Tuesday, January 21, 2014

A Short Debate On God's Perfection


When I was bored a few nights ago I came across a Christian blog called "Rocket Philosophy" and a post called "A Defense of Classical Theism #8: God's Attributes" where the author made a case for god's perfect attributes. I couldn't resist the challenge. So below is a partial transcript from a discussion we had. You tell me who made the more rational position.



Me: [I]f god is declared perfect, and without flaw, who is that according to? Who makes that judgement and what standard is this flawlessness being judged by? I see many flaws with the god of the bible and Jesus. If my judgments don't count, then whose does and by what authority do they claim this right?


Theist: This philosophy includes essentialism, which you can read in part 1, #3 in the list here. So "perfection" means "being more like what it's supposed to be. For example, a more elephant-like elephant: both ears, intact trunk, etc.


Me: Saying god is more like what he's suppose to be, and therefore is perfect is still too vague. What is he supposed to be? And by what standard do we known and measure this by?


Theist: God is complete, not lacking in anything, because he has no potentials. This is what is meant by perfect.


Me: If god has no potential then how does god become a creator? In order to be a creator, you must be create, until then you might be a potential creator, but you are not yet a creator. How can god be complete if without the universe, god is not yet a creator, and he gains the attribute of creator only after he creates? Seems that god is gaining, which is impossible for a complete being.


Theist: God does not need to become a creator; he already is. Finished.



I posted another comment after this but the author didn't publish it. I think it's a little dishonest to assert god is a creator before he created anything. This theist apparently likes to make illogical assertions and does not like debating it. I find that this is the tactic that many theists have when they're backed into a corner. They just assert their dogma and abandoned the discussion.



14 comments:

  1. I'm not sure Rocket Philosophy is a Christian blog. In fact, while the author is quite sympathetic to theism, I'm not sure he actually is a theist.

    The author identifies God as Pure Actuality. Another way to put it is that God's essence is existence. God is perfect in the sense that he perfectly conforms to his essence.

    The author denies, from God's perspective, that there is a before or after creation. But if we entertain your idea, we can say that God has no potentials in the sense that God does not have the potential to undergo a change in his nature. The act of creation does not change God's nature.

    I'd be interested on what you think of the rest of his series (A Defense of Classical Theism), although I fear you won't fully grasp it since the author can't unpack everything. If he is correct, then the metaphysics that underlie science lead logically to the conclusion that God exists. The choice is between God and science, on the one hand, and atheism and no science, on the other hand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've seen him on Reddit. He is not a theist, but finds Aquinas’s arguments compelling….but not compelling enough.…yet.

      Delete
    2. Considering that just about every post he has is a defense of theism, he seemed like a theist to me. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't.

      I'm not a huge fan of Aquinas' take on god. It treats existence as a property of god, and it gets a lot of criticism from the version of the ontological argument that uses this. It's wordplay to me. I also do not see the timelessness of god in this perspective as coherent either. I don't think there is any way to see god as anything other than a temporal being. So if you can say god is always a creator even if god hadn't created, why can't I say I'm a Doctor even if I hadn't earned my doctorate? I can just say my essence is that of a doctor no matter what you say. It's just wordplay.

      I haven't read his full defense of theism but the dichotomy you mentioned is false. There is nothing that logically leads to the conclusion that god exists, you have to make assumptions, presuppositions or use bad logic to try and do that.

      Delete
    3. Thinker:

      I also do not see the timelessness of god in this perspective as coherent either. I don't think there is any way to see god as anything other than a temporal being.

      If time is a part of our universe and God is separate from our universe, how could God be a temporal being?

      So if you can say god is always a creator even if god hadn't created, why can't I say I'm a Doctor even if I hadn't earned my doctorate? I can just say my essence is that of a doctor no matter what you say. It's just wordplay.

      As noted before, the action of creation does not change God's essence. Your essence is humanness. Being a doctor is an accidental feature of some humans. Becoming a doctor does not change your being a human. This is no more of a word game than insisting that a cat is a cat and not a dog.

      I haven't read his full defense of theism but the dichotomy you mentioned is false. There is nothing that logically leads to the conclusion that god exists, you have to make assumptions, presuppositions or use bad logic to try and do that.

      If you haven't read and understood his defense then you don't know it's false. His case is based on simple bases: (1) causal regularity exists, (2) change exists, (3) structure exists, and (4) essentially ordered causal series require a first cause. I don't see how science is possible without the first three points. The fourth point follows logically from the definition of an essentially ordered causal series.

      Delete
  2. If time is a part of our universe and God is separate from our universe, how could God be a temporal being?


    All events require time. Thinking requires time. Personal beings require time. Could you have a personal interaction with a person who was frozen in time like a block of ice? No. A timeless mind is by definition, non functional. To say otherwise is the say god exists outside of logic and is illogical. Which is my point.

    As noted before, the action of creation does not change God's essence. Your essence is humanness. Being a doctor is an accidental feature of some humans. Becoming a doctor does not change your being a human. This is no more of a word game than insisting that a cat is a cat and not a dog.


    I was responding to a person claiming god is perfection and is complete. Something complete cannot gain anything. The fact that god can gain and lose things means he cannot be complete. A Doctor who dedicates his time to saving lives is better than a lazy person who does nothing, even though they are both human beings in essence. The wordplay comes with the assertion that god is perfect and complete. It needs to be justified.

    His case is based on simple bases: (1) causal regularity exists, (2) change exists, (3) structure exists, and (4) essentially ordered causal series require a first cause. I don't see how science is possible without the first three points. The fourth point follows logically from the definition of an essentially ordered causal series.

    1. Causal regularity means you must adopt determinism, (so much for the free will defense).

    2. Change exists, no one denies that. But science tells us we live in a static universe where all moments of time are frozen. The change comes from the differences between different moments of static time. See here: New Experiment Seems To Confirm The B-Theory Of Time

    3. Structure exists because things are physical

    4. The universe doesn't necessarily need a cause. We don't know if our universe is the first one, but if time begins with our universe, then there are no moments before it for a cause to exist. All causes are physical and temporal. Give me 1 example of a documented non-physical and non-temporal cause. And if your answer is that god exists out of time, then you need to logically demonstrate how a timeless being does things that requires time. And while your at it maybe you can try answering my two questions:

    1. How does a timeless god who knows everything freely chose to create our world and not some other world?

    2. And how does god create time, if prior to time existing literally nothing can happen?

    I don't see how science is possible without the first three points. The fourth point follows logically from the definition of an essentially ordered causal series.

    I don't see how you can believe in the hypothesis of free will given "causal regularity" which logically deduces a determined universe. And since cause and effect always happen in time, the logical answer is that time itself doesn't need a cause.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thinker:

      All events require time. Thinking requires time. Personal beings require time. Could you have a personal interaction with a person who was frozen in time like a block of ice? No. A timeless mind is by definition, non functional. To say otherwise is the say god exists outside of logic and is illogical. Which is my point.

      As Martin already hinted at, God is a mind in an analogical, not univocal, sense. Hence, it does no good to note some differences between God and man for this is already granted. Since you have an affinity for eternalism you already think we are something like blocks of ice and yet believe we have personal interactions. How is it any more of a problem for God to interact with humanity during the Exodus and during the Resurrection than it is for a human to interact with another human?

      I was responding to a person claiming god is perfection and is complete. Something complete cannot gain anything. The fact that god can gain and lose things means he cannot be complete.

      You've failed to show that God gains or loses anything. The act of creation is not an example of God gaining something.

      A Doctor who dedicates his time to saving lives is better than a lazy person who does nothing, even though they are both human beings in essence.

      On Aquinas' view, the doctor is better because he better conforms to his essence. But this is not to say he perfectly conforms to his essence. This differentiates him from God since God perfectly conforms to his essence.

      1. Causal regularity means you must adopt determinism, (so much for the free will defense).

      It doesn't but, for the sake of argument, let's assume it does. You're still stuck with God. No free will defense of the problem of evil is necessary since God's goodness is a result of his nature and not what he does or does not do. The problem of evil is no problem for the classical theist.

      Structure exists because things are physical

      No, it's because entities have forms or essences. Martin is working at a higher level of abstraction. Since not even self-proclaimed physicalists can agree on what the term "physical" means it is not prudent to start one's metaphysics there.

      The universe doesn't necessarily need a cause.

      I mentioned an essentially ordered causal series. Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that the universe does not need a cause. Even so, there are still such causal series that need a first cause. Since the universe is not pure act it can't be that first cause.

      And if your answer is that god exists out of time, then you need to logically demonstrate how a timeless being does things that requires time.

      If an act truly requires time then God would have to create time first.

      How does a timeless god who knows everything freely chose to create our world and not some other world?

      I don't know. But none of Martin's arguments rely on free will from what I recall.

      And how does god create time, if prior to time existing literally nothing can happen?

      What is time? If time is dependent on change then the mere act of "doing something" would "create" time. The counter-question is: how could time have existed forever?

      I don't see how you can believe in the hypothesis of free will given "causal regularity" which logically deduces a determined universe.

      Causal regularity implies the existence of final causes. Final causes merely limit the number of options one can choose. For example, I can't choose to fly by flapping my arms but I could choose to walk or run. But, again, free will is not necessary for theism to be true.

      Delete
  3. As Martin already hinted at, God is a mind in an analogical, not univocal, sense.

    analogical: expressing, composed of, or based on an analogy; "the analogical use of a metaphor"

    Am I missing something here? I fail to see how god being "analogical" solves this problem. If you mean to say that god is not really in time but we pretend like he is anthropomorphically, that still doesn't resolve the issue. Either god is in time or he is not. If he is not, a timeless being cannot do anything, because doing anything is an event and all events require time. This is one of the reasons why I think the god of classical theism is not even logically coherent.

    How is it any more of a problem for God to interact with humanity during the Exodus and during the Resurrection than it is for a human to interact with another human?

    We exist in time. Existing in time is to exist in the space-time manifold. To say god exists in this manifold and is interacting with people is to say god exists in time. Again, there is a dichotomy here: god either exists in time or out of time. Each is fraught with problems, but you cannot have it both ways.

    You've failed to show that God gains or loses anything. The act of creation is not an example of God gaining something.

    If I have a son do I gain something? Of course I do. I doubt you are going to say that I have not gained anything. Likewise, you believe god gains (and loses) a son. If I gain a doctorate degree have I gained something? Of course I have. Thus, no being could ever be complete, it is logically impossible. All beings can gain and lose. And as a Christian, if you say god did not lose anything when he lost Jesus you will have admitted Jesus' redemption was worthless.

    On Aquinas' view, the doctor is better because he better conforms to his essence. But this is not to say he perfectly conforms to his essence. This differentiates him from God since God perfectly conforms to his essence.


    I'm still waiting to hear the justification how god perfectly conforms to his essence in a manner bereft of assertion. And what is god's essence and how do you even determine that?

    ReplyDelete
  4. 1. It doesn't but, for the sake of argument, let's assume it does. You're still stuck with God. No free will defense of the problem of evil is necessary since God's goodness is a result of his nature and not what he does or does not do. The problem of evil is no problem for the classical theist.


    I'm sorry to tell you that it does logically lead to determinism. And without a free will defense you've certainly got an evil god who determines suffering to happen for no logically necessary reason. That is far from perfection and goodness.

    2. No, it's because entities have forms or essences. Martin is working at a higher level of abstraction. Since not even self-proclaimed physicalists can agree on what the term "physical" means it is not prudent to start one's metaphysics there.


    I thought we were talking about the physical universe here. If we're talking about abstract objects, then what is the structure of the number googolplex? Or what is the form of god?

    3. Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that the universe does not need a cause. Even so, there are still such causal series that need a first cause. Since the universe is not pure act it can't be that first cause.

    You have yet to demonstrate that pure act is something that actually exists, or is coherent. That's what we're trying to do here. It seems you can just assume it, even while acknowledging that you can't even logically explain it. Sounds like BS to me. Just saying.

    4. If an act truly requires time then God would have to create time first.

    Which is why I asked a question related to it. How can a timeless being create time if prior to the existence of time literally nothing can happen?

    5. I don't know. But none of Martin's arguments rely on free will from what I recall.

    Let's say they don't. Eventually, it will come up in order to try and make the justification that god is good. But even if I allow you human free will, you've still got tons of problems: Christian Responses To The Problem Of Suffering

    6. What is time? If time is dependent on change then the mere act of "doing something" would "create" time. The counter-question is: how could time have existed forever?


    OK so here you try to answer my question above. But your answer runs into the problem of my other question: How does a timeless god who knows everything freely chose to create our world and not some other world? I argue it is logically impossible. And on top of that it is still impossible to will something if there is no time to do it.

    7. Causal regularity implies the existence of final causes. Final causes merely limit the number of options one can choose. For example, I can't choose to fly by flapping my arms but I could choose to walk or run. But, again, free will is not necessary for theism to be true.

    It is true that we are limited by our physical options, but that would also mean that in a universe of "causal regularity" that every "choice" we make is also caused by antecedent events, thus making free will impossible.

    But, again, free will is not necessary for theism to be true.

    If theism requires a greatest conceivable being of sorts, then a god who determines millions of years of suffering for no logically necessary reason falls far short of this standard, and you would not be able to make the ontological argument that this being is necessary. Aquinas' arguments would fall apart as would classical theism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In his series Martin outlines classical theism including some of its arguments for God's existence. I'm trying to show that he's not as crazy as you seem to think he is. But you probably aren't going to understand everything based on a few blog posts or the discussion in these comments. It's difficult to know where to start responding to you because some of your errors build upon previous errors you've made.

      That God is Pure Act is argued for in the Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas (among other places). These arguments also show that God's essence is existence. From this basis other attributes of God are deduced. Keep in mind that Aquinas' natural theology builds off of his metaphysics so I don't recommend jumping into his natural theology before his metaphysics. Unfortunately, this is kind of what we're doing here.

      When we speak analogically of God we're taking a middle ground between univocal and equivocal language. God is a mind like us in the sense that he has knowledge but he is not a mind like us in the sense that he does not think about A and then later think about B. In everyday discussion we might note a "good hamburger" and a "good doctor". The word "good" is used analogically. The hamburger and doctor are not good in the exact same sense but they are both good in a broader sense.

      The space-time continuum is an effect of God and hence does not contain God. What we perceive as his actions in history are also effects and hence do not entail he is bound by time.

      As Pure Act God has no potentialities. That's what is meant when Martin says God is perfect. It has nothing to do with suffering and hence nothing to do with the problem of evil.

      As for God gaining or losing something, your examples are not convincing. God does not gain or lose a son because the Son is as timeless as the Father. While a man can gain knowledge, God can't because he is timelessly omniscient.

      Delete
  5. I don't think Martin is crazy, I just think his arguments for god using Aquinas' theology adds up to nothing but wordplay. There is little substance in them. It basically comes down to the form of the ontological argument that uses existence as a property of god to show god's necessary existence. This form of the OA has been strongly criticized by many philosophers, even Christian philosophers.

    A mind that does not think in time is not a mind. Period. You can call god something else if you want, but don't call it a mind because that is misleading. You cannot use an analogy that results in a logical contradiction. Also, many Christians disagree with this view of god and I would agree with the criticisms of god being intrinsically timeless.

    If god is not bound by time then how can he come to earth in the form of a human being and acquire all the physical and temporal attributes we associate with human beings? The son is not timeless, he is temporal. And if god never gains or loses his son, then he sacrificed nothing, and the whole of Christian theology makes no sense. Not that it ever did anyway, but it makes even less sense.

    Pure Act is pure nonsense. A being who has not created is not a creator, it is a potential creator. Thus any being always has more potential to gain and lose. Nothing is complete. And your failure to give logical answers to my questions shows that this edifice is built on sand.

    How about this. Suppose a skeptic is not convince god is perfect. Make your best argument to prove that god is perfect. I want to see it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think Martin is crazy, I just think his arguments for god using Aquinas' theology adds up to nothing but wordplay. There is little substance in them.

      To be fair to Martin, I don't think his series was supposed to be definitive. It's an outline (nothing more) of the metaphysics needed to do science and how those metaphysics entail classical theism.

      It basically comes down to the form of the ontological argument that uses existence as a property of god to show god's necessary existence.

      The Fourth Way could be taken as a kind of ontological argument. I understand Martin to be sketching out the First Way (up to point #8), which I consider a kind of cosmological argument.

      A mind that does not think in time is not a mind. Period. You can call god something else if you want, but don't call it a mind because that is misleading. You cannot use an analogy that results in a logical contradiction.

      We're using analogical language, not an analogy. We've explained in what sense God is like a human mind and in what sense he is not.

      If god is not bound by time then how can he come to earth in the form of a human being and acquire all the physical and temporal attributes we associate with human beings?

      The Incarnation means Jesus was both God and man. As I stated before, the universe is an effect of God. That does not mean the cause (God) is bound by the effect (universe).

      Pure Act is pure nonsense. A being who has not created is not a creator, it is a potential creator. Thus any being always has more potential to gain and lose. Nothing is complete.

      You're conflating God's nature with his actions. God would be Pure Act "before" creation and he would be Pure Act "after" creation.

      Suppose a skeptic is not convince god is perfect. Make your best argument to prove that god is perfect. I want to see it.

      I would point you to the first three ways of Aquinas in context. First you should understand his metaphysics. Then see how he derives additional attributes of God from the conclusion of the Five Ways. Refer to secondary literature written by modern-day Thomists to get into Thomas' world.

      Delete
    2. To be fair to Martin, I don't think his series was supposed to be definitive. It's an outline (nothing more) of the metaphysics needed to do science and how those metaphysics entail classical theism.

      OK, fair enough. However, I've debated some of Aquinas' Five Ways arguments on other venues before and I know they don't hold up.

      We're using analogical language, not an analogy. We've explained in what sense God is like a human mind and in what sense he is not.

      If god is timeless as you believe, then he is in no sense like a human mind.

      The Incarnation means Jesus was both God and man. As I stated before, the universe is an effect of God. That does not mean the cause (God) is bound by the effect (universe).


      If the universe is the effect of god, how can god and the universe not be bound in the relationship of cause and effect? And how is it logically possible for a being who has never created to be a creator?

      You're conflating God's nature with his actions. God would be Pure Act "before" creation and he would be Pure Act "after" creation.


      That's the logical equivalent of me saying I'm a father "before" I have a son, and a father "after" I have a son because I "perfectly conform to my essence". This is where that wordplay I was talking about comes in, where you just assert something that has no logical basis.

      I would point you to the first three ways of Aquinas in context. First you should understand his metaphysics. Then see how he derives additional attributes of God from the conclusion of the Five Ways. Refer to secondary literature written by modern-day Thomists to get into Thomas' world.


      I have done that a bit, but not so heavily that I can be anything close to an expert Thomist. If I have time I might write a post responding to Aquinas' arguments. Let me just say for now that if Aquinas' arguments presuppose his metaphysics and his metaphysics is wrong, then Aquinas' arguments are wrong. From my research into Aquinas, that has been the case.

      Delete
  6. If god is timeless as you believe, then he is in no sense like a human mind.

    He has knowledge just as a human mind does.

    If the universe is the effect of god, how can god and the universe not be bound in the relationship of cause and effect?

    When I used the word "bound" I meant it in the sense of being under the dominion of the effect. If you build a house you are not bound to the house. You could enter and leave the house at will. By creating the space-time continuum God is no more bound by it than you are by a house.

    And how is it logically possible for a being who has never created to be a creator?

    Martin and I hold that God timelessly created the universe. For the sake of argument I granted that you could still run an argument without holding that belief. The act of creation would be an extrinsic change for God as opposed to an intrinsic change. God would be complete in the sense that he does not undergo intrinsic change.

    That's the logical equivalent of me saying I'm a father "before" I have a son, and a father "after" I have a son because I "perfectly conform to my essence".

    It would be the logical equivalent of saying you are The Thinker before you have a son and The Thinker after you have a son.

    This is where that wordplay I was talking about comes in, where you just assert something that has no logical basis.

    It seems like wordplay to you because you don't grasp conformance to an essence. I can try once again to explain it with a simple geometric example. The essence of a triangle is something like: three distinct points on a 2D plane connected by straight lines. Suppose I draw one triangle by hand (T1) and I draw a second triangle using computer software (T2). Most likely T2 will better conform to the essence of a triangle (triangularity) than will T1 (e.g., the lines of T2 will the straighter than the lines of T1).

    ReplyDelete
  7. He has knowledge just as a human mind does.


    A database is not a mind.

    If you build a house you are not bound to the house. You could enter and leave the house at will. By creating the space-time continuum God is no more bound by it than you are by a house.

    But if I build a house I become a house builder, I achieve something and thus I gain something. I also cannot leave or enter without being in time.

    Martin and I hold that God timelessly created the universe.

    Timelessly created is about as logical as a square circle.

    The act of creation would be an extrinsic change for God as opposed to an intrinsic change. God would be complete in the sense that he does not undergo intrinsic change.

    But this doesn't answer my question. A being who never creates cannot be a creator. A being who could become a creator gains something, and it also forces the being into time, since there will be the state of the being as a potential creator, and then after as the creator. This intrinsically changes the nature of the being because it must be temporal.

    It would be the logical equivalent of saying you are The Thinker before you have a son and The Thinker after you have a son.

    That's another example of wordplay. After I have a son I become a father and I gain something. I am changed forever. Sure I am still human with or without a son, but there is difference between a father and a non-father.

    The essence of a triangle is something like: three distinct points on a 2D plane connected by straight lines. Suppose I draw one triangle by hand (T1) and I draw a second triangle using computer software (T2). Most likely T2 will better conform to the essence of a triangle (triangularity) than will T1 (e.g., the lines of T2 will the straighter than the lines of T1).

    Ok, so we can all imagine that a perfect circle, square or triangle is better than a crudely drawn one by hand. We agree so far. But abstract objects have definite shapes and clearly defined characteristics. To then say that god conforms to his essence by being perfect begs many questions that neither you, nor Martin ever answered. 1. What is god's essence and 2. how do you objectively determine it? Until you can give solid answers to these two questions, you're assumption is baseless. 3. How can a perfect being gain anything? 4. If a perfectly drawn triangle is better than a crudely drawn one, then shouldn't that mean that the god of the bible is the crudely drawn triangle? I see no reason to think that idea of god is anything close to perfection.

    ReplyDelete

Share

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...