Comments on: Can God do nonsense?

By: Christian Apologetics Ministries at Sntjohnny.com » Blog Archive » Herr Professor Strikes Back: atheist Deacon Duncan takes issue with my arguments

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:04:14 +0000

[...] this entry I am responding mainly to his first article, ‘Can God do [...]

By: Galloway

Galloway — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:46:36 +0000

“Harebell: “So if god exists and did all that is claimed of it, then god is not perfect because he created a situation that came from perfection to what we experience now and what perfect being would diliberately do that? ”

Your point reminds me of a proof against God’s existence (author unknown):

According to the Bible, God is perfect and created the universe.
If a being is perfect, then everything that being creates must be perfect.
The universe is clearly not perfect.
Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe.
Hence, either ‘God’ did not create the universe, or, God is not perfect.
Hence, the ‘God’ of the Bible doe not exist.

By: Deacon Duncan

Deacon Duncan — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:46:25 +0000

The classic Christian response is that everything was perfect when God created it, but then Satan became proud, pride turned him to evil, and then he corrupted the rest of creation, first in heaven by leading other angels into rebellion, and then on earth by seducing Eve into eating the forbidden fruit. So evil is not God’s fault, you see.

Of course, that opens up the question of how Satan could become evil if he were originally perfectly good. We’ve got two choices: either Satan never was perfectly good (in which case your original criticism applies) or it’s possible for beings to become sinful even though they’re perfectly good.

Now, if it’s possible for perfectly good beings to fall into sin, then God’s perfect goodness is no guarantee that He has not sinned and/or will not sin at some point in time. If He exists for an infinite amount of time, then He will eventually experience every possible thing, which would include the set of circumstances that would lead Him into temptation and sin. After all, Satan’s fall was due to pride, and can you think of any being, real or imagined, with a bigger ego than the Judeo-Christian God? Me neither. So if God’s not evil yet, just wait, He will be…

By: harebell

harebell — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:27:57 +0000

Galloway
As far as perfection goes:
Before creation if there is a god then all that existed was god, so I can understand a claim that everything was perfect if all existence was god.
Then god created all and at the moment of creation perfection was erased forever. So if god exists and did all that is claimed of it, then god is not perfect because he created a situation that came from perfection to what we experience now and what perfect being would diliberately do that? So maybe the followers of this lesser god have the right to ascribe human characteristics to their deity because he can’t be perfect.
The trouble is that these same followers can’t understand that they cannot have their cake and eat it, but try and fob off folk with the “mystery” line.

By: Galloway

Galloway — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:11:03 +0000

DD: ” The only trouble is, Christianity teaches a number of doctrines which are “non-sense” in precisely the same way as God making a stone so heavy that He Himself cannot lift it. ”

One such recurring contradictory, non-sensical doctrine is how the Bible attempts to assign human attributes to its Deity: wrath, love, hate jealousy, vengence, etc. . An omnipotent entity, existing outside of time and space, farther above us on the evolutionary scale than we are above the amoeba, would not likely demand worship or much of anything else, except maybe, obedience. And if that were the case He would make certain that His demands were made directly and unambiguously to every human of every era.

Attributing ‘desires or needs’ to God, contradicts his nature as an infinite being. Indeed, this humanizing doctrine destroys God’s ‘perfection’ , for if God has needs or desires he clearly wants something that he lacks. Therefore, to preserve this perfection, (and avoid logical inconsistency) God must have no purpose, no agenda, no human qualities.

By: SteveM

SteveM — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 04:58:28 +0000

You guys are missing a more important argument, who is stronger, Superman or the Hulk!

By: harebell

harebell — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:25:59 +0000

Ah John you are so spot on.
My philosophy of religion class had a hard time with this concept and we went with the author of the text and said that God couldn’t do certain things like the stone or break the rules of logic. We agreed that we wouldn’t even consider whether God could create a triangle with four sides or could argue coherently using a statement and its contradiction at the same time. If we hadn’t we’d still be on page 1.
But omni means everything so why couldn’t an omni – god do all these wacky things?
It’s a mystery.

By: John Morales

John Morales — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 22:33:38 +0000

Most of the time this is answered by pointing out that some statements are just nonsense and God’s omni-characteristics do not require him to be able to achieve the nonsensical…

What part of “omni” does this person not understand?

Heh.

By: jorgaba

jorgaba — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:25:20 +0000

“Could Yarl the Omnipotent create a stone he could not lift?” Green Green
asked him.
“No,” said Courtcour.
“Why not?”
“He would not.”
“That is no answer.”
“Yes it is. Think about it. Would you?”

–Roger Zelazny, Isle of the Dead (1969)

By: Ric

Ric — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:12:01 +0000

Jim… your Luigi solutions is wonderfully… Christian. I love it.

By: jim

jim — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:09:01 +0000

Great, rational exposition here. I’ve heard it said-with straight faces, mind you- that the concept of the Trinity is a solution to a problem. Here’s the trick: whenever you have something that boasts contradictory attributes, just slap a label on it, and consider your problem harmonized. Thus the differing resurrection accounts become ‘complimentary’, the widely disparate geneologies in Matthew and Luke become ’source specific’, eyewitness discrepancies become ‘POV’; and, of course, three or more gods become ‘Trinitarian’.

Along those same lines of reasoning, I would posit a solution to the ‘can God create a rock so heavy He can’t lift it’ puzzle. Simply postulate a fourth aspect of God’s being…let’s call Him Luigi, the rock mover. So, God the father creates the raw material ex nihilo, God the carpenter son molds it into the shape of an infinitely heavy rock (under God the Holy Spirit’s all seeing supervision, naturally), and Luigi the rock lifter lifts the rock. Case solved.

Of course, we’ll have to find a new descriptor. Quadrinarian? Double-Double? Square (there are the Four-Square churches, so maybe they’re ahead of the game here)?

Ok, time to run/remain, grab a bite/fast, maybe watch a little TV/take a nap, then on to better/worse things. Ciao for now! *See what I did there? I used a word that means both hello AND goodbye. It’s a miracle!*

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:23:26 +0000

Oh wow… flashback. Horvath taught at my high school (a private Lutheran school). I didn’t actually have him for any classes, and I was a Christian at the time I attended so I never paid too much attention to his particular beliefs, but I do remember he was extremely popular with the students.

It’s just weird to find something about him on a blog that I found through completely different channels.