Among the various philosophical arguments challenging the existence of God, the "Religious Incoherence" argument stands out as particularly misguided. This perspective attempts to dismantle the traditional attributes of God—such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence—by claiming that they are inherently contradictory.
Proponents of this view argue that these divine qualities cannot logically coexist, ultimately suggesting that the very idea of God is self-defeating. However, a closer examination reveals that these critiques are based on misunderstandings and flawed logic. Let’s explore two prevalent examples: the Omnipotence Paradox and the conflict between Free Will and Omniscience. By doing so, we will illustrate that these alleged contradictions not only fall apart under scrutiny but also strengthen the case for a rational belief in God.
Omnipotence Paradox: The Stone Too Heavy to Lift
The "omnipotence paradox" stands as a prominent illustration of a common argument, posing the question: Can God create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it? If He cannot create such a stone, it suggests a limitation to His omnipotence. Conversely, if He can create it but is unable to lift it, that too implies a lack of omnipotence. While this paradox may seem intellectually stimulating at first, it fundamentally misrepresents the essence of omnipotence. True omnipotence is not about executing logical impossibilities; it is the capacity to accomplish everything that is feasible.
To clarify, consider the nature of logical contradictions. Can God create a square circle? Can He make 2+2 equal 5? These scenarios do not represent real challenges or demonstrations of power; they are contradictions that lack any basis in reality, akin to questioning the existence of a married bachelor. The inquiries themselves are nonsensical. C.S. Lewis aptly stated, "Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God." Thus, the notion of God creating a stone too heavy for Him to lift does not genuinely challenge His power; rather, it reflects a misuse of language. Genuine omnipotence encompasses the ability to achieve all that is logically possible, not to defy the principles of logic.
Consider a master chess player capable of winning every match, yet you suggest that she should play against herself and lose. This does not indicate a flaw in her ability; it reveals a misunderstanding of the game's rules. In the same vein, the omnipotence paradox represents a category error, conflating the true nature of omnipotence. As Matthew 19:26 states, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” The phrase "all things" pertains to everything that is achievable within the bounds of reality and reason, not to logical absurdities.
Free Will vs. Omniscience: The Dilemma of Predestination
A prevalent argument concerning religious inconsistency revolves around the perceived clash between God's omniscience and human free will. Atheists contend that if God possesses knowledge of the future, then true human free will cannot exist. They question whether God's foreknowledge leads to predetermined choices. However, this perspective misinterprets the essence of both knowledge and free will.
To begin, it’s essential to define omniscience. God's omniscience encompasses complete awareness of all that exists and all that will occur, yet this knowledge does not dictate human actions. Just because God foresees our decisions does not imply that He compels us to make them. Consider the experience of rewatching a film. You are aware of the plot twists, but your knowledge does not control the characters' actions; they retain their autonomy within the narrative. Similarly, God's understanding of our future decisions does not diminish our capacity to choose freely. God exists beyond the confines of time (Isaiah 46:10: “I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come”). From His eternal vantage point, He perceives all moments simultaneously, yet our choices remain distinctly ours.
An illustrative example is a teacher who knows her student so well that she anticipates he will opt not to study for an exam. When the student indeed decides against studying, the teacher's foresight did not cause this outcome; it stemmed from her deep understanding of his character. While God's knowledge operates on a much grander scale, the underlying principle remains: knowing does not equate to controlling.
Romans 8:29-30 discusses God's foreknowledge and predestination, highlighting that we are destined to be shaped into the likeness of Christ, rather than being coerced into mechanical decisions. The coexistence of free will and divine omniscience may challenge our limited understanding, but they are not inherently contradictory. God's foreknowledge exemplifies His timeless essence, rather than imposing limitations on our freedom.
Omnibenevolence: The Problem of Evil
While we have thoroughly explored this topic in a previous chapter, it is worth revisiting it from the perspective of religious inconsistency. Atheists often contend that the concept of omnibenevolence—God being all-good—clashes with the reality of evil in the world. They pose the question: if God is both all-powerful and all-good, why does He permit suffering? This argument presupposes that God's goodness should align with human standards of what constitutes a "good" world, which is a reductionist view.
The existence of evil does not undermine God's goodness; instead, it highlights the significance of free will and moral accountability. Just as fire can be destructive yet is essential for warmth and life, the potential for evil is an inherent aspect of genuine free will. God grants humanity the ability to make authentic choices, and with that freedom comes the risk of making poor decisions. Without the possibility of error, moral choices would lack significance. Eliminating all suffering would equate to stripping away the freedom to make ethical decisions, a theme poignantly illustrated in the story of Job, where God allows suffering for a higher purpose (Job 1-2).
Moreover, from a Christian viewpoint, God's goodness is ultimately revealed through His engagement with evil rather than its mere absence. God enters into human suffering through Jesus Christ, who endured pain and death to conquer evil and provide salvation. As stated in Romans 8:28, “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” Thus, God's goodness is not found in the prevention of all evil but in His ability to work through it to achieve a greater good.
Conclusion: Coherence Beyond Understanding
Ultimately, the concept of "Religious Incoherence" is rooted in misunderstandings and misclassifications. The challenges posed by the omnipotence paradox, the conflict between free will and omniscience, and the issue of evil do not successfully undermine the coherence of God's essence. Rather, they reveal the limitations of human intellect when faced with divine qualities.
Just as a two-dimensional being struggles to grasp the complexities of a three-dimensional existence, so too is the full nature of God beyond our complete comprehension. As highlighted in Isaiah 55:8-9, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." God's characteristics are not contradictory; they transcend the limited frameworks that humans often impose. Through faith, we can appreciate how God's omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence coexist in perfect unity, reflecting His sovereign and loving character.
Comments