“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion.Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because if there is one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than of blindfolded fear”.
-Thomas Jefferson, writing to his nephew-
Metaphysical contradictions, and random thoughts –
Since we have a standard of verifying the existence or non-existence of anything, shouldn’t God be subjected to the same criteria as anything else, to verify existence? If not, why is God exempt from that methodology?
You can’t just arbitrarily create a different standard of criteria (such as faith) for the existence of God, otherwise, if you use that standard for anything else, how can you be sure of the existence of anything, or that you exist?
One way to eliminate the truth value of a proposition is to find a contradiction. Contradictions and paradoxes cannot exist in reality. It’s impossible for something to be true and not true, or A and non-A simultaneously. That’s a contradiction.
It only takes one contradiction to eliminate the truth value of a proposition, but here are a few.
The following characteristics and properties that describe the Christian God are contradictory to natural laws of reality.
1 – God is a conscious being who is not made up of matter/energy, but matter and energy are a requirement for consciousness to exist.
How does God have consciousness without consisting of matter or energy?
Consciousness is an effect of matter/energy. How can there be an effect of consciousness without a cause of consciousness? It’s impossible.
2 – God created the universe, but how did God create the universe if the law of thermodynamics shows that energy cannot be created or destroyed? It only changes from one form of energy to another.
If energy has always existed, and the 4th dimension of time exists only within the space dimensions, how did God, in the beginning with no beginning, create that which cannot be created?
In other words, saying God created existence “in the beginning” doesn’t even make sense, since there’s no such thing as a “beginning” in a state of non-existence. A “beginning” can only happen within the fabric of spacetime. There is no beginning, end, or time without spacetime.
It seems so easy for Christians to accept that God always has infinitely existed and always will “exist”, with no beginning and no end, but they won’t accept the idea that matter/energy always has and always will exist, even when there is evidence that supports it.
The very statement that says “God created everything from nothing” is a contradiction of “existence.” Christians say God exists, but when nothing existed, God still existed.
So God is nothing?
Or is God is synonymous with your definition of “nothing?”
If God exists as something, then he can’t exist as nothing, or in a “state of nothing.”
If God existed in a state (or non state) of nothingness “before” spacetime existed, then either we need to change our definition of “God” to “nothing, not existing”, or we need to change our definition of “Existence” to include “matter, energy, spacetime, and also include, non-matter, non energy, and non spacetime in that definition.
In other words existence would be the same definition as non-existence according to them. Either way, you have a glaring contradiction, and therefore, impossible.
(FYI – I provide a definition of “existence” in part 6 where we explore agnosticism.)
3- God has a plan for your life, and he knows exactly when you will die. He is all powerful and all knowing simultaneously.
If he knows when you are going to die, but has the power to change anything, including your death date, then he can’t know for sure when you will die.
If he knows for sure when you will die, then he can’t have the power to change that, right? Simultaneous omniscience and omnipotence is a contradiction, and therefore an invalid premise. Impossible by definition.
4 – (The following is not a contradiction of God, but a contradiction of Heaven.) Somehow when we go to Heaven, we will still experience the effects of our physical senses, such as sight, sound, touch, etc. but we will not have the physical sensory input which absorbs the effects of stimuli (eyes, ears, nerves, etc.).
We apparently will also experience emotions such as love, gratitude, and happiness, but we won’t have the cause of emotions and pleasure such as an amygdala, or dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, etc.
It is impossible to have an effect with no cause, and that is the premise that Heaven, hell, and anything in the “afterlife” is all based upon; physical effects with no physical cause.
In Colton Burpo’s book “Heaven is for Real,” it is explained that Colton visited Heaven without actually dying. Which must mean you don’t have to die to go to Heaven.
In his visit to Heaven, he saw Jesus hanging out next to a rainbow horse. Which apparently also means rainbow horses are for real.
Most Christians will tell you that Heaven does not exist within the realm of spacetime. It is some other dimension that doesn’t contain matter/energy, and time.
So, let’s look at this from two sides. One side is the effects, the other is the causes.
So, looking at it from the effects side of receiving sensory data (sensing effects) without a physical body.
How do you see without eyes, hear without ears, speak with no lungs, voice box, throat, etc?
How do you process your incoming sense data without a processor such as the thalamus in your brain?
You might say your spirit or soul does that job in the afterlife.
If your soul receives and processes sensory data after the body dies, is that what your soul currently does too?
If so, why would God create physical senses and a physical processor when the soul or spirit can do the same thing? Seems a bit redundant for an intelligent creator. If that’s the case, there is no need for your physical senses.
Now let’s evaluate it from the side of causation.
How can color, sound, and horses exist without matter/energy?
Color is a wavelength of photons in light. For example, the color red has a photon wavelength of about 650-700 nano-meters. (the rainbow that we humans can see has a wavelength from around 400-700 nano-meters, and other non visible light waves are exponentially larger and smaller than the wavelengths in the rainbow.)
So, looking at it from the side of emitting sensory data (causing effects) how does a rainbow horse in Heaven that doesn’t consist of matter/energy, photons (light waves), emit non existent light waves?
Sensory causes and sensory effects don’t exist in Heaven by its definition, but simultaneously these do exist in Heaven according to believers, how?
This is when the believers will tell you not to think about the contradiction, and just have faith.
Which Heaven is for real?
There are a number of Christian books with anecdotal accounts of an individual touring Heaven while almost dead or dead for a while.
By the way, the definition of crossing from living to dead is not yet universal, it’s more of a continuum of steps, and the incremental definitions of “dead” fall on that sliding scale. Many afterlife stories of “being temporarily dead” are closer to the non-dead side of that sliding scale.
Aside from Colton Burpo’s vision of Heaven, another interesting story is from the brain surgeon Eben Alexander where in his book “Proof of Heaven” he describes an experience of Heaven while he was in a coma. He somehow forgot to mention that is was a medically induced coma where brain function is still active enough for dreaming to occur.
In his story, he describes Heaven as a place where there were vivid colorful flowers, butterflies, clouds, angels, and a girl who looks similar to an unknown passed sister of his.
These anecdotal accounts arbitrarily invoked as “Heaven” are completely different from the Heavens described in the Bible.
There are three Heavens illustrated in the Bible by the Apostle Paul.
The first is in the clouds and sky in the atmosphere.
The second is in the cosmos among the stars and the sun in space (I know, the sun is a star, but this is from an ancient text and God didn’t inform Paul about this).
The third Heaven is the spiritual one beyond anything corporeal and cannot be observed or measured.
This third spiritual Heaven of the Bible is where angels and beasts with many eyes and wings day and night (but the Bible also says there is no night in Heaven) endlessly chant holy, holy, holy, to God who is on the throne. The Israelite tribes in the glass and gold city of Heaven are surrounded by a high wall adorned with jewels, equipped with gates of pearl. -Revelations 21
The Biblical Heaven sounds very different from the ones described by authors who find a way to get out of debt by telling a story of a dream they had.
By the way, if the Heaven described in “Proof of Heaven” (where no objective method of proof was put forth, just subjective anecdotes) has butterflies, does that mean butterflies from earth go to Heaven, or did these butterflies originate in Heaven?
If there are colorful flowers and plants as described, does that mean there is pollen in Heaven too?
I’m guessing there are no allergies in Heaven though, eh?
The Pope recently announced that dogs now go to heaven. He didn’t mention if a dog must be saved or baptized to qualify though.
Is it just domestic companion dogs that go to Heaven, or do wolves and wild dogs qualify too?
Does that also mean evil dogs go to hell?
I wonder if someone who has an afterlife experience will someday write a book titled, Hell is for real, or 90 minutes in hell, etc.
Hell doesn’t seem to exist anymore with many believers these days like it did in the old days though.
If Heaven is supposed to be a place far beyond what we comprehend on earth and the physical realm, why do folks with near death experiences of what they call Heaven always consist of geomorphic characteristics like flowers, trees, animals, sunshine, music, and loved ones?
Heaven as they describe it just sounds like experiencing life on earth in a state of euphoria but without the nightlife.
Biblical contradictions
There are many contradictions in the Bible. It’s interesting to explore some of them, but using scriptures in the Bible to prove or disprove anything relating to God is a logical fallacy. To say “God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is God’s word; God always tells the truth, therefore God exists because it’s in the Bible”, is committing petitio principii, or circular reasoning.
In other words, Biblical contradictions have nothing to do with the truth value of God existing or not.
So these are just a few interesting things in the Bible, but have nothing to do with a validating or invalidating the proposition of God’s existence.
– The Bible says Noah was righteous, and so was Job, but in Romans is says no one is righteous, but in James is says the prayers of a righteous man are powerful.
– In John, Jesus says “I and my father are one”, but also says “I go unto the father; for my father is greater than I.”
– Wealth and riches come to those who fear the lord if you’re in Psalms, but when you’re in Matthew, it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich guy to get to Heaven.
– God doesn’t remember your sins if you’re in Jeremiah, but he does if you’re in Exodus.
After reading Mark, you would know that you would not be forgiven for cursing the holy spirit, but all you have to do is go to 1st John, or Colossians and all your sins will be forgiven.
– There are many times in the Bible when God gives the command to kill others (especially in the old testament) and to destroy some cities so that the Israelites can live there, but also gives the command to not kill. So a universal law of God is to not kill, but kill if he gives the command.
If the Bible is divine in origin, why are there so many moral contradictions?
How do you pick and choose what to accept in the Bible? There are plenty of unethical examples of God’s commands. Is it possible that with all the logical fallacies, contradictions, and financial incentives that religion is an effect of false beliefs?
Even Constantine’s integration of the books of the Bible was mostly politically driven.
Aside from the discrepancies in the Bible, I recommend it to anyone. It’s best absorbed when reading the whole thing from beginning to end.
Thanks for finishing part 5 of this 8 part series.
Join me next time where we explore epistemology (how we can know the nature of reality) in relation to agnosticism.
