finite attribute to the infinite to make an ‘omni’ like e.g. omni-potent. potency is clearly a finite thing if given an infinite value it would act at once, in other words there would be one example of it as it could not repeat and still be infinite in its second appearance. so bang and its all over hmm sounds familiar for some reason lols.

anyway lets have some fun with it. firstly i think we have provided better arguments here on this board before.

all powerful

Given the definition the fact He can’t make a circle a square is no limit to His power.

he cannot mathematically, however he can make any shape into any other shape, just like a child with clay.

Can God create beings which, once created He can no longer control?

what if he can control everything but in his wisdom chooses not to! a better argument would be to question the notion of creation itself, i think we could show it is impossible.

If He can, then once He has created them, He is no longer all powerful, as He cannot control His creations. If He can’t, then He is not all powerful as there is something which He cannot do.

depends upon what we consider the term ‘all-powerful’ to be. you could have all power to make existence go bang and begin perhaps, but not have power over future events i.e. you could have an instance of infinite power [questionable] rather than a continuance of it. in fact the argument limits an infinite god to finite power by presuming he would act in a limited way!

all knowing

So God creates the universe, and being a wholly good God he would not want evil to befall his creation. Clearly it does...

name an example of ‘evil’? i only see explainable trains of events and machines not working properly ~ we are chemical machines at least in the main. [we have had a thread or two on this point and no one has ever said what evil is].

However being all knowing God should realise that the creation of the universe will result in evil. Being wholly good, God would not want this

would you not want a child because it would not always be perfect?
secondly difference is fundamental to growth, if your desire was say to create worlds with life and eventually intelligent beings then you would in all wisdom create what it takes to arrive at that. you could say that god could create it instantly, but we don’t really know things until we have experienced them.

as an antithesis to the questioning [a devlish deed itself lols]; god is thence all knowing and more importantly all wise!

wholly good
all evil is finite. if it could occur [which i doubt] then infinite evil would destroy itself in an infinitesimal amount of time. so an infinite god can only possibly be wholly good!

[Irishman]

he cannot mathematically, however he can make any shape into any other shape, just like a child with clay.

Yes, but this misses the point. He cant do it at the same time. Even one who is all powerful is limited by noncontradiction.

you could have all power to make existence go bang and begin perhaps, but not have power over future events i.e. you could have an instance of infinite power [questionable] rather than a continuance of it. in fact the argument limits an infinite god to finite power by presuming he would act in a limited way!

Omnipotence is defined as the ability to do anything which is not contradictory.

name an example of ‘evil’? i only see explainable trains of events and machines not working properly ~ we are chemical machines at least in the main. [we have had a thread or two on this point and no one has ever said what evil is].

Doesn't matter much. God created faulty machines which in turn, results in the suffering of those machines. Interestingly enough, the problem of evil does not require evil exist

[removeduser_426582376423734]

'Logic' and 'God' in the same title. Classic.

[Feliks]

I see two potential errors.

Question to Mr. Voltaire:

Would an omipotent god process the ability to make 1 + 1 equal 3?

Unrelated statement: Can we describe God as processing another attribute? That is, infinite wisdom. Would you think it wise for God to help everyone? To always be the bringer of justice? Do you walk up to a homeless person and give them your money? Do you interject into all struggles amongst children? Might an all-wise God find that allowing mankind to solve his own problems best? Might this wise God find that coddling his creation limits them? Might an all wise God hold choice as a higher virtue than security, in some respects?

[Amorphos]

irishman

Yes, but this misses the point. He cant do it at the same time. Even one who is all powerful is limited by noncontradiction.

i agree.

Omnipotence is defined as the ability to do anything which is not contradictory.

perhaps it must actually include that which contradicts or it is not 'omni'.

Doesn’t matter much. God created faulty machines which in turn, results in the suffering of those machines. Interestingly enough, the problem of evil does not require evil exist

ha interesting, yes it does. are we faulty machines? or are we perfect humans?

------------

Would an omipotent god process the ability to make 1 + 1 equal 3?

me + my twins = 3. lols but perhaps maths is not perfection; we may ask if you can even arrive at ‘1 + 1 =’ there are no exact ‘1’s and what does 1 and 1 mean i.e. that you have simply not considered all the other 1s in the equation thus the basis is false and hence god does not do maths.

nothing so far shows an infinite god to be illogical, perhaps to even put infinity and god together is wrong at least in application to the finite ~ which is kinda logical really, why would an infinite god work as an infinite god in terms of the finite, it is obviouse to begin with that this would not make sense.

[Irishman]

perhaps it must actually include that which contradicts or it is not 'omni'.

The general idea is that these contradictions do not even exist, and thus are not covered by 'omni'.

For instance, try to picture what a circular square would look like.

ha interesting, yes it does. are we faulty machines? or are we perfect humans?

No. You yourself said that we are chemical machines not working properly.

There is nothing that requires evil, just the acceptance that suffering is undesirable.

[Amorphos]

For instance, try to picture what a circular square would look like.

ah i see. surely then the fact that he cannot do it is irrelevant. omnipotence would give him the ability to do anything possible not the impossible too.

No. You yourself said that we are chemical machines not working properly.

did i, oh? we are chemical machines at least in part, normally i would say that the imperfections are part of the perfection.

There is nothing that requires evil, just the acceptance that suffering is undesirable.

suffering is incorporated in growing, it is undesirable yet necessary.

i don’t know why i am sticking up for the idea of omnipotence anyway