Is The Concept of God Incoherent?

[Tree of Life]

In the mid twentieth century it was in vogue to argue that we cannot talk about God because the concept of God is incoherent. This grew out of Logical Positivism (Bertrand Russell, et al) which ultimately proved to be self-defeating and so has fallen into philosophical obscurity.

But their arguments were influential and have continued to have an impact on atheists today. I've seen some of this on these forums. So is the concept of God incoherent, as some suggest? If so, what is incoherent about God? Why cannot we meaningfully talk about God?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Please define god.

 

[Tree of Life]

Please define god.

Can we start with a simple definition? To be as simple as possible, I would define God as the personal absolute who created all things.

 

[durangodawood]

Can we start with a simple definition? To be as simple as possible, I would define God as the personal absolute who created all things.

"who"

So like a person?

 

[Tree of Life]

"who"

So like a person?

Yes. God is an absolute person.

 

[Occams Barber]

I would define God as the personal absolute who created all things.

Yes. God is an absolute person.

What does personal absolute mean?

What does absolute person mean?

By describing God as (arguably)"incoherent" do you mean that he/she/it cannot (arguably) be understood?

Why cannot we meaningfully talk about God?

Perhaps because God is a non-existent imaginary entity?
OB

 

[Tree of Life]

What does personal absolute mean?

What does absolute person mean?

It means two things:

1. God is a person
2. God is absolute

I think we know what it means to be a person. An absolute would be an ultimate reality, ultimate standard, ultimate rule of measurement, or something that is what it is not relative to anything else. For example, God is not just relatively good, but is the absolute good. He is not just relatively powerful, but is absolutely powerful.

For more information on "absolute" versus "relative" see Absolute (philosophy) - Wikipedia

By describing God as (arguably)"incoherent" do you mean that he/she/it cannot (arguably) be understood?

I don't believe the concept of God is incoherent. But some do. Do you?

Perhaps because God is a non-existent imaginary entity?
OB

There are many non existent entities that people believe we can still talk about. But some atheists have argued that we cannot even talk about God because the concept is incoherent.

 

[Chesterton]

Please define god.

You know the guy in your avatar wrote a long essay titled What Is Man? Apparently we are hard to define too. It's hard or impossible to define things we can perceive with our senses and instruments, so these responses from you and Durango and Occam are really evasive, cop-out responses.

 

[Occams Barber]

It means two things:

1. God is a person
2. God is absolute

I think we know what it means to be a person. An absolute would be an ultimate reality, ultimate standard, ultimate rule of measurement, or something that is what it is not relative to anything else. For example, God is not just relatively good, but is the absolute good. He is not just relatively powerful, but is absolutely powerful.

You have a rather cavalier (and typically Christian) approach to semantics. If God is "absolute" God can't qualify as a "person" making "absolute person" a nonsensical term.

You didn't explain "personal absolute".

I don't believe the concept of God is incoherent. But some do. Do you?

You haven't yet cleared up what you mean by "incoherent".

There are many non existent entities that people believe we can still talk about. But some atheists have argued that we cannot even talk about God because the concept is incoherent.

We can certainly talk about non existent entities but can we talk "meaningfully"? Once again you have not clarified "incoherent".
OB

 

[Tree of Life]

You have a rather cavalier (and typically Christian) approach to semantics. If God is "absolute" God can't qualify as a "person" making "absolute person" a nonsensical term.

Why are the concepts "absolute" and "person" mutually exclusive?

You didn't explain "personal absolute".

Just another way of saying "absolute person".

You haven't yet cleared up what you mean by "incoherent".

If something is logically incoherent it means that it is self-contradictory such that it cannot even be understood. "Square circle" would be an example of something that's incoherent.

We can certainly talk about non existent entities but can we talk "meaningfully"? Once again you have not clarified "incoherent".
OB

See above.

 

[Occams Barber]

OK. Now you've explained "incoherent" I'm going to leave aside the lesser semantic problems and go back to your original questions.

So is the concept of God incoherent, as some suggest? If so, what is incoherent about God? Why cannot we meaningfully talk about God?

You've defined "incoherent" as "self-contradictory such that it cannot even be understood". I agree that the concept of God is self-contradictory. It's relatively easy to understand why God is self contradictory. In brief - because God is a human invention.

If God is the omni-everything entity you described in post #7 (when defining 'absolute') then it follows that God does not want or need anything. To use a Christian expression, "God is perfect". Since God is everything then God has no reason to create anything. In fact the act of Creation suggests the logical impossibility of 'improving on the perfect' or 'adding to something which is all there is'. A perfect God would, logically simply exist. If God were perfect we wouldn't be here.

Having created, God then proceeds to manipulate his creation -again an act inconsistent with God's perfect completeness. In the process God sometimes gets jealous, flies in to a rage, commits mass killings or wreaks bloody vengeance. These emotional outbursts are completely inconsistent (incoherent) with the perfect nature of God. Emotional outbursts are an all too human trait.

So what is the most obvious explanation for these inconsistencies? Simple. God is a human creation who's been granted supernatural powers (by his creators) and then anthropomorphised.

Creating things, manipulating a world, emotional outbursts -these are all human characteristics.

In summary - God is incoherent because God is presented as combining "absolute" powers and human inclinations.

Can we talk about this incoherent God? I just did.
OB

 

[Tree of Life]

OK. Now you've explained "incoherent" I'm going to leave aside the lesser semantic problems and go back to your original questions.


You've defined "incoherent" as "self-contradictory such that it cannot even be understood". I agree that the concept of God is self-contradictory. It's relatively easy to understand why God is self contradictory. In brief - because God is a human invention.

If God is the omni-everything entity you described in post #7 (when defining 'absolute') then it follows that God does not want or need anything. To use a Christian expression, "God is perfect". Since God is everything then God has no reason to create anything. In fact the act of Creation suggests the logical impossibility of 'improving on the perfect' or 'adding to something which is all there is'. A perfect God would, logically simply exist. If God were perfect we wouldn't be here.

Having created, God then proceeds to manipulate his creation -again an act inconsistent with God's perfect completeness. In the process God sometimes gets jealous, flies in to a rage, commits mass killings or wreaks bloody vengeance. These emotional outbursts are completely inconsistent (incoherent) with the perfect nature of God. Emotional outbursts are an all too human trait.

So what is the most obvious explanation for these inconsistencies? Simple. God is a human creation who's been granted supernatural powers (by his creators) and then anthropomorphised.

Creating things, manipulating a world, emotional outbursts -these are all human characteristics.

In summary - God is incoherent because God is presented as combining "absolute" powers and human inclinations.

Can we talk about this incoherent God? I just did.
OB

Thanks. If we can, let's just focus on what I believe is your core argument here for a moment. I'd like to try to boil it down into some propositions. Correct me where I go wrong on your view:

1. A perfect, absolute being would (by definition) have no desires.
2. A perfect, absolute being would (by definition) not act.
3. The God of the Bible is said to be a perfect, absolute being.
4. The God of the Bible is described as desiring and acting.
5. A perfect, absolute being who desires and acts is logically incoherent via (1) and (2).
6. Therefore the God of the Bible is logically incoherent.

Is that a fair summary?

To respond, I would say that you're assuming that (1) and (2) are true. I don't see why a perfect, absolute being cannot desire or act. Could you argue to this end?

 

[Occams Barber]

Thanks. If we can, let's just focus on what I believe is your core argument here for a moment. I'd like to try to boil it down into some propositions. Correct me where I go wrong on your view:

1. A perfect, absolute being would (by definition) have no desires.
2. A perfect, absolute being would (by definition) not act.
3. The God of the Bible is said to be a perfect, absolute being.
4. The God of the Bible is described as desiring and acting.
5. A perfect, absolute being who desires and acts is logically incoherent via (1) and (2).
6. Therefore the God of the Bible is logically incoherent.

Is that a fair summary?

To respond, I would say that you're assuming that (1) and (2) are true. I don't see why a perfect, absolute being cannot desire or act. Could you argue to this end?

Thanks - your 6 propositions are a nice summary.
I think (1) and (2) can be defended in a couple of different ways.

Firstly this quote taken from my post (bolding added):

In fact the act of Creation suggests the logical impossibility of 'improving on the perfect' or 'adding to something which is all there is'. A perfect God would, logically simply exist.

It's not possible to "have no needs" and to "need something", both at the same time. God's actions, in creating, involve a change of state. To cause the change God must will it to happen. To will it to happen God must logically desire the change. Desiring change implies that God's state is less than perfect. A perfect God cannot have motives.

Ask yourself if it's possible for your God to want for something.

The second broad reason is that this God's activities are an obvious human construct consistent with other God constructs in other times and places. Think Thor or Zeus or the Egyptian pantheon; all gods with supernatural powers combined with the traits and foibles of humanity. It's a fairly standard trope.
OB

 

[InterestedAtheist]

What an interesting debate!
If I can add some thoughts...
If God is completely powerful, then He is able to affect any part of the Universe, from the totality of it down to the smallest atom.
This leads to some rather puzzling corollaries. Let's explore them.

If God is all-powerful, then it stands to reason that He is all-knowing (He'd have to be, to be able to affect any part of the Universe).
If God is all-knowing AND all-powerful, then why would he ever want to change anything? Nothing would ever have been different to the way He wanted, because He would already have determined for it to be the way He wants it. How could anything ever happen to surprise an all-powerful and all-knowing being?

The second broad reason is that this God's activities are an obvious human construct consistent with other God constructs in other times and places. Think Thor or Zeus or the Egyptian pantheon; all gods with supernatural powers combined with the traits and foibles of humanity. It's a fairly standard trope.

Agreed. The God of the Bible, who doesn't realise what's happening behind his back with a snake and an apple, or who indulges in wagers with Satan, or who wages wars with tyrannical Pharoahs, or who can't manage a Chosen People who always seem to be getting it wrong, is hardly the rarefied philosophical entity that Tree of Life is trying to discuss. He's a tyrannical warrior judge, an angry father, a Big Beard In the Sky.

 

[Tree of Life]

If I can, let me walk through this slowly.

It's not possible to "have no needs" and to "need something", both at the same time.

I agree. I also agree that God does not need anything.

God's actions, in creating, involve a change of state.

I'm not sure I can accept this. You seem to be saying that when God acts to create, something changes about God. I don't see why that would be necessary. The Bible actually presents God as being continually active even before creation. The God of the Bible is a triune God - a community of three persons. These three person are continually active in loving and adoring one another. So God, before creation, is not at all inactive.

To cause the change God must will it to happen. To will it to happen God must logically desire the change. Desiring change implies that God's state is less than perfect. A perfect God cannot have motives.

There's a lot of thorny premises in here. You say:

1. God's creating the world is based on God's desire for change.
2. A perfect God cannot have "motives" (can I substitute "desires" here?).

I do believe that God has desires and acts upon his desires. But you are implying that desires are always based on needs. This is generally true in terms of human life (though I'm not sure its even always true for humans). But why couldn't it be different with God? Why couldn't God have desires but no needs?

Ask yourself if it's possible for your God to want for something.

Yes I believe that it is. I think you're begging the question because you're assuming an unbiblical notion of God and then disproving the biblical God based on your assumption.

The second broad reason is that this God's activities are an obvious human construct consistent with other God constructs in other times and places. Think Thor or Zeus or the Egyptian pantheon; all gods with supernatural powers combined with the traits and foibles of humanity. It's a fairly standard trope.
OB

This is more of an opinion than an argument. What is "obvious" to you is not at all "obvious" to me.

 

[Tree of Life]

If God is all-powerful, then it stands to reason that He is all-knowing (He'd have to be, to be able to affect any part of the Universe).
If God is all-knowing AND all-powerful, then why would he ever want to change anything? Nothing would ever have been different to the way He wanted, because He would already have determined for it to be the way He wants it. How could anything ever happen to surprise an all-powerful and all-knowing being?

You are saying that if God is all powerful and all knowing then he would have created a perfect world that is not in need of any change. In response I would say:

God did create the world exactly as he wanted it to be. He wanted it to be a world that changed over time. God has an end goal in mind for the world but did not create the world in its "end goal" state because he wanted a story to unfold. God is in perfect control of this unfolding story and it's unfolding exactly as he wants it to. This is perfectly consistent with God's omnipotence and omniscience.

Agreed. The God of the Bible, who doesn't realise what's happening behind his back with a snake and an apple, or who indulges in wagers with Satan, or who wages wars with tyrannical Pharoahs, or who can't manage a Chosen People who always seem to be getting it wrong, is hardly the rarefied philosophical entity that Tree of Life is trying to discuss. He's a tyrannical warrior judge, an angry father, a Big Beard In the Sky.

I think that this is a profound misunderstanding of the God of the Bible. The Bible presents a God who is in perfect control over the events in the garden, over his dealings with Satan, and over his wayward people. The Scriptures continually recognize that even though everything seems to be going wrong, nothing can thwart God's purposes and he has good purposes in allowing events to play out as they do. God is wanting a particular story to unfold which includes all of the dramatic elements you've mentioned above.

 

[durangodawood]

...God did create the world exactly as he wanted it to be.....The Bible presents a God who is in perfect control over the events in the garden, over his dealings with Satan, and over his wayward people....The Scriptures continually recognize that even though everything seems to be going wrong, nothing can thwart God's purposes

Perfect control?

The flood debacle indicates otherwise. Things on earth had completely gotten out of control. This is way beyond "seems to be going wrong". Its pretty much a total reset for His humanity project.

 

[Tree of Life]

Perfect control?

The flood debacle indicates otherwise. Things on earth had completely gotten out of control. This is way beyond "seems to be going wrong". Its pretty much a total reset for His humanity project.

Yes but even this fits perfectly with the sovereign plans of God. The flood reveals to us the capacities of human wickedness, the patience of God, and the judgment of God. God planned the deterioration of early humanity and his flood judgment before creation.

 

[durangodawood]

Yes but even this fits perfectly with the sovereign plans of God. The flood reveals to us the capacities of human wickedness, the patience of God, and the judgment of God. God planned the deterioration of early humanity and his flood judgment before creation.

So the near total devastation of humanity and life on earth was mainly for the sake of a lesson that later people could review?

That reeks of a post hoc rationalization. Obviously there's no way to know for sure. So we have to use our own "best judgement" test. This rationalization fails the test. It only passes for people who've pre-decided on a commitment to certain theological absolutes.

 

[Tree of Life]

So the near total devastation of humanity and life on earth was mainly for the sake of a lesson that later people could review?

Yes that's what the Bible says. All things are for the glory of God. All events that unfold - especially those recorded in Scripture - teach us about God. The short book of Habakkuk illustrates and communicates this very well.

That reeks of a post hoc rationalization. Obviously there's no way to know for sure. So we have to use our own "best judgement" test. This rationalization fails the test. It only passes for people who've pre-decided on a commitment to certain theological absolutes.

I just go on what the Bible says about it.