The Philosophy of Contradiction

It makes no sense whatsoever that an infinite, omnipotent god would need to incarnate himself as a human and then subject himself to an agonizing and bloody death just so he could persuade himself to forgive us and save us from the cruel fate he created for us. It makes even less sense that the all-wise creator of the universe would manifest himself in an isolated corner of the world during a primitive age of its history, teach proverbs identical to those of the other belief systems of the day, promise to return quickly to destroy the world, and then vanish utterly for a span of time now going on two thousand years, leaving behind no trace except for a few hazy memories and anonymous writings that he had ever been here at all.

This is a excerpt from a Blog i like to visit called Way of The Mind. Now as you may have guessed I'm not Christian, however I do recognize that religious beliefs, text, gods, and the like are very difficult to prove wrong. Many atheist like to find a contradiction in text or practice and use it as a key argument against God and/or Christianity. The above text is very perfect example of the type of argument often thrown into the religious boxing ring.

As i read this quote I had to wonder if the author was qualified to make such a claim, surely he has a right to speak his mind, but is it a relevant argument? According to the quote it would appear that an infallible deity, has made quite an error. If it were true that a supposed infallible entity acted in error, or made decisions that were irrational, it would prove that the Christian God is not omnipotent or infallible. Furthermore I am certain there are countless atheist who feel that this type of contradiction is a excellent reason to condemn Christian beliefs. Let us investigate the possibility of an Omnipotent god acting irrational as the quote and Bible imply.

The most important question to ask is, who is qualified to state which behavior is irrational.

I feel that there are two key requirements, you must have equivalent knowledge about the action, or you must be able to judge the results of the action. For example:

Lets look at a doctor: First, what makes individual a doctor is the knowledge, not the degree, or what the name tag or uniform says. What knowledge does a doctor have? Clearly knowledge about health and the various factors that aid or hinder it. Now, there are only two ways that a doctors practice could be judged. It could be judged by someone who has similar knowledge, they would certainly be qualified to state that a doctors methods for treating a patient were irrational. If you did not have knowledge about health then how could you accurately address his methods? Obviously you couldn't.

Yet you could judge his ability, by observing the results of his treatment. For Example: If you visit to a doctor because you have constant headaches. The doctor would run his test, evaluate your condition, and treat your problem in the manner required (if possible.) If, after his treatment, your headaches reside, you would have learned about his ability as a doctor. You still are uninformed about his methods, because you don't have that knowledge. The evidence would suggest that his methods were rational and his knowledge is true, based on his ability to cure your headaches.

The same logic applies everything: You could judge an auto mechanic by observing the results of his work; "did his repair fix the problem with my car? " If not, then perhaps his knowledge is not reliable. If he fails repeatedly, you could say his methods are irrational. If you could not observe such a scenario, then you must have equivalent knowledge about the mechanics of an automobile, in order to state that his methods (actions related to his knowledge) were irrational.

A fellow blogger named TXStorm, has replied to my position thus far:

Rev,
Fortunately logic and knowledge are not hamstringed as you would have us believe. You are STILL arguing that I must be X in order to comment in any fashion whatsoever upon X. The fact is that I can prove a politician to be a liar without every having been a liar or a politician. I need not experience what he experiences or have the power he has to understand the concepts of honesty and coercion.

With the notions of “god” you have (and in this case you explicitly cite) omnipotence, which is inherently and necessarily contradictory. I do not have to *be* omnipotent in order to know this, for all I need to know is 1. basic sound reasoning, 2. the meaning of “omnipotence” and 3. what constitutes a contradiction.

Fortunately I, and countless others, have these characteristics so we stand as very clear counter-examples to your claims, thus proving conclusively that your claims are simply false.
There is simply no identity relationship necessary for understanding any particular characteristic. If this were true, then it would never be possible to recognize that any other has any ability which you do not have. I can understand a great artist without having his vision or talent. I can understand the mechanic without being a mechanic. I can understand the irrational lunatic without being a lunatic myself.

What you are doing is arguing for accepting the conclusion as axiomatically true, as well as trying to grant special privilege to xnty that is not granted to any other position. The rules of reason work equally for all subjects, so we cannot simply stipulate that one subject is off limits and beyond question.

Ahh yes, Unfortunately TX' has overlooked what i have clearly stated: That one may judge anothers ablitity based on the observable results, or based on evidence. You need not be a mechanic to judge the ability of a mechanic. You need not be an artist to recognize beauty, Yet you must be able to observe the effects of a either when there knowledge is applied in practice. (and have some sense of reason as TX' states)

TX's statement about not needing to be a politician or a liar to prove one wrong at first glance, seems like a total rebuttal to my argument. Yet to say "I can refute a politician or a liar without being either" is a vague statement. In reality, there is something more specific that occurs when someone is proven wrong, the guilty party must make: a statement, a policy, a claim, a law, be involved in a hypocritical action. Therefore all that is required is prove the liar/politician wrong is knowledge about his claim/policy/law/behavior. For Example: If a politician states, "My new proposal will create 1,000 new jobs within the next year. You need not have a political title to prove his claim false. (After all, it is not the title, but rather, the knowledge that is important.) You must have knowledge about how the proposal will function, how it will be applied. You must have knowledge about how the economy functions, and how jobs are created. Then you could correctly state this proposal is irrational. OR you could just wait one year, count the jobs created and say with little more than a third grade education. His proposal did not work, and was flawed or irrational.

In regard to the initial quote about the Christian God; If my argument "holds water" I will ask: Does the author of the first quote, or anyone for that matter, have authority to judge the behavior of an Omnipotent being. The requirements would have to be: having the equivalent to Omnipotent knowledge, being able to observe the results of omnipotent knowledge.

Because we certainly do not have any knowledge that could compare to omnipotence, nor do we have knowledge about the "mechanics" of the afterlife. We must ask; Are the effects of Gods actions observable? Clearly we would not know if he did save us from hell, or if it was necessary, or if there is even anything to observe, until we die. I conclude that the statement at the beginning of this post not valid, because the author can not meet the requirement to correctly make such a statement. Therefore based on the text of the Christian bible, it is not possible to make such a conclusion.

According to TX' all that is required to identify irrational behavior is knowing the following:

1. Basic sound reasoning.

2. Meaning of the word "omnipotence"

3. What constitutes a contradiction.

This is very logical, but lets put TX's theory to the test and see if it "holds water". I will tell you about a story that i read. It is a story about an infallible painter, but in order to put this into context, you must imaging that you have no knowledge about being a painter. That is, you must imaging that you do not have the knowledge that a painter has, which is about mixing colors, the nature of paint, how to achieve depth and proportion, proper brush-stroke technique. If you forget this,you'll have about as much knowledge about paint, as you have about the mechanics of omnipotence.

Once upon a time there was an infallible painter, who painted the most beautiful landscape ever painted. Every stoke was planned and intentional, every color and texture was envisioned before he ever made a stroke. To begin his masterpiece he painted the entire canvas orange, he paused, then he laid down a beautiful dark mountain range. He reflected for a long time, Then he painted over the entire canvas with white, then started over with another mountain range. Once more he paused, this time he repainted the canvas grey, and again repainted a different mountain range on top of the grey. He stepped back, looked his work and said: "yes it is done, and it is just as i originally envisioned." The painter was proud and he told several friends and family about his masterpiece and his vision. Yet before anyone could see the painting, he hid it away and then disappeared. All that remained was the story about how an infallible paint created the greatest picture ever.

Now I'm sure that anyone could look at the text from this story and say: "This painter was certainly not infallible, and he couldn't have planned every stroke and color. He repainted his canvas three times before he was satisfied. Clearly a contradiction in the text. " Based on TXStorms requirements you would be right. Based on mine you are not qualified to judge, because you do not have the knowledge of a painter, and you cannot judge the work, to verify if it is as beautiful as the story claims.

What you might know IF you had the knowledge of a painter is this: The painter knew that his oil-based paints could not be entirely covered when painted over, it would create the appearance of depth with shading. Every layer added depth, every mountain range on top of every layer further added to this effect. It was intentional, every layer, yet because we did not have his knowledge we misjudged.

I say this is true for all types of knowledge, you must have equivalent knowledge to judge ones action in regard to their knowledge. OR you could judge their ability to use their knowledge, based on the observable evidence.

It is possible, and I'm not saying its true, but if there is a omnipotent creator out there, his actions will not be judged by man. For we do not know about the various factors involved in how a sin would effect a soul, or how it is cleansed. Or what order the necessary actions must occur.

So for every atheist who has used similar rhetoric to beat down the text of the Holy Bible, I say "By stating that you know what is irrational behavior for an omnipotent entity, you have seriously overestimated your own knowledge." I will suggest that if you wish to continue to disprove Christianity, looking for contradictions in text may not be of any use to you. Perhaps try to prove that the source of the text is not credible. Otherwise your only option is to prove that the existence of an omnipotent being is impossible. Which would be quite an argument to undertake, one that I would love to read if possible.