I had in mind to discuss the silliness of Christian relativism, but Scita > Scienda is off and running with it. So, let’s move on to another silly Christian argument. When pressed with an apparent contradiction, a paradox, or any other uncomfortable conclusion or contention, Christians will often respond by claiming that God can do the impossible.

Quit doing that. It’s silly.

Fast Tube by Casper

I have several abilities God lacks. I’m rather proficient at them, actually. I’m an expert liar. When it comes to stealing, God can’t even begin to compete with me. I can sin all the live long day, and rest assured that I’ve done something God cannot do.

But let’s not leave it at that. I can make a second best decision, or even the poorest decision imaginable. God? He can only make the best decision. I can believe false propositions and fail to believe true ones. God? Nope. I can even commit suicide. God? He cannot destroy himself, nor can He create another God like himself. And, as the puzzle goes, I can build something so heavy I myself cannot lift it.

What are we to conclude, then? That there are things God cannot do?

No, not exactly. The verse Christians generally misinterpret (this is definitely one for our ongoing list, btw) is Matt 19:26: Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” 

Note carefully the construct here: with God all things are possible. Things include those entities, propositions, or events that are rational; that is, they conform to what is analytically and formally possible pursuant to the rules of inference and basic laws of logic. For instance, the basic law of thought and rationality, the law of non-contradiction, states that a thing cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship. Any thing that breaks this law is not a thing; it is no-thing. Irrationality does not produce things.

Likewise, the contrary of a  proposition that is analytically true–true by definition and self-evident–cannot be rational; therefore, it cannot be a thing. It is irrational for a triangle to be anything but three-sided.

Or, conclusions derived contrary to the basic rules of inference, say, modus ponens, are not things. Moreover, claiming an effect without a cause does not produce the rationality required for a thing. And so on.

Now that we’ve briefly considered thingness, let’s affirm that God can do any thing. What He cannot do is no-thing. God can raise the dead; that’s a thing. God cannot lie (A lying Christian God is like a four-sided triangle or a married bachelor), because irrational statements are no-things. Thus, Jesus was correct in asserting that all things are possible with God. Note also, the force of the text. God is very capable of performing things that for us are impossible. Though they are impossible for us, they are not impossible analytically, by the laws of logic, or invalid under the rules of inference.

The upshot of all of this is for Christians to resist the claim that God can perform the impossible, unless it’s clearly stated that what is in view is what is impossible for us, like raising a man from the dead, not the formally impossible. Don’t say God can make 2 x 4=9 or that he can create himself. Even God can’t make the nonsensical into the sensical, or the irrational into the rational.

There’s a related concern I’ll touch on briefly. It’s often claimed by Christians that what is rational from our perspective is not rational in other dimensions, or the supernatural realm where God resides and operates. Great care needs to be taken when approaching this subject. It’s true that other dimensions, or perhaps even the supernatural, might have properties of which we are not aware. Is there a sense in which sovereignty and free will, or other similar paradoxes could be harmonized by dimensions we’re unaware of? Perhaps, but what is absolutely necessary to maintain is that contradictions cannot be harmonized, and that what is formally irrational here must be formally irrational there.

Paradoxes differ from contradictions. Contradictions are formally irrational as discussed above. Paradoxes are not. Contradictions can never be true in any possible world, and even God cannot make sense of them or understand them, because they are no-things. The trinity, for example, is a paradox, not a contradiction. And if God is not rational, how could we ever hope to understand him?

Yes, this is a post aimed at Christians, but you skeptics need to quit claiming that an electron can be at two different places at the same time and in the same relationship, or that matter and energy can arise from nothing on its own power. Just sayin’…:)

Sometimes you just can’t force yourself to answer a silly internet argument, or wherever it’s encountered, for the 111th time.  It becomes so repulsively repetitive and trite that you’ll ignore a blog post or comment altogether. That’s probably the best course of action, actually; however, I believe another option is to create a repository of answers to link to in lieu of composing the 111th response to the same silly ol’ arguments. It’s an elegant solution I’ve seen used effectively elsewhere, and I’d like to begin stocking the repository here, to be added to as time goes on. Feel free to suggest possible new entries based on your own travels.

Right. But, first, let’s be fully aware and frank that atheists and skeptics are not the only offenders! In fact, if we’re honest, Christian theists are masters of the silly argument or blog comment. To that end, I’ll also be contributing to a theist’s repository of silly arguments as well. It’s only fair, so if you’re a skeptical type or an atheist, don’t think you’re being singled out, or that this post suggests that all atheists are silly arguers. Are there any atheist or skeptics constant Areopagus readers lurking out there, btw? Feel free to contribute.

Here’s my first: the highly irritating and non-sensical lightning argument that normally devolves into a bronze Age goat herder charge. It typically proceeds as follows:

Mankind used to believe that God(s) threw lightning bolts from the sky. Now science has explained adequately how lightning works. Therefore, it is foolish to believe God influences the physical realm.

Fast Tube by Casper

Silly, indeed. Quit using this argument to prove anything more than the true proposition that we now know the natural causes that produce lightning. Until, of course, we learn even better how those natural causes work.

There are sophisticated arguments similar to this silly one that argue inductively that our increasing knowledge of the physical world has historically pushed the utility of God or the supernatural as a scientific explanation to the edges of the universe. That is not in view here; however, even such arguments do not demonstrate that God is not related to the physical realm, nor can they. A moment’s thought should confirm this.

Your moment is passed. Now, after the initial silliness has passed, generally the goat herders are not far behind. Here it is claimed that the skeptic is armed with science, while the hapless and deluded theist relies upon the oral traditions of Bronze Age desert nomad goat herders–there are a multitude of variations on the theme–to arrive at truth.

Again, quit the silliness. We’re confident that Bronze Age, and Stone Age for that matter, peoples understood that 1+1=2, or that a triangle has three sides. Which of these statements is no longer true? Develop it countless ways; the truth remains: what was true then necessarily, is true now necessarily. The time and place and Age in which the truth was apprehended is frankly irrelevant.

Not to mention that the New Testament was not written in the Bronze Age, but as I’ve said, that’s wholly irrelevant. Bronze Age arguments are ridiculous, and amount to nothing more than mere bluster and irrational ridicule. What’s true must be determined on other grounds. Roughly, Bronze Age arguments are genetic fallacies.

Can’t you just hear skeptics in the year 4000 ridiculing people for their Space Age or Computer Age beliefs?