God logic

The existence of God....Every time I visit the blog scene I am amazed at how many individuals feel they can know the nature of god, or think that they have the concept figured out. I think I've read enough self-proclaimed refutations of God to last a lifetime. You name the method, I've read it: Logic, Reductio ad absurdum, Burden of Proof, and of course the most common rebuttal thrown around is the Omnipotence paradox.


I do not claim to know if there is a god, if fact I claim just the opposite: "I do not know if god does or does not exist." I am very skeptical of any one who states that god is impossible, or states that god exist. I really tend to think that these idea's are unknowable. That is not to say that you shouldn't believe whatever you wish, you have that right. Though it is important to remember that there are many possibilities, despite what evidence you provide you cannot prove gods existence. Therefore we must be objective in regard to each others views and opinions, and not claim a superior perspective.

Burden of Proof

The several arguments against God are very subjective. The most unfounded reason for claiming gods non-existence is Burden of Proof, which basically states that one who makes a claim is entitled to prove the claim is true. In this case, the Christian who says God exist, must prove to the atheist that his statement is true, obviously such a claim cannot be proven, and so the advocate of burden of proof says the statement is false. The debate takes on a false until proven true characteristic, were the one who carries the burden is false until he can convince the other that he is true. Here is an example from Way of the Mind :

"Imagine someone accuses you of being an alien disguised as a human. Would you feel that you have an obligation to prove that you’re a real human? Of course not. It’s the other person who has to provide evidence for their claims."

There is a difference between quotes like this and the "God debate", the difference being that the quote (and burden of proof) involves two key features, a known truth and a statement that conflicts with a known truth. You are human (Known Truth) some one claims you are alien (Conflicting statement). In the God debate, there is not a known truth, and therefore each side has a burden to bear if they wish to prove some truth in their side of the debate. If anything, being that belief in god is more common that not, I would say based on the format of quote, the conflicting opinion is that of the atheist, and would therefore become their burden to prove that god does not exist.

For any one who claims that god does not exist due to a lack of supporting evidence please know this: Lack of evidence is not a good reason to abandon the possibility of god. Before any truth was known or proven, there was a point in time when it was lacking evidence. If we gave up at such a point where would we be today? The only reason to abandon the possibility of god is because evidence has proved that god is impossible. Which brings me to my next point.

Omnipotence paradox.

This is the crutch of many non-believers who claim that god is impossible.
The Omnipotence Paradox states that: A being cannot be omnipotent, because the characteristics of omnipotence are self-contradictory. For example if omnipotent being could create anything, could he create a rock that is too heavy for himself to lift? If he could not create a rock that big, then he fails to be omnipotent by proving a limitation, if a rock exist that omnipotence could not lift, again it creates a contradiction and thus we have the Omnipotence Paradox. There are several examples of these types of literary contradictions. Could God deny himself? Could god create a triangle that has angles which did not add up to 180 degrees? All these follow the key assumption that if there is an omnipotent god, he is bound to the logic that he created.

Why does this assumption goes unchecked? Why does a Omnipotent being have to adhere to the same logic that he supposedly created? Descartes wrote:

"[Omnipotence] is not bound in action, as we are in thought by the laws of logic."

In my creationism post i offered a similar analogy:

Imagine yourself a board game designer, the game you set out to create can be as unique and complex as your imagination will allow. You define the rules of game play, how the game pieces can move, the who, what, why, where and when. Now further imagine that the game pieces were given a consciousness and able to reflect on their existence. (...but only as far as the experience was limited to the board game and the rules you created). So now the game pieces begin to argue about the true nature of you the "creator". Some feel that the concept of a creator is contradictory. More than likely the game pieces would assume that you must move in a similar manner as they, that you the creator must draw a card or roll some dice before you could act. If one game piece suggested that the creator could acting without first rolling dice, that would seem as illogical, because it is contrary to the nature of their logic. Therefore according to the game piece logic, they could prove that you are impossible like this.

One cannot act without first rolling dice.

If god created the game and all its contents.

Then god must have created dice,

Yet he could not act prior to the creation of dice.

And therefore could not create.

Perhaps this seems silly, but I say, "It is equally silly to assume that an omnipotent god is inconsistent by logic that he created. There is no reason to assume that a omnipotent creator must adhere to his own rules. An apparent contradiction by our logic, may not be a contradiction in regard to Omnipotence.

Please remember that I wrote this only to show there are many possibilities and the possibility of god is not to be thrown out so easily. I do not think that my post proves gods existence, it just proves that the omnipotence paradox is not valid. God is a possibility.