The Impossible God

Just a few of the logical absurdities of the square triangular god of the incoherent christian bible.

A good example of Christian apologetics

A Christian named Brandon offered a few comments on a post in an attempt to defend biblical redemption, and I responded with the following.

So Brandon, here are the critical questions.

#1, Do you believe your alleged god, simply by virtue of being a god, can redefine love, long-suffering and justice any way he wants? Since language belongs to him, can he pervert the meaning of concepts, then claim it is impossible for him to be assessed by humans against those concepts?

#2. Why was the death of Jesus necessary for your god’s forgiveness, and how can one death be a substitute for the “deserved” eternal torture of billions?

#3. If your god’s purpose in hell is to consume unrighteousness (Brandon’s claim), why would it take forever?

#4. How can you choose something you don’t know exists such as eternity in Hell?

#5. Why is an offense against a god called a “sin”, and what is the logical need for bloodshed when one “sins” against a god? What is the difference between “offense” and “sin” other than a sin is an offense against your god? How does this distinction suddenly make bloodshed necessary?

Notice that, while you are claiming that this logical need for eternal torment transcends the any desire of god (he could simply forgive those he claims to love without bloodshed otherwise), you are at the same time suggesting your god transcends our notion of justice, and that he can call eternal torture for a single lie “just”. A bit absurd, don’t you think?

Brandon then responded as follows.

(#1 & #5) By being The God, He’s the source of the very concepts of love, long-suffering, and justice. By what virtue does man decide what He can and can not do? Are humans entitled to pervert things in order to suit their needs? You have the view that we’re running around down here sinning against each other, so in your eyes a little white lie isn’t really harming anyone so it shouldn’t be on the same level as murder, but that’s not the Christian position.
‘You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.’ (Matthew 5:43-48)
If you were in the military and you lied to your team leader, no big deal. If you lied to your Sergeant, you can expect to get hazed. If you lied to the Sergeant Major, you can expect an NJP (non-judicial punishment, forfeiture of pay or possibly reduction in rank). If you lied to a General, you can expect to spend time in the brig. What we would consider a small offense has different severities of consequences attached to it depending on who its against. Now imagine a Private who’s been disobeying direct orders from the General from day one. The General comes up to him and says, “I’m going to give you until the end of your enlistment to start showing me the respect I deserve. If you do, I will forgive all your previous offenses against me. If you don’t, you will go to the brig for the rest of your life.” As time goes on the Private continues on in his complete disregard for the General’s authority, and becomes more emboldened by the fact that the General is doing nothing against him. Would you not call the General loving and long-suffering for showing that Private mercy for so long? Would he not be just in giving him the punishment he deserves if he refuses to show him respect?

(#2 & #3) I believe I’ve already given you the Christian position on why Jesus’ death was necessary. Corruption (decay), is a characteristic of this sin-cursed world (dying you shall die), but corruption is not possible in the spiritual realm. I imagine your picturing someone throwing a block of wood into a fire, and eventually that block of wood is completely burned up. If one rejects God’s authority in his ability to save, they will face Him in their unrighteousness, and without corruption they will be in his presence forever.

(#4) You believe that God does not exist, so you view some tribes of people who have never had contact with civilized people as having no knowledge of God. I believe that God does exist, that the Bible is His word, and that He says that no man will have an excuse. So in my worldview, God is not dependent on some white american missionaries to go forth and tell people about the God they supposedly don’t know exists. Can you honestly say you’ve met someone who had no previous knowledge of hell, no knowledge of actions having consequences, no conscience, and no previous knowledge of the concept of God? Your beliefs will lead you to draw one conclusion, while my beliefs will lead me to conclude something else, but unless we go to these tribes and ask them, how would we know what they know?

This is an excellent example of Christian thinking. Let's take a good look at the many blunders in rationality evidenced here.

(#1 & #5) Note here that Brandon is assuming his god exists "as the very source of love, long-suffering, and justice", then claims his god is therefore immune from criticism in these areas. I call this the Eva Braun approach to truth; you believe your lover's self-proclamations, then (re)interpret all the incoming data to match your beliefs. Eva's lover was Hitler. No doubt he assured her that all his decisions were just. She had his Word. Now all she had to do was suspend belief and intellectual integrety, and wink at every trainload of condemned Jews that chugged past.

This is of course an absurd approach to truth. If you assume the source of good prior to assessing whether that good is actually good, you've committed an egregious logical blunder, and have condemned yourself to moral gymnastics in your defense of the lying monster to whom you have blindly devoted yourself to defending. Yet this absurd practice is held high as a virtue among Christian apologists, seemingly without any sense of shame. Is it any wonder myriad of young intelligent youth are abandoning Christianity for honesty?

In addition to this incoherency, Brandon implies his god can redefine concepts. This is a god that presumably wishes to communicate with humans, yet wants to invert love to approximate human conceptions of hate, long-suffering to approximate human conceptions of impatience, and justice to approximate human conceptions of injustice. Brandon's god of "love, "long-suffering" and "justice" will torture those he "loves" ... after a single offense ... forever.

Brandon would have us believe that this is quite normal for a "loving", "long-suffering" and "just" god to behave. For who are we to tell the creator of words that it is his proproposed redefinition of the words that are wrong? It is after all, merely the mortal minds of billions of humans that just happened to all have their unanimous intuitive notions of these concepts inverted. Brandon's god is the creator of cats. That's why you can butter bread with them as long as his god redefines the concept sufficiently. Brandon's god is the creator of bees. That's why you can shampoo your hair with them provided his god has redefinded the concept sufficiently.

But the nonsense does not end here. Brandon does not actually believe his god can redefine concepts in this way. He is hyprocritically overlooking his own god's misbehavior, yet condemns the very same behavior in others. Take the neighbor next door who claims to love his children, then also informs you that he tortures them in the basement for months on end for a single dinner-table infraction. Is that neighbor telling the truth? Brandon, based on my assessment of his general intelligence, would not hesitate to unequivocally that the neighbor was a liar. Brandon can not offer anything but ad hoc differences between the biblical account of sin and its "just" punishment, and the story of the neighbor above. You can point out that the neighbor is human, and Jehovah is god, but you have no explanation why the source of the agency would matter in the formulation of what is actually just. You are left out in the irrational rain without an apologetic umbrella in sight. The scales of justice most certainly do not need to be calibrated against the actions of a god any more than against the action of a human judge. We deem human judges culpable when they are unjust, and never assume that their perversion of justice is actually "true" justice. The behaviors of both gods and judges are subject to an assessment of their degree of justice. We don't irrationally, like Eva Braun, use the behaviors of our favorite god or judge to calibrate "true" justice.

And finally, the perverseness of Jehovah's justice is even admitted in the Bible as Brandon points out. In the mind of this allegedly just god, all sins deserve equal punishment. Find any human judge who ignores a) degree of injury, b) intent of the agent, c) maturity of the agent, and d) recidivism of the agent, and simply imposes the most torturous sentence across all infractions. Who among us would be so irrational to claim this judge was just? Yet, that is what Christians do with Jehovah ever day, seemingly without any shame at all. It is this blind perversion of justice that illustrates the deleterious effects of faith.

Note also that Brandon introduces an analogy he must certainly know does not accurately reflect his god. He suggests that the private experiences the long-suffering of the general as the general informs the private that he will be given until the end of his enlistment to repent. Brandon knows that, given there are hundreds of millions of children, children die everyday immediately after having committed their very first sin. These children are not sat on the lap of Jehovah, given an ultimatum, then told they must repent by a known date. Brandon knows this. It is dishonest to introduce an analogy that you know does not accurately reflect the actual Biblical position.

(#2 & #3) Brandon completely ignores #2. The death of Jesus most certainly did not pay the penalty for the sins of humanity. After suggesting that the purpose of Hell is to "consume" unrighteousness in his original post, he now seems to back-track and claim that nothing can be consumed spiritually. This is typical of apologists. They fabricate a defense, then when that defense is shown to be logically incoherent, act as if it was never said. Is the purpose of Hell to consume unrighteousness or not? It appears to me to be a torture pit no just god would endorse.

(#4) On this point, Brandon demonstrates his willingness to ignore what he knows, and to spin-doctor the Bible. Romans 1 states that humans are without excuse since they have nature through which to come to know the existence of and nature of Hell. Nonsense.

Brandon actually suggests we must wander deep into the jungle to test this claim. We don't. We need only to hear the many many accounts of those who have. Missionaries all around the world can tell you whether Romans 1 is true. What are their stories? (Here is one example: Or simply come here to Japan where Japanese ask you to repeat the claims of the Bible such as the notion of Hell, then shake their heads in disbelief that anyone would fall for its obvious myths. The nature-loving Japanese most certainly do not know the god of the Bible, nor of his Hell as Brandon asserts. Romans 1 is a lie, and a lie that is so very easily vetted. But Christians are blindly committed to their Lord. It is as if Eva Braun were to claim every pocket of Hitler's clothing contained evidence of his love for her, then were to claim that we must check only his vest pocket...which just happens to be inaccessible, Christian apologetics at its mendacious best.

The lie of Hell is spread through Christians, and you'll not find a single account of a Biblical version of Hell existing in the jungle, either remote or urban, that was derived from the natives' assessment of nature. Humans, therefore, do not choose Hell as Brandon absurdly claims.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Commenting Guidelines

Anyone may respond to the arguments with rigorous argumentation and evidence. No one may offer unfocused unsubstantiated affirmations of their beliefs. The assumptions in the posted arguments reflect mainstream Christian beliefs. If you have another view of the topic that you feel better reflects the mainstream position, provided that in the form of a syllogism.

Commenting Suggestions

1: Don't merely cite the Bible as proof that the absurdity stands. My simple citing of the affirmation of an alleged authority to substantiate my claim that I am in possession of a square triangle devalues the authority, highlights my credulity, and demonstrates a lack of commitment to rational thought.
2. Keep your comments condensed. Verbosity is not a virtue. Employ syllogisms if possible as these require rigorous definitions and argumentation.
3. Don't speculate on the character or motivation of the post's author. Address the argument.
4. Don't suggest that the christian concepts under-girding the premises are not common within Christianity.
5. Don't suggest that any particular argument on this site has already been given a rational answer at some point over the centuries without including that answer.
6. Keep your tone academic. This is not a site for preaching, rants or vitriol. The editors' responses will follow your tone.

Your Golden Square Triangle

This site does not waste time debating Christians over the logical possibility of miracles, the nature of the singularity, or the historicity of Jesus. If you argue that the square triangle in your pocket is made of gold, and produce genuine gold flakes as evidence, we still know with absolute certainty that you do not have a golden square triangle in your pocket.

If the biblical god is logically incoherent as this site argues, we can stop there. Enough of the silly games Christians play by diverting attention away from Jehovah's inherent absurdities and towards issues such as an incomplete evolutionary theory as if that will somehow redeem an incoherent Jehovah.

Top Posts

%d bloggers like this: