K Michau

The Problem of Understanding

A Theological Exercize

If God designed a universe to function according to its own internal logic, whichever logic, then God must conform to the rules of that logic when interacting with beings confined to this universe. For if God fails to act according to the only logic those beings can possibly access, the have no choice but to conclude that God is irrational.

Assuming God desires the beings residing in his universal creations to follow him (where a condition of following him must be that He acts in an understandable way since the gift of understanding came from him in the first place. Why would God give us an ability that He himself contradicts? This invalidates the value of that very ability, calling into question the wisdom of the initial granting of the ability*), He has only two choices:

: 1) God can interact with the universe according to the logic He chose for it.
2) He can refrain from all interaction.

If God selects 1) it becomes impossible to spot God-action within any given universe since what He does would necessarily be indistinguishable from the laws of nature as He established them. If God selects 2) one can safely conclude that there is no God since He never interacts.

In both cases, atheism is a valid rational conclusion even though both assume the existence of a God!

The reverse possibility is that God interacts with the universe in a way that breaks the internal laws He gave it (i.e. by working miracles). Ipso facto from the above, either:

: 1) God is irrational and we should not follow Him, or
2) God is not concerned with whether we follow Him or not and the proof is His apparently irrational action.

* Monotheists accept this nonsensical state of affairs on a regular basis, but in a different context. Allowing that God could give us an ability that He intends to contradict is the origin of “the problem of evil.” Why would God give us the ability to do evil when He finds evil repugnant? Why would God meet out punishment for the exercize of an ability He could have withheld? There are 2 main reactions from believers: acceptance of the problem, followed frequently by an appeal to the mystery of God (argument from ignorance), or rejection of the problem with an appeal to free will (which leads to other contradictions such as the incompatibility of omniscience and free will). This parallels what I am calling “the problem of understanding” which, admittedly, does not sound as dramatic but is equally problematic for theists and to which they would probably react similarly.