Automaton

Introduction
This is an off-shoot of a discussion in rainbow walking's thread "<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000305" target="_blank">Does... God... Exist...</a>" In it, rw claims that "God" represents an actual thinkable concept, and uses a dictionary definition for the argument presented. Others have disputed this claim. Starting with this definition, we shall see that it is both incomplete and incoherent:

• A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

On first glance, we notice that the concept of "mind" is not included in this definition. Either God's actions are none, are arbitrary, or represent his divine thoughts. The first conflicts with the notion of God doing anything at all, the first and second conflict with God being the originator and ruler of the universe, the second and third conflict with perfection, and the third conflicts with omniscience (the free-will aspect, assuming the concept of "free-will" itself is even coherent.) Without the "mind" aspect, we are left to conclude one of the first two anyway, which lead to the major contradictions. Further not included is ethereality (or is God physical?), and the ground of being (or is this just assumed to be implied from the other impressive properties?) And what about benevolence? Some could argue that perfection also entails moral perfection though. Breaking it down, we can get to some core internal and external contradictions within this very slim framework:
Internal: In most situations, it would appear that "perfection" is just a subjective epistemic quality that does not have any grounding in reality, but an objective definition could be, "That which satisfies the maximal conditions of its being." Say for example the perfect pot would be that which satisfies the maximal conditions for being a pot, and thus there are no scratches or faults. Again, what these "maximal conditions" are, can be a subjective thing, but let's just assume for the sake of argument, that there is an objective standard of these conditions. But what happens when we apply this to the notion of God? We have being itself trying to achieve the maximal conditions of that being! This is obviously garbage, such as saying "existence is green". Therefore, the notion of ontological perfection, at least in context of God, is incoherent.

External: 1. Assuming moral perfection stems from perfection, the maximally perfect being would not create the universe, nor allow anything other than itself to be existent. Because by definition, if God is the maximally perfect being, anything other than God would be less than maximally perfect, and this situation would not be allowed by a God who seeks to create the maximally perfect situation.
2. Again, a perfect being would not create the universe, because such a thing would mean lacking a condition of his being (a want for the universe to be existent), and a perfect being cannot have any conditions of its being lacking.
3. A perfect being could not be omniscient, as certain knowledge is created by limitations of being or power, and moral imperfection is required for others.
4. A perfect being cannot be omnipotent, for reasons similar to 1 and 2 above. In fact, this very contradiction is the basis for rendering omnipotence a meaningless tautology below.
Omnipotence is rendered internally incoherent due to an external contradiction. Above, we see that perfection's fourth external contradiction is with omnipotence, as in no possible world would God create suffering or decay, thus it would be logically impossible for God to do such things. Omnipotence can be defined in the sense of "Being able to do all things logically impossible". But, when something is logically impossible only in terms of one of God's other properties, this makes omnipotence a circularity:

• [ a. Why can't God do X? b. Because X is logically impossible. a. Why is X logically impossible? b. Because God can't do X. ]

This circular definition exposed, by extension, I would also be "omnipotent", with no logical discrepancy. Obviously the notion of omnipotence is fatally flawed.
Internal: There are serious problems that arise when omniscience is defined as knowing the set of all knowledge, which stem from paradoxes that arise within set theory. Whilst Russell's paradox has been solved to some degree, another, similar paradox arises, in specific reference to knowledge:<ol type="1">[*] Knowing that one knows the set of all knowledge is included within the set of all knowledge.[*] It is impossible to know that one knows the set of all knowledge. (From God's perspective, he could be a demi-God created by another God higher than himself, to contain all knowledge -except- the fact that he is a creation, and he would not know it.)[*] Therefore it is impossible to know the set of all knowledge.[/list=a]External: It conflicts with perfection, as outlined above.

A Temporal DilemmaIs God in or out of time? If he is within it, he is finite, non-omnipotent, and his being must therefore be a part of his own creation, which is logically impossible. If he is outside of it, he cannot think, nor causally act, which requires change (on the part of both the cause and the effect), which requires time. It must be one or the other, both of which renders the God of the above definition impossible.

Conclusion
The concept of "God" is nothing. Talking about God is like talking about a green red sromouched unicorn. "God exists" does not represent a truth claim. No square circles exist. No Gods exist.

[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: Automaton ]</p>

Synaesthesia

Automaton,

I do not believe you have established the meaninglessness of God. As with the cartesian demon, it is logically impossible to find a sound proof of God’s incoherence.

This ‘objective’ definition is ironically every bit as vague and imperfect as anyone’s intuitive notion of perfection. When you apply your criterion to God and get incoherent results, I would argue that goes to show the irrelevance of your criterion!

You are presuming to dictate what a perfect being would and would not do. We humans are no experts of perfection! In fact most theists would argue that the very definition of perfection is contingent upon God, certainly not on man’s informal philosophical musings.

I think this compellingly shows that God cannot be perfect or omnibenevolent by our standards. However, it should be noted that this incoherence is begotten by applying human standards where theists insist only God’s own standards will do.

I have two main objections to using this form logical argument when it comes to God. (a similar one can be seen in the thread “The Incompleteness Theorem of God”) First, and foremost, is the question of whether the ability to know the set of all knowledge or the ability to formally prove a formally unprovable preposition are even relevant to omnipotence. These questions are interesting, but I see no need to assume that we can come close to appreciating the ramifications of any form of omnipotence.

Secondly is the ol’ Transcendence argument. This need not even require a violation of logic as such. It may simply mean that God’s logic and underlying order slips under us for it’s subtly.

Regards,
Synaesthesia
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Automaton

Thanks for your response Synaesthesia!
Well, I don't know quite what you mean, but sure, my logical faculties could be so fatally flawed that A is ~A could be completely rational and I would not know it, but it is not very epistemologically useful to work with, so I'd prefer to base my conclusion on the assumption that my reasoning is not flawed, rather than to have a namby-pamby "I don't know". I will say 1+1=2, I will not say, "I think 1+1=2 but my reasoning could be flawed." And how do you assert that it is logically impossible to disprove, when the notion of logically impossible works on our very framework of logic that is coming into question?
Even more ironically, you just called it imperfect. Anyway, if this is true, then it still defeats the notion of an ontologically perfect God.

Anyway, I don't believe it to be vague or subjective. In a word, I equate perfection with purity. Perfect green is pure green, that which is totally green and no aspect of that substance detracts from green. A perfect pot is an entity where nothing detracts (which faults and blemishes do) from it being a pot. This seems reasonable to me.
Well, unless someone is willing to come up with a better criterion for "perfection", this means that it is actually irrelevent to call God "perfect". So this actually helps my case.
If there is no understanding God, then there is no point in trying to define God in an understandable way. I am showing that any attempts to do so fail. A God that is totally not understandable would be pretty much the same as no God at all.
This is the same as saying the definition of God is dependent on God, therefore atheists can't know anything about God. It is assuming what one is trying to prove.
That's the whole point of my argument. When we define God, we use human standards. If there are no human standards that apply to God, we might as well not know God. One cannot say God is benevolent and kills innocent children, because when we say "benevolent", we are using our standards of defintion.
If we define omniscience as knowing the set of all knowledge then it does certainly have ramifications for omniscience. My point is there is no coherent set of all knowledge. This can be gotten around (although weakly), by defining God as having the maximal possible amount of knowledge.
I am God. Disprove. Remember, no argument you can use will possibly have any effect, because as God, after all, I transcend your simplistic human knowledge of logic.

rainbow walking

rw: Hi Automaton,
You make some good points, however, I do wish to clarify my position on this concept. In my opening statement of the referred post I said:

God is the conceptualization of an idea of an abstract BEING that is thought to exist or represented as having EXISTENCE.

God currently exists only as an abstract concept whose being has yet to be properly defined without contradiction within the superstructure of EXISTENCE


While I have implied that god is an actual thinkable concept I have nowhere stated nor implied that the thoughts lead to coherence. I just wanted to make this clear because, like you, I see no meaningful coherent definition coming out of these defining attributes, but that doesn't make the concept un-thinkable.

• A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

On first glance, we notice that the concept of "mind" is not included in this definition. Either God's actions are none, are arbitrary, or represent his divine thoughts. The first conflicts with the notion of God doing anything at all, the first and second conflict with God being the originator and ruler of the universe, the second and third conflict with perfection, and the third conflicts with omniscience (the free-will aspect, assuming the concept of "free-will" itself is even coherent.) Without the "mind" aspect, we are left to conclude one of the first two anyway, which lead to the major contradictions. Further not included is ethereality (or is God physical?), and the ground of being (or is this just assumed to be implied from the other impressive properties?) And what about benevolence? Some could argue that perfection also entails moral perfection though. Breaking it down, we can get to some core internal and external contradictions within this very slim framework:
Internal: There are serious problems that arise when omniscience is defined as knowing the set of all knowledge, which stem from paradoxes that arise within set theory. Whilst Russell's paradox has been solved to some degree, another, similar paradox arises, in specific reference to knowledge:<ol type="1">[*] Knowing that one knows the set of all knowledge is included within the set of all knowledge.[*] It is impossible to know that one knows the set of all knowledge. (From God's perspective, he could be a demi-God created by another God higher than himself, to contain all knowledge -except- the fact that he is a creation, and he would not know it.)[*] Therefore it is impossible to know the set of all knowledge.[/list=a]External: It conflicts with perfection, as outlined above.

A Temporal DilemmaIs God in or out of time? If he is within it, he is finite, non-omnipotent, and his being must therefore be a part of his own creation, which is logically impossible. If he is outside of it, he cannot think, nor causally act, which requires change (on the part of both the cause and the effect), which requires time. It must be one or the other, both of which renders the God of the above definition impossible.

ConclusionThe concept of "God" is nothing. Talking about God is like talking about a green red sromouched unicorn. "God exists" does not represent a truth claim. No square circles exist. No Gods exist.

[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: Automaton ]</strong>[/QUOTE]

Automaton

Oh, alright rainbow walking. Thanks for the clarification.