On impossibility of God

  1. God has to be simple otherwise He is subjected to time
  2. This, being subjected to time, is impossible though
  3. God cannot be simple (God is love, God is Justice, etc.)
  4. From (1), (2) and (3) we deduce that God is impossible

First, God is the following things: God is Love, God is Justice, etc. Love however is different from Justice therefore God cannot be simple. This justifies premise (3). This can be only resolved if God is subjected to time, sometimes Love, sometimes Justice, etc. So premise (1) is justified.

Second, God cannot be subjected to time since God has to either wait eternity to create the universe or He comes into existence at a given point. The first case is impossible. The second case also impossible, something cannot comes of out of nothing. So premise (2) is justified.

Other than your argument P3, the default is God as understood with the conventional properties assigned to God, God is not a simple being.

God is also known as the Absolute.
Since God is Absolute, i.e. totally unconditional, God cannot be conditioned by time or any other conditions/variables. Thus your P1 and P2.

However I believe your conclusion is not complete,
Your conclusion should be;

God is impossible to be subjected to time.

Your argument would be better presented via this syllogism’

P1 Absolute [theistic] meant totally unconditioned of any variable [e.g. time]
P2 God is the Absolute
C1 Therefore God is unconditioned by time.
It is impossible for God to be conditioned by time.

There is nothing significant with the above.

What is significant is this point;

Is God a possibility to exists as real?

I have argued the point here
God is an Impossibilty to be real

No, premise (1) requires that God to be subject to time because He cannot be simple. He cannot be simple because He has to be love and Justice.

You are basically trying to justify premise (2). I however argue in favor of premise (2).

I will look at your thread shortly.

Are complicated things necessarily subject to time? Are there simple things that are not? Simple in what way.

Why can’t God evolve? Change over time, that is.

Why can’t God be simple? Are you saying that because people say God is different things, God can’t be simple? Could’t some of the definitions be wrong? Or couldn’t being loving lead to just actions and attitudes. Is there a particular God you are saying is impossible`? Some versions of God are not just.

Possibly if one was working from a specific defintion of God.

Well, first there’s the possibility that Loving and being just are facets of the same simple attitude.

Why would God have to wait?

Yes. Complicated things either move toward more complexity or simplicity depending on the mode of things.

I don’t understand you. Could you please elaborate?

Evolve toward what? Knowing more? That is the attribute of creature.

Because God is love and justice. Basically these are definitions of God which are not equal because love and justice are different.


God at least is love and justice. He is also existence. There are other definitions too. A God who is love cannot be hate for example so we have to decide which one God is, good God or Evil God? Here as an example we are working with good God.

There is problem if there are at least two definitions.

Pick up your definitions. The problem arises when there are at least two definitions for God.

Then please show that love and justice are facets of the same simple attitude.

Because by eternity we mean that God has existed in infinite past. Creation apparently is not eternal, it has a age. Therefore God has to wait eternity to create.

My point is why beat around the bush with God is love, justice, thus not simple, thus not subjected to time.
To state God is love, justice is unconvincing when there is so much evil happening in God’s presence, thus you are limited by the Problem of Evil Argument.

I suggested it would be better for you to argue from the point is God is Absolute, omnipresent, omniscience, omnipotent, omni-timelessness, omni-whatever as in the syllogism I presented above.

Whilst what I suggested for you is a neater, better argument than your OP’s, it will not go far against my own argument;
God is an impossibility to be real, linked above.

I understand your point. You showed that God cannot be subject to time. To show that God is an impossibility I need to show that God is subjected to time too. This leads to a contradiction, therefore God becomes an impossibility. I don’t know another way to show that God is subjected to time.

I don’t think your argument works.

You cannot simply conclude ‘God is an impossibility’ because “you” cannot show God is subjected to time.

In any case, you did not state ‘God is an impossibility’ in what sense?

Note God is a possibility in thought only, i.e. anyone can think ‘God exists’ which can affect them psychologically.
Islamic extremists think God exists, delivers holy texts that command them to kill non-believers to gain favor to enter heaven with eternal life and access to virgins. Other theists are affected psychologically merely based on thinking and believing God exists based on faith and without proofs.

So you must state the specific sense where God is an impossibility or possibility.

Note I have argued;

  1. God is possible within thoughts only.

  2. God is an impossible in the logical sense, God can only be possible within pseudo-rational thoughts.

  3. God is an impossibility to be in the real sense, e.g. within Science and empirical-rational perspective.

I don’t think there are other perspectives to postulate God beside the above? Do you have any?

Nb: Definitely God cannot be impossible because you cannot justify God exists within time.

I can show that God is an impossibility if He has to be subjected to time and cannot be subject to time at the same time.

Isn’t this p and not-p an obvious contradiction, thus an impossibility, i.e.
IF a contradition, obviously an impossibility.

The most effective argument is;
God is an impossibility to be real.

When it is rationalized philosophically God is impossible to be real, then any question of ‘God exists as real’ is moot, i.e. a non-starter.

Thus the only avenue for God to exists is only in thought [mind] and this is driven by a psychological impulses originating from an existential crisis.

This is why non-theistic Buddhism [and other non-theistic secular approaches] focuses on the mind and psychological to deal directly with the specific existential crisis and side-step the never-ending, unresolvable, & certain-potentially-evil-laden issue of God exists.

Yes, the argument is about showing that God is an impossibility to be real.

Yes, “real” is the most realistic qualification.

ALL if not most theists believe God to be real to the extent of sending his messages and commands via messengers and prophets, listening & answering the prayers of believers, created the Universe, etc.

Even pantheists believe God to be real in one sense but is indifferent to the world in another.

It is insignificant and not critical to prove God is an impossibility to be a false, fiction, imagination, and anything else unreal.
Surely no theists would want to believe in a God that is unreal??

Therefore the explicit and implicit qualification for any God [believed by any theist] is that it must be a real God.
As a counter I have proven ‘God is an Impossibility to be Real.’

Since God is an impossibility to be real, the question of a real God is a moot, i.e. a non-starter.

However, one can still think of an unreal God for various reasons, especially for psychological reasons to deal with an inherent existential crisis, where it really works to relieve existential angst subliminally.

My point is, where theists believe in a God they have to understand they believe for its psychological reasons & benefits and they cannot insist such a God is real in a realistic sense.

The already proven dangers of believing ‘the theistic God is real’ is when such a real God is believed to deliver commands to believers to kill non-believers as a divine duty and carry out other evil acts against non-believers.

If God is understood to be only a thought and not real, but only to relieve an inherent unavoidable existential crisis psychologically, then a belief in God will be confined to be personal and private.

Figuring out why God is here is one of those great fissures into the unknown books and outlines of an invisible existence. We have yet to penetrate or unravel why such intelligence exited its old dream trance oblivion, and took over our worldly precipice. Does ultimate control cheapen the imagination? It could, because just having hands over the world may make fiction too weak of a force. If we just go to books, and believe that’s real, does that make it more influential than if you know too much about what’s possible and impossible like God does? And could we even handle knowing everything for that matter? Such ventures may be too extraordinary to capture.

We can do away with the question of God totally when we can understand and psychologically accept ‘God is an impossibility to to real’ as in this thread

Think about it?
What has theists at present to lose if they give up their belief in the idea of God?
I do not anticipate anything serious will happen to the world but for the individual theists there would be a very high psychological stake if they were to just give up a belief in God. Theists will feel psychologically shaken if they give up God.

Theists argued the moral foundation of humanity will break down if there are no theistic beliefs.
Nope, all human beings has an inherent faculty of morality and conscience and without theism this potential will unfold spontaneously and expeditiously. Note secular morality has abolish chattel slavery legally while SOME theistic holy texts are still stuck with immutable verses that condone slavery, caste system, etc.

The OP proposition strikes me as literal nonsense of the absolutist variety. God is defined to the satisfaction of the definer who then concludes that his own chosen definition is an impossibility. Wouldn’t intellectual humility rather lead one to consider the possibility that one’s definition is in error?
I’m using the term “nonsense” literally. Why not ask the question: Is there a possible experience which would justify believing in God? From the standpoint of empiricism one could then estimate the probability of such experience. But I don’t see how one can claim with certitude that such experience is impossible.

It is the conflict in the definitions which give rise to an impossibility.

Which definition is wrong? What is your definition of God?

Experience? Any supernatural evil being can claim that s/he is God. What is the truth?

I didn’t say that experience of supernatural beings is impossible.

As I stated above, I am going by the OP. There I understand you to define God in terms of simplicity and non-subjection to time.

And how do you KNOW with certitude that what you experience is NOT God?

If our sense of what is a paradox holds at all levels and all possibilities. Once we would have said that being a wave or a particle were mutually exclusive states of being. That something could not both act as a wave and as a particle at the same time. Deduction eliminated this possibility. Yet, now it seems to be the case.

Particles in superposition both exist and do not exist. They sort of exist in potential. Again, deduction might have said this was not possible, but now it is pretty much accepted in physics models.

Our deductions are always dependent on our metaphysics. What seems obvious may not be.

God is defined as love and justice too. This make this is against simplicity of God unless you show that love and justice are similar.

I asked “what is the truth?”.

I don’t think that we could call a quantum particle as simple.