[ARCHIVED] - The attributes of the Christian God exhibit logical contradictions.

[Ryft]

Response to Opening Statements
by Arcanus

18 September 2009

The task for Saerules in this debate was to present arguments which affirm and support the resolution that "the attributes of the Christian God exhibit logical contradictions." In her Opening Statements she was supposed to have listed three such arguments; unfortunately, she listed only one: that God's attributes of omniscience and omnipotence contradict one another. The other two arguments did not actually contrast attributes of God. Instead, they contrasted a specific attribute of his against some other supposed fact. But in neither case were the arguments successful at validly proving a logical contradiction, which I will show.

With respect to her one argument that did attempt to prove that God is impossible on account of a logical contradiction, whereby omniscience and omnipotence are said to be contradicting attributes, does the argument succeed? No, it does not, and for a reason similar to that which my Opening Statements had anticipated. Her argument contains a central mistake about the nature of God; for the argument to work it requires an entity who "knows his own future." As a criticism of the Christian God it cannot work, because he has no temporal locality (like an unactualized future, as this case has it) by virtue of God being eternal pure actuality. [1] When an argument that is predicated on a being who has temporal limitations is presented as a criticism against the Christian God, it fails by arguing against a deity that is substantively different from that of Christian orthodoxy—and therefore risks the Straw Man fallacy. In his nature God is pure actuality, and in his operations God is immanent everywhere in our space-time manifold. In either respect, therefore, temporal limitations (such as having a future) is inapplicable.

I have used the following thought experiment to shed light the consequences of omnipresence before with some success, so perhaps it might prove helpful again in the present discussion. Imagine that we observe a supernova in a galaxy two million light years away. From the perspective of that galaxy, the event was two million years ago. But from our perspective we are just now observing it. And from the perspective of another galaxy millions of light years further still, that supernova will not be observed for a very long time to come. So the question presents itself: Is the event past, present, or future? Evidently that will depend entirely on your spatio-temporal location. So then, what if you are omnipresent across all spatio-temporal locations at once?

In the words of Aiden W. Tozer, "In God there is no was or will be, but a continuous and unbroken is. In him, history and prophecy are one and the same." [2] And Charles Spurgeon, "With God there is no past, and can be no future ... What we call past, present, and future, he wraps up in one eternal now." [3] God does not have a future about which he might know something; moreover, for him there is no future about which he might change something. Therefore, if a criticism which presupposes a temporal entity is presented as a criticism of the Christian God, it risks committing the Straw Man fallacy by arguing against a deity that is considerably different from God as affirmed in orthodox Christian doctrine.

The second contradiction Saerules attempts to present an argument for is that God loves unconditionally and yet, at the same time, can be shown to not love unconditionally. This fails to prove a contradiction, however, and for two reasons. First, even assuming her statements are true she has not successfully made her case, because a real contradiction requires two logically inverted propositions to be asserted as true at the same time and in the same respect. If the love of God is "unconditional" (P) in one respect while at the same time "not unconditional" (¬P) in a different respect, then this fails to qualify as a contradiction. Can this be found in orthodox Christian doctrine? Yes, clearly. Christianity holds that the difference which separates these two respects is Jesus Christ, the Mediator of the new covenant. When it comes to the human race on the whole, the love of God is "not unconditional" (¬P); when it comes to those who are in Christ, the love of God is "unconditional" (P). So both P and ¬P are asserted as true at the same time but not at all in the same respect. God's love is unconditional only for believers whose sins are covered by the propitiatory [4] sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Second, her argument is predicated upon a God who "unconditionally loves ... the human race," which is a very different sort of God from that of orthodox Christian doctrine. Apart from the atoning work of Christ, the human race is condemned under God's wrath against sin. Saerules was correct in her conclusion that "the Christian God does not love unconditionally" the human race. Apostolic teaching has never suggested otherwise, having always asserted that God loves unconditionally only his children.

The third contradiction that she presents is likewise not a contradiction, insofar as God being jealous does not contradict monotheism. Saerules argues that if God is jealous then "it is because there are other gods for it to be jealous of." But this does not follow. God's jealousy is for the reverent affections of his people, which at times have been directed toward idols. However, there are very clear statements in the Bible that those idols are fashioned by hand and not real, that they "by nature are not gods," that "an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one," that "there is no God apart from me," that there is only "one God and Father of all," verses that can be multiplied a hundred fold (Gal. 4:8; Isa. 44:14-20; Isa. 45:21; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:4; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 1:17). Although the Bible speaks about angels, demons, beasts and saints and so forth, nowhere does it describe them as deity. Mankind worships other gods, but it is sinful precisely because they are by nature not gods, as the Scriptures consistently state. "I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God," the Lord declares to his prophet Isaiah. "Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one" (Isa. 44:6-8).

Saerules presented what she considered to be the three strongest arguments for proving that the God of Christian theism is an impossible being by reason of logical contradictions, yet none of them succeeded in making her case because they involved attributes or operations that do not correspond to God as affirmed by the Scriptures and orthodox Christian doctrine. First, the "omniscience vs. omnipotence" argument failed because God is not temporally bounded; second, the "unconditional love" argument failed because although both P and ¬P are asserted as true at the same time, it is not in the same respect; third, the "jealousy" argument failed because the act of worshiping an idol does not make it a real deity.

----------
1,200 words

---

NOTES:

[1] Dubray, Charles. "Actus Purus." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. Web; Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1981. Part 1, Questions 2-11. Web.

[2] Heitzig, Lenya. Live Intimately. Paris, ON: David C. Cook Publishing, 2008. pg. 50. Print.

[3] Spurgeon, Charles H. "Gem #55." Spurgeon's Gems. New York: Sheldon & Company, 1859. Print.

[4] Propitiation is that by which the just wrath of God is satisfied, whereby "it becomes consistent with his character and government to pardon and bless the sinner. The propitiation does not procure his love or make him loving; it only renders it consistent for him to exercise his love towards sinners. … Christ is 'the propitiation' because by his becoming our substitute and assuming our obligations he expiated our guilt." (Easton, Matthew G. Illustrated Bible Dictionary. 3rd ed. New York: Cosimo Classics, 2005. Print.)