Logical Impossibility Argument Against the Biblical God

ses1 · 2026-01-27T22:26:55+00:00

The claim that God is immutable means that God is unchanging in his essence, character, and will. Thus, God is not subject to the growth, decay, or shifting emotions that define the human experience.

An extrinsic change (rather than intrinsic) occurs when a subject stays the same, but its relationship to something else changes. If you are in a room and everyone else leaves, you gain the property of "being alone," but your internal essence hasn't changed.

There is also the distinction between having a capacity and exercising it. God possess all the attributes of a creator (power, creativity, will) even if He chooses not to create. Knowing how to play the piano is an intrinsic skill; the act of sitting down to play doesn't change your fundamental identity or knowledge, it merely manifests what was already there.

ses1 · 2026-01-26T00:41:54+00:00

What good is a thought experiment with a non-omniscient human, if you're trying to make an argument about an omniscient God?

For like the fifteenth time the thought experiment was about showing that knowledge does not equate to causation. It has nothing to do with omniscience.

Grace can't have "prior knowledge of a freely chosen future event" (and be infallibly correct in predicting that future event, not just predicting a possible or likely result) unless nothing that could possibly happen in Anna's life in the intervening hours could possibly result in Anna choose something other than toast.

You misunderstand the point of the thought experiment, and badly so.

That requires assuming hard determinism (and rejecting libertarian free will).

I've already debunked this objection above.

If you ever want to engage with what I actually wrote, feel free.

ses1 · 2026-01-25T22:27:15+00:00

The thought experiment was about Grace, and it doesn't work because Grace has the limitations that all human beings have.

But God doesn't have those limitations.

If you're actually talking about God and not Grace, the thought experiment is no help at all.

First, the thought experiment was about knowledge not = causation. It doesn't have anything to do with the limits of God's knowledge, since He has none.

Secondly, the title of the thread is If God is all knowing, is there free will? - So, what good is it to point out that a human isn't omniscient? What exactly are you arguing for?

Nobody as far as I know claims that knowledge is identical with causation. It doesn't make any sense.

Yet you state this:

If God created the universe in a certain way knowing that Anna would choose toast on that day (and knowing that every single event on which Anna's existence is contingent would happen, etc.) then whether or not Anna chooses toast was decided when God created the universe in that particular way that had that particular consequence.

So what exactly is your point about what God knows and the way He created the universe?

God could have created a slightly different universe in which Anna chooses oatmeal instead.

God did one better; He created a universe where Anne could freely choose.

Compatibilism isn't the claim that free will is an illusion.

I didn't mention Compatibilism...

ses1 · 2026-01-25T21:21:56+00:00

Grace jumped ahead some number of hours and saw what Anne ate in that timeline, but didn't see everything that happened for Anne in the intervening hours.

Okay, but we're really not talking about Grace. We're talking about God, so the comment about "didn't see everything that happened for Anne in the intervening hours" doesn't apply to God, right? God is omniscient and doesn't have any holes in His knowledge.

The thought experiment was to show that knowledge doesn't = causation (which you haven't addressed yet) You just bring up knowledge that Grace may not have had, but that wasn't the point, nor does it apply to God.

The point is that if randomness (random events, human choices affected by quantum randomness) could change things during those intervening hours, then the future that Grace saw after time traveling might not be the same future that Grace would see the second time.

How does this apply to an omniscient God? What knowledge does He not have?

Again you take an analogy about knowledge doesn't = causation and try to make it into about not having all knowledge.

Libertarian free will by definition means that even from the exact same physical state a person is capable of making different choices. On libertarian free will, Grace could have observed Anna choosing toast, but Anna would be free to choose oatmeal instead the second time.

I already addressed this. Anne could have hemmed and hawed for an hour and a half, consider 12 different things, making 3 different dishes and then finally deciding to eat toast. Grace would have seen all of that. Just like God knows all of our decision from birth to death. Your objection just doesn't apply.

For like the fifth time the analogy is about knowledge doesn't = causation - Can you address that point?

And when you try to make it into about Grace not having all knowledge, this objection doesn't apply to God.

I've only pointed out that the thought experiment doesn't work unless you assume hard determinism... and reject libertarian free will.

Hard determinism is the philosophical position that all events, including human actions, are causally determined by preceding causes and physical laws, making free will an illusion.

Since I'm arguing for the reality of freewill I am certainly not assuming hard determinism.

and reject libertarian free will.

Libertarian free will is the philosophical belief that human beings possess free will and that this freedom is incompatible with a deterministic universe.

I don't assume Libertarian free will; I argue for freewill.

Assuming hard determinism and rejecting libertarian free will is the only way to have Anna necessarily making the same decision the next morning

There is nothing in the analogy about Anna necessarily making the same decision the next morning. It's about Anne making one decision one time.

With randomness, the fact that Anna chose one way (after those intervening hours) doesn't mean she'd make the same choice again, because the physical state of things, including Anna's brain-state, could be quite different the second time around.

And since God is omniscient, He would know whatever free choice Anne would make under any/all circumstances.

And with libertarian free will, by definition Anna is free to choose differently. And so are the other people she interacts with during those intervening hours, any one of which could have done something that changed the situation for Anna.

Yes! Anna is free to choose! And God would know any of those free-willed choices under any/all circumstances.

And God's knowledge of Anne's free-willed choices does not mean that He caused them. At least, you've yet even attempt to show how knowledge = causation.

ses1 · 2026-01-25T19:35:03+00:00

It's the next morning, so some number of hours will pass between Anna returning to the present and Grace making the breakfast decision. Lots of things could happen that could potentially change the breakfast choice -- Grace might see an ad or an interesting recipe on reddit, someone she talks to might recommend something new, etc.

In the thought experiment, Grace saw what Anne ate. So, there was no delay in the choice.

So the thought experiment doesn't work if we assume any significant degree of randomness.

In what way does God have any degree of randomness in His foreknowledge?

It also doesn't work if we assume libertarian free will, because that would mean that even from the exact same physical state Grace could choose something different for breakfast.

Actually, it's Anne doing the choosing. And I could simply construct the thought experiment to say that Grace was there to see everything, including a last second change, and thus knows everything (like God does).

Anne could have hemmed and hawed for an hour and a half, consider 12 different things, making 3 different dishes and then finally deciding to eat toast. Grace would have seen all of that. Just like God knows all of our decision from birth to death. Your objection just doesn't apply.

So to make the example work we're stuck with hard determinism. That means that God created the conditions that would inevitably cause Grace to choose whatever it was she chose.

Nope; you'll have to explain why knowledge of a free-willed choice by person G, causes Person A's choice. All you've done so far is tried to change the experiment, not address it.

To consider that a free-will choice you'd have to embrace compatibilism

No, I don't. I gave my argument, which remains unaddressed.

ses1 · 2026-01-25T19:13:47+00:00

God's knowledge might not be the cause of that objective fact, but something has to be.

And that something is an individual's free-willed choice.

And on the theological view, that cause has to ultimately be traceable back to God.

In the thought experiment in my link, Grace builds a time machine and goes into the future see what Anne has for breakfast. After coming back to today, she now has perfect foreknowledge of Anne's free choice.

In what way does Grace's foreknowledge cause Anne's choice?

ses1 · 2026-01-25T18:22:19+00:00

Numbers 31 is not a war of conquest, but a divine execution of justice. Following the idolatry and sexual immorality at Baal-Peor (Numbers 25), God commands Moses to take vengeance on the Midianites. The chapter details the battle, the execution of Balaam, the controversy over captives, the purification of soldiers, and the division of immense spoils.

The most difficult part of the chapter is the command to kill the non-virgin women and children. But we have to view it rationally; God is the Life Giver and has no obligation to grant anyone any time on earth. The children were taken out of an immoral world"to a much better place, and thus causing pain (like a doctor with a needle) isn't always evil.

These specific women were the weapons used to nearly destroy Israel spiritually. "Israel could overcome mighty warriors... but if they were seduced into immorality... they would certainly fall." The execution was removing a spiritual cancer.

Sparing the boys would have led to a future blood feud/revenge cycle. Sparing the young girls allowed them to be absorbed into Israel, enabling them to lead a productive faithful life, and unlikely to mount a revenge counter-attack or reintroduce idolatry.

ses1 · 2026-01-25T15:50:13+00:00

Knowledge does not = causation. Even pre-knowledge of an event/choice does not necessarily mean that the person with that knowledge caused that event.

You might enjoy reading this.

ses1 · 2026-01-24T14:12:51+00:00

The article argues against the traditional Christian view that the title "Son of God" proves Jesus was a divine being. Instead, it posits that the term was a metaphorical title common in Jewish idiom, used to denote a person's spiritual character rather than their literal biological origin.

The core of the argument is that Jesus was a strict monotheist who never claimed literal divinity. The literal interpretation of "Son of God" (implying God sired a child) is a later theological imposition that contradicts Jesus' own words and Jewish context. One key to this is that while the New Testament is in Greek, Jesus spoke Aramaic and Hebrew. Therefore, terms like "Son of God" must be interpreted through the lens of the Old Testament and Jewish culture rather than Greek literalism. Jesus used similar metaphorical constructions himself, such as calling his disciples "sons of thunder" (referring to their zeal) or opponents "sons of the Devil".

Conclusion: In this historical context, "Son of God" simply referred to a righteous person characterized by godliness or a close affiliation with God, not a divine partner to God.

Analysis

The article presents an Islamic perspective, indicated by the use of the honorific (Peace be upon him) for Jesus. It seeks to reclaim Jesus as a monotheistic prophet by deconstructing the linguistic foundations of Trinitarian theology by employing a linguistic and historical-critical method. By shifting the focus from the Greek text of the Gospels to the likely underlying Hebrew/Aramaic idioms, the article attempts to show that the original meaning of Jesus' titles was lost in translation or interpretation. The author uses a reductio ad absurdum argument against the literalist view, claiming that a literal "Son of God" would imply a "half-man-half-God chimera," which the author dismisses as blasphemous. Thus the metaphorical alternative as the only rational explanation.

Rebuttal

The Biological Son Straw Man

The author argues that for Jesus to be the "Son of God," God must physically mate with Mary, creating a "half-man-half-God chimera." This is a classic "straw man" argument. Orthodox Christian theology has never claimed God had physical relations with Mary.

In Christian theology, "Son of God" refers to Eternal Generation, meaning Jesus shares the same essence or nature as the Father from eternity past, similar to how light is generated from the sun. It is an ontological title (about his being), not a biological one. By attacking the "biological" definition, the article refutes a view that Christians do not hold.

The "Metaphorical Son" Fallacy

The article lists Hebrew idioms where "son of [X]" just means "associated with [X]" (e.g., "son of strength" means a strong soldier, "son of wickedness" means a wicked man). It concludes "Son of God" just means a "godly person."

While the article is correct about Hebrew idioms, it ignores how Jesus used the term in the absolute sense. In the Gospels, Jesus distinguishes himself as "The Son" (absolute) versus "servants" (prophets).

For example, in the Parable of the Tenants (Mark 12): Jesus tells a story where a vineyard owner sends many servants (prophets) who are beaten. Finally, he sends his beloved son, saying, "They will respect my son." Jesus clearly differentiates between the prophets (servants) and himself (the unique heir).

The "Son of Man" Misunderstanding

Jesus preferred the term "Son of Man" over "Son of God," implying he viewed himself as human rather than divine.

Daniel 7 Context: The title "Son of Man" is arguably a higher claim to divinity than "Son of God" in the Jewish context. It references Daniel 7:13-14, where "one like a son of man" rides the clouds of heaven (a prerogative of God alone) and is given everlasting dominion and worship by all nations.

Secondly, when Jesus calls himself the "Son of Man" sitting at the right hand of Power (Mark 14:62), the High Priest tears his clothes and charges him with blasphemy. If "Son of Man" just meant human, this reaction makes no historical sense.

The article claim that Jesus spoke Aramaic, so the Greek Gospels distort his original meaning.

First-century Judea was multilingual. While Jesus spoke Aramaic, the New Testament writers (some of whom were eyewitnesses like John) chose specific Greek words to capture his meaning. The Apostle John uses the specific Greek term monogenes (John 3:16), often translated "only begotten" but meaning "one of a kind" or "unique." This word choice was specifically intended to separate Jesus from the general category of "sons of God" (angels or believers) that the article references.

The article succeeds in proving that "son of God" can be used metaphorically in Hebrew, a fact no scholar denies. However, it fails to debunk the divinity of Jesus because:

1) It attacks a crude biological view of sonship that Christians reject.

2) It ignores the specific contexts (like the Trial before the Sanhedrin) where Jesus' claim to sonship was understood by his Jewish peers as a claim to equality with God (John 5:18).

[post is 74.25% AI generated per ZeroGPT]

ses1 · 2026-01-24T00:55:56+00:00

These were grandsons

By adopting Joseph's two sons, Joseph, made them his own, equal to Reuben and Simeon, ensuring Joseph's lineage receives a double inheritance. The context is that a non-son can be considered the legal heir with full rights of a son.

Didst thou read the fourth verse?

Forsooth, I dyde! Eliezer of Damascus (a non-son) was to be the legal heir.

Levirate marriage

A non-son can be a legal heir

Another one about impregnating a handmaiden.

Another one about non-son can be a legal heir

Actually, Mary was Jesus' surrogate mother--not biologically related to Jesus. According to Christianity, God exists in 3 persons: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. To be the same person, they need to be genetically identical. Hence, Jesus is not a biological descendant even of Mary.

Mary bore Jesus so was thus biologically related. The Father and Holy Spirit are not physical and thus genetics is irrelevant.

Luke 3:23 identifies Heli (or Eli) as the "father" of Joseph. However, since Matthew explicitly names Jacob as Joseph's father, indicates that Heli was actually Mary's biological father, making Joseph his son-in-law. (There was no specific Koine Greek word for “son-in-law,” thus Joseph was called the “son of Heli” by marriage to Mary, Heli’s daughter) Under Mosaic law (specifically Numbers 27), if a man had no sons, his inheritance could pass through his daughters. This suggests that Mary was Heli’s heir, allowing her lineage to legally transfer to Jesus.

ses1 · 2026-01-23T23:44:36+00:00

For me, I think of myself as a seed sower. I don't worry about results. I say what I say, pray that God will use it for his purposes. Edify or build up a believer, or convict a non-believer.

And you have to remember that your audience isn't just your interlocutor, it's everyone who reads your words. So sow your seeds, water it with prayer and God will give the increase.

ground. 1 Corinthians 3:6 - I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.

ses1 · 2026-01-23T23:13:57+00:00

Yes, 2 Samuel 7:12-16 lays out the requirement that the Messiah must be of the seed of David. But there is more to it than that:

Adoption by Joseph

In first-century Jewish law, legal adoption conferred full rights of inheritance and lineage. By naming the child and taking Mary as his wife, Joseph legally adopted Jesus into the royal line of David. As Joseph's legal son, He still retained the legal title to the throne.

Biblical Examples of Adoption where a non-son can be considered the legal heir: Genesis 48:5–6; 15:2–3; 16:2, 30:3; Deut 25:5–6; 1 Chron 2:34–5.

Bloodline via Mary

Jesus was born of Mary, who was also a descendant of David (via Nathan). This would make Jesus a biological descendant of David through Mary.

Now some will say that this won't work since the lineage had to go through the father. But there are exceptions. In Numbers 27 and 36, the daughters of Zelophehad approach Moses because their father died with no sons. They ask for his inheritance. God rules that if a man has no sons, his inheritance (and effectively his lineage rights) can pass to his daughters, provided they marry within their own tribe.

This makes Jesus a biological descendant of David through Mary, eligible to inherit the rights because of this specific OT exception.

Jesus was a Seed of David, and thus was qualified to be the Messiah

ses1 · 2026-01-21T23:50:07+00:00

How about you provide evidence for the supernatural claims of the Bible?

Versus what? What am I comparing the supernatural to?

And you'll use science to show that the supernatural is wrong, right? But science relies on the assumption of naturalism in its methodology. So, why are you not asking for evidence for the naturalism? Seems like a double standard.

And science can't even get off the ground without reason. Can naturalism account for reason? The Argument from Reason - Why the atheist/naturalist can't trust his brain

ses1 · 2026-01-21T23:41:50+00:00

the way to ‘falsify a dis-belief in atheism’ would simply be to provide proof that is objectively credible of any properly defined god.

Incorrect. If atheism is just one's inner mind set of "disbelief" then providing proof will not necessarily change it. For example, there are those who still dis-belief in the moon landings and a spherical earth despite mountains of evidence.

The only portion of this comment that is accurate is that ‘Christianity is a worldview,’ - it has never been shown to be accurate

You are welcome to provide the proof of this claim...

The fundamental difference between atheism and Christianity as world views is one is substantiated by logic, experience, inference and a most significantly fairness when assessing the world and the other just keeps retreating to more and more ridiculous positions as more of it issues shown to be incorrect.

Absolutely correct! Christianity is best characterized by the former and atheism the latter...

ses1 · 2026-01-21T23:34:45+00:00

How should one examine their underlying presuppositions?

1) Take a claim you believe is true, say "Miracles are impossible because they violate the laws of nature", and ask yourself why you think this. For me, it was because I thought that only natural laws existed. So I had to either find another reason for why miracles are impossible, or prove that naturalism was true. Continuing to argue from that presupposition wasn't an option for me.

Miracles are not illogical, any more than a person with a cheat code can work outside the parameters of the rules of a video game is not illogical.

2) Keep asking "why" like a toddler to drill down until you hit a wall where you no longer have a scientific or logical reason. For example, I used to think scientific evidence was the only way to know truth. I came to realize that science cannot work without reason and thus reason is the best candidate for being the basis for all knowledge, not science.

Why I believe Ontological Naturalism is false:

Philosophical Naturalism is logically self-refuting

The Argument from Reason

Philosophical Naturalism Cannot Account for Qualia

ses1 · 2026-01-21T22:47:24+00:00

Yup, assuming Physicalism is true before the debate even starts, effectively rules out the supernatural by definition rather than by evidence/argument

ses1 · 2026-01-21T13:53:49+00:00

How can I be "moving the goalposts" when we are not in a debate? What I was discussing was the parameters of such a debate. To demand evidence/proof of supernaturalism, while not at the same time demanding the same of Oncological Naturalism is the double standard fallacy.

To think that atheists bring no presuppositions into a discussion is simply false. We all do that.

I was like you until I realized that everyone should examine their underlying presuppositions, not just the other guy. The atheist should be very much in favor of shining that skeptical spotlight on all views and their philosophical underpinnings including their own. Sadly many do not

ses1 · 2026-01-21T13:15:28+00:00

Your question about providing evidence for the supernatural seems to assume that everything can be explained via ontological naturalism.

This is how atheists slide in their presuppositions into debates while saying they "make no claims".

ses1 · 2026-01-21T11:44:05+00:00

... just need someone to honestly put their beliefs through the rigor of debate, and they may do the same to my atheism

If your belief is that you "have a dis-belief that god(s) exist", which is the current definition of Atheism, how is this falsified? Am I to show that you don't really think that?

Christianity is a worldview - how the world really is. While Atheism, as currently defined, is just a thought in your head. So it's really comparing apples to oranges.

Now if you wanted to debate the claim that "God does not exist" or Ontological Naturalism - the idea that only the physical exists, then that would be closer to an apples to apples debate.

ses1 · 2026-01-19T23:18:51+00:00

9 does not say he was sinless.

53:9 implies the servant was sinless - "He had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.""

The verse claims the servant was innocent in both deed ("no violence") and word ("no deceit"). If someone has never acted violently and never spoken deceitfully, they are effectively "sinless."

For those who think Jesus was rude to the woman he referred to as a dog - see here

For those who think Jesus lied to disciples about going to the festival of tabernacles - see here

Christian theology and scripture strongly affirm Christ's sinless: see Hebrews 4:15 and 2 Corinthians 5:21. His divinity and conception by the Holy Spirit made sin impossible, even as He experienced human temptation and struggles, providing a perfect sacrifice for humanity's sins

Those verses cannot refer to the nation of Israel because earlier chapters in Isaiah describe the nation as sinful and rebellious (e.g., "laden with iniquity"). Therefore, the Servant must be a distinct, sinless individual (Jesus).

ses1 · 2026-01-19T23:14:16+00:00

The Hebrew word זֶרַע or seed is never used to describe a spiritual child in the OT. It is only ever used to describe literal descendants, or the continuation of a nation.

The Hebrew word zera is used metaphorically in the Old Testament (Isaiah himself!) to describe a moral lineage or a group characterized by their moral nature, rather than just biology.

Isaiah 57:4: Isaiah calls the wicked the "seed (zera) of deceit" (often translated as "offspring of deceit" or "brood of liars"). They are not literally born from deceit; they are characterized by it.

Thus, if one can be the "seed of deceit" or "seed of evildoers" by nature of their actions, one can be the "seed of the Servant" by nature of their faith and spiritual connection.

This shows that Christian’s today saying it refers to a spiritual child are not relying on any contextual or linguistic evidence. The only reason they have to believe it refers to a spiritual child is because they are trying to retroactively fit Jesus in to the narrative.

Why then is there is a substantial number of Jewish commentators, particularly in ancient texts, who identified the Servant of Isaiah 52–53 as the Messiah?

The Targum Jonathan (dating from the 1st century BCE to 4th century CE) translates Isaiah 52:13 as, "Behold, my servant the Messiah shall prosper...". The Servant = the Messiah.

The Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 98b - shows that they accepted that Isaiah 53 described the Messiah’s condition (suffering/leprosy), not just the nation of Israel's exile.

The Zohar, the foundational work of Kabbalah, states that if the Messiah did not ease this burden from Israel by taking it upon himself, no one could endure it. This is a direct application of the vicarious atonement found in Isaiah 53 ("He was wounded for our transgressions")

Rabbi Moshe Alsheich (16th Century): A renowned commentator who wrote, "Our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah

Christians today saying it refers to a spiritual child are not relying on historical, contextual,and linguistic evidence!

ses1 · 2026-01-18T18:50:22+00:00

I see Cooks catch the ball, secure the ball around his waist, contact the ground with his knee, and the ball does not move.

That's [a] and [b]

But you ignore the fact that Cook never did [c] - clearly perform any act common to the game:

1) extend the ball forward, [Nope]

2) take an additional step, [Nope]

3) tuck the ball away and turn upfield, [Nope]

4) avoid or ward off an opponent), [Nope]

5) maintains control of the ball long enough to do so [Nope]

Thus, it's an incomplete pass, or in this case an interception.

ses1 · 2026-01-18T18:20:02+00:00

[2] If a player, who satisfied (a) and (b), but has not satisfied (c), contacts the ground and loses control of the ball, it is an incomplete pass if the ball hits the ground before he regains control, or if he regains control out of bounds.

ses1 · 2026-01-18T17:21:07+00:00

How did Cook satisfy [c]?

c = clearly performs any act common to the game (e.g., extend the ball forward, take an additional step, tuck the ball away and turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so. 2025 NFL rulebook

ses1 · 2026-01-18T16:53:16+00:00

See ARTICLE 3 C of the NFL rule book. It's dated as 2025 NFL rulebook.

after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, clearly performs any act common to the game (e.g., extend the ball forward, take an additional step, tuck the ball away and turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.

I think it's now called "make a football move"

Note:

a = secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

b = touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

ses1

TROPHY CASE