1. If God exists, then he is an all-just judge.
2. If God exists, then he is an all-merciful judge.
3. An all-just judge treats every offender with exactly the severity that he/she deserves.
4. An all-merciful judge treats every offender with less severity than he/she deserves.
5. It is impossible to treat an offender both with exactly the severity that he/she deserves and also with less severity than he/she deserves.
6. Hence, it is impossible for an all-just judge to be an all-merciful judge (from 3-5).
7. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 6).
I have heard it said by Christians that the way God judges offenders depends on whether or not they are true believers. If they are, then he is lenient with them, but if they are not, then he treats them with exactly the severity they deserve (which can be pretty bad). By this Christian way of speaking, God is said to be both an all-just and an all-merciful judge. He is all-just in giving everyone an equal opportunity to become a true believer and thereby come to receive leniency, but he is also all-merciful in that every true believer, without exception, receives mercy. This way of viewing matters would be an attack on both premise 3 and premise 4, above.
I would respond by maintaining that premises 3 and 4 come closer to capturing ordinary language than the given Christian way of speaking. According to the latter, God treats some offenders more leniently with regard to what they deserve than he does other offenders. It does not seem that such a judge would (or should) be called "all-just." And similarly, since he does not treat all offenders less severely than they deserve, he would not (and should not) be called "all-merciful" either. Instead of being both all-just and all-merciful, the Christian God, as described, would be neither.
As with many of the previous attacks on the incompatible-properties arguments, this one turns on semantical issues. In a sense, it is all a matter of semantics, for the issue of whether or not certain property ascriptions conflict with certain other property ascriptions depends very much on what exactly they mean. Theists could defend against the arguments by denying that the property terms in question mean what the proponents of the arguments claim they mean. Often such denials lead to still other difficulties for the theist. A full presentation and defense of incompatible-properties arguments should explore such implications and fully pursue the many issues, whether semantical or not. That project is beyond the scope of the present essay.
My aim was simply to survey several of the more common (and a few not so common) incompatible-properties arguments for the nonexistence of God. Just which of those arguments are sound and which of them are most effective in discussions and debates with theists are further issues that are certainly worth pursuing.
RESPONSE:
2. If God exists, then he is an all-merciful judge.
3. An all-just judge treats every offender with exactly the severity that he/she deserves.
4. An all-merciful judge treats every offender with less severity than he/she deserves.
5. It is impossible to treat an offender both with exactly the severity that he/she deserves and also with less severity than he/she deserves.
6. Hence, it is impossible for an all-just judge to be an all-merciful judge (from 3-5).
7. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 6).
I have heard it said by Christians that the way God judges offenders depends on whether or not they are true believers. If they are, then he is lenient with them, but if they are not, then he treats them with exactly the severity they deserve (which can be pretty bad). By this Christian way of speaking, God is said to be both an all-just and an all-merciful judge. He is all-just in giving everyone an equal opportunity to become a true believer and thereby come to receive leniency, but he is also all-merciful in that every true believer, without exception, receives mercy. This way of viewing matters would be an attack on both premise 3 and premise 4, above.
I would respond by maintaining that premises 3 and 4 come closer to capturing ordinary language than the given Christian way of speaking. According to the latter, God treats some offenders more leniently with regard to what they deserve than he does other offenders. It does not seem that such a judge would (or should) be called "all-just." And similarly, since he does not treat all offenders less severely than they deserve, he would not (and should not) be called "all-merciful" either. Instead of being both all-just and all-merciful, the Christian God, as described, would be neither.
As with many of the previous attacks on the incompatible-properties arguments, this one turns on semantical issues. In a sense, it is all a matter of semantics, for the issue of whether or not certain property ascriptions conflict with certain other property ascriptions depends very much on what exactly they mean. Theists could defend against the arguments by denying that the property terms in question mean what the proponents of the arguments claim they mean. Often such denials lead to still other difficulties for the theist. A full presentation and defense of incompatible-properties arguments should explore such implications and fully pursue the many issues, whether semantical or not. That project is beyond the scope of the present essay.
My aim was simply to survey several of the more common (and a few not so common) incompatible-properties arguments for the nonexistence of God. Just which of those arguments are sound and which of them are most effective in discussions and debates with theists are further issues that are certainly worth pursuing.
RESPONSE:
I actually find this argument to be persuasive for all forms of theism except Christian theism wherein God's justice and mercy meet at the cross. Let me explain.
I want to argue that if God could have saved us without Jesus being crucified, then Christ’s death was either foolish, and/or suicidal. It was foolish because it wasn’t necessary in order to secure our salvation, and hence, there can be no morally sufficient reason(s) for why Jesus was crucified. In fact, if Jesus’ death wasn’t necessary then it seems that any good that his death might be connected with could still have been achieved without his death. Thus, if there is no justifying reason that gives adequate purpose to Christ’s death, no reason he had to die, then it seems that we could also view his death as suicidal.
To be frank, it seems like the only theory of the atonement, whether you modify it with vicarious suffering or the notion of penal debt paying, that necessitates the physical death of Jesus is the substitutionary theory of the atonement. It is this theory, and this theory alone which allows us to say not just that it was necessary that sin be punished, and that only Jesus could save us, but that his physical death was both necessary and the efficient cause of our salvation. Due to the fact that human beings have deliberately misused certain rights and/or privileges, they deserve to have those rights and/or privileges withdrawn. Thus, it is permissible for victims of deliberate wrongdoing (i.e. God) to demand that the deserved loss be exacted from their wrongdoers (i.e. human beings). Retributive punishment (of which the substitutionary theory of the atonement affirms), then, is the forcible withdrawal of certain rights and/or privileges from a wrongdoer in response to the intentional misuse of those rights and/or privileges by the wrongdoer. More specifically, assuming that earthly human life is a good and gracious gift of God and that the opportunity for loving relationship with himself is the highest good bar none, then to intentionally abuse the goods and opportunities of earthly human life, including the spiteful rejection of God’s offer of eternal friendship, is a clear misuse of the rights and privileges we have been given by God. To put the matter in theological terms, we deserve the divine punishment of physical and spiritual death. That is, we deserve to be physically separated from the goods and opportunities of earthly human life and we deserve to be spiritually separated from God’s loving presence.
Or to put it more precisely, if physical death is also part of the punishment due sin, then what is really meant by that is physical death while separated from a salvific relationship with God. Again, we don't suffer this. In Christ we physically die, but there is no sting in death any longer. Death is not an end, for a Christ-follower, but a beginning, as we often say.
But how can another person justly, and sensibly receive and remove the punishment do to another? The answer lies with an exploration of vicarious suffering.
VICARIOUS SUFFERING:
Person A deserves to be punished; person B undergoes hard treatment, which hard treatment constitutes A’s being punished; and so A no longer deserves to be punished. Vicarious punishment is genuine punishment when it is the case that one’s loved one is suffering because of one’s wrongful action. Moreover, it is important to distinguish between just, and unjust vicarious suffering. When a mob boss and his goons kidnap and torture a man’s innocent family member(s) in order to punish him for some moral debt owed to them, this would be unjust vicarious suffering.
However, Jesus voluntarily went to the cross, “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father (John 10:18).” Thus, what is needed for vicarious suffering to be just and sensible, is for person B to have the right state of mind and autonomy to decide to take on person A’s suffering, and this suffering must be effectual. Jesus’ atonement meets these conditions swimmingly.
Thus, it is at the cross of Jesus' crucifixion that we see God's justice meted out in full, but it is also because of the cross that those who fulfill their duty of choosing to have Jesus as their vicarious representative before God that all the wrongs such a person committed can be fully forgiven. So then, God has provided a way to fully pardon all wrongs and fully punish all wrongs, but in order to receive God's mercy, we must place our faith in God. However, those who freely reject God's merciful offer fall back onto His justice.
I want to argue that if God could have saved us without Jesus being crucified, then Christ’s death was either foolish, and/or suicidal. It was foolish because it wasn’t necessary in order to secure our salvation, and hence, there can be no morally sufficient reason(s) for why Jesus was crucified. In fact, if Jesus’ death wasn’t necessary then it seems that any good that his death might be connected with could still have been achieved without his death. Thus, if there is no justifying reason that gives adequate purpose to Christ’s death, no reason he had to die, then it seems that we could also view his death as suicidal.
To be frank, it seems like the only theory of the atonement, whether you modify it with vicarious suffering or the notion of penal debt paying, that necessitates the physical death of Jesus is the substitutionary theory of the atonement. It is this theory, and this theory alone which allows us to say not just that it was necessary that sin be punished, and that only Jesus could save us, but that his physical death was both necessary and the efficient cause of our salvation. Due to the fact that human beings have deliberately misused certain rights and/or privileges, they deserve to have those rights and/or privileges withdrawn. Thus, it is permissible for victims of deliberate wrongdoing (i.e. God) to demand that the deserved loss be exacted from their wrongdoers (i.e. human beings). Retributive punishment (of which the substitutionary theory of the atonement affirms), then, is the forcible withdrawal of certain rights and/or privileges from a wrongdoer in response to the intentional misuse of those rights and/or privileges by the wrongdoer. More specifically, assuming that earthly human life is a good and gracious gift of God and that the opportunity for loving relationship with himself is the highest good bar none, then to intentionally abuse the goods and opportunities of earthly human life, including the spiteful rejection of God’s offer of eternal friendship, is a clear misuse of the rights and privileges we have been given by God. To put the matter in theological terms, we deserve the divine punishment of physical and spiritual death. That is, we deserve to be physically separated from the goods and opportunities of earthly human life and we deserve to be spiritually separated from God’s loving presence.
Or to put it more precisely, if physical death is also part of the punishment due sin, then what is really meant by that is physical death while separated from a salvific relationship with God. Again, we don't suffer this. In Christ we physically die, but there is no sting in death any longer. Death is not an end, for a Christ-follower, but a beginning, as we often say.
But how can another person justly, and sensibly receive and remove the punishment do to another? The answer lies with an exploration of vicarious suffering.
VICARIOUS SUFFERING:
Person A deserves to be punished; person B undergoes hard treatment, which hard treatment constitutes A’s being punished; and so A no longer deserves to be punished. Vicarious punishment is genuine punishment when it is the case that one’s loved one is suffering because of one’s wrongful action. Moreover, it is important to distinguish between just, and unjust vicarious suffering. When a mob boss and his goons kidnap and torture a man’s innocent family member(s) in order to punish him for some moral debt owed to them, this would be unjust vicarious suffering.
However, Jesus voluntarily went to the cross, “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father (John 10:18).” Thus, what is needed for vicarious suffering to be just and sensible, is for person B to have the right state of mind and autonomy to decide to take on person A’s suffering, and this suffering must be effectual. Jesus’ atonement meets these conditions swimmingly.
Thus, it is at the cross of Jesus' crucifixion that we see God's justice meted out in full, but it is also because of the cross that those who fulfill their duty of choosing to have Jesus as their vicarious representative before God that all the wrongs such a person committed can be fully forgiven. So then, God has provided a way to fully pardon all wrongs and fully punish all wrongs, but in order to receive God's mercy, we must place our faith in God. However, those who freely reject God's merciful offer fall back onto His justice.
RSS Feed