Month: February 2016

I began this journey with two posts here and here trying to determine if it is indeed the case that you cannot apply logic to god. I came up with four possibilities to explore and have already addressed the first two. They were, “you really can’t apply logic to god” and “you can apply logic to god but he’s so far beyond our understanding it won’t matter.” The conclusion I came to for those first two possibilities is that, if they are indeed true, then no one can understand god, so those of faith telling us they understand the nature of god are mistaken. They tell us things are true about their god that they can’t possibly know to be true by their own definition of god!

Now on to the final two…

3. You can indeed apply logic to god and he is also omnipotent. Well, to understand anything at all about god, we must be able to apply logic, so the first part is okay. But, oops! The minute we actually do apply logic however, we discover that god cannot be omnipotent without some really twisted attempt to redefine omnipotent to mean something other than “all-powerful” but still meaning “all-powerful”.

Now, if we change the definition so that god cannot literally do anything and everything but that he has some limitations, we actually have case number 4. below. But most of these definitions require that we be able to apply logic to god (something many people of faith reject and I addressed in case number 1. already) and that there are actual, real limitations on what god can do (something most people of faith will also reject).

So, we either hit a logical contradiction or a definition that people of faith will reject, namely that there are things god cannot do. As we’ve already seen, anytime you allow a contradiction, truth cannot be determined as things can be both true and false simultaneously (or neither true nor false, whatever that means). If this is a definition that those of faith reject as not possibly true, then we can reject it, too.

Thus, in this case, no one can know the truth about god at all. It either requires a definition those of faith reject or a logical contradiction. So, those people of faith who contend they “know” the truth about god are, once again, mistaken. They cannot know the truth, or anything really, about something that is a contradiction.

4. Finally, we come to the fourth possibility. This possibility is that you can apply logic to god and he is not omnipotent.

Hmm…

You know, there’s nothing really wrong with this idea. Bet you weren’t expecting me to write that, were you? Despite what atheists would have you believe, this is a real possibility. Now, while there’s still no positive evidence to indicate it is true, there also is no evidence or logic to contradict it either. It simply requires a slight adjustment in the concept from an omnipotent being to one that is not “all-powerful” but immensely powerful. One that is not omniscient (all-knowing) but vastly knowledgeable. And, given some of the current cosmological theories, it is conceivable that some incredibly powerful (but not all-powerful), incredibly knowledgeable (but not all-knowing) being might exist that could create a universe.

For example, if black holes are indeed the starting point for a new universe, it is conceivable that a being or beings of sufficient intelligence and (possibly technological) ability could create a black hole and thus a universe. All they would need to do is gather enough matter together so that it has enough mass to collapse into a black hole or compress a smaller amount of matter enough that a black hole forms. Hell, we had some people thinking that the Large Hadron Collider might create microscopic black holes! If we can (possibly) do it, there’s no telling what a civilization or being hundreds of thousands or millions of years more advanced than we could do. Gives you something to think about, doesn’t it?

However, since this real possibility requires that god not be omnipotent, it is in direct conflict with the concept held by people of faith, namely that god is omnipotent. So, if this last possibility is true (and it could be), then those of faith who say they know god and that he is omnipotent are again mistaken.

So, there you have it. I couldn’t come up with any other possibilities that weren’t some variation on these four. I think I have shown that those people of faith who claim to know anything about god are utterly mistaken. Their own definitions betray them. However, I think I’ve also shown that their belief in some sort of supreme (but not all-powerful) being is not without merit. The current concept of god espoused of those of faith is simply flawed.

But, the idea that there might be a non-omnipotent supreme being out there is an important one to think about. That’s especially true for a few, vocal skeptics out there who have gotten a bit arrogant of late. Because, even if everything science teaches us is 100% true including evolution, even if we could prove all the world’s religions wrong with absolute certainty, even if we discover the ultimate scientific theory that explains literally everything and thus god is unnecessary, it doesn’t mean that a supreme being doesn’t exist anyway. He or she or it or they just aren’t what everyone thinks they are.

I’ll close with a quote from Andre Gide who said, “Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.”

Especially people of faith. Especially when logic is forbidden and contradictions reign. And most of all, doubt your own certitude.

Be well and think well.

Last time, I mentioned that a friend of mine, who is a person of faith, had gotten into a spirited discussion with me about my lack of faith. When I pointed out the logical contradiction that an omnipotent being presents, she informed me that you can’t apply logic to god. I realized I wasn’t actually doing that in our debate; I was applying logic to her concept of god. But, she got me wondering if you really couldn’t apply logic to god.

I came up with four different scenarios related to the idea of applying logic to god. Now, I want to go into each one in detail.

1. You really can’t apply logic to god.

That’s the first, most obvious scenario. However, it seems to me that if it were true, we couldn’t know anything at all about god. Logic and reason are used to determine if something is true or not. Unless knowledge, through divine revelation to each and every person on the planet, is imparted without the need for reasoning and logic, we must at some point utilize logic to understand god. What I mean is, a lot of what many people know about god (or think they know) they have learned either because they read it in a holy book or they were told by someone who (supposedly) knew more about it.

If they read it in their holy book, they had to use reason to even understand what the words mean. If you can’t use logic and reason to understand god, how can you understand god’s holy word without them? Now, if you argue that the person(s) that wrote the book did the reasoning for us so we could understand what they wrote, didn’t they just apply logic and reason to god, something they insist can’t be done? They had to use logic and reason to write down what they knew or learned, otherwise it would be unintelligible gibberish. So, someone somewhere along the way had to apply logic and reason to gain an understanding of god. But that contradicts the basic premise.

Some would argue that the problem is the incorrect definition of omnipotence. That there are “definitions” of omnipotence that don’t result in a paradox. I submit that they are “moving the goalposts.” They would assert that omnipotence doesn’t really mean all-powerful but something else–something less. So, they are changing the definition of the word omnipotence to avoid the paradox. Well geez, if I change the definition of god to be “a fictitious entity” then it would be easy for me to “prove” that he doesn’t exist. Changing the definition to avoid the paradox doesn’t actually solve anything and is only semantics.

Thus, if someone had to apply logic and reason to god to understand him but that isn’t allowed, we have a contradiction. And, whenever contradiction is allowed, truth cannot be known. Therefore, anything they think they know about god is at best suspect, it’s truth completely unknowable and at worst completely wrong! They’ve used logic themselves to understand, but since you can’t use logic to understand god, they cannot have any understanding of god by their own definition. To me then, that means nothing they say about god can be trusted, including the idea that you can’t apply logic to god.

2. You can apply logic to god, but he’s so far beyond us we can’t understand it.

This one should be self-evident in its absurdity. If god so far beyond us that using logic and reason won’t work, they how did they get their understanding? If he’s beyond my ability to understand, why isn’t he beyond theirs? Do they really think their ability to use logic and reason is that much better than mine  (or other skeptics better at them than me)? I’ll be happy to put my ability up against those people of faith any time. So the very premise itself indicates they can’t know what they are talking about when they talk about the nature of god.

One of their arguments against this might be that, because they believe, they have a better understanding or use different “logic.” Well, logic is logic; logic determines whether something is true or false. If you can’t understand the logic then you can’t determine if something is true or false. So that won’t wash.

If believing is required to have an understanding of god, isn’t that a circular (illogical) argument? You have to believe in god to have the ability (to reason well enough) to believe in god. That’s a vicious little circle. Circular reasoning is an indication of poor thinking and calls into question (again) whether they really know anything about the nature of god or not.

---

So far, we’ve looked at two cases and in both, those of faith can’t actually know what they are talking about with regards to god and that’s by their own definition!

Next time, I’ll explore the last two scenarios and come to my conclusion about the nature of god and what those of faith can actually know about it.

Stay tuned…

Not long ago, I and a friend of mine, who is a person of faith, got into a spirited discussion about why I could not share her faith. She actually believes that the Universe is less than 7000 years old, that dinosaurs coexisted with human beings (the Fred Flintstone School of Paleontology) and that the flood of Noah laid out the fossil record (even though there’s no sedimentation process that would deposit the fossils in the particular layers we find them–were it true, we should find the heaviest creatures, e.g. dinosaurs on bottom, then lighter ones, e.g. humans and finally the lightest on top, e.g. trilobites. That’s not what we find. In addition, it also doesn’t explain why the pattern from simple to complex life repeats multiple times. Were there multiple floods?).

So, one by one I laid out my logical arguments, not to convince her that god didn’t exist, but that a literal interpretation of the stories in her holy book was not well founded. She is an intelligent woman and I thought that logic and reason would reach her, but she wasn’t having any of it. Finally, in a desperate attempt to reach the logician I knew was within her, I trotted out an old chestnut and asked her, “Can god create a stone so heavy even he cannot lift it.” As many of you know, the question shows the logical contradiction of any entity being omnipotent (all-powerful). A more general version is, “Can god perform an act that even he cannot undo?”

Anyway, she knew I had boxed her into a logical corner. But, instead of admitting that and rethinking her position, she did what most people of faith do and proclaimed, “You can’t apply logic to god!” She’ll never admit it, but at that point she had conceded the argument to me. Indeed, it’s really not even possible to win a rational argument defending a concept that is inherently irrational.

However, she did get me thinking (and I would like to thank her for that here–thinking is always a good thing). Was I really trying to apply logic to god? Was that really what I had done? Well, I thought about it for quite a while when I realized the truth. I wasn’t applying logic to god. I was applying logic to her concept of god. Those are not the same thing. While a god of some kind may very well exist, that doesn’t mean that her (or anyone else’s) concept of who and what he/she/it/they is/are is correct. In fact, the logical conundrum I presented to my friend is exactly why I think she and others like her are wrong. What they consider god cannot exist, because whenever you allow a contradiction, you cannot determine truth. In fact, things must be both true and false at the same time or neither true nor false but not unknown, conditions that simply cannot exist if we are to have any understanding. And, understanding is the key.

That got me thinking even further. What if she was actually right? I was applying logic to her concept of god. But, what if you really can’t apply logic to god at all?. What would be the implications of that possibility? I spent many weeks pondering that idea and came up with four possibilities. There may be more, but these were all I could come up with.

1. You really can’t apply logic to god.
2. You can apply logic, but he/she/it/they is/are so far beyond our understanding that we wouldn’t understand the logic anyway.
3. You can apply logic and god is omnipotent/omniscient (a logical contradiction)
4. You can apply logic and god is not omnipotent/omniscient

In my next post, I’ll start to examine each possibility and what I think the implications are. After examining them all, I’ll then draw a conclusion based on my findings.

Stay tuned…