The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 11): “Definitional Disproofs” (Part A)

In the previous article I introduced The Impossibility of God, a collection of essays arguing that God cannot exist because ideas of God are logically contradictory. Section One includes articles contending that elements in the definition of God are mutually incompatible or contradictory (I will assume biblical definitions of God going forward). In the introduction to these “definitional disproofs” we have the key to analyzing the soundness of every argument in the book.

According to the editors, a “definitional disproof” of God looks like this: ^[1]

In other words, in the same way a square circle cannot exist, so any idea or concept of God that contains contradictory elements cannot exist. As believers we certainly agree with the first premise that in God are no contradictions. He is perfect in every way and cannot be a mixture of any incompatible attributes or elements. But what about the second premise that the definition of God is not self-consistent? Moreover, does the conclusion necessarily follow, even if atheists believe that definitions of God contain contradictions?

Assumptions and Limitations
Specific contradictions alleged by the authors will be addressed in subsequent articles, but for now we ask if the limited perspective of the atheist is sufficient to establish such a claim. Several assumptions lie behind the above argument, including the ever-present belief in the adequacy of the atheist to know transcendent realities. Taking into account our human limitations, perhaps a more accurate rendering of the argument would be as follows: