A Logical Attack Answered
Dagwood has a closet full of objections to Christianity (and Theism in general). Since the comment section of his blog has gotten too cumbersome for me I'm responding here. It's going to be hard for me to clearly articulate his challenge here because I hadn't gotten around to getting clarification on his objection seen here.
, if God did change his nature? 1) How would you know? And 2) How could you enforce it not happening? Is the “doctrine of immutability” a greater law than God?Question, Jeff. What could God do that is unjust and why is it unjust?
To be fair, I don't know for sure what he means here and will be guessing as best I can. So Dag, please correct me.
If this is taken as an honest question it deserves an answer. If it's somehow meant to be a challenge then I don't see the logical coherence except in the last sentence. So let me take that one first.
The charge is that the doctrine of immutability is logically incoherent. This could be claimed, also, of God's omnipotence (ie. Can God create a bolder too big for Him to lift?). The simple answer is that God cannot do anything that is logically incoherent. God is logical in His nature — He may be said to be "logic" just as He is "love" — and He does not do anything inconsistent with His nature. Indeed, the very idea of doing something logically incoherent is incoherent. One may say incoherent things (like, "I have a non-existent diamond in my pocket"), but producing instances of them is another matter.
Some examples would be:
- God cannot kill himself
- God cannot create a round square
- God cannot change in essence
- And on...
Do these limitations themselves negate omnipotence? The answer is "No". This is because the concept of divine omnipotence was never understood to mean that God could do the logically impossible.
The first two in the example above are logically incoherent, but why would the third one be so? That takes explaining. The Christian concept of God is that He is the greatest conceivable being. In fact, this formulation of God is relied upon by Anselm in his Ontological argument. Since God is the greatest conceivable Being, to change His essence would necessarily entail becoming less than perfect. Therefore, it's logically incoherent for God (and only God) to change His essence.
Of course there is a Biblical argument to support the concept of immutability, but non-Christians don't want to hear those arguments.
So on to the question: Can God do anything that is unjust?
My answer will be two-fold. First, the answer must be no. The charge from Dagwood (I think) is that this makes God subject to the laws of justice. To say yes would make God less than Just. This puts us on the horns of a dilemma, it seems (also known as the Euthyphro dilemma). Perhaps some would be content to say that it's OK for God to be subject to the laws of justice. But if so, where did these come from? Did they preceed God? Are they more powerful than God? Clearly this raises some issues that would cease to have God being God (remember the definition of 'greatest conceivable Being'?).
The answer is that this is a false dilemma. In Dagwood's own words: "I have to tell you. Whenever I see claims of dichotomies, all my red flags go up. There are too many variables in life." Seems he doesn't want to take his own advice and consider a tertium quid solution.
I prefer the answer given by Aquinas and C. S. Lewis. God is subject to a moral code (God cannot sin) and He does NOT define righteousness any way He pleases. God's immutable nature is that of righteousness. The moral code that He must follow is an essential part of His nature. Therefore, there is no dilemma. He cannot act contrary to His nature, yet He's not subject to something outside of Himself. Righteousness is God, and God is righteous. The laws that then proceed from Him are not arbitrary, but are consistent with His will and nature. Dilemma solved.
Some would argue from there that this constraint to act according to His moral nature constitutes a limitation that is inconsistent with omnipotence. Augustine answered this charge by arguing that 'evil' has no ontological value in itself. Evil is simply the absence of righteousness. Like a donut hole isn't a thing...it's the absence of donut. A shadow isn't a thing, it's an absence of light. Therefore you cannot say that since humans can sin, we can do something that God can't (that's true) and that we are therefore, in some ways, more powerful than God (our sin is only a weakness or a lacking, never a strength or capability).
Now on to the questions that were asked. Dagwood, if there is a proper challenge embodied by these, let me know and I'll try to address it.
First: If God did change His nature how would we know? Well, we loosely addressed immutability above, as well as the reason it must be so logically. Beyond that we have His revelation in the Bible attesting to it. But if the logically incoherent did happen and God changed His nature, I assume He would reveal it to us in the way that He revealed past points of change. The main covenants (Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic...) were periods in time where God changed the rules by which mankind was to operate and men were notified of this. This would not necessitate a change in His own nature or the overarching moral principles, only a further unfolding of His temporal plans for humanity. The only way that God's intimate laws for mankind would remain static is if His purpose and plans for mankind were fulfilled and fixed at our creation.
Second: How could we enforce it not happening? Obviously mankind doesn't enforce anything in regard to God. I suspect something was meant that escapes me and that I can expect an elaboration soon.
There is an important note to add here in regard to God's justice. Dagwood likes to point out Biblical narratives that demonstrate inconsistency in God's behavior. I am not willing to say that on every point of God's behavior that I can subjectively justify it. This is because God has so much more knowledge than I do that I'm incapable in all cases of understanding.
However, it's possible in many cases. So here is a stab. Moral imperatives are not as low level as "Don't punch anyone in the nose". They are more general such as "Don't harm people". Well, what if someone is trying to punch me in the nose? Am I justified in punching their nose first to stop them? Most of us would agree it's justified in self-defense. Why? Because there are two competing morals. There is the moral cost of him hurting me and the moral cost of me hurting him. Which one is worse? I'd argue that him trying to hurt me without sufficient provocation makes his moral transgression worse and the overall moral cost of me hitting him first, is less than if he succeeds in hurting me.
That may not have been a great example, so I'll give another one. What if I could take $10 from my friend, and with that money I could provide a starving child with enough food to live for a month. Furthermore, let's assume that this child's starvation is such that she needs food within the next hour to survive. I'd steal the money, but the total moral outcome is far better than if I don't steal the money, thereby allowing the girl's death.
Now imagine that I'm the only one that knows about the girl because I have knowledge you don't. All you see is the theft of the $10 from my friend. You would assume that I was an immoral person. What if, unbeknownst to you, my friend owed me $10? This analogy is ideal for the claim of injustice against God. He's working to bring about the absolute best end result for eternity. He knows the future outcome of actions taken today (or not taken today) and does things that would appear to a finite being as being immoral (say commanding the death of all Canaanites). To top it all off, He owns this world and all the life in it (ala the $10).
Which brings me to a point that needs stressing in regard to the charge that God is unjust. Why is it wrong for us to kill? Is it because human life is precious in some sense? Well, yes. But is this human life precious in a way that is outside of God? (creating a bit of the Euthyphro dilemma again). The primary justification for the value of man is that man is God's creation.
Imagine an artist makes a beautiful sculpture. Now imagine 2 acts: Me walking in his house and destroying it; or the artist walking up and destroying it. The first act is immoral, the second act isn't. It's about dominion. Since God holds dominion over all of creation, He has the right to take human life without the charge of murder.
I know that last statement will make Dagwood tremble with anger. But there's no logical contradiction there, at least as I see it.
posted by Jeff at 11:43 AM
11 Comments:
Thank you, Jeff, for the thought out response to these questions. (I personally thought “tremble with anger” was a bit over the top, this not being a sermon, but still and all quite fun.) Quick review of what, basically, “logic” is—a form of communication. A way in which I can use a word or sentence, and others can rationally understand what I am saying. If I say, “square” every person envisions the same element. I say, “If you are good, then you will get ice cream,” everyone understands the mandated requirements of being good.
There are generally two types of logical contradiction—in my mind I think of them as internal and external. The first is when the sentence or concept itself is logically inconsistent: a square circle. “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously” The words themselves create the contradiction. An external contradiction is when our observations and experiences determine that the statement itself does not conform to what we observe. “The Earth is in the shape of a cube.” “Men give birth.” Something that does not mesh with reality.
Jeff, I avoid the internal contradiction with God. The classic (as you pointed out) is “God can do anything.” “Oh, yeah? Can he make a rock he can’t lift?” I would think that in order to rationally talk about a God, we must assume He is bound by logic. Otherwise the conversation degrades into nothingness, as we cannot state with any confidence anything about God. “Up” could mean “Up,” “down,” “sideways” or “very small.”
I did notice you modified the question from “Can God’s nature change?” to “Can God’s essence change?” and I assume you are using those two words interchangeably. Later regarding Euthyphro, you used the limitation as God’s nature, so I am assuming they mean the same.
The Christian concept of God is that He is the greatest conceivable being. O.K. For the moment we can use that as a base-line in our definition of the Christian God.
Since God is the greatest conceivable Being, to change His essence would necessarily entail becoming less than perfect. Uh-oh. Danger Will Robinson. Think about what the word, “perfect” means in this sense. We are not talking about being really, really moral, to the point of never committing an immoral act. This concept is one of completeness. Not needing or desiring another thing. Ever.
The idea of a painter making the very last stroke on a painting, and at that stroke, the painting is complete. Perfect. Despite the thousands of strokes earlier, without that last stroke, it remained imperfect. If the painter felt the necessaity to add another stroke, then the painting in its condition remains imperfect.
If God was “perfect” He would never have given rise to the desire to create. The concept would not be within Him. He was complete, whole, not desiring another thing. Even if you state that the ability to create was within this perfect being, there was still, assuming a pre-existent God, an instant in which the desire to create was unfulfilled. Until God acted upon His desire he was incomplete. Not Perfect. It may be that the act of creation was the final stroke on the painting, but PRIOR to that God was incomplete.
Which means at one point in time (and I hesitate to use the idea of time, but I hope you understand) God was incomplete. There is no way to verify that God is complete yet. It may be, in His quest toward perfection, that change was necessary.
Further, we know God “changed” in that at one point it was just God, and subsequently it was God+creation. You state, He's working to bring about the absolute best end result for eternity. Prior to creation, in his complete form, It was not necessary for God to be working at anything (Especially if he was perfect.) After creation, (and after the fall) God had to start doing the best he can with what His creation screwed up. His interaction with humans (if you assume free will) resulted in changed in His nature. Before he did not have to interact with humans, after he did.
The simplest, best example is this blog entry. A week ago, you had no intention of writing this post. After interacting with me, you “changed” by writing a post dealing with this issue. In the same way, if you hold to humans having free will, God is, to some extent, reacting to what humans do. Otherwise you lose free will. God’s reaction requires change.
Finally, if God (the creator) cannot change, where did the humans (the created) obtain the ability to do so? Surely you can’t be intoning that somehow the created aquired a capablity greater than the “greatest conceivable being.”? Have you ever thought about all the things humans can do, that God cannot? What is God in awe of? In order to create the ability to be in awe of something (whether a mountain, a physical feat or a sunset) one must have the capability itself. Or surprise. If God was all-knowing, it would be impossible to surprise Him. He wouldn’t have the faintest notion as to how to create something that he never experienced. Unless you say he can “turn off” His ability to be all-knowing. Which, unfortuanatley for this argument, means “change.”
If God was perfect, then creation couldn’t happen. If God’s perfection is a process, such as the desire to create being enacted, and interactions with humans, who is to say that part of the perfection process is change? In fact, how could a process be anything BUT change?
Logically, it is impossible to have God one day and God+creation the next and have no change. Nor can He have been perfect.
The response to the Euthyphro dilemma is terrible. (That’s for the “tremble with anger.” :) ) All you do is create a big circle without answering the question. In fact, one sentence IS a circle! Is it good because God does it (“might makes right”) or does God do it because its good (a moral code outside of God that he is bound to)?
You say:
1. God is subject to a Moral Code.
2. The moral Code is his nature.
3. His nature is righteousness.
4. Rigtheousness is God.
By simple substitution, we can collapse 1&2 and 3&4 to:
1. God is subject to His nature.
3. His nature is God.
(You see this coming, don’t you?) By further substitution, we can collapse 1&3 to:
1. God is subject to God.
Aquinas and C.S. Lewis just keep dancing from horn to horn and hoping no one ever closely inspects exactly what they are saying. I can see why you prefer it.
And you might retire St. Augustine’s “Evil is the absence of righteousness” defense to the logical problem of evil (where evil comes from.) The absence of morality is amorality or non-morality. Not immorality. The only way the created can have the capability to sin is if the creator does as well. (The traditional defense to the logical problem of evil—God can but doesn’t) Otherwise the greatest conceivable creature is the Christian God plus the ability to sin.
The charge from Dagwood (I think) is that this makes God subject to the laws of justice. To say yes would make God less than Just. Not at all. If it is impossible for God to perform an unjust act, then it is of no significance that His actions are defined as “just.” There is no law by which He could perform an action that entails breaking that law. As your proof on Euthyphro, the only limitation God has is God Himself. You make the interesting statement: Since God holds dominion over all of creation, He has the right to take human life without the charge of murder. Therefore dominion, even over creatures with free will, gives God the ability to do anything, anytime, anywhere. He could send all to Hell, even after Christ’s atonement, because he has dominion. There IS no limitation, other than what God self-limits. And we have no way of verifying what those limits are, if any. To say that God can do whatever God chooses to do, means that He is not following anything but his own inclinations, whatever they are. The word, “just” is no longer a logical construct that you and I can communicate with coherently. Since God isn’t following any law.
He knows the future outcome of actions taken today (or not taken today) and does things that would appear to a finite being as being immoral (say commanding the death of all Canaanites). But if genocide is moral to God, why isn’t it moral for Humans? On one hand, the Bible imposes limitations on humans, that if not abided by, the actions become unjust. But on the other, I observe actions by the lawmaker that appear unjust, and am informed they are moral. Am I to emulate God or not? Which actions that God does, am I to copy and which ones not? And why is it you just happen to pick the ones we think are immoral as the ones I can’t copy?
You assume God is good. Why? Because he says so. You assume God does not lie. Why? Because he is good. You assume that actions that appear as immoral and if any human ever attempted the same would be immediately arrested and punished, yet for some inexplicable reason when God does it are not. Why? Because God told you He is good.
Jeff, there is one glaring problem with any analogy we use to compare stealing $10 to save someone’s life and God’s action. God is God. You are limited by your humanity. God is not. God can save the life without the $10. He NEVER would need to commit an apparent immoral act to perform a moral act.
Read Numbers 31. Can you explain why God could not convert or redeem a single baby boy of 1 year of age, but was able to convert ALL the female virgins? 32,000 of them? Doesn’t that make you cringe? Or do you hold to the premise that since all humans are in God’s domain, it is acceptable for Him to keep the virgin females, and toss the rest?
‘Cause God says he is good.
This is going to get long, but I want to thread my comments in with yours to help with context.
Thank you, Jeff, for the thought out response to these questions. (I personally thought “tremble with anger” was a bit over the top, this not being a sermon, but still and all quite fun.) Quick review of what, basically, “logic” is—a form of communication. A way in which I can use a word or sentence, and others can rationally understand what I am saying. If I say, “square” every person envisions the same element. I say, “If you are good, then you will get ice cream,” everyone understands the mandated requirements of being good.
There are generally two types of logical contradiction—in my mind I think of them as internal and external. The first is when the sentence or concept itself is logically inconsistent: a square circle. “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously” The words themselves create the contradiction. An external contradiction is when our observations and experiences determine that the statement itself does not conform to what we observe. “The Earth is in the shape of a cube.” “Men give birth.” Something that does not mesh with reality.
Jeff, I avoid the internal contradiction with God. The classic (as you pointed out) is “God can do anything.” “Oh, yeah? Can he make a rock he can’t lift?” I would think that in order to rationally talk about a God, we must assume He is bound by logic. Otherwise the conversation degrades into nothingness, as we cannot state with any confidence anything about God. “Up” could mean “Up,” “down,” “sideways” or “very small.”
I agree with all of the above
I did notice you modified the question from “Can God’s nature change?” to “Can God’s essence change?” and I assume you are using those two words interchangeably. Later regarding Euthyphro, you used the limitation as God’s nature, so I am assuming they mean the same.
Yes, I used them interchangeably
The Christian concept of God is that He is the greatest conceivable being. O.K. For the moment we can use that as a base-line in our definition of the Christian God.
Since God is the greatest conceivable Being, to change His essence would necessarily entail becoming less than perfect. Uh-oh. Danger Will Robinson. Think about what the word, “perfect” means in this sense. We are not talking about being really, really moral, to the point of never committing an immoral act. This concept is one of completeness. Not needing or desiring another thing. Ever.
Ah yes, definitely a weak point in my post. I never defined ‘perfect’ and what is and isn’t encompassed in that.
The idea of a painter making the very last stroke on a painting, and at that stroke, the painting is complete. Perfect. Despite the thousands of strokes earlier, without that last stroke, it remained imperfect. If the painter felt the necessaity to add another stroke, then the painting in its condition remains imperfect.
Actually this is wrong. If ‘perfect’ is objective rather than subjective (in the mind of the artist) then there are not 2 definitions of perfect contingent on the choice of the painter. This is important to understand and from past conversations I wonder if this isn’t a blind spot in your understanding of the term ‘objective’.
If God was “perfect” He would never have given rise to the desire to create. The concept would not be within Him. He was complete, whole, not desiring another thing. Even if you state that the ability to create was within this perfect being, there was still, assuming a pre-existent God, an instant in which the desire to create was unfulfilled. Until God acted upon His desire he was incomplete. Not Perfect. It may be that the act of creation was the final stroke on the painting, but PRIOR to that God was incomplete.
Which means at one point in time (and I hesitate to use the idea of time, but I hope you understand) God was incomplete. There is no way to verify that God is complete yet. It may be, in His quest toward perfection, that change was necessary.
Further, we know God “changed” in that at one point it was just God, and subsequently it was God+creation. You state, He's working to bring about the absolute best end result for eternity. Prior to creation, in his complete form, It was not necessary for God to be working at anything (Especially if he was perfect.) After creation, (and after the fall) God had to start doing the best he can with what His creation screwed up. His interaction with humans (if you assume free will) resulted in changed in His nature. Before he did not have to interact with humans, after he did.
The simplest, best example is this blog entry. A week ago, you had no intention of writing this post. After interacting with me, you “changed” by writing a post dealing with this issue. In the same way, if you hold to humans having free will, God is, to some extent, reacting to what humans do. Otherwise you lose free will. God’s reaction requires change.
The above few paragraphs are a valid point (logically speaking). I’ve given this much thought in the past, having discussed it on more than one occasion with Paul. It amounts to a strawman of Christian theology, but I don’t blame you for it because it’s very common to find this weak form of theology alive among Christians.
It seems to me, that the proper resolution of this issue is the same one that helped us resolve the Euthyphro dilemma. I didn’t mention it in the post, but besides the perfection mandating immutability, the timelessness mandates it too. God exists outside of time. Time being one of His creations. Since God doesn’t experience temporality like we do, once again it’s not possible for Him to change. This includes the creation of mankind. You speak as if time passed, then God created us. Well, if God experienced time we’d have a full-blown logical contradiction. There is no such thing as an infinite regress. So God could not be eternal if He one day said “Let there be light”.
Therefore, even though God acts in time He doesn’t experience time. So you create a strawman of the Christian God when you assert that He changed via fulfilling His need to create.
Technically it’s also not accurate to say that God needed to create mankind.
Finally, if God (the creator) cannot change, where did the humans (the created) obtain the ability to do so? Surely you can’t be intoning that somehow the created aquired a capablity greater than the “greatest conceivable being.”? Have you ever thought about all the things humans can do, that God cannot? What is God in awe of? In order to create the ability to be in awe of something (whether a mountain, a physical feat or a sunset) one must have the capability itself. Or surprise. If God was all-knowing, it would be impossible to surprise Him. He wouldn’t have the faintest notion as to how to create something that he never experienced. Unless you say he can “turn off” His ability to be all-knowing. Which, unfortuanatley for this argument, means “change.”
This is wrong (what else would you expect me to say?). There is no reason to consider God’s omnipotence to be so limited as to only ‘know’ things that He’s experienced. This is the fatal weakness in the above assertion. Therefore, we can know awe of God with out God’s ever having experienced it. But heck, why couldn’t God know awe first-hand? He will have only experienced awe at Himself. Does this make Him sound egotistical to you?
If God was perfect, then creation couldn’t happen. If God’s perfection is a process, such as the desire to create being enacted, and interactions with humans, who is to say that part of the perfection process is change? In fact, how could a process be anything BUT change?
Logically, it is impossible to have God one day and God+creation the next and have no change. Nor can He have been perfect.
The response to the Euthyphro dilemma is terrible. (That’s for the “tremble with anger.” :) ) All you do is create a big circle without answering the question. In fact, one sentence IS a circle! Is it good because God does it (“might makes right”) or does God do it because its good (a moral code outside of God that he is bound to)?
You say:
1. God is subject to a Moral Code.
2. The moral Code is his nature.
3. His nature is righteousness.
4. Rigtheousness is God.
By simple substitution, we can collapse 1&2 and 3&4 to:
1. God is subject to His nature.
3. His nature is God.
(You see this coming, don’t you?) By further substitution, we can collapse 1&3 to:
1. God is subject to God.
Aquinas and C.S. Lewis just keep dancing from horn to horn and hoping no one ever closely inspects exactly what they are saying. I can see why you prefer it.
Perhaps you can develop this thought further and convince me that it’s not appropriate to say that God is subject to God? To me it sounds like the correct solution.
And you might retire St. Augustine’s “Evil is the absence of righteousness” defense to the logical problem of evil (where evil comes from.) The absence of morality is amorality or non-morality. Not immorality. The only way the created can have the capability to sin is if the creator does as well. (The traditional defense to the logical problem of evil—God can but doesn’t) Otherwise the greatest conceivable creature is the Christian God plus the ability to sin.
This is an unfounded assertion. Why should I accept your definition of God? Of Omnipotence?
The charge from Dagwood (I think) is that this makes God subject to the laws of justice. To say yes would make God less than Just. Not at all. If it is impossible for God to perform an unjust act, then it is of no significance that His actions are defined as “just.” There is no law by which He could perform an action that entails breaking that law. As your proof on Euthyphro, the only limitation God has is God Himself. You make the interesting statement: Since God holds dominion over all of creation, He has the right to take human life without the charge of murder. Therefore dominion, even over creatures with free will, gives God the ability to do anything, anytime, anywhere. He could send all to Hell, even after Christ’s atonement, because he has dominion. There IS no limitation, other than what God self-limits. And we have no way of verifying what those limits are, if any. To say that God can do whatever God chooses to do, means that He is not following anything but his own inclinations, whatever they are. The word, “just” is no longer a logical construct that you and I can communicate with coherently. Since God isn’t following any law.
Not so. Again you fail to understand what is meant by ‘objective’. We actually have quite a bit of information from God Himself as to what the moral code is. I’ve already explained that God cannot do anything. He must be true to His nature. The fact that you don’t know this nature changes nothing. God can take any human life at any time. Can he send a redeemed person to Hell? No, because to do so would be to break a promise. I suppose if you want a theoretical sin that, if done by God, would constitute a sin we could use that one.
He knows the future outcome of actions taken today (or not taken today) and does things that would appear to a finite being as being immoral (say commanding the death of all Canaanites). But if genocide is moral to God, why isn’t it moral for Humans? On one hand, the Bible imposes limitations on humans, that if not abided by, the actions become unjust. But on the other, I observe actions by the lawmaker that appear unjust, and am informed they are moral. Am I to emulate God or not? Which actions that God does, am I to copy and which ones not? And why is it you just happen to pick the ones we think are immoral as the ones I can’t copy?
I explained this one. It’s all about dominion. God owns all human life. Remember the analogy of the artist’s sculpture?
You assume God is good. Why? Because he says so. You assume God does not lie. Why? Because he is good. You assume that actions that appear as immoral and if any human ever attempted the same would be immediately arrested and punished, yet for some inexplicable reason when God does it are not. Why? Because God told you He is good.
Yes, I’ve answered this. However, I also gave you a theoretical act that if done by God would be immoral. Most things you want to blame God for are not wrong for him, but that’s not to say that there isn’t even anything conceptually possibly wrong for Him to do. I think that this point is important to you. You really see a problem with the idea that God’s personal morality is subjective. I agree with you if that helps. I just keep trying to point out that God’s moral code isn’t subjective, yet it’s not the same moral code as we answer to. I know you hate that idea but there’s no logical contradiction to it.
Take the example of my 5 year old. For him it’s wrong to play in the street. For me it’s not. I have a different moral code…or perhaps the same ‘code’ but it’s expressed differently due to our differing circumstances.
Again, it’s just like the artist who made the sculpture. He can destroy it while I can’t.
Jeff, there is one glaring problem with any analogy we use to compare stealing $10 to save someone’s life and God’s action. God is God. You are limited by your humanity. God is not. God can save the life without the $10. He NEVER would need to commit an apparent immoral act to perform a moral act.
You assume here that what we see God doing in history isn’t the ideal. Why? Keeping in mind that the ‘ideal’ must be measured in the eternal outcome we therefore must admit that it won’t look like it in the present moment.
Read Numbers 31. Can you explain why God could not convert or redeem a single baby boy of 1 year of age, but was able to convert ALL the female virgins? 32,000 of them? Doesn’t that make you cringe? Or do you hold to the premise that since all humans are in God’s domain, it is acceptable for Him to keep the virgin females, and toss the rest?
I’ll look in to this for you. I am pressed for time right now and can’t pour through commentaries right now.
‘Cause God says he is good.
Jeff—let’s confuse them and type short responses!
Naww. What’s the fun in that?
As to “perfect” it is difficult to use the analogy of perfect in a painting and have it NOT be subjective to the painter. Assume there is some objective definition of a perfect painting. The problem stays—one brush stroke before it was not, one later it is, one more it would not be again (for being too many.)
The time problem is irrelevant regarding the Problem of Perfection. If God needed to create, he was incomplete prior to creation. Now, you may (correctly) complain that I cannot use the word “prior” without implicit reliance upon the concept of time.
Don’t forget what logic is—human constructs in order for us to effectively communicate. Are you saying that creation and God’s initiation happened at the same moment? God cannot create time. Not the “time” that you and I logically use.
You say God does not experience temporality like we do. God’s “time” is not like our “time.” God’s “justice” is not like our “justice.” God’s “morality” is not like our “morality.” This is the concern I addressed in my first post. If we start to say that the words you and I use, so that we can logically understand each other, do not apply to God, we enter a dangerous road, where we don’t know what God’s “up” is, or His “down” or anything else.
Jeff, what I see in these discussions is the theist recognizing the problem, and re-defining it to exempt God from it. If God is perfect, he is complete without creation. Therefore we must re-define perfect. If God is moral, genocide is acceptable. Therefore God’s morality must be re-defined. And so on.
I am slightly amused at the continuing claim of “objectivity” and the constant retreat to “we don’t know.” Objective, just unknown.
“Time” as you and I define it is a measurement of change. Without change there is no time. Time stops, change stops. You got the idea. Without time, God could not have changed from one moment of no time to a moment of time. (I find this problematic for the initiation of the universe as well from my standpoint, by the way.)
Think of it as a stopped clock. Without “time” the clock never moves. We are perpetually at 12:01:01. No further. In order for “time” to start, there must be a change. For time to initiate, that clock has to measure the moment from non-time to time, To DO that, the clock has to move and start ticking at 12:01:02. But without time, that clock will never move. Time cannot start.
Hope that was clear.
As you can see, if you place God “outside” time on some unknown, and unfamiliar concept, call it tyme, you start to remove the ability to state anything logical about God in this tyme-zone. I can just as easily argue that since “time” is not “tyme,” our logic is not God-lygic. And anything we say about God, using our human concept of logic is incorrect. Since He uses lygic.
And even outside time, in tyme-land, if you want to use the logical concept of greatest conceivable being (that we can’t conceive) it still necessitates perfection and unnecessary creation.
Technically it’s also not accurate to say that God needed to create mankind. Then God did something that He WANTED to??? But was not necessary to do so? How can He possibly be perfect and complete if He has wants and desires that are unfulfilled. This was my point before.
Can you explain surprise? And Awe is a measurement of degree. If God were in awe of himself, wouldn’t it be continuous? And He wouldn’t know the difference between awe and non-awe. If it wasn’t continuous, that means he changes from awe to non-awe. Which brings me back to a changing God.
I don’t really mean to lambaste you with numerous different problems, and I am not trying to overwhelm you. It is just that correcting one problem raises two more. It is not easy to keep a logically (as we understand it) consistent God, as each resolution causes problems with previous resolutions.
There is no reason to consider God’s omnipotence to be so limited as to only ‘know’ things that He’s experienced. Can you explain how God would “know” things he hadn’t experienced before creation? Does he “know” death? Does he “know” sin? Did these things exist prior to creation? Then isn’t God the author of death and sin?
Perhaps you can develop this thought further and convince me that it’s not appropriate to say that God is subject to God? Oh it is quite appropriate. If you desire to fall on the horn of “its good because God says it is good.” Or, as atheists like to say, “Might makes right.” If the only thing that limits God is…well…God, He can do what He wants, when He wants, and How he wants. Genocide is moral today, immoral tomorrow and non-moral next week. Life for a life today, Mercy tomorrow, kill the baby next week. ALL of which God can do, as He is only limited by Himself. And now you are indicating he has “wants” not just needs.
This is logically consistent. You lose “God is Just,” of course, there is no law he is following. And His nature is non-verifiable as to whether it is arbitrary or not.
Why should I accept your definition of God? You don’t have to at all. I truly do not mean this to sound snobbish, so I hope you take it with that understanding. But even as a Christian I rejected St. Augustine’s solution of “Evil is absence of Good.” It does not account for non-moral or amoral actions, and causes problems as to scale on moral and immoral acts. If God has the capability to sin, but does not it accounts for creation with the capability, Jesus with being tempted, and yet God can remain holy. In fact it resolved every issue logically, just one little hitch. James 1:13. If God cannot be tempted, then He didn’t have the actual capability. Other than that one lousy verse I had it all tidied up. It was one of the things I “left up to God to explain in the afterlife.”
(It also resolves one of the sticky problems of the Free Will defense to the evidentiary problem of evil. But another time.)
The fact that you don’t know this nature changes nothing. God can take any human life at any time. Can he send a redeemed person to Hell? No, because to do so would be to break a promise If you don’t know His nature, how can you state with any confidence that His nature is objective or subjective? You can’t. If you don’t know His nature, How can you know he cannot break a promise? Or make a “new” covenant?
As to your sculpture being destroyed by its artist, there is a difference, right? Humans are living, free will creatures created by God. If we create a clone, do we have the right to destroy it? Or does it have the some rights as any other human? Creating a sentient being brings responsibilities.
Genocide is never “ideal.” Ever. You pick--subjective, objective, ejective, I don’t care what moral system you want. You are admitting that the best your God could come up with is the mass slaughter of children to give the Jews a place to live.
Jeff, you have had it hammered into your head that God is Good. No matter what He does, no matter how. Regrettably, you are left with a situation in which you must justify the murder of children as being “moral.” You don’t know why, and in any other religion you would never accept it, but believing as you do, you are stuck.
You have demonstrated a good thinking ability. Don’t just read the commentaries, study them. Don’t just look for an easy answer, see if you would buy it from any other person (even me). Read it, as if the your omnipotent God can do what He wants. Why would He commit genocide?
(Off-topic. I strongly recommend some recent books on archeology. The redeeming factor of Joshua’s genocide for you is that it never happened. ‘Course that doesn’t help the historical accuracy of the Tanakh, but also for another time.)
You have a huge flaw in your argument.
Omnipotence: Adj
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.
Which means, he is not logical. Being logical, means there are things you cannot do. I can microwave a burrito so hot that I cannot eat it. However, if I were omnipotent, there's a logical contradiction.
What you have to realize about omnipotence, is that there is no such thing as logic when it comes to omnipotence.
Yes, god can do something unjust.
Yes, god can lie
and yes, god and microwave a burrito so hot that he cannot eat it.
However, because he is omnipotent.
The thing he does which is unjust, he can just make it just.
When god lies, all he does is make it truth.
And when god microwaves a burrito so hot that he cannot eat it. All he does is eat it.
By stating that god is omnipotent, that means that god can do, ANYTHING.
The true answer to the burrito question is, "God is not constrained by logic." By constraining god to logic, he is no longer omnipotent. Just...very powerful.
Roger thanks for commenting. There's lots of commentary in here so I don't know if you saw where I addressed this.
The Christian conception of omnipotence has never included the ability to do the logically impossible. When we define omnipotence as "able to do anything" the understanding (implied) is that it means anything that is possible.
One limit (among others) on omnipotence is only metaphysical, like omnipotence itself, as we are talking about a transcendently non-physical God.
That limit is God's holiness - God cannot do something which is not holy - against His own morality. God cannot do something wrong.
Another "limit" - I could probably use a better term, as that implies physical boundaries - would be logic.
I disagree that God is subject to God. God is objective to Himself. God cannot be below Himself, ie: subject to Himself. The object of God is Himself, the purpose of God is Himself, and the essence of God is Himself.
Everything stems from God, and is for God's purposes. Thus, if God is essentially logical, then everything (conceptually) stemming from God, or created by God, will be, in essence, logical *to* God.
So, to answer you, Richard - without God's (also intrinsic) Holiness, it would theoretically be possible for God to be unjust. However, God is Holy, and is therefore Just. God *is* Justice, and therefore cannot be unjust, as Justice is intrinsic to God.
As to the burrito... that's paradox, and thus either only solvable by God, or logically incoherent, and thus an internal non sequitur, as God is intrinsically logical. Besides... God is not a corporeal being, and I somehow doubt that heat, or lack thereof, has any bearing on God.
God cannot lie, because God is truth. Anything that God says/does, is truthful. God is the source of all knowledge, thus all knowledge He gives is truthful knowledge. All lies are mere perversions of truth - and sinful, to boot - thus violations of His Holiness.
There's a theological/metaphysical answer. The attributes of God are a pretty cool study, I think. I recommend a reading of "Knowledge of the Holy", by A.W. Tozer. Good study of those attributes of God, from a theological standpoint.
Strictly by definition, I've managed to defeat your entire case. The correct term is, "Very powerful." Which I don't deny.
Roger, I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying that since God cannot do the logically impossible, that He doesn't qualify as omnipotent?
Omnipotence has always been understood to mean "able to do anything conceivably possible"...never "absolutely everything, including the logically impossible".
That is the 'definition'. If you want to include your special definition of omnipotence, call it omnipotence-P, then I'll agree with you. Christians have never claimed God is omnipotent-P!
After reviewing the information in this blog, I thought your readers would also be interested in the contents of my website. Within the pages of the Bible, you will find numerous passages pertaining to Ancient History. I have done and extensive study on the genealogy of the Bible and created a database that contains the information of every individual mentioned. I used numerous other history sites to compile and expand the information of the surrounding areas at the time of each Bible character. You will be able to see all the Egyptian dynasties, Babylonians, Assyrians, Sumerians and many more. If you are interested, you can find this information at http://www.BibleFamilyTree.com.
Enjoyed a lot! » » »
That's a great story. Waiting for more. » »
Post a Comment
<< Home