The Demands of Justice and the Mercy of God

Back when I was a practicing Christian, one of the things I had the hardest time understanding was how a loving God could condemn any of his children to eternal torment. The standard explanations I got usually went along the lines that God doesn’t actually condemn anybody to Hell; instead people choose to go there themselves by not accepting and following God’s word. And then there would be some discussion about the importance of free will and how God can’t force anybody to be good.

Underlying this explanation, however, are the core concepts of Divine Justice and Divine Mercy. Divine Justice, it is said, is an absolute principle that demands that a price is paid for every sin. That’s just the way it is. If you sin, you need to be punished for it. However, because God loves us all so very, very much, He decided to come up with a way to let us off the hook. Since the demands of Divine Justice are so incredibly powerful, God figured out that the only way to get around those demands was to have an all-powerful being sacrifice Himself for everybody else’s sake. To, in effect, take responsibility for the sins of the entire world, to take the blame, and therefore pay the price Himself. And that is why He decided to send His only begotten Son (or send Himself, depending on what version of Christianity you adhere to) to suffer and die on the cross for us. And why would He do this? Why, because He is a loving God who believes in being merciful. After all, wouldn’t you spare your children pain and suffering if you had the power to do so?

Of course, this Divine Mercy has a catch to it. God isn’t just going to be merciful to every Tom, Dick or Harry who wants to avoid being tormented for all eternity. No, if God is going to go to all this trouble to sacrifice His Son (or Himself, if you prefer), then the least we can do is acknowledge that sacrifice and do a few small things like be baptized, pray to Him, try to keep His commandments, ask for forgiveness each and every time we make a mistake, maybe donate to His church (whichever one that actually is), etc. No big deal, right? And anybody who isn’t willing to put in that teeny bit of effort in order to be saved, well, they deserve to burn in hell for all eternity for being such ungrateful little pricks, right?

---

OK, so obviously I’m embellishing the explanation a bit. What is typically said is simply along the lines of the following:

Justice demands that our sins are punished, and God’s mercy allows us to escape that punishment if we choose to accept it.

But the implications are all there. And here’s where it all breaks down to me:

• Why does Divine Justice demand that all sins are punished? And who decided that all sins are equally punishable with eternal torment? If God created the universe and is truly omnipotent, then He made the rules in the first place and can change them as He sees fit, right? If cheating on a test warrants the same punishment as committing genocide and the punishment for both is eternal freaking torment, where’s the justice in that (“Divine” or otherwise)? Instead of providing a “loophole”, why wouldn’t a merciful God just not set up a system of ridiculously draconian and over-the-top “justice” in the first place? I’m not even talking about getting rid of punishment altogether, mind you [Christian folk really do seem to love the idea of the guilty getting their just deserts, don’t they?], but simply making the punishment fit the crime and acknowledging that no crime is worthy of eternal freaking torment!
• Even if you want to argue that the draconian justice system is OK since God has provided an easy way to avoid that justice, this ignores the fact that the vast, vast majority of humanity will never actually be able to take part of that mercy. Even if you could figure out which of all the many different Christian denominations is the “right” one to follow, for most of human history Christianity either didn’t exist or was a small minority belief. Even today, there are billions of people who are born, live their entire lives, and die without ever having the chance to hear about God’s merciful offer*. And even if they do hear the offer, no evidence whatsoever is ever provided to convince people to abandon their beliefs and switch over to the correct religion (whatever one that happens to be).

So, the bottom line is that God supposedly set up a system whereby any sin is punishable by eternal torment, and then decided “in His mercy” to create a loophole that the majority of His children would either never have a chance to accept or would have no good reason to accept, effectively condemning the vast majority of humanity to suffer in agony for all time and eternity through no fault of their own.

Gee, what a guy!

---

* I should note, by the way, that the Mormon church has come up with a way to deal with this problem. Or at least to attempt to deal with it. True, not everybody will have a chance to hear the Gospel during their lifetime, but anybody who didn’t will have another chance in the next life. And, since baptism is an absolute requirement for salvation, Mormons therefore perform many thousands of “proxy” baptisms on behalf of all those who might decide to accept the gospel in the next life. Unfortunately for this proposed solution, though, (a) I don’t think they’ll ever get all the billions of people who lived and died without hearing the Gospel and (b) that still leaves all those who heard the gospel in this life and didn’t choose to accept it for whatever reason. Mormons further get around the idea of “eternal torment” by claiming that those who reject the gospel even after hearing it won’t actually be sent to hell but will instead get to live in the “Terrestrial Kingdom” of heaven, which is basically just like earth but without all the disease and natural disasters. So, no eternal glory with God, but not a bad place to be. For all time and freaking eternity!

The Hypocrisy and Hubris of Biblical Interpretation

[Note: The following post deals specifically with the Christian religion and the Bible, since that is what I am most familiar with. Whether it applies to other religions and their holy books — and to what degree — I leave for others to decide.]

First, a few premises:

1. Christianity is ultimately based on the Holy Bible. Sure, you can say that Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ, but those teachings can only be found in the Bible. And Christianity (for most Christians, at least) extends well beyond just the words of Christ and encompasses instead all the moral laws and principles found throughout the entire Bible.
   
2. Christians, on the whole, believe that the Bible’s primary purpose is to act as a guideline to show us the path toward salvation. Only by following the laws and moral principles in the Bible can we learn about Christ, follow his commandments* and be saved. So, obviously, it is vitally important to know exactly what the Bible says and what it actually means.
   
3. Since the time the Bible was first assembled in its current form, some 1700 or so years ago, billions of people have relied on it to show them the path toward salvation.
   
4. God, according to Christian beliefs, is an omnipotent, omniscient and all-loving father who actually wants all of his children (that’s us) to learn and follow the path toward salvation. Sure, we are given free will to choose whether to follow the path or not, but the path should be clear and unambiguous enough to follow if we choose to do so.

OK, assuming those premises are more or less accurate, let’s move on to the hypocrisy and hubris part.

One trend in modern apologetics (“defending the faith” or, as I like to define it, “attempting to logically justify something that is believed for non-logical reasons,” but I digress) is to deal with supposed contradictory, scientifically impossible and/or morally reprehensible passages in the Bible by claiming that one must have special knowledge in order to understand what the passages really mean. This takes many different forms, including the following:

• One must have studied the original languages in which the Bible was written in order to understand what the passage really means.
  
• One must have a deep understanding of the socioeconomic factors that existed at the time the passage was written in order to understand what it really means.
  
• One must fully understand the culture of the people to whom the passage was addressed in order to understand what it really means.
  
• One must read the “forgotten” or “apocryphal” books of the Bible that were not included at the time it was formally assembled, but really should have been included in order to understand what the passage really means.
  
• Etc., etc., etc.

One common example of this approach is when people try to justify things like the approval of keeping slaves as stated in the Old Testament. “No, no,” they will claim, “if you look at the original Hebrew and consider the culture and socioeconomic climate at the time the Old Testament was written, you’ll see that this was actually a very good kind of slavery and not at all like the slavery you are thinking of!” This, despite the fact that these passages were actually used as justification for keeping slaves by Christians in the American South prior to (and, sadly, even after) the Civil War. Gee, what a pity those Christians didn’t have access to the original Hebrew version of the Bible. Or know how to read ancient Hebrew even if they did. Or have any way of knowing what the culture and socioeconomic climate was at the time the Old Testament was written…

Which leads me to the whole hypocrisy and hubris angle.

First, the hypocrisy. On one hand, these apologists believe that an omniscient, omnipotent and all-loving God would require his children to do certain things in order to gain salvation (and avoid eternal torment) and that the only way to learn what those things are is to read the Bible. But on the other hand, they are asserting that is no way for the vast majority of his children to actually know for sure what the words in the Bible actually mean unless they become Biblical scholars, study ancient dead languages, become experts in anthropology, etc. Especially when you take into account that, for the majority of the history of Christendom, believers were actually forbidden to read the Bible (which is why it existed solely in Latin for many centuries). So it is hypocritical to hold people to a standard that they cannot possibly meet while simultaneously claiming that it’s all part of a loving God’s plan for them.

And then, of course, the hubris. Christianity has been practiced in many forms for nigh on two thousand years. Billions of people have been born and died and have failed to understand what the Bible — the one and only guideline toward salvation — actually says. But now, two thousand years later, after all of this, here comes these apologists who are apparently the first and only of all of God’s children to finally understand it all. Just because they are so darn special, of course. And smart. Unlike all those poor deluded saps (e.g., 99.999% of humanity) who got it wrong all these years (oh, well, sucks to be them, I guess!)

OK, so maybe I’m overstating things a wee bit. But the fact remains that any time an apologist claims that they have some sort of special knowledge or training or insight that allows them to know what a Biblical passage really means, in contrast to how the vast majority of Christians have understood that same passage since Christianity began, it is hubris of the highest order. Especially if you think that God actually wanted His children to understand it all along.

---

* Yes, I am aware that many “Born Again” Christians believe that the only thing necessary for salvation is to accept Jesus.

Pascal's Wager

If memory serves, Pascal's wager was essentially as follows:

Assuming there is a non-zero chance that God exists, and assuming that the reward for believing in God (if he exists) is eternal salvation, and assuming that the penalty for NOT believing in God (if he exists) is eternal damnation, and assuming that there is no downside to believing in God even if he doesn't exist, then the only logical course of action is to believe in God.

Now, assuming that I haven't completely misrepresented Pascal's argument, here's my response. Basically, I think that all of his assumptions are false, or at least not verifiably true, To wit:

Assuming there is a non-zero chance that God exists:

Why assume that there is a non-zero chance that God exists? Given the complete lack of empirical data to prove his existence, and given the many counterarguments to his existence (the existence of evil in the world, the fact that different people have claimed to receive conflicting messages from God, the fact that many so-called "miracles" have been proven to be the result of natural forces or merely delusions, etc.), maybe there is only a one in a million chance that God exists, or perhaps a one in a billion chance. Or, perhaps even a zero chance that God exists. Pascal's wager could just as likely be used to prove the rationality of believing that a flock of pink elephants will fly into my window one night and grant my heart's fondest desires. I mean, anything’s possible, right?

Assuming that the reward for believing in God (if he exists) is eternal salvation:

What proof is there that believing in God will automatically result in eternal life, let alone eternal salvation? Different religions have different beliefs, and not all religions believe in an afterlife. Assuming there is a God of some sort, maybe he has simply created us as playthings and has no desire to let us return to his presence. Or maybe the whole purpose of life is to enjoy ourselves fully while we can, since the rest of eternity will be mind-numbing boredom as we sit on a cloud and strum a harp all day long.

Assuming that the penalty for NOT believing in God (if he exists) is eternal damnation:

Who is to say that the penalty for NOT believing is eternal damnation? Again, assuming there is a God of some sort, maybe He really doesn't care what we do here on earth. Claiming that all nonbelievers will have eternal torment and misery is pretty cruel and heartless when you think of all the BILLIONS of people who are raised in societies where a belief in God is not taught (not to mention all the BILLIONS of people who lived on the earth before the Bible was even written). God is the one who decides where and when somebody will be born, so why would he then condemn that person to Hell for never hearing about him?

Assuming that there is no downside to believing in God even if he doesn't exist:

Who's to say that there is no downside to believing in a non-existent God? Perhaps if you are a born again Christian who thinks that it is enough to simply “accept Jesus into your heart" to be saved, then this assumption is valid. The religion in which I was raised, however, taught that God demands a life of self-sacrifice and obedience; no premarital sex, no alcohol, 10% of your income donated to the church, significant amounts of time devoted to performing various tasks (attending meetings, visiting other members, preparing lessons, performing sacred ordinances, etc.). If you believe that all of this is required of you to gain the promised reward and there ISN'T really a God, you will have essentially wasted your entire life to some degree or another. Economists call this “Opportunity Cost.” This isn’t to say there can’t also be some benefits to trying to live a wholly religious life (maybe you get mutual support from other believers, maybe you have an easier time dealing with the death of a loved one, etc.), but these benefits don’t erase the potential costs.

An additional downside to believing in a nonexistent god is the sacrifice of my capacity to rationally distinguish between what is real and what is fantasy. If I'm willing to believe in God simply because it's a "safe bet", then why not also believe in UFOs, psychics, ghosts, etc.? Maybe the UFOs will only rescue those who believe in them when the day or Armageddon is at hand. Or maybe the TV psychics can only convey messages from the loved ones of those who believe in psychic powers. Or maybe ghosts only visit those who are willing to see them? Forcing myself to believe in something for which there is no evidence and plenty of counter-evidence can only diminish my ability to think rationally.

Then the only logical course of action is to believe in God:

Basically, I think the argument boils down to "the theoretical reward is so great, and the cost to play is so minimal, that it is in your best interest to play." I suppose an analogy could be made, perhaps, to one of those multi-state lotteries where the prize has risen to $300 million and the chance of wining is 1 in 100 million. If the tickets are only $1 each, it only makes sense to play, since the potential gain is enormous and the potential loss is trivial.

However, I don't think that analogy is really accurate. For a closer analogy, you would be required to sell everything that you own in order to enter the lottery with the same 1 in 100 million chance of winning. Not only that, but there are 4000 different lotteries to choose from, and — at most — one of them will not be a scam (that is, only one can possible be legitimate, but it’s possible that they are all scams). Oh — and if you lose (which is likely), your whole life would be ruined as a result.

---

To sum up, since there is no way to tell if there is any chance that God exists, and since there is no guarantee that God would reward belief with eternal life if He did exist, and since there's no guarantee that God would reward disbelief with eternal damnation, and since the penalty for believing in a nonexistent God is potentially very high, the only logical thing is to not believe in God.

Evolution and Why Labels Don’t Matter

Theists (especially Young Earth Creationists who deny the reality of evolution) love to make a big deal about the emergence of species, constantly asking for evidence of one species (or “kind”) turning into another, or asking how the “first” member of a species could have possibly shown up suddenly one day if it had no other member of its species to mate with, etc. Here’s the thing that these folks either do not understand or else choose to ignore, however:

We humans looooove labels. We just can’t help ourselves. We have this innate burning need to distinguish everything from everything else and give it all labels to make sure that everybody knows what we are talking about. We have chairs and we have beds. When somebody invents something that can be used as both a chair and a bed, we call it a futon rather than just admitting that “chair” and “bed” are arbitrary labels in the first place. We label eating utensils that have tines as “forks” and eating utensils that have bowl-like depressions as “spoons”. But then somebody comes up with a utensil that has tines and a bowl-like depression, and we have to come up with a new label “spork” (or “runcible spoon,” if you prefer) because we just can’t deal with something that contradicts our previously defined labels.

The same is true with biology. We have “cats” and we have “dogs” and we have “birds” and we somehow think that just because we have come up with these labels that nature somehow cares one whit about making sure that reality conforms with them. And, sure, it’s pretty obvious that cats and dogs and birds are pretty distinct from each other, but things get awfully muddy when you start labeling each individual species of cat, dog and bird. Not to mention ape. We have arbitrarily defined “species” as groups of animals that can interbreed with each other, but this is simply our way of labeling things and not a hard and fast natural law. That’s why there are things like “ring species” where one group of animals can interbreed with a similar group living in proximity to them, and that group can interbreed with another group that lives in proximity to them, etc., but you eventually get to a group that can interbreed with their closest neighbor but can not interbreed with the original group. We then feel compelled to label the last group a different species from the first group.

All of this is to say that, yes, evolution is true and occurring all the time and yes, this means that any labels we put on things with regard to species, genus, etc., are necessarily going to be imprecise and have gray areas and be subject to revision. Which is, of course, why it is so ironic when some people who deny evolution claim it’s impossible for one “kind” of animal to evolve into another “kind” over time, as if they themselves have some infallible way of labeling things.

Is There Such a Thing as “Objective” Morality?

[Note: I have previously written about what morality means to an atheist here: On Morality.  Here I discuss the claim by theists that they -- and they alone -- have access to a set of "objective" moral principles.]

For any sort of moral principles to be objective, they would have to be unchanging and apply to all people in all circumstances. One way to possibly have some sort of objective morality would be to have it imposed from an external source such as a God of some sort, in which case morality becomes whatever that God says to do or not do. Unfortunately, even if you believe in a God of some sort (which I don’t), using a God as the source of objective morality quickly becomes an exercise in futility because:

• Nobody can agree upon what, exactly, God has said to do and not do, even among members of the same religious communities.
  
• Many of the things God supposedly told his children to do and not do thousands of years ago seem to have been tailored specifically for the culture in which his children lived back then [Gee, an “objective” morality that changes over time, go figure…].
  
• God apparently refuses to provide any clarification today to clear up the various misinterpretations regarding his moral principles.

Another way to possibly have some sort of objective morality is to claim that there are fundamental laws of nature that somehow dictate what is “good” and “bad” when it comes to how we treat our fellow man. I know a number of atheists who really try to make this argument, presumably so that they can silence the theists who keep claiming that atheists can’t be moral since they have no basis for objective morality. I’m not swayed by this, however.

First of all, I’m not at all swayed by the claim that objective morality is even needed in the first place to be moral. Morality is a set of principles that govern how we act toward one another, and one can follow those principles regardless of whether those principles are based on some “objective” or “absolute” standards or laws.

Second of all, I’m not convinced that there are any absolute natural laws or principles that determine (or can be used to determine) whether our actions are objectively “good” or “moral”. At most, I think that humans have, on the whole, an innate sense of empathy toward each other that tends to make us feel happy when others are happy and sad when others are sad, and that can certainly for the basis of a general principle of “treat others the way you want to be treated,” but that only goes so far. That innate empathy often only extends to members of our immediate family or tribe, and sometimes doesn’t even go that far. It is also possible to derive some general moral principles from our long experience with civilization and our experimental discovery of what sorts of laws best help a society to run smoothly. Once again, though, I hesitate to call these in any way “objective” or “absolute” since so many different societies and cultures throughout recorded history have come up with radically different laws.

The closest thing to any sort of “objective” morality I think we could ever really come up with is the simple realization that all humans are equally deserving of the same respect simply be virtue of being human. Different actions and situations may warrant different treatment, but the underlying principle of respect would remain a constant.

Why the Word “Supernatural” Is Meaningless

[Periodically, a question comes up asking whether atheists reject the entire idea of “the supernatural” all together or whether it’s just God that we don’t believe in. I can’t speak for all atheists, but as far as I am concerned the entire idea of “supernatural” is a wholly empty and meaningless concept to begin with. Of course, every time this question is asked, I come up with a slightly different way to express my feelings, so this post just captures my various responses.]

The word “supernatural” is wholly meaningless because:

1. The natural world encompasses everything we can see, feel, hear, taste, measure or in any way detect.
   
2. In order for something to truly be “supernatural”, it would necessarily need to not be part of the natural world.
   
3. Anything that is not part of the natural world cannot be seen, felt, heard, tasted, measured or in any way detected.
   
4. Therefore, regardless of whether anything supernatural exists or not, it is meaningless to talk about it since there is no way to detect it or know anything about it. The moment it becomes detectable in any way, it ceases to become supernatural. 

---

In my experience, “Supernatural” is just a term that people use to describe proposed things for which there is no proof or good evidence but which we nevertheless think might possibly exist in some sense. Or, perhaps, things that we really wish existed despite all evidence to the contrary. For example:

• We have no real proof or good evidence that God exists, but we really, really wish He did, so let’s say that God is “supernatural” to explain why we can’t detect any evidence of His existence rather than acknowledging He doesn’t actually exist.
  
• We have no real proof or good evidence that ghosts exists, but we really, really wish they did, so let’s say that ghosts are “supernatural” to explain why we can’t detect any evidence of their existence rather than acknowledging they don’t actually exist.
  
• We have no real proof or good evidence that psychic powers exists, but we really, really wish they did, so let’s say that psychic powers are “supernatural” to explain why we can’t detect any evidence of their existence rather than acknowledging they don’t actually exist.
  
• We have no real proof or good evidence that the human spirit or soul exists apart from human brains, but we really, really wish they did, so let’s say spirits and souls are “supernatural” to explain why we can’t detect any evidence of their existence rather than acknowledging they don’t actually exist.

Rinse and repeat.

---

Atheists, as a rule, don’t claim to have beliefs or knowledge about ultimate or absolute truths. That’s usually the realm of theists, and atheists generally say they don’t believe those claims.

As a rationalist, however, I strongly believe that “supernatural” is just a term made up to justify a belief in something for which there is no supporting evidence. Sure, there are things in the world that people can’t currently explain. Perhaps there even things that we will never be able to explain (why does seeing a person yawn make us want to yawn as well?). But anything that we can observe or detect or that has any effect whatsoever on the natural world is, as far as I’m concerned, part of the natural world and therefore, by definition, not supernatural.

Or, to put it another way, the supernatural cannot exist because existence itself is a natural state:

1. Something can be said to exist if it is composed of matter or energy and occupies time and space.
   
2. Anything that is composed of matter or energy and occupies time and space is part of the natural world.
   
3. Anything “supernatural” would, by definition, not be part of the natural world and would therefore need to not be composed of matter or energy nor occupy time or space.
   
4. Therefore, anything supernatural cannot be said to actually exist. Q.E.D.

The Logical Impossibility of God

Is God constrained by the laws of logic?  It's an important question, and the answer seems to be, "Yes, but only when it's convenient to say that He is."

It's an old chestnut of a question, but whenever theists start talking about how their particular version of God is "omnipotent" some atheist wag will invariably ask, "If God is omnipotent, can He create a stone so massive that He can't move it?"  To which the theist will usually respond, "that's a logical impossibility and being omnipotent means being able to do anything logically possible."  OK, so no creating a stone too massive for Him to move, no creating a square circle, etc.  Got it.  And, presumably, this is because logic transcends human understanding and provides general principles of existence.  There isn't "human logic" and "God logic," there's just logic.

With me so far?

OK, now one of the fundamental principles of logic is the so-called Law of Non-contradiction, which in its basic form states that, "Contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time."  This means that the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.  It also means that something cannot simultaneously be two opposite things.  This is why, for example, there can be no such thing as a square circle or an married bachelor since both concepts involve a self-contradiction.

So, is there anything about God's supposed nature that violates the Law of Non-contradiction?

Well, one place to start would be to examine the relationship between him supposedly being  both omnipotent (all powerful) and omnibenevolent (all loving).  This apparent contradiction was perhaps best stated by the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus, who put it this way:

God, he says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? Or why does He not remove them?

Or, as it is commonly put:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing? Then He is not benevolent.
Is He both able and willing? Then whence comment evil?
Is He neither willing nor able? Then why call Him God?

So that's it, right?  The so-called "Problem of Evil" proves the logical impossibility of God since (a) Evil cannot exist if there is an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God and (b) we know from our own experience that there is, in fact, evil.  Well, not quite...

Although this argument has been sufficient to convince many people throughout history to reject the idea of God, those who cling to their beliefs have come up with numerous ways to get around the apparent contradiction:

• "Evil," they will say, "is the result of human free will, and since God values free will more than anything He allows evil."  Except, of course, this only applies to evil acts done as a result of human free will (murder, rape, robbery, etc.) and wholly ignores things like pain and suffering caused by genetic diseases, natural disasters, accidents, etc.


• "When Adam and Eve sinned against God in the Garden of Eden, the world fell into a fallen state, so all the evils in the world are a direct result of those actions."  Except, of course, this doesn't explain why God would need to punish the entire world (not to mention universe) because of the actions of two people.  Why not simply punish Adam and Eve (and all their descendants if God were feeling particularly vengeful) and leave the rest of the natural world alone?  Why make animals die horribly painful and cruel deaths just to teach us a lesson?  Wouldn't it be a more powerful lesson if everything in nature was blissfully happy except for us?  Besides, God is the one who set the whole system up in the first place, so it was his decision to make the whole universe suffer for the sins of Adam and Eve and not their free will.


• "This life is a test, and how we deal with suffering will determine our eternal fate."  Well, OK, but that seems awfully callous when applying it to, say, young children who are born with horrible genetic diseases that cause them to lead painfully short lives.  It also doesn't address all the pain and suffering throughout the rest of the natural world.


• "This life is but a twinkling of an eye when compared to all eternity, so any pain and suffering we experience while alive will seem like a mere pin-prick when compared to the rest of our existence."

And the list goes on and on.  The bottom line is that there's always some way to define "omnipotent", "omnibenevolent" and even "evil" to avoid inherent contradictions, even if the newly defined terms don't really make much sense or accord with experience.  "An all-loving God is one who lets His children have free will, not freedom from suffering."  "Pain and suffering are actually good things, not evils."  You get the idea.  As I said, a lot of people are not convinced by these rationalizations, but they do make it hard to state unequivocally that God is logically impossible solely due to the so-called Problem of Evil.

OK, how about this?  In order to create the universe, which is the totality of all time and space, God must exist outside of time and space.  Which means He must not be composed of matter or energy Himself.  But, if God is not composed of matter or energy, how can He possibly have created matter and energy in the first place and how can He continue to interact with it today?  That seems like a logical contradiction, doesn't it?

Well, not quite.  Even if we accept that God is composed of neither matter nor energy, we cannot state unequivocally that He would therefore be unable to interact with matter and energy.  In the same way that energy can interact with matter despite not being composed of matter, God could be composed of some entirely different substance (let's call it "mind" or "spirit") that can interact with matter and energy in some way we just can't understand.  Of course, we now know that energy actually is composed of matter in a very real sense, but that just means the analogy (commonly used by theistic apologists) is a bad one.  It doesn't change the fact that God logically could be composed of some other substance that allows Him to interact with matter and energy without being composed of matter or energy Himself.

OK, so the mere fact that God somehow interacts with matter and energy while being composed of neither is not, in and of itself, a logical impossibility.  I think we are getting very close, however...

In order to avoid any apparent contradictions inherent in the notion of a God who is timeless and not composed of matter or energy, Christian apologists over the years have declared that God is both "Transcendent" and "Immanent".  According to Wikipedia,  the two terms are defined as follows:

Transcendence refers to the aspect of a god's nature and power which is wholly independent of the material universe, beyond all physical laws. This is contrasted with Immanence, where a god is said to be fully present in the physical world and thus accessible to creatures in various ways. 

Or, in other words, God is both wholly apart from the material universe and wholly within the material universe. At the same time.  He is simultaneously B and not B.  His very nature is therefore in violation of the Law of Non-contradiction and He is therefore logically impossible.  Q.E.D.

Now, some will argue (and believe me, they have) that it doesn't matter if God is logically impossible since we're only talking about human logic here and God is above such things.  Well, fine, except then why do you claim that an omnipotent God can't create a rock too massive for Him to move or can't create a square circle?  Aren't those just principles of human logic as well?  It seems that if you want to apply some logical principles to God, you would have to apply all of them (not just the ones that are convenient).

It seems that theists are left with three possible responses to this:

1. They can claim that God isn't bound by anything whatsoever and therefore can actually create a rock too massive for Him to move, create a square circle, etc.  Of course, once you throw all logic out the window it becomes rather pointless to discuss anything, but some theists are apparently willing to do just this.


2. They can claim that Immanence and Transcendence aren't actually opposites despite the plain definitions of the words.  But, since the whole idea of God being both Immanent and Transcendent is a way to explain how He could create the universe and still be part of the universe, there's no real way of getting around the fact that they are, in fact, complete opposites.  A lot of theists do go down this path, but they are usually the same ones who will write dissertations on how God can simultaneously be three distinct beings and one unified being that is absolutely not made up of three distinct beings whatsoever ["We worship one God in trinity, and trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For the person of the Father is one; of the Son, another; of the Holy Spirit, another. But the divinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one, the glory equal, the majesty equal. Such as is the Father, such also is the Son, and such the Holy Spirit. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, the Holy Spirit is uncreated. The Father is infinite, the Son is infinite, the Holy Spirit is infinite. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Spirit is eternal. And yet there are not three eternal Beings, but one eternal Being. So also there are not three uncreated Beings, nor three infinite Beings, but one uncreated and one infinite Being. In like manner, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent. And yet there are not three omnipotent Beings, but one omnipotent Being. Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God only. The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord. And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord only. For as we are compelled by Christian truth to confess each person distinctively to be both God and Lord, we are prohibited by the Catholic religion to say that there are three Gods or Lords. The Father is made by none, nor created, nor begotten. The Son is from the Father alone, not made, not created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is not created by the Father and the Son, nor begotten, but proceeds. Therefore, there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity there is nothing prior or posterior, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal to themselves. So that through all, as was said above, both unity in trinity and trinity in unity is to be adored. Whoever would be saved, let him thus think concerning the Trinity."]


3. They can just wave their magical Wand of Definitions^TM and state that God is defined as the sort of being who can be both Transcendent and Immanent without there being any sort of logical contradiction involved.

The bottom line, as far as I am concerned, is that God is absolutely and undeniably logically  impossible, a self-contradiction (at least as commonly depicted and worshiped).  The only question is whether theists actually care about this fact or whether cognitive dissonance will force them to compartmentalize and ignore it so as to not feel any angst about their beliefs.