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’…:)
Hey there MS. Nice one. You took a lob from the other side of the fence this time. You can sum this one up by saying, “not even God can do the logically impossible,” and you pretty much said something to that effect (not even God can make the nonsensical sensical).
Aside from being a bunk escape route too many believers use, I would add that expecting God to perform the logically impossible is an error that atheists and skeptics frequently commit, too. For example, we see this in the person who readily agrees that actions must have exclusive consequences, and that sin is an action such that would entail consequences, yet maintain that God should be able to avoid death, suffering, Hell, etc. while at the same time granting humanity free will. Or, in people who suggest that “original sin” is a flawed doctrine because God should be able to allow each human a chance to start anew. Yet, this would seemingly require people to live in at least two different worlds at once. For, if our parents sinned, they would need to be part of the fallen kosmos, while simultaneously giving birth to a child that would of necessity need to live in a pre-fall world. It’s contradictory and absurd.
“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.”
Great point. I agree 100% and look at it like, “If the MEST universe operates according to God’s law and sovereignty – i.e. operates according to an order – then it is certainly reasonable to expect the higher realms to operate similarly. “As below, so above,” or so they say.
Of note to me was your focus on things as a noun (“entities, propositions, or events that are rational”) when the Greek from which the verse was translated uses pas, which is an adjective used to denote “each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything.” Not sure how that changes anything, if at all.
“Of note to me was your focus on things as a noun (”entities, propositions, or events that are rational”)”
cl, having taken a scan of the definition and usage, and with a brief look to the interlinear, I would say if anything it strengthens Marc’s point. It refers to specific, definable things qualified by context.
In the context of the passage, Christ says it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom. The disciples are focused on their lack of material things (pas) whereas Christ uses the same word to point them to heavenly things, including concrete circumstances and the intangible of regeneration. In each case, definable, specific things which are subject to Marc’s line of reasoning.
Christ says, “With God all things [parallel in Luke “the things”] are possible [dynatos].”
Dynatos may have a subcontext relating to wealth. Peter with his standard stellar insight says, “But Lord, we left all things to follow you. So then, what is there for us in the Kingdom?”
Christ answers them, and they never quite manage to stop staring at the golden-throne cookie jar from then almost till the crucifixion. They understand, at least, the law of non-contradiction regarding throne and not-throne, and more abstractly, promise and not-promise, even if in their excitement they miss several lessons about atonement and not-atonement.
The passage, in other words, still has nothing to do with any tendency to irrationality or arbitrariness on God’s part. The Scripture is rife with the law of non-contradiction. Do a word search on “lie/lies/lying” and it’ll punch you in the eyeball. And modus ponens, John 14:3.
“The passage, in other words, still has nothing to do with any tendency to irrationality or arbitrariness on God’s part.” -Cathi Lyn-Dyck
I agree completely, and didn’t mean to suggest otherwise – if I did. Good comment, yours was. Picked up right where mine left off. Although,
“They understand, at least, the law of non-contradiction regarding throne and not-throne, and more abstractly, promise and not-promise, even if in their excitement they miss several lessons about atonement and not-atonement.”
I thought that was interesting, and wouldn’t mind if you felt like elaborating, so that I could see just a little more of your deeper meaning there.
cl,
Thanks for the counter examples from the skeptic side. I’ve never encountered–or if I have on your blog I didn’t retain it– the argument about original sin you’ve disclosed above. Very perceptive, that one.
I kid you not, I was arguing with a skeptic once who, when confronted with an A/Non-A contradiction, claimed something to the effect that “That wouldn’t be Non-A; that would be B!” 🙂
“MEST”
Agreed. BTW, any underlying significance for you here with this acronym, or just a term of convenience? Not that it matters, just askin’…
“things as a noun (”entities, propositions, or events that are rational”) when the Greek from which the verse was translated uses pas, which is an adjective used to denote “each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything.”
I know just enough Greek to get me into trouble, so don’t call on me for the real hard stuff; however, Greek adjectives routinely function as nouns, and I think that’s the case here. In the text, the word is πάντα, which is a plural, neuter adjective in the nominative case. It functions as a noun, hence the translation “all things” though no noun for “things” exists in the text (if the noun were there, the grammatical construction would be different). Technically, I think, it’s called the “substantive use of the adjective” in Greek.
Here’s the same occurence from another very known passage, John 1:3: πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο (πάντα all things δι’ αὐτοῦ through him ἐγένετο were made)
“And modus ponens, John 14:3.”
Ha!
If P, Q
P
Q
If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. (from 14:3)
I go and prepare a place for you (from 14:2)
Therefore, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.
Awesome, CD. How did you find that?
“didn’t mean to suggest otherwise – if I did.”
Not at all.
“I thought that was interesting, and wouldn’t mind if you felt like elaborating, so that I could see just a little more of your deeper meaning there.”
That was actually just my sideways sense of humour kicking in. I just mean that they took the promise as a promise, and the reward as a reward, then fell on their faces. Neither of the two were taken as allegorical, in keeping with Marc’s definition of what a thing consists of, although they parsed the greater context of the ideas in a fundamentally naturalistic way.
We can be much like the disciples were. Christ repeatedly pointed them to the central significance of His eventual sacrifice for sin — not to mention they were immersed in Judaic cultural and legal symbolism pointing to it — yet they argued and jostled over who would be at the left and right hand of the temporal saviour they desired. Meanwhile, the saviour of their souls said to them, “Are you able to drink the cup which I’m about to drink?”
However many palm branches may be waved, there is no Kingdom without Atonement. Similar, though not analogous, to your statement:
“For, if our parents sinned, they would need to be part of the fallen kosmos, while simultaneously giving birth to a child that would of necessity need to live in a pre-fall world. It’s contradictory and absurd.”
So, starting at Matt. 1:21, the tax-gatherer picks up a profound theme found in the OT Hebrew, recognizing what he and his companions failed to see earlier, even though they undoubtedly heard it in synagogue readings time and again from childhood on.
From the Christmas story, in resonance with Isaiah: “You shall call His name Yeshua [God is salvation], for it is He who will save His people from their sins.”
Have a great holiday season, cl.
“How did you find that?”
(shrug) I dunno. First thing that came to mind when I Googled “what the heck is a modus ponens?”
Great post and comments. Really liked the thing/no-thing explanation.
So does God know the square root of negative pi? Just wondering. It struck me that imaginary numbers are no-thing, yet they can be useful in certain calculations, which would seem to require thingness.
Hey, I actually managed to make sense of what you said, Randy. (My particle physicist uncle once explained what he does for a living to Dave, to which I responded, “I can draw pretty flowers!”)
For the fun of it, I’m going to randomly and blindly guess in favour of “yes,” because as far as I can grasp it, the problem can be stated in mathematical terms using the complex set (so it is not strictly illogical, thus not strictly no-thing under Marc’s terms), and God, being an infinite mind, should have no problem solving for the root of pi itself…unlike the rest of us.
On the other hand, my finite and mathematically puerile mind has no idea whether the response it just generated qualifies as thing or no-thing. So there ya go.
“So does God know the square root of negative pi? Just wondering. ”
Hey Randy,
I’m mathematically puerile as well. As would be the case with any suggestion, if there were such a thing, God would know it. If there were not such a thing, He wouldn’t. The salient point is that His omniscience would not be compromised by not knowing a truly unknowable, or the equivalent of entities, propositions, or events that are not rational; that is, they do not conform to what is analytically and formally possible pursuant to the rules of inference and basic laws of logic.
“It struck me that imaginary numbers are no-thing, yet they can be useful in certain calculations, which would seem to require thingness.”
Maybe, maybe not. Numbers, otherwise conceived of as abstract objects, may or may not exist in reality. Whether they do or not is beyond the scope of this post, not to mention their relationship to God which is in need of need of defense from discerning skeptics along similar lines of the Euthyphro dilemma, or as I like to say, ED.
Regardless, either way, numbers, and other abstract objects, function as entities that are rational, not to be confused with possessing thought, which endows them with thingness, even if they do not actually exist. IOW, they may simply be quantifiers or conceptual placeholders for relationships in a non-linguistic, symbolic manner. Thus, the relationships they describe, ie two dogs + two dogs = 4 dogs or 2 dogs + 2 dogs = 5 dogs, would either be a description of thingness, or not, as the individual case may be.
Hey Tat,
Thanks for dropping by…
“Of course your God can sin.”
Excellent. If you can prove this naked assertion, we don’t have too argue about Christianity anymore, as you will have disproven it.
“So in essence your God had to imagine the worst possibilties so as to infuse that into you. ”
Since you’re invoking modal logic, can you demonstrate a possible world with true free will where your “worst possibilities” are not possible? You may have inadvertantly added to the conversation here, Tat, as it may, in fact, be impossible for God to create a world with genuine free will that does not necessarily include the ability to fall.
“Now I will let you off the hook and say that maybe your God chooses not to sin…
Right, said the man who hooked a blue whale with a 1/2 inch treble hook, weedeater line, and a cane pole 🙂
…but he made sure you would by giving you free will. ”
This part actually may have some truth in it Tat. Two inadvertant hits, you good boy!
“your God had to imagine the worst possibilties so as to infuse that into you. ”
And here I thought my view of verbal plenary inspiration posited a closed canon. But wait! Is that Pethor on yonder horizon?
Now that that’s cleared up…
“Right, said the man who hooked a blue whale with a 1/2 inch treble hook, weedeater line, and a cane pole”
We can just be glad we didn’t dredge up a Manipogo in this new onospneustos of holy writ.
>he made sure you would by giving you free will.
“This part actually may have some truth in it Tat.”
Papa Bear, you reprobate. 😛 So Boucle D’Or wants to know, what do you think of the idea that the defined nature of rationality (the “thing” as per the OP) inherently delimits the “no-thing” without requiring direct divine agency, as may be suggested in Isaiah 45:7?
“the defined nature of rationality (the “thing” as per the OP) inherently delimits the “no-thing” without requiring direct divine agency, as may be suggested in Isaiah 45:7?”
When we begin discussing no-things, language sometimes gets in the way because it possesses a tendency to ascribe existence to the no-thing. Seen this way, it’s important to note that it’s difficult to conceive a delimiting of the no-thing because it’s not there! Thus, the defined nature of rationality distinguishes the rational, and helps us to ferret out concealed nonsense abetted by unspecific use of language. For instance, the statement “God can sin” is absurd, if the Christian God is posited. This absurdity–the proposition that a being incapable of sin by definition can sin–is equivalent to the no-thing of 1+1=3, which represents the description of something that cannot exist, which makes it problematic to speak of “doing” something or anything to it. Probably the best we could say would be along the lines of identifying posited nonsense propositions, or something similar. There’s a reason that Heidegger was captivated by nothingness…it’s so difficult to conceive, because it’s nothing!
In my view, the activity of rationality requires divine agency, for rationality springs from the nature of God, and would be ungrounded otherwise, or at best grounded in contingent entities, which would preclude its objectiveness, its universality, and its trustworthiness, not to mention the self-refuting traits of ungrounded rules of inference.
I’m understanding the reference to Isaiah 45:7 as a suggestion that God is culpable for the existence of evil, or that He is the author of evil if He takes an active role in the fall, hence my reprobation, and perhaps a nod in the direction of Augustine’s grand idea that evil is a privation of the good, not possessing a thingness or essence itself. There’s too much to be said here, if this is the direction of your comment; however, if God is sovereign, then in some sense evil must be ordained by God. There is no orthodox way around this, nor in my estimation, should there be. Since there is evil in the world, I for one am pleased that a sovereign God is in charge of and has foreordained all that comes to pass. This is no way necessitates that God is the author of evil, that He immediately caused evil, that His original creation was not good, or that He implanted evil directly into His creation. Perhaps you’ll accept my negations as demonstrative of my non-reprobation, and tarry long enough to consider a positive treatment of the problem of the origin of evil at a later date. 🙂
“the statement “God can sin” is absurd, if the Christian God is posited. This absurdity–the proposition that a being incapable of sin by definition can sin–is equivalent to the no-thing of 1+1=3”
Yeah, I thought it might be useful to start at square one on that, since the clearly defined nature of the Christian God was apparently outside the scope of investigation in formulating the God/sin charge in comment #11.
“in some sense evil must be ordained by God. ”
That’s been treated so extensively and so much more competently in other times and places that I would not care to rush in where angels might well fear, though an unhurried tarry sounds refreshing. I think you’ve got a fine start at the problem in your next post.
“the activity of rationality requires divine agency, for rationality springs from the nature of God, and would be ungrounded otherwise, or at best grounded in contingent entities, which would preclude its objectiveness, its universality, and its trustworthiness, not to mention the self-refuting traits of ungrounded rules of inference.”
See, you do too know how to dance…perfect.
We’re talking about an infinite God. In our existence, the complaint is often regarding lack of observable divine rationality in our local experience. However, you’ve just suggested an infinite plane and infinite dimensions to divine rationality.
Why do we not experience it? Or even better, why do we not each experience God directly and personally, speaking audibly to us and/or physically manifesting in incontrovertible evidence of His existence? (Though this has been the subject of many thought experiments in Christian fiction, and Bill Myers wrote an entire novel, Eli, using the scenario.)
Tozer points out that God is not harmonized. Here I’m talking about His attributes or character traits, not a question of trinitarian formulation. We ourselves struggle to harmonize, say, God’s love and God’s wrath. We struggle to harmonize the two traits within ourselves all the more. Tozer argues that God’s love and wrath and all other attributes do not exist in harmony, but in unity.
Likewise, the goodness and the rationality of God exist as a unity. With Isa. 45:7, my underlying thought was that we cannot separate the two. Where we experience irrationality, we experience the effects of sin. Where we do not see the intervention of God in (what we consider to be) evil, I personally am forced to conclude that there may well be no good and rational means for God to reveal His work to me, whether or not there exists a good and rational means of action for God in the circumstance. As corrupt as this world is, for God to do further violence to what rational order remains would be for God to sin.
Just because, from my perspective, I cannot see the good and rational intervention of God, doesn’t mean it isn’t in progress. I also have to consider my at least partial irrationality as a creature of a fallen universe, and thus my potential inability to observe God’s goodness at work even when a rational means of presenting it within my limited local scope avails.
God cannot act against His own rationality in order to speak to my irrationality, just as He will not act against His goodness in order to connect with me in my sin. So we derive the Christian truism that God doesn’t speak to people on their terms, but on His. What He does promise is to transform me by the renewing of my mind so that the perception of what is good becomes clearer. (Rom. 12:1-2). I can concur with this in that Scripture study is an exercise in logic and reasoning. (Modus ponens, anyone?) Most Christians refer to this passage only in terms of God’s dealings with sin and spiritual transformation, since it talks about goodness; yet it clearly shows a corollary connection to the mind and to sound reasoning.
When non-theists suggest they see no evidence of God, I am tempted to ask if they believe they’ve become more reasonable people over the course of time, and whether they consider that good or bad.
That’s all I was thinking. Further steps, my friend?
“I see plenty of evidence for a creator. Its just that none of it points to your theistic view. ”
Hey Tat,
I don’t think the smiley is necessary here, as everyone here will probably agree with this statement. At any rate, I do. The evidence I believe you’re referencing points to a general theism, not a particular theism. It’s a good distinction.
“If I create a robot, )which technically we are by your Gods standards). ”
In the Christian view, we are created in God’s image, which would not be equivalent to the idea of a robot. We are endowed with will, love, identity, personality, and the like, which differs essentially from, say, Commander Data on Star Trek NG. On Christianity, we are also endowed with a spirit, which seems, on the face of it, hard to square with “robotness.”
Though I agree with your next three premises, they’re really beside the point, as they do not represent any conceivable anthropology given Christianity, with the exception of hyper-Calvinism, a sub-Christian theology at best. This, however…
“As far as Free Will goes, that is pretty much a misnomer. After all I cant do what your God can supposedly do, so in a sense I dont have complete freewill. Maybe a better handle would be “limited choice”.”
has a lot of good things to say. We do not have a complete and utter free will. You’re exactly right on that: try flying from a great height some time under your own power, or, as you say, trying to will creation ex nihilo, or even perhaps, for we who are not gurus, willing our heart to cease beating or our lungs from drawing breath. Our choices are certainly limited to our abilities, and, in that, limited choice sounds right to me. Moreover, I’d extend your principle to God himself. He does not have the ability to will his own demise, for instance, and given that, His will must be limited in some sense, even as ours is.
I’d also even say that our free will choices are plausibly determined, Tat; that’s for another time, though. Stick around for that one as I’ll need your help fending off the libertarians here who will all jump on me for standing in the near vicinity of the sacred cow with a butcher knife. 🙂
TitForTat,
Hey. Not wanting to get too involved in this one, but I just have one question for you if you make it back to this thread: what do you see as evidence for a Creator, and what type of Creator do you think that evidence suggests? I’ll bet we all have a lot more in common than we think.
Fair enough, but wouldn’t you say “life itself” suggests a Creator with one or more attributes? If so, what do you see those attributes as being?
I disagree that “the rest is just guessing” though, because to argue that is to reduce the principles of logic to guesswork and I’m not willing to go there. If by “the rest is guessing” you just mean to say that we can’t figure this out on our own with any reliable certainty, I’m inclined to agree.
And Tat, thanks for your response…not ignoring you, just don’t want to interrupt, since I’ve been too slow this week to stay with the conversation.
“it would have to possess both the shit and the sugar.”
So this requires an intrinsically irrational, at times self-contradictory deity. Question: Then where does rationality come from? What is its first cause?
“For the most part I accept that uncertainty. I do realize most people have a hard time with that.”
I have great respect for an honest agnostic.
“How accurate is your rationality? At least how accurate do you suppose it is?”
You’re a great dance partner. Let’s put that together with:
“In other words, it would have to possess both the shit and the sugar. In my mind its not logical to try and give it just one set of attributes.”
Doesn’t this statement suppose understanding of what the design entails? You’ve appealed to the concept of logic and non-logic for your basis. How accurate is your rationality? How do you know?
“I have a hard time respecting someone who claims to know what the design is about and what is behind it.”
Well, I would hate to see your self-respect go down the drain over this. 🙂
“Though I still love discussing their so called rationalism with them.”
Maybe we should be consistent with your epistemic sensibilities and say you like discussing your perception of their rationality with them, eh? (How accurate do you suppose it is?)
Now, don’t mistake me for being snide. I just happen to get the same amusement out of this state of affairs as you do. But I will say, if you want a discussion of the bounds and limits of what can be known and how we can know it, you’re in exactly the right place. Marc’s got a very refined sense of those matters, and a lot of depth of thought about it embedded in his articles.
Have a good one, Tat buddy.
“I admit, I know nothing of the creation of my world. I am guessing completely. My rationality is just as irrational as anyone else’s.”
So you’re here making claims about your world’s evidences and the nature of rationality because why? This is me rolling my eyes and walking away. Get serious or go pester someone else, okay?
Dude’s weed-eater string done broke, Quixote, and that cane ain’t gonna build a raft to keep a gnat’s toes dry.
[…] -Marc Schooley, supernatural suspense author […]
[…] But before we plunge off that chasm’s edge, lo! A cowboy philosopher rides the brink. Once upon a time, my brother wrote, […]
I have noticed you don’t monetize marcschooley.com, don’t waste your traffic, you can earn extra
cash every month with new monetization method. This
is the best adsense alternative for any type of website (they
approve all sites), for more details simply search in gooogle: murgrabia’s tools