The aloneness argument against classical Theism

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
User avatar
Hugh_Jidiette
New Trial Member
Posts: 6
Joined: January 6th, 2021, 12:25 am

The aloneness argument against classical Theism

Post by Hugh_Jidiette »

1. Omni-benevolence entails permitting the most perfect world possible to obtain.
2. Necessarily, if God is omni-benevolent, God will permit the most perfect world possible to obtain
3. The most perfect world is one with no imperfections, to which its perfection could not be increased.
4. God is perfect- and necessarily omni-benevolent & omnipotent
5. Therefore a world where God alone exists is perfect by definition, since nothing can increase or add to its perfection.
6. The world where God alone exists is a possible world.
7. Therefore God would necessarily permit a world where he alone exists to obtain.
8. A world where God exists alone does not obtain.
9. Therefore God does not exist


1- follows from a definition of omni-benevolence. It does not necessarily by itself entail a perfect world. Theists tend to say 'possible' entails only what is logically possible- so maybe God can't logically eliminate all suffering/evil/imperfection in order to achieve some higher Good/perfection, if that good/perfection is achieved then God in permitting it is not acting contra his omni-benevolence.


2- Follows if the most perfect possible world is something God can actually bring about. Given his omnipotnece entails bringing about all logically possible worlds, the only question is- is the world sans creation possible? Yes (most theists think it actually obtained prior to creation).

3- I think this is pretty trivially true. A world lacking imperfections is presumably perfect. One could argue an empty world lacks imperfections, but is not perfect. But non existence is assumed to be an imperfection, so that doesn't follow.


4&5- God being perfect seems definitional to God. He is that which nothing greater than can be conceived, devoid of deficiency, possessing all the perfections. A world where God exists is by definition devoid of imperfections. Added to this, nothing permitted by God could add to its perfection- it could only ever add gratuitous imperfections. God could not justify that permittance by claiming to achieve some higher good or perfection, since by definition there could be none without suggesting a lack of perfection in the world prior to his permittance, which is to say that God alone is lacking a perfection, which entails he is imperfect, which is a contradiction.


6- Again, it is clearly possible for God to permit a possible world where he alone exists. Many theists believe he did just this prior to creation. To suggest otherwise seems to suggest either such a world is logically impossible, or God is not omnipotent. The latter is clearly impossible for God, the former is clearly wrong.


7- This follows from the above premises. Essentially, what God's omnipotence/omni-benevolence entail is that God would only permit a world where he alone exists. Perhaps you want to appeal to his freedom- but that would only be a freedom to permit gratuitous suffering. Whilst God may have that power, he would no more exercise it than he would commit an act of wanton evil, or an unjustifiable lie. Perhaps the response will be that in creating a world with free agents God is adding some value that did not already exist. But this commits you to the view that a perfect world can be lacking a value- that would of course be an imperfection. Or that God existing alone is not a perfect world. Given God is co-extensive with that world (as it contains nothing else) this implies God is not perfect, which runs into similar problems.


8- is obvious given we are having this conversation.


9- this follows because God has clearly failed to permit a world where he alone exists to obtain. Given God can not fail in this and given God's omni-benevolence entails this is what he would do, we can conclude that no perfect being with the attributes of omnipotence/omni-benevolence could possibly exist and the world exists. Given the world exists, then it is impossible for such a being to exist. These attributes are essential to God, therefore God can not exist.

The necessity here is one of logical entailment, such that to deny it would lead to a contradiction.
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: The aloneness argument against classical Theism

Post by Ecurb »

Who is more "benevolent", the person who loves only those who merit his love through their own perfection, or the person who loves those who are sinners and do not merit his love?

Perhaps "omni-benevolence" involves the logical necessity of imperfection, because benevolence itself is enhanced by loving those who do not deserve it. In that case, the "perfect world" (or, at least, the best of all possible worlds) would of necessity involve imperfections. This is true not only of love, but of other virtues, such as courage, which necessarily involves danger and suffering. Is a world without courage necessarily superior to one in which courage exists? Given this, your postulate #3 does not necessarily obtain.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: The aloneness argument against classical Theism

Post by Terrapin Station »

Hugh_Jidiette wrote: January 6th, 2021, 11:15 am 1. Omni-benevolence entails permitting the most perfect world possible to obtain.
Presumably we'd be appealing to a notion of what "perfection" is that isn't subjective.

What would that notion be?
baker
Posts: 605
Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am

Re: The aloneness argument against classical Theism

Post by baker »

Hugh_Jidiette wrote: January 6th, 2021, 11:15 amThe aloneness argument against classical Theism
No no no. No arguments.

Classical monotheism is a revealed religion: God is said to reveal himself to people; people do not discover God.

It is not possible to prove or disprove (!) classical monotheism with empirical evidence or analytical arguments. Evidence and arguments do not apply to classical monotheism.

In classical monotheism, one either believes, takes for granted, that God exists (and has revealed some particular religion), or one doesn't. This is all there is to it. Everything else is moot.

IOW, when philosophers are trying to present proof for or against God, they are doing so about a god that no actual theist has ever believed in.
IOW, when philosophers are trying to present proof for or against God, they are doing so about a creation of their own imagination. Thus, they might as well desist.
User avatar
Hugh_Jidiette
New Trial Member
Posts: 6
Joined: January 6th, 2021, 12:25 am

Re: The aloneness argument against classical Theism

Post by Hugh_Jidiette »

Ecurb wrote: January 6th, 2021, 4:07 pm Who is more "benevolent", the person who loves only those who merit his love through their own perfection, or the person who loves those who are sinners and do not merit his love?

Perhaps "omni-benevolence" involves the logical necessity of imperfection, because benevolence itself is enhanced by loving those who do not deserve it. In that case, the "perfect world" (or, at least, the best of all possible worlds) would of necessity involve imperfections. This is true not only of love, but of other virtues, such as courage, which necessarily involves danger and suffering. Is a world without courage necessarily superior to one in which courage exists? Given this, your postulate #3 does not necessarily obtain.
Your response misses the point. This argument is against the God of classical Theism, not skeptical Theism, or open Theism.
User avatar
Hugh_Jidiette
New Trial Member
Posts: 6
Joined: January 6th, 2021, 12:25 am

Re: The aloneness argument against classical Theism

Post by Hugh_Jidiette »

Terrapin Station wrote: January 6th, 2021, 4:24 pm
Hugh_Jidiette wrote: January 6th, 2021, 11:15 am 1. Omni-benevolence entails permitting the most perfect world possible to obtain.
Presumably we'd be appealing to a notion of what "perfection" is that isn't subjective.

What would that notion be?
It's an internal critique. An internal critique assumes the truth (which entails all definitions by the proponent of the view be granted) of some premise or worldview in order to examine what would be the case if it were true. This is most often expressed as a type of reductio ad absurdum. Therefore, my view is irrelevant.
User avatar
Hugh_Jidiette
New Trial Member
Posts: 6
Joined: January 6th, 2021, 12:25 am

Re: The aloneness argument against classical Theism

Post by Hugh_Jidiette »

baker wrote: January 6th, 2021, 5:21 pm
Hugh_Jidiette wrote: January 6th, 2021, 11:15 amThe aloneness argument against classical Theism
No no no. No arguments.

Classical monotheism is a revealed religion: God is said to reveal himself to people; people do not discover God.

It is not possible to prove or disprove (!) classical monotheism with empirical evidence or analytical arguments. Evidence and arguments do not apply to classical monotheism.

In classical monotheism, one either believes, takes for granted, that God exists (and has revealed some particular religion), or one doesn't. This is all there is to it. Everything else is moot.

IOW, when philosophers are trying to present proof for or against God, they are doing so about a god that no actual theist has ever believed in.
IOW, when philosophers are trying to present proof for or against God, they are doing so about a creation of their own imagination. Thus, they might as well desist.
Decisive? Almost nothing in philosophy is my friend. This is a tool for greater understanding and exploration.
baker
Posts: 605
Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am

Re: The aloneness argument against classical Theism

Post by baker »

Hugh_Jidiette wrote: January 7th, 2021, 3:52 am
baker wrote: January 6th, 2021, 5:21 pmIOW, when philosophers are trying to present proof for or against God, they are doing so about a god that no actual theist has ever believed in.
IOW, when philosophers are trying to present proof for or against God, they are doing so about a creation of their own imagination.
Thus, they might as well desist.
Decisive? Almost nothing in philosophy is my friend. This is a tool for greater understanding and exploration.
desist
/dɪˈzɪst,dɪˈsɪst/
verb
stop doing something; cease or abstain.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: The aloneness argument against classical Theism

Post by Terrapin Station »

Hugh_Jidiette wrote: January 7th, 2021, 3:49 am
Terrapin Station wrote: January 6th, 2021, 4:24 pm
Presumably we'd be appealing to a notion of what "perfection" is that isn't subjective.

What would that notion be?
It's an internal critique. An internal critique assumes the truth (which entails all definitions by the proponent of the view be granted) of some premise or worldview in order to examine what would be the case if it were true. This is most often expressed as a type of reductio ad absurdum. Therefore, my view is irrelevant.
Are you claiming that your analysis is identical to if we'd do a formal analysis of the argument, where we substitute variables for terms? Otherwise, if you're engaging at all with the terms on a semantic level, the definition we're assigning to a term matters.
baker
Posts: 605
Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am

Re: The aloneness argument against classical Theism

Post by baker »

Hugh_Jidiette wrote: January 7th, 2021, 3:49 amIt's an internal critique. An internal critique assumes the truth (which entails all definitions by the proponent of the view be granted) of some premise or worldview in order to examine what would be the case if it were true. This is most often expressed as a type of reductio ad absurdum.
Sure. But you're not doing that to any actual monotheism (ie. like the one put forward by Roman Catholicism etc.). You're doing it to a monotheism of your own making.
What's the point in that?
User avatar
Hugh_Jidiette
New Trial Member
Posts: 6
Joined: January 6th, 2021, 12:25 am

Re: The aloneness argument against classical Theism

Post by Hugh_Jidiette »

Terrapin Station wrote: January 7th, 2021, 9:12 am
Hugh_Jidiette wrote: January 7th, 2021, 3:49 am

It's an internal critique. An internal critique assumes the truth (which entails all definitions by the proponent of the view be granted) of some premise or worldview in order to examine what would be the case if it were true. This is most often expressed as a type of reductio ad absurdum. Therefore, my view is irrelevant.
Are you claiming that your analysis is identical to if we'd do a formal analysis of the argument, where we substitute variables for terms? Otherwise, if you're engaging at all with the terms on a semantic level, the definition we're assigning to a term matters.
I never said terms do not matter. I said my view is irrelevant whilst rendering an internal critique.
Again, an internal critique assumes the truth of a worldview in order to examine what would be the case if it were true. It is a type of reductio ad absurdum to show that given the premises, the conclusion leads to a contradiction. In short, one brackets their presuppositions, terms, etc. (for the sake of arguendo) & assumes the truth of their interlocutors view, which includes granting their terms. Nothing I'm saying here is controversial or incoherent. For instance, a Theist can pose my argument to a fellow Theist. At any rate, this seems like a red herring.

Albeit the literature on the God of classical Theism is superabundant, here's a brief summary since I can't post links:

"Classical theism refers to the form of theism in which God is characterized as the absolutely metaphysically ultimate being, in contrast to other conceptions such as Theistic Personalism, Open Theism and Process Theism. Whereas most theists agree that God is, at a minimum, all-knowing, all-powerful, and completely good, classical theists go farther and conceive of God as the ultimate reality, with a broad set of attributes including transcendence, simplicity, immutability, impassibility, timelessness, and incorporeality. Classical theism is, historically, the mainstream view in philosophy and is associated with the tradition of writers like Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, St. Anselm, Maimonides, Averroes and Thomas Aquinas. In opposition to this tradition, there are, today, philosophers like Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne and William Lane Craig, who can be viewed as theistic personalists. Since classical theistic ideas are influenced by Greek philosophy and focus on God in the abstract and metaphysical sense, they can be difficult to reconcile with the "near, caring, and compassionate" view of God presented in the religious texts of the main monotheistic religions, particularly the Bible."

Given that, which premise would/do you reject and why?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: The aloneness argument against classical Theism

Post by Terrapin Station »

Hugh_Jidiette wrote: January 8th, 2021, 3:44 am I never said terms do not matter. I said my view is irrelevant whilst rendering an internal critique.
Again, an internal critique assumes the truth of a worldview in order to examine what would be the case if it were true.
You're not answering what I'm asking you.

Either

(a) you're saying that we could just replace "perfect" (and "perfection" etc.) with "x" in your analysis and it would work the same,

or

(b) just what "perfect" amounts to semantically in the analysis matters.

If (a) then I'll look at it again and see if it actually works if we simply replace that term with "x."

If (b), then how would we characterize a non-subjective sense of what "perfect" is supposed to amount to? (Non-subjective, because if it's subjective instead--as perfect is on my view--then anything could count as perfect.)
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: The aloneness argument against classical Theism

Post by Atla »

Hugh_Jidiette wrote: January 6th, 2021, 11:15 am 8. A world where God exists alone does not obtain.

8- is obvious given we are having this conversation.
Can't there be two worlds?
True philosophy points to the Moon
User avatar
LoverofWisdom
New Trial Member
Posts: 10
Joined: January 2nd, 2021, 11:54 pm

Re: The aloneness argument against classical Theism

Post by LoverofWisdom »

1. Omni-benevolence entails permitting the most perfect world possible to obtain./quote]
Does not omni-benevolence also entail creating a world that entails libertarian free will. So that those who exist in that world, are not by nature slaves or puppets? If in that perfect world, the free will agents chose to use their gift of free will to do that which is evil thus bringing about imperfection to a previously perfect order? Does not benevolence omni or conditional allow for pain in order to shape character. For instance as a parent, disciplining a child who steals, by the use of spanking, is painful, but in the long run molds their character to not be a thief? Your entire argument fails, because you have not defined omnibenevolence in its fullest definition.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: The aloneness argument against classical Theism

Post by Count Lucanor »

Hugh_Jidiette wrote: January 6th, 2021, 11:15 am 1. Omni-benevolence entails permitting the most perfect world possible to obtain.
2. Necessarily, if God is omni-benevolent, God will permit the most perfect world possible to obtain
3. The most perfect world is one with no imperfections, to which its perfection could not be increased.
4. God is perfect- and necessarily omni-benevolent & omnipotent
5. Therefore a world where God alone exists is perfect by definition, since nothing can increase or add to its perfection.
6. The world where God alone exists is a possible world.
7. Therefore God would necessarily permit a world where he alone exists to obtain.
8. A world where God exists alone does not obtain.
9. Therefore God does not exist
A perfect being with omni-benevolence by essence is also required to be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. Implied in all of this is also the attribute of being a person, an agent with volition, thoughts, feelings, etc. But all these essential attributes can never work together, they contradict each other. No such divine person could exist.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021