The 'Trinity' of Religious Contradiction

[Paraprakrti]

Many have tried to counter by saying that God wants us to grow, and the only way we can grow is through suffering. So God doesn't 'want' evil/suffering but he does want us to grow. However, in order for that argument to work, one has to assume that God is UNABLE to allow human growth by any means other than through suffering. In other words, this argument puts limits on God's power and therefore refutes 2) only to agree with 1).

No. First of all, if we hadn't fell into ignorance we wouldn't have to suffer at all. Our growth is in returning to our constitutional position. It isn't a matter of able or unable, God simply does not interfere with our decision to be ignorant of God. God wants us to finish what we started. We came here thinking we could play without God and God is just waiting for us to say, 'ok. I'm through playing. I'm ready to come home.' God is more concerned with fulfilling our desires, even if they are detrimental to our position, than He is concerned with getting rid of evil. We demand that we know what is best for us and God just steps back and says, 'Ok. Do what you will. I will support you in your decision.' God knows we want to be rid of evil, and so He prescribes that we take shelter under Him. If we choose to ignore, then we continue to suffer.

Others have said that God does not want evil/suffering, but He gives us free will and we bring it upon ourselves. There are numerous problems with this argument: 1) it fails to adress the evil/suffering that is not caused by man's actions (disease, birth defects)

You simply have no power to see how the fallen soul's desires/actions cause disease, birth defects, etc.

2) man could still have free will even if God restricted our choices by taking away our ability to murder, rape, torture, etc.

God doesn't restrict. God has made a place where we can murder, rape and torture. These acts themselves consitute an infringement on one's free will. Therefore we suffer the karma. A person infringes on another's free will by forcibly raping them (for example) and then the rapist has to reap the consequences. Now you are wondering why you are suffering. Perhaps you were a rapist in a previous life. LOL.

3) the argument suggests that giving humans free will is more important to God than destroying evil...in other words, the absence of free will is 'more evil' than evil itself. It also calls into question God's ability to create a perfect universe or for heaven to be perfect, as either a)no one has free will in heaven or b)heaven is not perfect,

Everything is perfect. EVERYTHING. You are simply to ignorant to see. It appears you also have free will to become ignorant. And here you are wondering about suffering. You apparently already have your answer.

But most importantly---
4) this argument again puts limits on God's power, by assuming that it is impossible for God to give us free will and prevent us from doing evil at the same time....so once again we have agreement with the original explanation that God is not all powerful.

We have free will by constitution. God does not have to give us free will. God simply fulfills the living entities' desires. Sometimes those desires constitute an infringing on another's free will, or they constitute being put into ignorance of the eternal center point, God. Due to this we fall into the karmic world. Sometimes we suffer and sometimes we enjoy. It is NEVER a matter of God's power. It is simply a matter of God leaving your fate to you...
This is where you thank God for being so merciful.

 

[Paraprakrti]

One more thing I want to address...

You say that if evil is brought about by us, then getting rid of free will is more evil than anything else.

You may not realize this, but originally it was demanded by us that we leave God's association. We wanted to be ignorant. God lets us have our desires and so we suffer evil. God does not interfere with free will because we demand that we can become our own Gods. Everything is perfect in it's position. Our position is eternally subordinate to God. There is no escaping that. But foolishly we choose to ignore it and we suffer. You would be likely to inquire why we can't be our own Gods and be without suffering. The fact is that EVERYTHING IS PERFECT IN ITS POSITION. God does not change this position because HE HAS NO NEED TO. You accept God's perfect arrangement or you suffer. The end.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Very well said, Parapraktri, but you could have stopped here:

God is more concerned with fulfilling our desires, even if they are detrimental to our position, than He is concerned with getting rid of evil.

Great! So we agree.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Yes, then we agree that there is no contradiction knowing that God desires only to fulfill our desires.

The original mistake was in thinking that God desires to get rid of evil for His own benefit. Obviously that is not the case. Furthermore the problem became why God does not rid evil by infringing on free will? In conclusion we have come to the understanding that infringing on free will is also "evil". Therefore the problem is solved.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The problem is solved, yes, because you have agreed with what Ceridwen and I have said all along. You said

we agree that there is no contradiction knowing that God desires only to fulfill our desires.

Your argument is that God desires to fulfill our desires, not to destroy evil. You are denying one of the three premises of the Trinity, therefore you are agreeing with what we have said all along (that all three cannot be true simultaneously). Congratulations!

 

[Paraprakrti]

God's desire to rid the living entities of evil is there because the living entities want to be rid of it. Unfortunately...
THE LIVING ENTITIES ARE HYPOCRITES

They are asking for one thing and then doing another. It would be like if you sold your car for gas money. In a similar sense, you want to sell your soul for salvation! You propose this idea. "Why isn't God powerful enough for me to be able to ignore my perfect position and still remain in my position". NO... you choose one or the other.

The trinity is fine when one understands why God desires anything. All three are simultaneously true, based on my explanation. Based on your explanation they may be contradictory, but I am not confining it to your explanation. Here is reconciliation. Accept it or reject it.

1. God is all powerful
2. Evil exists (ignorance of God)
3. God does not want evil to exist (a. because God desires for our desires to be fulfilled. While at the same time, b. God, in fulfilling our desires, indirectly allows evil to exist because we choose to be ignorant of GOOD.

It is not a question of God's power. It is more a question of priority, which we have already addressed and agree on. Nevertheless, the third part of the trinity still applies because it applies to our desires. God does not interfere with our desires, which means that although God desires for us to be free of evil, He moreover desires for us to be FREE, period. This is because WE desire to be free. Now, when we realize how we have become entangled in this false sense of freedom, then we will surrender to God and actually be free from evil. This is how inconceivably merciful God is to allow you to get exactly what you want. The facility for any desire already exists. If you want factual freedom then you will surrender to God. Your vision is so clouded by maya that you think surrender means giving up freedom. Think of it like this, you are in chains asking to surrender your chains to the one who can break them. That is how surrender means freedom. You are not surrendering your freedom, you are surrendering your bondage.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Sorry, my friend, I am still not convinced. You're argument rests on the premise that God does not have the power to fulfill our desires and prevent evil from existing. You are putting limits on God's power, and therefore conceding that not all three parts of the Trinity can be true.

 

[Ceridwen018]

God's desire to rid the living entities of evil is there because the living entities want to be rid of it. Unfortunately...
THE LIVING ENTITIES ARE HYPOCRITES

Aaahhh! Goodness, you startled me! Ok now, where was I? Oh yes, your post.

I have a problem with this particular excerpt in that it doesn't make sense. You say that god does what we desire, and that humans desire to be rid of evil...yet evil still exists...? By calling humans hypocrites in this context, are you saying that we want evil and want to be rid of it at the same time? Personally, I can't think of anyone who wants evil.

because God desires for our desires to be fulfilled

And yet god does not desire. Gotcha. No, wait...

God, in fulfilling our desires, indirectly allows evil to exist because we choose to be ignorant of GOOD.

There are many people who don't choose to be ignorant of good, though. Are they supposed to just sit tight while everyone else gets into shape? Also, why can't god take away our ability to choose ignorance of good by making it not exist?

which means that although God desires for us to be free of evil, He moreover desires for us to be FREE, period.

We can be free without evil.

You are not surrendering your freedom, you are surrendering your bondage.

I agree. So why doesn't god take away our bondage (evil) and allow us to be truly free?

 

[Paraprakrti]

Sorry, my friend, I am still not convinced. You're argument rests on the premise that God does not have the power to fulfill our desires and prevent evil from existing. You are putting limits on God's power, and therefore conceding that not all three parts of the Trinity can be true.

Then your conclusion is that God already destroyed evil. Unfortunately, you are too ignorant to realize it.

1. God is all powerful
2. evil exists (to you)
3. God does not want evil to exist (and it doesn't, but you are too ignorant to realize)

 

[Ceridwen018]

But Paraprakrti, evil obviously exists. Do you not agree?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Ah, so now you are denying another part of the Trinity! You are saying evil does not exist, after all...you are denying the first part of the Trinity, and once again we are in agreement.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Then your conclusion is that God already destroyed evil. Unfortunately, you are too ignorant to realize it.

Furthermore, that you are too ignorant to realize that evil has been destroyed constitutes evil. This is your circular subjectivity. The problem then lies in the human conception of evil. God's constitution is eternally reconciled.

 

[Orthodox]

Hello everyone,

I have once again decided to jump into this thread. I think that I can show the “trinity” to be flawed.
Your trinity goes as follows.

1. If God is all-powerful (meaning, by your definition, the ability to do anything)
2. And God is all-good
3. Then why does evil exist?
Either because:
1. God is not all-good
2. God is not all-powerful
3. God is neither all-good or all-powerful
4. Or God does not exist.

You postulate that if premises one and two are correct then one must choose from the above list of explanations for evil. My contentions with this argument are as follows.

1. It is not biblical to say that God can do anything, although, in my opinion, this does not make God less than all-powerful. Witness Hebrews 6:18 for the part about God’s inability to do anything.
2. A good thing, made by a good God, can still include the potential for evil. I speak here of Free Will.


I will demonstrate the reason behind my points.

1. The Bible does not teach that God can do anything. Paul said, “It is impossible for God to lie”. The God of the Bible cannot contradict himself, he cannot not exist, he cannot lose, in fact, none of his impulses can be finite, he is logical by manner of his rational self-consistency. Some might say this means this God cannot be all-powerful because all-powerfulness necessitates the ability to do anything. Is this true though? In earlier posts I showed that, logically, God had a moral reason for creating the potential for evil in Free Will, if I was right then the trinity doesn’t hold water. The retort to my conclusion was that an all-powerful God should be able to violate the laws of logic and therefore do anything. Essentially this would mean that God could make the colour red be red only but also blue at the same time – he would be able to contradict himself. The point of this in relation to the trinity is, I suppose, that this illogical (meaning: able to break or change logic) God would then be able to give us Free Will while at the same time removing from us the choice between good and evil. If this were the case then God would have no moral reason for the existence of evil; the trinity of religious contradiction would stand.

However, I think it can be shown that this ability to do anything – to make red into blue while having it remain red- cannot be a sign of all-powerfulness. First of all, what do we mean by all-powerfulness? I assume that everyone would agree with a definition like, “having absolute and unlimited power”. Does this apply to logic though? Can something have power over logic? First, let’s ask ourselves a question about all-powerfulness. Is an all-powerful thing less powerful than a less than all-powerful thing? Most people would say that this type of a suggestion is absurd, and it would be. Of course an all-powerful thing is more powerful than a less than all-powerful thing, otherwise it wouldn’t be an all-powerful thing in the first place. This would be a classic violation of logic; it would go against the Law of Non-Contradiction. This type of contradiction is entirely permissible if we accept that God is above logic and essentially illogical.

If we are to accept that all-powerfulness necessitates the ability to do anything, which in turn requires the ability to violate logic, then we are left in a sticky situation concerning the definition and distinction of this God. We also find ourselves in a sticky situation when we try to apply the definition of all-powerfulness to this illogical God. It all comes down to what role logic has in defining all-powerfulness. Logic is a necessary thing, it is not contingent upon anything. Illogic however, is whatever logic is not. Logic in no way relies upon Illogic for the direction as to what it should be, it is a statement about reality. If I am speaking the truth and say that the table is made of wood and not plastic I am being logical, my statement in no way violates the laws of Logic. However if I wish to be Illogical I must look at the table, decide what it is not and pronounce that as though it was truth. If God is to break or change Logic and violate the first law of Logic, the Law of Non-Contradiction, then he whatever he is becomes a contradiction. But, in that case, he cannot be all-powerful because there is not longer a distinction between all-powerfulness and less than all-powerfulness. So, there are two glaring problems with an Illogical God;

 He is bound to revolt against whatever Logic says; essentially His nature is contingent upon the nature of Logic. Obviously an all-powerful God cannot be reliant upon anything that does not stem from himself.
 We can only define and postulate His existence through a process of Logic (IE. He is not this therefore He is this), therefore he cannot be understood away from Logic but also cannot operate meaningfully within it (Can an Illogical God operate within a logical setting let alone produce one?).


2. The second point I have against the trinity is that a good thing made by a good God can include the potential for evil. Free Will is the vehicle of a logical and independent choice between good and evil. Having this choice is not a bad thing because much good can come from it. But, logically, in order for this choice to exist something must be there to be chosen between. In the case of Free Will, both good and evil must be available as an option if there is to be a choice between them.

As I have previously shown, there can be no system of value or worth apart from a choice between good and evil. One cannot even choose a favourite colour if one has no concept of both good and evil. How can one say that something is “more to your taste” or “better” if one has no idea that anything can be better or worse than something else can. I suggest that anyone who is interested in this line of thinking read C. S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man.

So, in order for us to be free agents we must, without exception, be able to rebel. This means that God is responsible for our ability to choose but not our choice.



Someone might say that I agree with the trinity according to the definition that I have written above. Yes, that is true, provided the religion it is used against contains the belief in a God who can do anything. The trinity holds only against that type of belief. Christianity has never proposed that type of belief. In relation to Christianity the trinity has always been totally inconsequential, it never comes close to challenging the God of the Bible.

Orthodox

Just a postscript to Christians who believe that God can do anything but “won’t” do anything (presumably because “he’s not like that”). If God is immutable (unchanging) as the Bible says, and won’t sin as the Bible says, then he cannot sin because he cannot change his sinless nature to a sinful one. This would be a finite action contingent upon his necessary original nature. Therefore he would be becoming less than all-powerful, and that he cannot be.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Orthodox-- Great post, but I still find the following problems, among others:

You spent a good number of paragraphs showing how illogical it would seem for God to be illogical...well, of course! In relation to our current logic, any other 'logic' would be 'illogical'...but a God with power over logic could dictate what is logical, and what is not. If God had power over logic, he could make red = blue yet still be completely self-consistent and logical. Does that make sense? No, but if an all powerful God wanted it to it would make perfect sense.

From what you have said, I gather you don't believe God has power over logic, that God never had any choice but to follow things like the law of non-contradiction, and therefore you have constraints on God's power and we agree that God does not have the power to do anything, including break/change/create logic in any way He wishes. If you want to debate other Christians as to whether or not God can, or could break/change what is logical, that is your prerogative.

One cannot even choose a favourite colour if one has no concept of both good and evil.

Not everyone is the same, and some colors appeal to some people and not to others. To pick a favorite color, I need only to know what appeals to me, not which color is the universal appealing color to all. This is an amoral preference, and has nothing to do with good and evil...unless, of course, you beleive God has a favorite color. (Is it blue?)

So, in order for us to be free agents we must, without exception, be able to rebel. This means that God is responsible for our ability to choose but not our choice.

Then we currently do not have free will, because there are many exceptions where we cannot rebel. I cannot currently turn invisible, or create a perpetual motion machine, or destroy the moon by pointing at it, or do a million other things. If I have free will now, I would still have free will if God took away my ability to murder, rape, and steal.

Finally, your argument assumes that all evil and suffering is caused by man's free will, but I don't see how viruses and droughts are caused by man's decisions.

 

[Orthodox]

Hey Spinkles,

Thanks for the reply. You said,

If God had power over logic, he could make red = blue yet still be completely self-consistent and logical. Does that make sense? No, but if an all powerful God wanted it to it would make perfect sense.

You are right if we consider for a moment that an all-powerful God can be illogical (or, as you seem to propose, alogical (?)). However, I don’t think that an all-powerful God can be either. To demonstrate my point I will ask a few questions. Can something be both logical and illogical at the same time? What would it be then? This “something” would ultimately be illogical; meaning it would not be logical and illogical, just simply illogical. Unless of course being both logical and illogical is possible (through the ability you give God to manipulate logic), in which case it is logical and not logical and illogical. It would seem that a God with this type of power over logic would not if fact be able to do anything; a logical and illogical thing could not remain logical and illogical.

This would mean that there is a higher level that cannot be violated, namely that an illogical thing must be logically illogical (don’t confuse this with the idea of a logical and illogical thing – these are two separate ideas). Illogical things would be a necessarily logical contradiction. How can the critic’s stance on all-powerfulness be salvaged from here? Well, the critic must take everything a level higher and propose that God could make anything that is logical also illogical by nature, in other words double everything up to make it ultimately free from logic (and, presumably, ultimately free from less-than-all-powerfulness). The existence of an illogical and logical thing would be an illogical and logical idea. Thus, the state of logic would be annihilated along with that of illogic. Now there is a crack forming. In the process of making everything both illogical and logical God has lost the ability to make anything logical or illogical, there is no longer a distinction if he is to hold supreme power. Because these are opposites by fundamental nature you annihilate any concept of logic and illogic as separate things (if something is both logical and illogical, and its existence is both logical and illogical it must be neither logical nor illogical). In the same sense you cannot have a statement about something that is neither true nor false, such a statement cannot exist even in illogic. We now have an illogical and logical mix of illogic and logic. What can be done with this? Not even nothing! This is because; nothing is the absence of something and requires the action of not acting to exist. This process of nothing also needs to be logical and illogical making nothing just as impossible as something. Therefore a God that can do anything cannot exist because “anything” winds up being less than nothing, not anything.

I will demonstrate what the above two paragraphs show.

 If A is both a logical and illogical thing. (If an all-powerful God can do anything then this type of thing must be possible, right?)
 Then the existence of A must be either logical or illogical.
 If it is logical or illogical then God cannot do “anything”.
 For God to do “anything” then the existence of A must be both logical and illogical (in other words neither).
 But in the event of this being the case both logic and illogic are denied their distinctive features (whatever God made them to be, as you propose) and are destroyed.
 Without logical or illogical things doing “anything” is impossible according to its own structure, both illogically and logically (logically, illogically, and logical and illogically). God would not be able to do “anything” ever, he couldn’t even exist.


Note: Don’t bother suggesting that something can be neither logical nor illogical and still exist. This fact itself would either be logical or illogical. Similarly, every statement is either true or false. You might be able to change the truth but you cannot deny t its exisence.

Not everyone is the same, and some colors appeal to some people and not to others. To pick a favorite color, I need only to know what appeals to me, not which color is the universal appealing color to all. This is an amoral preference, and has nothing to do with good and evil...unless, of course, you beleive God has a favorite color. (Is it blue?)

I’m not so sure about this. While the choice of red over blue is neither more good nor more evil than choosing blue over red it belies the ability to make value judgments. The statement, “I like red better than blue” indicates that something about red appeals to you more than blue. You subconsciously decide that you like something that is appealing more than something that is unappealing. Effectively, you have made a choice between a “not as bad/good” thing and a “not as good/bad thing”. Without the concept of good and evil there is no scale for such a decision.

Then we currently do not have free will, because there are many exceptions where we cannot rebel. I cannot currently turn invisible, or create a perpetual motion machine, or destroy the moon by pointing at it, or do a million other things. If I have free will now, I would still have free will if God took away my ability to murder, rape, and steal.

No you wouldn’t. You are confusing a desire to do something with the ability to do it. Free Will is the ability to desire anything, not do anything. That’s why it is called Free Will.

Finally, your argument assumes that all evil and suffering is caused by man's free will, but I don't see how viruses and droughts are caused by man's decisions.

The bible teaches that bad things, like droughts and viruses, had their onset because man (Adam) chose to let sin (and consequently evil) into the world. He used his free will in bad way to do that. How can you explain good or bad things? Are you going to suggest that there is not such thing?

From what you have said, I gather you don't believe God has power over logic, that God never had any choice but to follow things like the law of non-contradiction, and therefore you have constraints on God's power and we agree that God does not have the power to do anything, including break/change/create logic in any way He wishes.

No, I believe that logic comes from God's rational self-consitency. Do you want me to demonstrate this? In any case, I don't believe God can do anything so how does your trinity stand? If I have proven that to give Free Will evil is a necessary possibility then doesn’t that make the trinity lame?

If you want to debate other Christians as to whether or not God can, or could break/change what is logical, that is your prerogative.

I just put that in to dissuade any of my fellow Christians from considering me heretical without first thinking it over. I just didn’t want the thread clogged up with Christians not concerned with the trinity of rc.

Orthodox

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Orthodox--

Good points once again, but I really am getting worn out by this debate...I'm not sure I feel like talking about this for another 20 pages lol. You talk at length about how utterly illogical it would seem to us if God could break the laws of logic, or if God could make the rules of logic different, thereby missing the point entirely.

You are right if we consider for a moment that an all-powerful God can be illogical (or, as you seem to propose, alogical (?)).

Or, an all-powerful God can change what is logical in the first place, so that red = blue is not "illogical" but perfectly logical.

 If A is both a logical and illogical thing. (If an all-powerful God can do anything then this type of thing must be possible, right?)

Yes, it would be possible, though not necessary, for an all powerful God. A could just be logical, period, under different rules of logic than the ones we have.

 Then the existence of A must be either logical or illogical.

It must be? According to what--your logic? You are forgetting that if God transcends logic, anything is possible. You can't use logic to show how "illogical" it would be for God to change what is logical. You need to think outside the box.

 Without logical or illogical things doing “anything” is impossible according to its own structure, both illogically and logically (logically, illogically, and logical and illogically). God would not be able to do “anything” ever, he couldn’t even exist.

If God had power over logic, he could do anything, even if it doesn't make sense to you or me. The only thing you have shown is that under our system of logic, any other system of logic would be illogical. Well, d'uh!

Without the concept of good and evil there is no scale for such a decision.

You don't need a concept of good and evil, all you need is a brain that responds to stimuli in unique ways from other brains. Some brains release chemicals that give some people a more pleasing feeling than others when they see certain things or do certain things. I don't need to know anything about good and evil to prefer the taste of oranges to that of cardboard. But this is leading into another debate entirely.

No you wouldn’t. You are confusing a desire to do something with the ability to do it. Free Will is the ability to desire anything, not do anything. That’s why it is called Free Will.

In that case, God could take away our ability to do evil, but leave us our ability to desire evil, so that we have a world of free will and no evil. Why doesn't He?

The bible teaches that bad things, like droughts and viruses, had their onset because man (Adam) chose to let sin (and consequently evil) into the world. He used his free will in bad way to do that. How can you explain good or bad things? Are you going to suggest that there is not such thing?

I really don't feel like debating this...let's leave it for another thread.

No, I believe that logic comes from God's rational self-consitency. Do you want me to demonstrate this? In any case, I don't believe God can do anything so how does your trinity stand?

It stands, and you agree with the trinity--God's power has limits constrained by logic, in which case we can explain the existence of evil, despite God's desire to get rid of evil, without blatantly contradicting ourselves.

If I have proven that to give Free Will evil is a necessary possibility then doesn’t that make the trinity lame?

Actually, with your definition of free will you've made it nearly impossible to explain why evil exists...see the comment I made above about free will.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Hit the bench and let me have a go then, Spinkles. I've been trying to jump in but you keep using your ESP to steal all my ideas, lol.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

haha, okay Ceridwen...I'll let you do some debating for a while...I really don't feel like debating this topic for another 30 pages, I'd rather just agree to respectfully disagree lol

 

[Paraprakrti]

In that case, God could take away our ability to do evil, but leave us our ability to desire evil, so that we have a world of free will and no evil. Why doesn't He?[

Because He wants us to choose. We chose to be here, therefore we will choose to transcend here. God does not want evil because He knows we do not want it, but we chose it. Therefore God allows us to remain in evil until we choose to get out. That is God's causeless mercy.

Y'all are wondering why God doesn't go against what we choose and force us to give up evil. If this is your problem then surrender to God. If you want God to force the evil away, then you will surrender unto Him so that He knows for sure that you really want this. If you want God to get rid of the evil, but you don't want to surrender unto Him then you are a hypocrite. Plain and simple.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Parapraktri-- I was responding to Orthodox's definition of free will. Please keep my quote in context.

If this is your problem then surrender to God.

I surrender. Hmmm....nothing's happening...