God Paradox

[McCragge]

I am wondering where I can find in the bible references to powers of god that contradict themselves so as to make god an impossible being as described by the bible.



For example



God has quality A

God also has qualty B

qualty A and B cancel each other out

therefore God can not exist.

Can a god be all these omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence.? If not, why not?

Thanks in advance



McCragge

[cwalner]

Can a god be all these omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence.? If not, why not?
McCragge

Don't know bibilical references, but the list of four properties are not explicitly contradictory in and of themselves. However, once you add in the fact that human suffering exists, then we have a contradiction.

god is omniscient => god is aware of human suffering

god is omnipitent => god has the power to stop/prevent human suffering.

god is omnibelevolent => god has the desire to stop/prevent human suffering.

The fact that human suffering exists means that if god exists it either does not know that humans suffer, does not care that humans suffer, or does not have the power to stop it.

Therefore if god exists it cannot have all three of those traits

[geni]

Don't know bibilical references, but the list of four properties are not explicitly contradictory in and of themselves. However, once you add in the fact that human suffering exists, then we have a contradiction.

god is omniscient => god is aware of human suffering

god is omnipitent => god has the power to stop/prevent human suffering.

god is omnibelevolent => god has the desire to stop/prevent human suffering.


Minimise perhaps which presents some wriggle room.

In any case it doesn't really matter. It is illogal to expect an all powerful being to have to answer to the rules of logic (since by defintion that prevents them from being all powerful).

[McCragge]

Minimise perhaps which presents some wriggle room.

In any case it doesn't really matter. It is illogal to expect an all powerful being to have to answer to the rules of logic (since by defintion that prevents them from being all powerful).


But then doesn't that create the paradox making god unable to exist?

Also if god is all knowing, do we still have free will? And since he knows all, past, present and future, he knows before anyone was even born his creations he is supposed to love would burn in hell that he created for violating the very rules he violates as well.

I am just trying to make sure I have an iron clad position that god as defined by christians can simply not exist do to paradox.

McCragge

[Brian-M]

If you want references, try these sites...

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com
www.evilbible.com

[leonAzul]

I am wondering where I can find in the bible references to powers of god that contradict themselves so as to make god an impossible being as described by the bible.



For example



God has quality A

God also has qualty B

qualty A and B cancel each other out

therefore God can not exist.

Can a god be all these omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence.? If not, why not?


You don't have to look too far, and that is why I maintain that the value of the Bible is as a history of humankind's understanding of the Divine Will. The message seems clear enough to me: Those who act in accordance with the Divine Will do well, and do good; those who go against it, not so much. YMMV.

[McCragge]

If you want references, try these sites...

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com
www.evilbible.com

Outstanding the evil bible.com was the perfect answer thank you very much!

McCragge

[geni]

But then doesn't that create the paradox making god unable to exist?

No. No reason to think that a being more powerful that logic cannot exist.


Also if god is all knowing, do we still have free will?


That isn't very high on the list of problems with free will.

And no the processing capacity to deal with multiple posible universes rather than a single one isn't thatmuch greater.


And since he knows all, past, present and future, he knows before anyone was even born his creations he is supposed to love would burn in hell that he created for violating the very rules he violates as well.


I'm pretty sure none of the rules are stated in a way that could be considered to apply to anything other than humans.


I am just trying to make sure I have an iron clad position that god as defined by christians can simply not exist do to paradox.


You don't and can't. "god as defined by christians" is also pretty meaningless since there are rather a lot of them.

[McCragge]

No. No reason to think that a being more powerful that logic cannot exist.

But that is just it isn't it. If you through out logic and reason, then anything can be god and then god becomes meaningless. So you can't just arbitrarily through out logic and reason.

McCragge

[six7s]

But that is just it isn't it. If you through out logic and reason, then anything can be god and then god becomes meaningless. So you can't just arbitrarily through out logic and reason.

McCraggeMaybe you and I can't just arbitrarily throw out logic and reason, but have a look outside... perhaps half the world has never even thought about (let alone grasped) logic and reason... and with blind unquestioning faith® ™, they don't feel any need to

:(

[geni]

But that is just it isn't it. If you through out logic and reason, then anything can be god and then god becomes meaningless. So you can't just arbitrarily through out logic and reason.

McCragge


Why? If you have a being that doesn't have to obey logic and reason (so say it can create 4 sided triangles) it is probably all powerful from our POV anyway.

[Theophage]

God is perfectly just /God is merciful

This is a contradiction since justice is fitting the punishment to the crime, and mercy is giving less punishment than is required. If God is perfectly just, then it means he is never unjust. If he is never unjust, then he cannot ever be merciful.

[AWPrime]

Iron chariots vs. being almighty....

[Radrook]

Minimise perhaps which presents some wriggle room.

In any case it doesn't really matter. It is illogal to expect an all powerful being to have to answer to the rules of logic (since by defintion that prevents them from being all powerful).


Care to provide one convincing example of how all-powerfulness obligatorily prevents cogent reasoning?

[Radrook]

Why? If you have a being that doesn't have to obey logic and reason (so say it can create 4 sided triangles) it is probably all powerful from our POV anyway.

Your premise is false. Being all-powerful does not require that you throw out logic and reasoning. Where did you get that idea from? Also, being all powerful doesn't mean that you can do what is inherently impossible. Changing the rules does not make what was previously impossible possible, It only changes the required parameters. You know, like saying a mile is an inch and then throwing a baseball and claiming you threw it a mile.
That's called cheating-not doing the impossible.

[Tricky]

Care to provide one convincing example of how all-powerfulness obligatorily prevents cogent reasoning?
It would help if we had one demonstrable instance of something all-powerful to use as an example.

[geni]

Care to provide one convincing example of how all-powerfulness obligatorily prevents cogent reasoning?

All powerful allows you to create 4 sided triangles. Logic says no. Therefor logic places limits on powers so any being that obeys the rules of logic is not all powerful.

[Tricky]

Changing the rules does not make what was previously impossible possible, It only changes the required parameters. You know, like saying a mile is an inch and then throwing a baseball and claiming you threw it a mile.
...or creating a universe over 13 billion years and claiming it took six days?:D

[six7s]

Your premise is false. Being all-powerful does not require that you throw out logic and reasoning. Where did you get that idea from?Same place the idea of all-powerful came from

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:T83noVmhidt5FM:http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/images/baboonbum.jpg

Also, being all powerful doesn't mean that you can do what is inherently impossible.See above

Changing the rules does not make what was previously impossible possible,The rules only apply to the subservient


BTW

The Bible mentions two things which are impossible for God to do.So what? It's a work of fiction... what it mentions only makes a difference to those who are unwilling and/or unable to live with reality

[Radrook]

All powerful allows you to create 4 sided triangles. Logic says no. Therefor logic places limits on powers so any being that obeys the rules of logic is not all powerful.

You don't have to be allmighty to redefine things and claim to be meeting the requirements of the new definition. In fact, within the parameters of that new definition the redefiner cannot be acused of being illogical since those are the new parameters which make the conclusions based on them logical.

Also, please keep in mind that not wanting to is not equivalent to no being able to. Or not doing everything one is capable of doesn't mean that one lacks the power to do it if one wishes to. So the premise seems to be that choosing not to means inability to do so. Which is untrue.

It's also good to keep in mind that the biblical description of God does not allow for a God which can decide whatever he wishes arbitrarily. So there are parameters beyond which that definition does not allow him to go. Not because he can't but because he finds it repulsive to do so. But that preference doesn't divest him of his power. It only redirects that power into other channels.

[Piscivore]

Don't know bibilical references, but the list of four properties are not explicitly contradictory in and of themselves. However, once you add in the fact that human suffering exists, then we have a contradiction.

god is omniscient => god is aware of human suffering

god is omnipitent => god has the power to stop/prevent human suffering.

god is omnibelevolent => god has the desire to stop/prevent human suffering.

The fact that human suffering exists means that if god exists it either does not know that humans suffer, does not care that humans suffer, or does not have the power to stop it.

Therefore if god exists it cannot have all three of those traits

... unless suffering ultimately resultes in a "better" outcome for the sufferer than not suffering- a "smelting" sort of thing- in which case the god in question is being more benevolent by allowing us to suffer and be thereby improved than it would by letting us wallow in our neonaty.

I do a lot of things in my children's best interests that they might find cruel or unsympathetic.

[ynot]

...or creating a universe over 13 billion years and claiming it took six days?:D
But you’re confusing god days with human days. A god day is obviously worth over 2 billion human days. Seems god works in very mysterious days as well as ways.
But seriously tho . . . God is all-knowing. Every thing that ever has or will happen is all part of god’s divine, preordained plan. God knows every single thing we will do before we do it. God has also given us “free will” so we can “choose” to do what god has totally predefined. God has preordained that I will be an atheist and will punish me for eternity for my bad “choice”. It’s god’s divine ducking stool in action.

[Twiler]

... unless suffering ultimately resultes in a "better" outcome for the sufferer than not suffering- a "smelting" sort of thing- in which case the god in question is being more benevolent by allowing us to suffer and be thereby improved than it would by letting us wallow in our neonaty.

I do a lot of things in my children's best interests that they might find cruel or unsympathetic.

But that implies a lack of omnipotence, as an omnipotent being would be able to improve people without them suffering; Omnipotence is the capacity to do anything.

God has also given us “free will” so we can “choose” to do what god has totally predefined. God has preordained that I will be an atheist and will punish me for eternity for my bad “choice”. It’s god’s divine ducking stool in action.

If I am ever confronted by a divine being who proclaims 'I am God', my response will be 'Huh? Who's that then?'.

[Cavemonster]

We've been talking about this on another forum. Here's my model that accounts for all the omnis, free will and the problem of evil.

Let's imagine God as a video game designer.
He can be all knowing, all seeing, and all powerful from the perspective of the game world in that he wrote the code and has access to every line of it to view it and change it.

Like many video game designers, he may write out the code for a little ai creature that is fairly complex and then see what emerges. God the video game designer is pretty good at math, so if he really wanted to, he could work out in every detail, how his little ai would act, but that would be laborious and no fun at all. We could call the unexpected emergent actions of the little ai free will in a way, or at least something that emerged out of god's creation rather than something he decided.

God the programmer could even write in a little apocolypse at the end of the game, knowing the future without knowing the exact specifics of the path there.

For instance, I can write a pathfinding script that has a little monkey sprite find his way through a randomly generated maze to reach a bananna sprite. If the pathfinding script is very simple, I can easily predict the monkey's behavior, but as it get's more and more complex, it will be harder for me to know in advance, how the monkey will cross the screen, even if I know for certain that he get's the banana in the end

The question that's left is that if God is benevolent, and could know actively about all the suffering his little AIs endure, why doesn't he step in and do the math and stop it? Why doesn't he edit the code to spare his little guys the pain? One argument is that he HAS worked out enough to know that in the end, all the suffering is neccessary in a way that is invisible from this perspective, and I think that's how Christians think.

On a micro scale it is better for me not to candy every day. By making it a rare treat, I enjoy it MUCH more when I have it. The suffering of going without candy is what makes the candy so sweet. When you believe in an immortal soul, a place and time is possible where your thousand year old soul may view dying painfully of TB as a child as the small bump in the road that makes your eternity in heaven so good.

[AWPrime]

A benevolent game designer? There is no such thing.

[Toady]

I am wondering where I can find in the bible references to powers of god that contradict themselves so as to make god an impossible being as described by the bible.



For example



God has quality A

God also has qualty B

qualty A and B cancel each other out

therefore God can not exist.

Can a god be all these omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence.? If not, why not?

Thanks in advance



McCragge

I'm an agnostic, and I believe that, if there is "something more" (e.g., what most folks would refer to as God), it would be outside our observable universe and outside of physical laws, so attempting to apply and reconcile physical attributes is pointless. It's a fun philosophical debate, but I don't think it proves or disproves it either way.

[BoogieWoogieWookie]

I'm an agnostic, and I believe that, if there is "something more" (e.g., what most folks would refer to as God), it would be outside our observable universe and outside of physical laws, so attempting to apply and reconcile physical attributes is pointless. It's a fun philosophical debate, but I don't think it proves or disproves it either way.



Doesn't matter. If he/she/it enters this universe to interact with anything then those actions will be constrained by logic. For instance, god will not be able to do things that are contradictory such as making a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it.

I highly suspect that this is true of all universes, if they exist. Some form of logic and structure of physical laws would be necessary for anything to exist in any universe.

What was the very first thing that god did? Can god remember the first thing he did? If not, then he is not omniscient.

Most try to avoid the question of god's origin by placing his stomping grounds (and I suppose heaven and hell) outside of our universe. I have heard it said that god is eternal - having no beginning and no end - because he is not bound to this universe and thus outside of time. Perhaps this is true, but time is an ordering of events. If god experiences events, then he experiences time of some sort.

[Toady]

Doesn't matter. If he/she/it enters this universe to interact with anything then those actions will be constrained by logic. For instance, god will not be able to do things that are contradictory such as making a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it.

I highly suspect that this is true of all universes, if they exist. Some form of logic and structure of physical laws would be necessary for anything to exist in any universe.

What was the very first thing that god did? Can god remember the first thing he did? If not, then he is not omniscient.

Most try to avoid the question of god's origin by placing his stomping grounds (and I suppose heaven and hell) outside of our universe. I have heard it said that god is eternal - having no beginning and no end - because he is not bound to this universe and thus outside of time. Perhaps this is true, but time is an ordering of events. If god experiences events, then he experiences time of some sort.

What I'm saying is, assuming (for the sake of argument) the premise that our universe was created by some intelligent force, it would obviously be outside the bounds of physical limitations and thus pointless to speculate over. Even if it decided to obey physical laws, quantum multiverses would allow it to create a rock that could simultaneously be lifted, couldn't be lifted, could be spread on toast and eaten, etc.

[Cavemonster]

Doesn't matter. If he/she/it enters this universe to interact with anything then those actions will be constrained by logic. For instance, god will not be able to do things that are contradictory such as making a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it.

I highly suspect that this is true of all universes, if they exist. Some form of logic and structure of physical laws would be necessary for anything to exist in any universe.

What was the very first thing that god did? Can god remember the first thing he did? If not, then he is not omniscient.

Most try to avoid the question of god's origin by placing his stomping grounds (and I suppose heaven and hell) outside of our universe. I have heard it said that god is eternal - having no beginning and no end - because he is not bound to this universe and thus outside of time. Perhaps this is true, but time is an ordering of events. If god experiences events, then he experiences time of some sort.

In the video game analogy above, god can be both the creator of the game and interact with it in many ways without being subject to the internal rules of the game. Likewise, to be all powerful and all knowing from within the context of the game, he only needs to have complete control and knowledge of those things within it. Ssince humans are the ones applying these labels to his actions from inside our world, they are by definition limited to our possible experience.

[westprog]

I highly suspect that this is true of all universes, if they exist. Some form of logic and structure of physical laws would be necessary for anything to exist in any universe.


A universe without physical law, logic or structure might be very difficult to imagine, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't exist. The existence of physical law is a mystery.

[Theophage]

... unless suffering ultimately resultes in a "better" outcome for the sufferer than not suffering- a "smelting" sort of thing- in which case the god in question is being more benevolent by allowing us to suffer and be thereby improved than it would by letting us wallow in our neonaty.

I do a lot of things in my children's best interests that they might find cruel or unsympathetic.

That does nothing to resolve the contradiction. You do things in your child's best interests which seem cruel, because you are limited in what you are able to do. If you could accomplish those same best interests in a way which did not seem cruel, would you? Of course you would

Similarly, if God is omnipotent, he can accomplish whatever "smelting" was needed to achieve the greater good without causing humans to suffer. If He cannot, then he is not omnipotent.

[Radrook]

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. Omnipotence doesn't mean that one is able to do the inherently impossible. Restricted to the rules. God would be unable to produce a circle using other degrees than those which produce a circle. The same applies to a square, triangle, or any other object requiring strict adherence to the required mathematics. Changing the rules is cheating and doesn't count.

There are also behavioral impossibilities. Such as being totally truthful concerning details of an event and being totally deceitful.

Existential impossibilities-such as being simultaneously mortal and immortal.

Being infinitesimally large and infinitesimally small at the same time while remaining one
as humans are one.

The way around such impossibilities is to make them seem possible via breaking the rules which make them impossible to begin with. But that doesn't prove omnipotence. It proves ability to cheat.

[Radrook]

Originally Posted by Tricky
...or creating a universe over 13 billion years and claiming it took six days?

Do you find the Einstenian claims about travelling at light speed, coming back after a few days and finding that thousands of years have gone by on earth equally impossible? Any creature or being
in motion of light speed relative to us or any other part of the universe would be capable perceiving time in that relative way.

[Seismosaurus]

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. Omnipotence doesn't mean that one is able to do the inherently impossible. Restricted to the rules. God would be unable to produce a circle using other degrees than those which produce a circle.

You say this as if everybody believes it. Are you aware that there are those who believe that god can in fact make square circles and such?

[Radrook]

Doesn't matter. If he/she/it enters this universe to interact with anything then those actions will be constrained by logic. For instance, god will not be able to do things that are contradictory such as making a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it.


Exactly what I've been saying but applicable on a larger scale.

I highly suspect that this is true of all universes, if they exist. Some form of logic and structure of physical laws would be necessary for anything to exist in any universe.

Existence requires form, be it amorphous or steady, but form nevertheless.

What was the very first thing that god did?

There is always something prior.


[quyote]Can god remember the first thing he did? If not, then he is not omniscient. [/quote]


Omniscience does not require knowing the unknowable. If there was never a first thing to remember then the question is meaningless. We can't remember what never existed. That's an impossibility. A question that is self-contradictory, paradoxical, illogical because it ignores parameters and can have no answer.

BTW

From a Unitarian Christian Viewpoint here is the sequence:

God creates his son The Word [For Trinitarians the word always was]

Via His Son he creates the spiritual heaven, then angels

Then the material universe via perhaps the Big Bang

Then our solar system including the earth

Then begins the events described as seven periods or preparatory "days" which culminate in creation of man.

Before the creation of the Word, or before the mention of the Word we are told nothing.
But we can logically infer certain things from his personality traits.


Perhaps this is true, but time is an ordering of events. If god experiences events, then he experiences time of some sort.

Nowhere in the Bible is God described as not experiencing time. In fact, he specifically described as experiencing time by having his day posited as a thousand years or a mere watch in the night. In short, time experienced differently from us.

Neither does Being eternal require that he not experience time. Inability to experience time would be a handicap and cause confusion for any being afflicted in that way. Sequences of events in their temporal priorities need to be perceived. Otherwise the being in question would be insane.


Most try to avoid the question of god's origin by placing his stomping grounds (and I suppose heaven and hell) outside of our universe. I have heard it said that god is eternal - having no beginning and no end - because he is not bound to this universe and thus outside of time.

The outside of time idea though interesting is nevertheless unscriptural.


BTW

Nowhere in the Bible is God depicted as angrily stomping about in heaven. Instead he is described synbolically as sitting on a throne being attented upon by millions of spirit creatures who voluntarily praise him. If there is any stomping described it's against rebellious angels and humans. As to hell, that's a concept concocted to smear his character.

[Piscivore]

But that implies a lack of omnipotence, as an omnipotent being would be able to improve people without them suffering; Omnipotence is the capacity to do anything.
That does nothing to resolve the contradiction. You do things in your child's best interests which seem cruel, because you are limited in what you are able to do. If you could accomplish those same best interests in a way which did not seem cruel, would you? Of course you would

Similarly, if God is omnipotent, he can accomplish whatever "smelting" was needed to achieve the greater good without causing humans to suffer. If He cannot, then he is not omnipotent.
I didn't quite get my point across. It is possible that god can accomplish his goals without causing humans to "suffer", but he may not want to, and it's is a little bit myopic to asume that god's understanding of "benevolence" should be centred around our limited ideas of pleasure and ease. "Suffering"- that which we with comfortable, indulgent lives call "suffering" at least- may be a virtue, a blessing, in the eyes of god. There are several religious traditions that understood things this way.

ETA: In other words, this particular inconsistancy is just as readily evidence that our initial premises are flawed, as a proof that that sort of god is impossible.

[AWPrime]

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. Omnipotence doesn't mean that one is able to do the inherently impossible. Restricted to the rules. God would be unable to produce a circle using other degrees than those which produce a circle. The same applies to a square, triangle, or any other object requiring strict adherence to the required mathematics. Changing the rules is cheating and doesn't count.

There are also behavioral impossibilities. Such as being totally truthful concerning details of an event and being totally deceitful.

Existential impossibilities-such as being simultaneously mortal and immortal.

Being infinitesimally large and infinitesimally small at the same time while remaining one
as humans are one.

The way around such impossibilities is to make them seem possible via breaking the rules which make them impossible to begin with. But that doesn't prove omnipotence. It proves ability to cheat.
So how does this make God vulnerable to iron chariots?

If I believed that god did exist, I would explain it that as time went by he had to inflate his claims to keep believers interested.

[westprog]

I didn't quite get my point across. It is possible that god can accomplish his goals without causing humans to "suffer", but he may not want to, and it's is a little bit myopic to asume that god's understanding of "benevolence" should be centred around our limited ideas of pleasure and ease. "Suffering"- that which we with comfortable, indulgent lives call "suffering" at least- may be a virtue, a blessing, in the eyes of god. There are several religious traditions that understood things this way.

ETA: In other words, this particular inconsistancy is just as readily evidence that our initial premises are flawed, as a proof that that sort of god is impossible.

Most of the "logical" disproofs of God are similar to the logical proofs of God. They start out by effectively assuming what they set out to prove. If one assumes a material universe as a fundamental principle, then it's easy enough to show that there's no place for God in it.

[Piscivore]

Most of the "logical" disproofs of God are similar to the logical proofs of God. They start out by effectively assuming what they set out to prove.

Quite so.

[Beerina]

Which is why it's plenty enough to demand proof or even evidence of any gods or supernatural entities before considering whether they actually exist.


One need not be an omnipotent being with a desire to hide in order to remain hidden from the best efforts of humanity.

A simple magical unicorn should be able to do it easily enough.




But to answer the question, there are plenty of contradictions.

1. Pharoah's priest's god made 2 snakes. Moses' god made 1, which kicked the ass of the other two, showing how tuff Yahweh was.

Yet elsewhere it says Yahweh is not just the most powerful god, but the only one.

Monday morning quarterbacking that retcons this to be a trick by the priest, or the Devil, or something, is simply not in accord with rationality, sorry. The story portrays them as real, created snakes by the Egyptian god(s). Any other interpretation is heresy.

Literally.



2. God "rested".

An infinite, omnipotent being never needs to rest. You could, of course, argue the Bible is just being poetic, but I don't think that's the intent of the passage.


3. God feared Adam and Eve eating of the Tree of Life, and becoming "like us".

A. Feared?

B. Like us?

Of course, there are retcons for this too, I'm sure. Feared, as in "foresaw would happen", and "us", as in a sort of Royal We, or, even more oddly, in reference to the Holy Trinity.


It's tougher to come up with contradictions within the Bible itself, as opposed to logical contradictions of an omnipotent, good creature, or mere massive discrepancies between Biblical cosmology and the actual real-world physics and astronomy.


That Sketpic's Annotated Bible is a good site. It lists many peculiarities besides contradictions, and has a specific page just for contradictions within the Bible itself, god-related or otherwise.

[Piscivore]

Which is why it's plenty enough to demand proof or even evidence of any gods or supernatural entities before considering whether they actually exist.
Indubitably. Although it's fun to speculate. :)

But to answer the question, there are plenty of contradictions.

1. Pharoah's priest's god made 2 snakes. Moses' god made 1, which kicked the ass of the other two, showing how tuff Yahweh was.

Yet elsewhere it says Yahweh is not just the most powerful god, but the only one.

Monday morning quarterbacking that retcons this to be a trick by the priest, or the Devil, or something, is simply not in accord with rationality, sorry. The story portrays them as real, created snakes by the Egyptian god(s). Any other interpretation is heresy.

Literally.



2. God "rested".

An infinite, omnipotent being never needs to rest. You could, of course, argue the Bible is just being poetic, but I don't think that's the intent of the passage.


3. God feared Adam and Eve eating of the Tree of Life, and becoming "like us".

A. Feared?

B. Like us?

Of course, there are retcons for this too, I'm sure. Feared, as in "foresaw would happen", and "us", as in a sort of Royal We, or, even more oddly, in reference to the Holy Trinity.


It's tougher to come up with contradictions within the Bible itself, as opposed to logical contradictions of an omnipotent, good creature, or mere massive discrepancies between Biblical cosmology and the actual real-world physics and astronomy.
Tougher? It seems to me that the Bible is a logical clusterf[rule X]. Two different versions of Creation, four of the Crucifixion, etc. It's easy to dismiss the god of the Bible as impossible with the premises the Bible itself offers.

That Sketpic's Annotated Bible is a good site. It lists many peculiarities besides contradictions, and has a specific page just for contradictions within the Bible itself, god-related or otherwise.
Seconded.

[Radrook]

You say this as if everybody believes it. Are you aware that there are those who believe that god can in fact make square circles and such?


Universality of belief isn't the issue. Neither is acceptance or rejection of the concept. The issue is that such a thing is inherently impossible whether universally believed possible or not.
No one, no matter how powerful or wise can, use the length of a circle to make a square.

[Radrook]

Amazing! Now we have God running in circles trying to get away from Adam and Eve because he's afraid of them. That's like Obama running around in circles trying to get away from Hilary
cause Hilary might try to bite one of his ears.

LOL