Is The Christian God Impossible?

Rebuttal of Chad Docterman's essay 

"Why the Christian God is Impossible"

My intention for this post is to write a detailed rebuttal of the arguments made by Chad Docterman’s essay on “why the Christian God is impossible.”  The main thesis of Docterman’s essay is that the Christian God’s attributes are self-contradictory.  He correctly understands what it means for something to be self-contradictory when he claims that God has “mutually exclusive attributes that make [His] existence impossible.”  Though he has a correct view of self-contradiction he in no way proves that God’s attributes are mutually exclusive.  I will not address every point made by Docterman because I trust that any reader can see that my arguments and answers to his objections can easily transfer to the points not directly addressed.

"Perfection Seeks even more perfection"

The argument that he makes in this section does not by necessity prove that God creating the world is a contradiction to his perfection.  His argumentation can be broke down as such: 

1:  God is perfect

2:  Perfect beings need nothing, desires nothing, and doesn’t need to do anything 

3:  God created the universe 

4:  Therefore a perfect creator God is impossible.  

This argument cannot even get off the ground because his conclusion does not follow necessarily from these premises.  Even if each of these premises were true his argument would be invalid and the conclusion should be rejected.  

But to think deeper about this argument we can see that there is a hidden premise that he does not reveal to the reader.  His implied premise can be worded as: 

  3a:God created man because he needed companionship or love.”  

If this premise were included in his argument it would at least become a logically valid argument.  Now the question is whether or not the premises are true making a sound argument.  This would be a sound argument against the Muslim or Jehovah Witness's concept of god because they define god as a monad.  Since they describe a god simply as strictly singular they speak of a god who has no concept of love, companionship, community, etc without the creation of mankind.  So these concepts of a god are false because they would fit into Docterman's argument (with my included implied premise 3a).   

However, the triune God described in the full teaching of the bible has no need to create man because there is perfect community within the unity of the persons of the trinity.  He was already experiencing love, companionship, and community in eternity past before the creation event.  What compelled Him to create man was not based on any need but just out of a choice to create free-will image-bearing creations. 

Other presuppositions he has that are unwarranted are the claim that a "perfect being cannot desire something" and that a "perfect being does nothing but exist".  Again the biblical concepts of sovereignty and free-will helps one to understand how a perfect being could desire something.  If God sovereignly chose to give mankind free-will there would be no contradiction to God's sovereignty and his desire for free-will creatures to come to know Him. (1 Timothy 2:4)

"Perfect beings begets imperfection"

His second argument is surrounded around the fact that man’s sin effected God’s perfect creation.  His claim is that God is the ultimate source of imperfection if man, His creation, was able to make God’s perfect creation imperfect.  It seems the main issue with this is semantics.  He seems to assume that saying God is perfect is the same as saying that man is perfect or creation is perfect.  A simple clarification of terminology will quickly show this argument is also a bad argument.  Adam and Eve were perfect creations because they were made exactly how God intended to make them.  God intended to make sinless creatures with the freedom to accept or reject God.  This was not out of any need God had (as was addressed above) but because in God’s ultimate foreknowledge he knew that sin would create the tension between his love and wrath which would be expressed in the offering of himself; which ultimately brings Him the most glory. (Romans 3:25-26)  So to say that sin entered the world damaging his original “perfect” creation assumes definitions that are not true to the Christian perspective of perfection. 

"All-good God Knowingly creates future sufferings"

The main attribute that is challenged in this section is God’s compassion.  Docterman makes the argument that God in His foreknowledge would hear the screaming of the damned and in his compassion would not create a world where sin would create an opportunity for eternal suffering.  God’s compassion created an opportunity for any sinner who is guilty to have his/her debt passed onto Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. (2 Corinthians 5:21)  So God’s compassion reacted immediately by saving people by His sacrifice.  Docterman’s argument also assumes that people’s suffering from their judgment far outweighs the rejoicing and the joy of those that will be saved.  He clearly is in no position to make such a claim about our future hope.  The bible is very clear that it does (2 Corinthians 4:17-18).  Remember he is challenging the internal consistency of Christianity so it is necessary to quote scripture in order to show what the bible actually teaches to clarify any assumed contradiction.

Belief more important than action

            This argument challenges God’s justice.  The claim is that because God would condemn people who have never heard gospel means that God is unfairly judging them for not believing.  The first section of the book of Romans answers this objection.  (Romans 1:18-3:20)  In the beginning of this section it discusses those who do not have special revelation.  It talks about how they are justly judged because they have the physical creation that shows his “invisible attributes, His eternal power, and divine nature” (Romans 1:19) They also have a law within their own heart.  God justly judges all according to the law they were given.  This does not open the door for salvation for the un-evangelized but slams the door closed because God in His perfect justice must judge them according to law.  They have condemned themselves and are therefore justly judged because they have broken the law they were given.  But here is the good news...God in His grace offers a solution.  We are offered the exact opposite of what we deserve because of the sacrifice of Jesus. (Romans 6:23)

Conclusion

            It is clear that Docterman has not shown his thesis to be true.  He was unable to provide a single example where God’s attributes are mutually exclusive.  Most of His arguments come from a false understanding of perfection and or the proper definition of God’s characteristics like compassionate and justice.  I would not only say that Docterman’s arguments were false but that there are good arguments to show that the existence of the God, as revealed in scripture, is more probably true than not.