- This topic has 400 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 5 months, 1 week ago by
.
-
Posts
-
And multiple all-powerful beings can’t exist, because they contradict each other.
🏰 Fantasy Writer
✨ Magic System Creator
🎭 Character RPer
📚 Appreciator of BooksThese are my thoughts in this topic in general.
I’m not sure that God’s existence can be proven purely by logic. I haven’t thought too much about this, but I think that it requires a combination of General Revelation and Special Revelation. (If you aren’t familiar with those terms, General Revelation refers to how God reveals Himself through nature, while Special Revelation refers to God’s revealed word.) I think that the two support each other. If you’re completely honest with yourself (which nobody is. There’s a doctrine that is part of my denomination that says that there is a part of people that resists accepting God’s existence. It probably has a fancy name, but I can’t think of it), General Revelation will show you that the universe was designed. Special Revelation gives more specific knowledge of God.
In short, I think that God’s existence can’t be proven by logic. But it can at least be shown to be the most plausible explanation for the universe, even if it can’t be proven beyond any doubt whatsoever. (Not to say that I doubt it. Like I said, I think it’s by far the most plausible explanation for the universe.)
🏰 Fantasy Writer
✨ Magic System Creator
🎭 Character RPer
📚 Appreciator of Books*appears from nowhere*
I’ve wondered when you’d show up on here, I knew something was bound to ensnare your interest!
The flaw I see in that argument is the second premise. You have to accept some sort of multiverse theory where every possibility exists in some reality. Furthermore, if the definition of “all powerful” includes being able to influence all realities, then would said being not be preeminent over all realities instead of belonging to a single one? In that case, you essentially just have God over a multiverse instead of a single universe.
Yes, exactly! It’s ultimately the same problem Anselm’s argument falls to. It fixes one problem, that of the perfect island, but then it falls to the other critique, which is the idea of evoking concepts that don’t have any physical bases. Anselm evoked the concept of something that can exist in the mind, and Plantinga evokes the concept of something that can possibly exist. In both cases, we are asked to accept that something that exists in these non-substantial states can be logically forced into substantial states. This is of course unless we give substance to these possible worlds in a multiverse as you say, but we have no way of logically verifying if such a multiverse exists, so the argument exists on a premise that is equally cosmic and unknown as the conclusion it’s meant to enforce.
Lastly, the whole idea of a multiverse seems to contradict the existence of God. If every possibility exists, are there realities where God is different? Even if we don’t go that far, there would be realities that are horrible. And God’s plans would be pointless, because there would already be a reality where those plans worked out anyway, never mind that there would also be realities where things went horribly wrong.
Although, I think the idea is that God would be a single being preeminent over every reality as you say, so there wouldn’t be multiple versions of Him. The power to be present in every reality might not be unique, since you can make the argument that there exists such a different being in some of these realities, but then it comes down to simply which is truly the greatest, or maximally great. Going back to Anselm, who says that if we see something as God, but we can imagine something greater, then that greater thing is God, or rather, God is the literal max of all greatness, and such a being would easily overpower all the others, making it so that there is really just one God in any way that is meaningful. I’m not 100% on board with this logic, but at least it keeps God an individual. I’m fine with a multiverse as well, but not really this kind. This is for other reasons though, like you have to accept that there’s an infinite number of Jonas’s that are saved, and another infinite set that isn’t, which makes God’s plan seem void to me.
And another thing, by this logic, there would be an infinite amount of all-powerful beings in every reality, because every possible variation of an all-powerful being would exist in at least one reality and be able to exist in all realities.
Right, but it again comes down to the “maximally great” idea, asking the question of who is the most powerful. It just seems to me though that it essentially becomes a nihilistic war of gods.
I’m not sure that God’s existence can be proven purely by logic. I haven’t thought too much about this, but I think that it requires a combination of General Revelation and Special Revelation. (If you aren’t familiar with those terms, General Revelation refers to how God reveals Himself through nature, while Special Revelation refers to God’s revealed word.) I think that the two support each other. If you’re completely honest with yourself (which nobody is. There’s a doctrine that is part of my denomination that says that there is a part of people that resists accepting God’s existence. It probably has a fancy name, but I can’t think of it), General Revelation will show you that the universe was designed. Special Revelation gives more specific knowledge of God.
Yeah, every ontological argument I’ve seen has had one flaw or another, and I really doubt that logical system will be at all sufficient. I’m still debating whether or not God can be proven logically as a whole, but I feel like if He could, then that logic would have to come in revelatory form. I do find Lewis’s Trilemma to be logically convincing though (many just say that Christ didn’t claim to be the Son of God in response though, so it becomes a historical problem). As for proving God as a whole, I agree that seeing nature and God’s word is important, but I find at least that personal revelation to be the most important. If you want to know if He’s there, simply ask Him, but do so with a sincere desire to know.
I also find the morality argument compelling, though it’s more of an argument against humanism, and not atheism as a whole. Then of course there’s the problem of consciousness. Many think that consciousness can be seen as an emergent property, but I don’t think it logical that an ant hill, no matter how big, could contemplate itself. It can’t know that it knows something.
Then finally there’s the cosmological arguments, which is where I’m most interested right now, but I don’t think they are sufficient in proving God for a number of reasons, because it still relies on too many assumptions.
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
I do find Lewis’s Trilemma to be logically convincing though (many just say that Christ didn’t claim to be the Son of God in response though, so it becomes a historical problem).
It bothers me so much that people say that, because if you understand the culture and tradition of the time and the language being used, it becomes obvious that He did.
I’m not sure if the Trilemma offers much proof to God’s existence. Mainly, it is a good argument against people who want to say that Jesus was a great moral teacher but not God. But as for proving that God exists, if you present someone with this argument, they might be forced to accept that those are the only three possibilities, but they could easily choose to believe that he was insane or a liar rather than God.
🏰 Fantasy Writer
✨ Magic System Creator
🎭 Character RPer
📚 Appreciator of BooksIt bothers me so much that people say that, because if you understand the culture and tradition of the time and the language being used, it becomes obvious that He did.
Right, and many simply discredit the “I Am” because John is regarded as the least reliable book, but there’s many indirect claims to His divinity throughout the other books. Like others calling Him God, and He doesn’t contradict them, and even commends them.
I’m not sure if the Trilemma offers much proof to God’s existence. Mainly, it is a good argument against people who want to say that Jesus was a great moral teacher but not God. But as for proving that God exists, if you present someone with this argument, they might be forced to accept that those are the only three possibilities, but they could easily choose to believe that he was insane or a liar rather than God.
I would say that if we showed that Christ being the Son of God is the only reasonable claim of the three options, then that would obviously directly imply that God exists. I think it’s the only reasonable claim because He couldn’t be a liar, because of His actions. A liar wouldn’t exude the humble character Christ did. You can say that all His actions were deceptive, but there is a visible difference between one with good charisma, and one that continually put others before Himself, and He also wouldn’t give up His life like He did. He also couldn’t have been insane, because of the consistent level headedness and wit He presented. Most scholars agree anyways that He was a great moral teacher (so they reject the liar and insane options), and just revert to the “He never claimed to be God” card.
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
Right, and many simply discredit the “I Am” because John is regarded as the least reliable book, but there’s many indirect claims to His divinity throughout the other books. Like others calling Him God, and He doesn’t contradict them, and even commends them.
The problem is that for people who don’t consider the Bible entirely reliable, they could argue that anything they want is inaccurate. They already do that with His miracles.
I would say that if we showed that Christ being the Son of God is the only reasonable claim of the three options, then that would obviously directly imply that God exists.
True. I was thinking of the argument more in terms of proving that those were the only three options, which technically is all that the Trilemma says, but you can easily take it a step further by saying that only one of those options is reasonable. If someone does accept that the gospels are accurate accounts, then the Trilemma does pretty much force you into the option that He is God.
🏰 Fantasy Writer
✨ Magic System Creator
🎭 Character RPer
📚 Appreciator of BooksThe problem is that for people who don’t consider the Bible entirely reliable, they could argue that anything they want is inaccurate. They already do that with His miracles.
True. At the same time though, I don’t find it unreasonable to have skepticism towards towards the accuracy of any historical writing, even biblical. The difference is when there are those who honestly want to get to the truth, vs those who want to just disprove something, to prove that their worldview is right. We can avoid the latter while still being able to regard biblical text with an objective eye. In my faith, we say we only believe in the Bible as far as it is correctly translated, because we recognize that while God is infallible, many is very fallible. When it comes to determining the accuracy of any particular text, we can do the deep research, but not everyone has the time, mind, and resources to do that, so I think that all we can really do is read it, and pray, asking if it be right.
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
True. It’s hard to try to argue about the accuracy of the Bible with someone, because most likely neither of you have the time or knowledge to look into translational things and stuff like that.
🏰 Fantasy Writer
✨ Magic System Creator
🎭 Character RPer
📚 Appreciator of BooksI just read about an argument that is similar to one of the ones you shared above but seems a bit stronger in my opinion. It was created by Descartes. He argued it like this:
- I have the idea of a perfect entity in my mind.
- The idea of a perfect entity could not come from an imperfect being.
- Therefore, the idea must come from the entity itself.
- One of the attributes of a perfect being is that it exists.
- Therefore, if the perfect entity did not exist, it would not be perfect, which is a paradox.
- Therefore, the perfect entity exists.
This still feels fairly weak, but I’m not entirely sure why.
🏰 Fantasy Writer
✨ Magic System Creator
🎭 Character RPer
📚 Appreciator of BooksYeah, it’s still effectively the same as Anselm’s.
Let’s see if the perfect island argument works on it:
I have the idea of a perfect island in my mind.
- The idea of a perfect island could not come from an imperfect being.
- Therefore, the idea must come from the entity itself.
- One of the attributes of a perfect island is that it exists.
- Therefore, if the perfect island did not exist, it would not be perfect, which is a paradox.
- Therefore, the perfect island exists.
Yeah, I think that shows the flaw pretty well. The fallacy all three arguments are making is the idea that if something can exist conceptually, then the conceptualization gives it some degree of power. They do this by making the fact that being actually substantial is part of their definition. So if the definition conceptually exists, but part of the definition is that it does exist, then it does exist. The flaw is that you need to assume that the it does exist for the premise to work, which ruins the whole point of the argument.
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
Here’s some more fun questions:
- If you subscribe to immaterialism, then how does the immaterial influence the material?
- If you subscribe to free will, then what does that actually mean?
- If God knows everything, and part of that knowledge is that He knows everything, how does He actually know that’s not a lie?
- Can God do evil? And if not, then does that not mean He can’t do all things?
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
I think Descartes would argue that existing is not a necessary attribute of a perfect island. I’m not exactly sure why that would apply to the concept of a perfect entity, but not other things. I may not have explained it particularly well.
If you subscribe to immaterialism, then how does the immaterial influence the material?
That’s something interesting I was thinking about recently. Specifically, our soul must somehow be able to interact with our brain.
If you subscribe to free will, then what does that actually mean?
Hard to define. I kind of wonder if free will and self-awareness go hand in hand. In my programming class, we’ve been discussing AI, and how an AI would not have a soul and would never be self-aware or free will. It seems like self-awareness is a prerequisite to having free will.
If God knows everything, and part of that knowledge is that He knows everything, how does He actually know that’s not a lie?
Um… If He were only equipped with human reasoning, there wouldn’t be a way to know.
Can God do evil? And if not, then does that not mean He can’t do all things?
I would say that with God, things that he cannot and will not do overlap. God’s personality is so immutable that He has standards that He would never break. As an analogy, there are things that I wouldn’t do because of my personality. I could do them, but that would to some degree mean that I am changing. God does not change, so the things that are out of line with God’s personality (sin) are things He essentially cannot do.
🏰 Fantasy Writer
✨ Magic System Creator
🎭 Character RPer
📚 Appreciator of BooksI think Descartes would argue that existing is not a necessary attribute of a perfect island. I’m not exactly sure why that would apply to the concept of a perfect entity, but not other things. I may not have explained it particularly well.
Well here’s the thing. A perfect island that does not exist is not perfect, since it would be better if the island does exist. This is the exact logic used by both Anselm and Descartes. A perfect being that does not exist is not perfect, since it would be better if the being did exist. It’s about the concept of being maximally great. A maximally great being isn’t maximally great if existence is part of being maximally great. A maximally great island isn’t maximally great if existence is part of being maximally great.
That’s something interesting I was thinking about recently. Specifically, our soul must somehow be able to interact with our brain.
Yeah, there’s a scenario that is essentially an argument against immaterialism (more so God), and I think it’s quite interesting.
Two men are walking in the park, and see a well kept garden. Person 1 reasons that a gardener must be taking care of it.
The two men stayed out all day to watch for the gardener, but no such gardener appears. Person 1 reasons that the gardener must be invisible.
The two men set up traps over night to capture the gardener. When nothing happens, person 1 reasons that the gardener must be intangible.
Finally person 2 asks “what’s the difference between an invisible intangible gardener, and no gardener at all?”
This is obviously in reference to God, which everyone will say plainly, God has revealed Himself many times in the past. That being said, I think it holds well against the immaterial worldview. If immaterial, by definition, cannot be seen nor touched, effectively non-interactable in any way that’s meaningful, then how is it supposed to interact with us in the form of spirit and miracle?
Full disclosure, I myself am actually not a immaterialist. I’m not a materialist either, at least not in the traditional sense. I believe in God and His miracles, doing things that defy our understanding of reason, but I don’t see why that must imply all such things are non-physical in there fundamental nature.
That being said, I think a good point immaterialists can make is what about things like mathematics. Math seems to be invisible and intangible, yet it is present everywhere, and influences everything without exception.
Hard to define. I kind of wonder if free will and self-awareness go hand in hand. In my programming class, we’ve been discussing AI, and how an AI would not have a soul and would never be self-aware or free will. It seems like self-awareness is a prerequisite to having free will.
100% An AI will never have self awareness. I think I’ve mentioned this point to you before, but an ant hill no matter how large will never contemplate its place in the universe. An AI can tell you different theories about self awareness and AI, but it doesn’t actually know what any of that means, nor does it care. Anyway, yes, self awareness would be a fundamental tenet to free will. A neural network if given a choice between red and blue, the choice was predetermined, and you would be able to track where it came from.
What we need to acknowledge about free will is that there are still factors that influence our behavior that we don’t have control over. Essentially, determinism has some power over us. The opposite of determinism is true randomness. Like in quantum mechanics, where something can happen purely outside of prior cause. If we are fully determined, then we are enslaved robots, and if we have some degree of randomness, then we are creatures of chaos, having no control over our behavior. These seem like the only options, so where does free will lie in all of this if at all?
Um… If He were only equipped with human reasoning, there wouldn’t be a way to know.
Good answer actually. If I came to know that I knew all things, I would have no real way to prove that fact to myself. God is beyond this we understand, but even then, what if all his understanding and experience is artificially fabricated by something greater?
I’m essentially asking the Brain in a Vat question, but for God. I think in some shape or form, God is above this question, but as far as we know, the only answer we can give is the same as the answer to the Brain in a Vat, which is that it is simply unfalsifiable, and we have no particular reason to give it heed.
I would say that with God, things that he cannot and will not do overlap. God’s personality is so immutable that He has standards that He would never break. As an analogy, there are things that I wouldn’t do because of my personality. I could do them, but that would to some degree mean that I am changing. God does not change, so the things that are out of line with God’s personality (sin) are things He essentially cannot do.
Interesting. So your point is that Omnibenevolence is not a requirement to be God, but He’s just good out of personality. That works, but you bring in another question. You say that God does not change. Does that not mean that He can’t do all things? Is that just another aspect of His personality, or is it perhaps a contradictory question, or something else?
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
Interesting. So your point is that Omnibenevolence is not a requirement to be God, but He’s just good out of personality.
I would say that we can’t really comprehend “requirements” to be God. I think the requirements conform to who God is, but it’s not really possible to say, because a universe where God was different would be fundamentally different, and incomprehensible to us.
You say that God does not change. Does that not mean that He can’t do all things?
If God is perfect, then for His personality to change in any way would have to make Him less perfect.
🏰 Fantasy Writer
✨ Magic System Creator
🎭 Character RPer
📚 Appreciator of BooksI would say that we can’t really comprehend “requirements” to be God. I think the requirements conform to who God is, but it’s not really possible to say, because a universe where God was different would be fundamentally different, and incomprehensible to us.
Fair enough. But you think that a universe where God was different is theoretically possible? But the only possible way God to be different would be a way in which He’s less perfect your making. Thus God is perfect, but perfection is relative to who God is, is that right?
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.