The Logical Impossibility of Godhood
“Can a god build a wall so strong that god cannot tear its wall down?
If yes, then it failed. If no, then it failed. Either way, it is logically impossible for omnipotence to exist. This is why I believe an omnipotent god to be impossible. I also don't believe any being not capable of anything (omnipotence) can be considered a god.
“The Epicurean Paradox (or the Logical Problem of Evil).
The Epicurean Paradox is as follows:
A god either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can.
If it wants to and cannot, it is weak -- and this does not apply to a god.
If it can but does not want to, then it is spiteful -- which is equally foreign to a god's nature.
If it neither wants to nor can, it is both weak and spiteful and so not a god.
If it wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does it not eliminate them?
“These are two of my problems with god belief.
A god can't be weak because weakness means fallibility and a god must be infallible because a god must be all-knowing. A being can't be considered a god without that being having ultimate knowledge. A god can't be spiteful because spite requires two mental positions of an individual: 1. The individual must have a limited vision, a god cannot have a limited vision because it must be all knowing, and 2. It must have limited power. A god cannot have limited power because a god must be omnipotent. Any being not possessed of ultimate power cannot be called a god.
“This is why when the religious try to convert me they fail at the starting gate: The logical impossibilities are fundamental problems inherent to the idea of god. Their theology doesn't matter in the least because it is built on a logical impossibility. The lame confrontation of the problem of evil that a god "moves in mysterious ways" is equally irrelevant because that doesn't confront the logical impossibility of the god in the first place. Omnipotence is inherently impossible. Omnipotence is necessary for godhood. Godhood is impossible. It doesn't matter what any religious book says or what the chemical reactions in the brain make one feel when one is in ecstasy or meditation, a god is a logical impossibility.”
~ Jonathan McGaha
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
This argument has no substance.
The first one is basically saying that if God cannot fulfill a logical fallacy, he is not all-powerful. God is all powerful, but that doesn't mean he can go against the rules of logic; he can't make a square circle or a married bachelor, because the terms are by definition contradictory. It's the same with this impossible situation. Can God build the strongest wall in the universe? Yes. Can God break the strongest wall in the universe? Yes. The two can't coexist in the same universe, though, like an unstoppable force and an immovable object cannot coexist. It's not proof that he's not omnipotent because it's incoherent (if I asked you what the square root of purple is, that's nonsense talk - your not answering it doesn't mean you aren't smart, it just means it's impossible and incoherent.)
As for the second part, well, I'm quite sure you've heard entire moral arguments for the existence of God before. God could eliminate all evil. I don't claim to know the mind of God, but I would venture to guess that God would want to eliminate all evil, as God is perfect. However, mankind has chosen evil for itself and God has chosen to let that play out as to provide a choice for human beings. "Where do bad things come from?" Well, bad things come from sin and our naturally depraved world. Really it is naturalism which has no explanation for evil (and by evil here I mean human evil, not "bad things" like earthquakes, tsunamis etc.) If men are assumed to be inherently good as opposed to inherently depraved, then there is no explanation for how evil could have arisen.
Nice to hear from you! Hope school is going well.
You make some good points but I think he was trying to show that the human concept of omnipotence is nonsensical and therefore the notion of an omnipotent being (god) is also.
We have discussed “evil” before. Again, the naturalist has no problem with it. Evil is completely natural. Just as “good” is or “love” or “joy”. All just words that convey emotions or feelings about something.
Where does human evil come from? Like why do people act in an evil manner? Why do people steal, kill, etc that hurts other people?
Also, I do not see how not being able to carry out a logical fallacy makes omnipotence impossible.
Evil is not a “thing” that comes from some place but simply a word that describes an action or thought that we deem undesirable.
Was a pleasure getting to meet you last night!
Why is it undesirable to kill, steal, rape, etc?
Yes, it was good getting to meet you too :)
You’re making this way too complicated. Let me ask you if it is undesirable for you personally to be wacked on the head with a hammer by someone. Unless you have some weird issues, most people would find that undesirable as most people would find it unpleasant to be raped, killed or have their things stolen from them. These responses/feelings evolved to help us survive. As societies grew and lots of people began living together we found it necessary to make these feelings into laws and by saying the laws were given to us by such and such god who will punish the disobedient in such and such way we gave them more bite. (The Bible would have us believe man had no clue that it was wrong to rape, kill and steal before Moses came down the mountain with the commandments but don’t you think the people already knew that? No one likes to have their child raped, killed or stolen from them. Those are natural human feelings.
Again, for such a bright girl, I don’t understand why we keep having these conversations covering the same basic things!
I'm just trying to understand where the feeling comes from. It seems to me from an atheistic point of view that killing should be OK to weed out the weaker members of society, thereby improving or helping along natural selection; raping girls should be OK to make as many people as possible, etc. (Please note, I'm not saying that atheists are all immoral. I don't believe that. What I don't understand is where morality comes from, or what its basis is.) If morality is relative, isn't everything permissible? (Again, I'm sorry if this sounds rude or if I'm asking unintelligent questions. I'm honestly trying to understand, not aggravate.)
Feelings of right and wrong come from us. They are as much a part of us as are our eyes, arms and teeth. Like our eyes, our feelings about behavior (morality) EVOLVED over millions of years.
Atheism is just the lack of belief in gods so why should that lead to wanting to kill anything? I could say Christians believe in heaven and hell so to prevent their children from suffering for eternity, Christians should kill their children right after they accept Jesus as their Lord and before they have a chance to be damned. Makes about as much sense as your suggestion.
Morality is relative in that it changes. Your own bible is proof of this. Slavery was once “Godly” as was stoning women, burning women, cutting the heads off of enemies, killing homosexuals, making rape victims marry their rapists and so on. Today, the same people who claim the bible is the word of God rather frown on those things as being wicked rather than Godly.
Thankfully, most of the time, most of us share general agreement on what is right and wrong behavior and therefore can live together fairly peacefully. And we have policeman and armies to help keep people in line who want to go outside those norms of behavior.
Post a Comment