Absolute Nonsense

Isn’t that a delightful title!?

This being the fifth (if you don’t count Fractal Reality) of a progressive series of posts explaining the logical necessity of Christianity, I suggest that you, my reader and my friend, make sure that you have read the other four before continuing with this one.  Additionally, I have recently made some revisions to the Character of the Omnipotent (an absolute impossibility) and it might therefore be helpful for older readers (or younger ones who have been reading for longer) to go back and check that out as well.

And now to the matter at hand: Absolute Nonsense.  Indeed it is fitting that I begin this post by telling you that I have made revisions to the Character of the Omnipotent as that act epitomizes the subject of this post.  C. S. Lewis begins His book Miracles with the introduction of a concept that he calls ‘Omnipotent Impossibility.’  He expounds on this concept by presenting a model of ‘Relative Impossibility.’  He says that it is impossible for him to see the street as he writes because he is not sitting near a window that faces the street. He goes on to say that this is a relative impossibility because him seeing the street is really only impossible unless he were to get up and go outside or walk over to a window where he could see it.

The defining characteristic of Lewis’ ‘Relative Impossibilities’ is that they are impossibilities that exist relative to other mutable facts.  Him seeing the street is relatively impossible because he is sitting somewhere where he can’t see it, but his location (and or the building’s architecture) is a mutable fact; that is, he is able to change his location.  But it is impossible for him to remain in a situation in which he cannot see the street and also see the street.

‘Omnipotent Impossibility,’ or Absolute Nonsense, arises when the facts that cause the impossibility are immutable. For example, if Lewis were not able to change his situation, if his situate were bound to the very structure of reality, he would Absolutely not be able to see the street.  So can be the case with the Omnipotent.

And such is the case in a few parts of our model of the Omnipotent so far.  In my last Omnipotent post, I said that the Omnipotent could not possibly destroy a part of Himself.  This is an impossibility that exists relative to Him, and consequentially, to the structure of reality.  He cannot both exist and be destroyed, and reality itself depends on His existence–He is reality; therefore, the notion of His destruction or absence is not real. It is Absolute Nonsense.

To simplify and clarify as best I can: all impossibilities exist relative to something, and if that something is mutable, then those impossibilities are not absolute, but if that something is the Omnipotent Himself, then those impossibilities are absolute because He is the very definition of reality and is therefore immutable.

11 thoughts on “Absolute Nonsense

  1. While you are an absolutely beautiful writer, this is pitiful logic. I will never understand the incessant word-juggling of the faithful when used as an attempt for validation of that which cannot be validated, but I can admire the art of their struggle.

    • Could you please be a little more specific? Where are the fallacies in its logic? Or does it lack logic all together? In any case, it is not cooth to make such an accusation without providing evidence and reasoning. It’s ironic that you would insult my overly flowery rhetoric and then use no evidence in your own argument.

      By “word-juggling of the faithful” did you mean “artful use of rhetoric by Christians?” (I’m not sure I know what you are referring to by “faithful”)

      I am very logically based, though I will confess that I often leave much of the reasoning to be completed by the reader. But I think if you read my other posts, you will realize that I’m extremely technical and base my arguments on the most formal of reasoning.

      Thank you very much for your comment and for reading my post. I hope I didn’t insult you; my attack is aimed at your argument, not you. I am very happy to have an opposing view to address; please just make sure that you actually present one.

      • Take, for example, the illogical assertion that ‘God is reality’. While you bring to light some of Lewis’ own thoughts on the matter, you simply assert that this god is, in fact, reality, and as result immutable. I agree with the logic of ‘relative impossibility’, as I cannot see the street unless I do as you described. ‘Omnipotent impossibility’, on the other hand, isn’t only validated by assuming god immutable. What evidence have you for that to validate that the omnipotent is so?

        • Thank you for being more formal. This is clearly a simple misunderstanding. I addressed the logical necessity of the Omnipotent in my earlier post “The Necessity of the Omnipotent.” This post, “Absolute Nonsense,” as I wrote in the beginning, already asserts an understanding derived from that and the other three previous parts of this argument. By my definition of the Omnipotent as I articulated it in that first post, the Omnipotent is reality and is immutable (this, being a definition, is not a matter of debate). The argument you should be addressing therefore, is that first post which explains why the Omnipotent must exist as He does.
          To be clear about the structure:
          1. I came up with a definition of a being that I call The Omnipotent; this step is not a part of the chain of reasoning but rather a part of the establishment of the scope of the argument.
          2. I went through the logic to prove the necessity of the existence of The Omnipotent as I defined It (this is where you probably want to direct your argument, see the post “The Necessity of the Omnipotent”)
          3. I continued to uncover more complexities of the matter through logic and rhetoric in following posts (this being one of those)

          I would also like to inform you that, for your convenience, all the posts that make up this argument can be found in one place under the category “The Omnipotent.” They are posted chronologically in the order in which they are intended to be read.

  2. Pardon, I mean to say that “Omnipotent impossibility is only validated by assuming god is immutable.”

  3. …explaining the logical necessity of Christianity…

    Sorry, but at this point you completely lose my interest. Roughly an equal number of people believe in Islam as just as “logical,” and vast numbers of others believe in other paths that are equally valid.

    As I mentioned in a previous comment, theologians have been trying to prove the logical existence of their (usually Christian) God for a very long time. Such arguments always fail. God cannot be based on logic, but on faith and belief.

    • I hadn’t really gotten to the part about differentiating between faith yet, but one must have patience with that process. There is a lot more to consider then just how many people believe in it; in fact, I would argue that such a piece of data is completely irrelevant.

      Additionally, I’m not trying to PROVE the existence of God any more than you are trying to DIS-PROVE the existence of God. It’s an argument. It follows a series of logical steps, but it also involves the art of rhetoric and other such faculties. However, I do believe it is a sound argument, or I wouldn’t have bothered sharing it. All the opposition I’ve yet encountered is purely rhetorical, or else some mixing of scopes, or a rejection of absolutism–all of which I do not consider to be evidence that this is not a sound argument. Besides, this comment has nothing to do with this post, it seems more an attic on the act of thinking then on any thinking put forth here.

      • All such arguments rest on assumptions, axioms, that must be taken on faith. I don’t agree with your axioms, so there’s little chance I will find arguments that depend on them compelling.

        Here’s the thing. My father (and his father) were Lutheran ministers, so I was brought up in–and have escaped from–Christianity. As such, theology and philosophy have fascinated me for over 40 years. I’ve been part of discussions like these more times than I can count,

        It’s vital and interesting to you, which is wonderful, but it’s a well-traveled road for me, and right now too many other things are pulling at my time. Your arguments are interesting enough that I will try to come by this way again when I can.

        In the meantime, if you like, you can go to my Reading List, scroll down to The Spirituality series and check out the four posts I’ve already written. They may help you see where I’m coming from and give us a point from which to begin if/when I can return.

        • I resent your implied assumptions about my experience in these matters, and would prefer we remain impersonal. I have very much experience as well, and if there is a vitality in my writing, then it should be celebrated as well crafted communication that has resulted from years of work.

          I am only trying to help further the argument, and I certainly believe that there is a great deal of humility that is required on both sides in order for us to be productive. As soon as one starts making comments like this, the discussion is no longer a mutual quest for truth, but a barbaric competition of egos, of which I wish to be no part.

          I realize your time is precious, and you are by no means obligated to comment here if you do not wish to. I thank you for your points of view; the broadening of inputs is always beneficial, but if this argument is not sufficiently honest for you, then, while I would rather we both get off our high-horses and try to communicate, please feel free to disconnect yourself with the discussion.

          • No insult was intended or implied. In fact, I complimented you while explaining why I need to move on for now. To refer to what I’ve written as a “barbaric competition of egos” seems ungracious.

            It is true that I do not pull my punches, nor do I award “A for effort.” That’s just how I roll.

            • Thank you, just try to keep it impersonal. This should not be about you or me, but about the argument. Therefore, there should be no commenting along the lines of “look sonny, I’ve been doing this a long time, and I’ll get back to setting you strait once I’m done with all the other stuff I have to do.” Obviously I exaggerate, but I’m sure you could see how what you’ve written might come off with such a negative sense of condescension. If you wish to refute something, just try to keep it relevant to the argument, not to the appearance of the arguer.

              I am not concerned with what you think of me or how others perceive me, but how this effects my argument. It is the whole concept (that is used all to often in politics) that if you can’t beat his argument, go after his image and the both will topple together. This is just another dishonest rhetorical strategy, and while I am not offended in any personal way, it causes me to fear for my argument; that’s the only reason I point it out, however unintentional or subtle it may have been.

              Thank you.

Add something to the discussion.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s