|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Concept of God -- Need Logic Help | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Prince Thrash Junior Member (Idle past 4987 days) Posts: 9 Joined: |
I am new to your forums, and am unsure if this topic is relevant for your site. However, your members are fairly even-headed (based on an EXTREMELY quick flip-through) and I could use some help with this argument. Please poke holes in it, or help strengthen it. Haha, it could use some brevity — any programmers out there?
So here it goes: The concept of God in the Abrahamic world is of a being that is: 1) Omnipotent2) Omniscient 3) Omnibenevolent Step 1: Simplification (not totally necessary, but I find it makes things neater) Any being that is Omnipotent will make itself omniscient. Or at least, omniscience is in the grasp of anything omnipotent. In other words, let us eliminate "omniscience", because it borders on redundant. God also has the best sense of humour, the biggest pool, the best summer home — but we do not say these things are essential. An omnipotent entity, such as God or anything, would be seduced instantly into omniscience, and it seems unfathomable to think otherwise. So our revised, simplified concept of God is: 1) Omnipotent2) Omnibenevolent Step 2: Analysis of the Interaction of These Two Ingredients of God Premise 1Omnipotence need not be expressed. It can simply be potential. God is not, for instance, using his omnipotence constantly. Otherwise everything and anything would be happening incessantly. Our only demand for an omnipotent being is that it COULD do anything and everything. Premise 2As an omnibenevolent entity, God does good things. In fact, there is another step we get to infer. As an omnibenevolent entity, unlike a morally ambiguous entity like a human, or merely a ‘benevolent’ entity, God is pre-determined to do the best thing he can, and since he is all-powerful, this is the best thing objectively possible. Now, he has to do it all in one piece, all of time and space at once in one big ‘best’ image he can (Leibniz argued this if I remember right). Premise 3If a being is omnipotent, they have power over all things, including themselves. Premise 4An omnibenevolent entity must do what is best. God cannot do what is wrong. Step 3: Conclusion Because of our assumptions about the nature of omnibenevolence, God is unable to escape its dictates. Therefore God lacks the free will that us morally ambiguous humans get (thank God). As a result, he lacks power over himself. Which means he lacks omnipotence. What this shows is that in the very concept of God there is a contradiction. No Bible contradictions, nothing so flimsy — rather, right in the very concept of God there is confusion. What we can say, simply, is that a being might be omnibenevolent, or a being might be omnipotent, but it cannot be both, for the omnibenevolence kills the omnipotence by shrinking the potential ability of the entity. As an omnibenevolent entity, there are things which God cannot do. Doesn’t this mean we must pick? We must believe either in a God of Goodness, or a God of Power? (Equally, any all-evil — omnimalevolent -- entity would also lack the possibility of omnipotence) Edited by Admin, : Remove email notification.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Prince Thrash Junior Member (Idle past 4987 days) Posts: 9 Joined: |
Thanks for your input.
Would you disagree that God's goodness, then, does not predetermine his actions? Is God not, like gravity and unlike man in some conceptions, perfectly predictable? The entity in question, in fact, need have no mind? Need have no choice? Because the end result is identical. I think the "God's will" argument is being used with too many free-will implications from the get-go. It is the Will itself which is the very vehicle of control; the method by which the entity is controlled by Good. Remember that Hindu thinker, what was his name? Vivekananda I think? He was a classic determinist, and monist -- classic Hinduism -- but he argued that the roots of predetermination of a being happen *before* the will. They *inform* the will WHAT to will. Though I dont personally hold to this idea necessarily, I think it shows that simply because there is such and such a thing that one might call a "will", this does not make this will "free". From this angle, God does what he wants to do, while Good informs him of what that will be. God would not be conquered and directed by Goodness, unless Goodness owned that very will. Haha, this is a funny situation, because in your responses, you very nicely show how God is controlled, yet in opposition to my initial argument. I, oddly, see these particular refutations as detailed affirmations concerning the HOW of God's slavery. killinghurts: whether or not there is a God doesn't really matter. Think of this as a question of "if there is a god, what types of attributes are possible?" Edited by Prince Thrash, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Prince Thrash Junior Member (Idle past 4987 days) Posts: 9 Joined: |
Bluejay,
Thanks for showing that I needed to clarify. What I am saying, is that "will" does not imply "free will". The two are distinct. The second response to my initial post implied that "will" is one in the same with "free will". Saying "X has a Will" does not mean that "X has free will". If you think it does, I'd be interested. I said this, because as was pointed out, the "vol" in "omnibenevolence" means "will" (such as in vol-ition). My reference to Vivenkananda was an attempt to show that others have argued that there can be an "unfree will". Edited by Prince Thrash, : No reason given. Edited by Prince Thrash, : Removed references to a John Wilmot play.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Prince Thrash Junior Member (Idle past 4987 days) Posts: 9 Joined: |
DrAdequate:
(Will get to other post, just busy right now and it needs more attention) In your example, it is obvious that hunger is the "vehicle of control". You chose the sandwich, but you only did so because your hunger forced you into making such a choice. Your choice was simply the FORM your intellect took in satisfying demands far outside of its control. In other words, you could have chosen to eat something other than a sandwich, but in no way could you have simply decided not to be hungry or chosen to no longer motivated towards food by hunger. Edited by Prince Thrash, : No reason given. Edited by Prince Thrash, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Prince Thrash Junior Member (Idle past 4987 days) Posts: 9 Joined: |
Dr. Adequate,
I think you misunderstood the general meaning of what I meant. But I can see how I was over-specific. Replacing "hunger" with "gluttony" changes nothing. You have X, a motivating factor, leading to Y, action. I subbed in "hunger" as that motivating factor. It seems that we both agree on this issue -- that there is a motivating factor, and I say this because you subbed in one of your own. Though you example of music is more cleverly difficult, but again, we can imagine a gambit of motivating factors leading one to music (boredom is a good one, but one of many, as you pointed out). You and BlueJay need to discuss this issue, because BlueJay believes that a motivating factor is a type of determinist agent. As he said, even the presence of the "personality" is counter to free will. To this I would say, since God has a personality, one of omnibenevolence without possibility of deviation, his free will is negated. BlueJay: I believe you've inferred that I'm trying to convince some specific group? I think it is irrelevant if some group actually believes, or specifically disbelieves, in this image of God I am trying to argue for. Most atheism, for instance, is 'negative atheism' -- they let the theists give the image, and then they refute it. Nothing wrong with that. But what I am doing is a type of replacement, or positive, theology in an atheist-type of spirit. It's a bit weird, I know, but shouldn't an atheist be allowed to pick which concept of God they do not believe in, and which are simply impossible? It's a weird approach, but I don't see why I require a pre-existing theology. BlueJay: Again, the "will" can be said to be phenomenally apparent. We can 'feel" a will-type thing. Arguable, but I'd go with it. The *freedom* of that will, however, must be deduced/applied to that phenomenon, and is not evident within the phenomenon itself. If you can "feel the freedom" of your will, prior to Western teachings that it is free, please let me know how. Edited by Prince Thrash, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Prince Thrash Junior Member (Idle past 4987 days) Posts: 9 Joined: |
Paul,
I was quoting BlueJay about the place of the personality within the free will debates, not myself. Direct your comments to him, I was just quoting him to show an inconsistency between Dr. Adequate and BlueJay. I believe in personalities, I assure you. I am unsure if Dr. Adequate meant what you said, but we'll let him clarify. Either way, your statement stands, and it's an interesting one. I am unaware of a thinker to have ever attributed the mind as being wholly free? Do you really believe that the mind is wholly free? And not just the "free will part", but rather, anything of the mind, whatsoever, is free? Would you commit to that statement? We're going off into some odd areas now, but so be it. I didn't think a type of extreme Cartesian dualism would come into play. I say this, because this idea that anyone does anything without "external constraints" reminds me of a type of solipsist sort of view? That humans can operate in a sort of bubble, without influence/constraint? I'm sure you didn't mean this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Prince Thrash Junior Member (Idle past 4987 days) Posts: 9 Joined: |
Remember, this is not a general question of the free will of humans. It is a question of the free will of God. The free will of humanity, who cannot be said to have any specific "omni" attribute, and the free will of God, should have entirely different types of discourse (at certain parts). I guess the question is, what is the key that makes them different? (haha, nice top-down stance...)
Look at Philosophy of Religion 101. People say "Why didn't God just make man incapable of doing evil?" It's a question that almost every Western child will come to once they are old enough to learn about the home team religions. And the response that most of us will take as logical is "Because, then Man would have no free will". This is a common argument in the Philosophy of Religion, or Western Theology, and I'm sure none of you are new to it. Now, I insist that if you agree with the logic of the above argument, then when you turn the same logic to God himself, it is instantly revealed that God is not free, because we have defined God as having an essence of Good. Not just Good, but perfect, definitional, super-Good. If God can be all-Good and free, than Man, to, could have been made all-Good and free, which means God made quite the mistake not letting us be all-Good AND all-free, because that would have ended in the greatest Good. If it takes a core of moral ambiguity to give Mankind freedom -- releasing him from some simple, good "essence" that would make him unfree -- then it is clear that the same can be said of God, who is not moral ambiguous like Man, but all-Good by definition. I am just reiterating really, but I believe thinking about my initial argument in these terms might make it more insidious to those who have pondered/studied the "Why did God let Man be evil?" question. Paul: Sorry if I misinterpreted one of your responses as a touch Cartesian. Edited by Prince Thrash, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Prince Thrash Junior Member (Idle past 4987 days) Posts: 9 Joined: |
PaulK,
Can you refute the classic argument directly? Just curious how you'd go about it. Even if it's just a gut instinct of wrongness, let me know which premise or whatever doesn't sit well. I guess you don't need to refute the argument directly, either, especially if you find it absurd, but just answer the question as a replacement, "Why wasn't Mankind made all-Good by God?" or say why the question isn't a worthy one. Edited by Prince Thrash, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Prince Thrash Junior Member (Idle past 4987 days) Posts: 9 Joined: |
Thanks for the rigor, Paul. How do I quote someone? Is it:
quote: ? You said a lot and there's much to respond with, I'll need to quote you as I go. haha, ok, my post confirmed to me that's how you quote someone. Will get back to you later. Edited by Prince Thrash, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024