To wit: Krishna/Vishnu. He has all those attributes (and more).Count Lucanor wrote: ↑January 9th, 2021, 3:16 pmA 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 aloneness argument against classical Theism
-
- Posts: 605
- Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am
Re: The aloneness argument against classical Theism
- 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
Good enough reason to understand it is a mere product of imagination.baker wrote: ↑January 9th, 2021, 4:28 pmTo wit: Krishna/Vishnu. He has all those attributes (and more).Count Lucanor wrote: ↑January 9th, 2021, 3:16 pmA 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.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
-
- Posts: 605
- Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am
Re: The aloneness argument against classical Theism
Actually, the Hindu überGod is quite a bit trickier than the Abrahamic one. Hindu (mono)theism is impossible to refute, given that it has an inbuilt clause that if you don't see it as true, then this is because God thinks that you're not ready yet. There is no eternal damnation in Hindu (mono)theism. The threat of eternal damnation is a major incentive for apologetics that the Abrahamists have, and the Hindu (mono)theists don't.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑January 9th, 2021, 4:41 pmGood enough reason to understand it is a mere product of imagination.
Basically, the whole debate around the existence of God goes quite differently with a Hindu (mono)theist than with an Abrahamist.
- 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
If this deity "thinks", then it has all the attributes of a person and we're back to the same problems of contradictions in its nature faced by any other personal god. Eternal damnation is purely contingent to the narratives.baker wrote: ↑January 9th, 2021, 4:54 pmActually, the Hindu überGod is quite a bit trickier than the Abrahamic one. Hindu (mono)theism is impossible to refute, given that it has an inbuilt clause that if you don't see it as true, then this is because God thinks that you're not ready yet. There is no eternal damnation in Hindu (mono)theism. The threat of eternal damnation is a major incentive for apologetics that the Abrahamists have, and the Hindu (mono)theists don't.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑January 9th, 2021, 4:41 pm Good enough reason to understand it is a mere product of imagination.
Basically, the whole debate around the existence of God goes quite differently with a Hindu (mono)theist than with an Abrahamist.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5748
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Re: The aloneness argument against classical Theism
Regarding 1-3, I'm a bit confused by the phrase "most perfect". Do you mean best as in "best world possible"?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.
This premise seems to deny pantheism of any kind, rejection out of hand as a premise. If you flat out deny god's existence in your premises, then concluding the non-existence of god would be circular. Granted, your conclusion goes one step further to deny not only pantheistic god(s) but also non-pantheistic versions of god(s), so in that way the argument is completely circular, but is just one small step away from circular.Hugh_Jidiette wrote: ↑January 6th, 2021, 11:15 am 8. A world where God exists alone does not obtain.
I think it would be preferable to remove premise #8 from your argument, and then modify your conclusion to be, "Therefore, either pantheism is true or god doesn't exist."
The intended conclusion may be missed by the response, but that would be because the intended conclusion wasn't actually stated in the original argument. From Hugh_Jidiette's response to Ecurb, it appears Hugh_Jidiette's conclusion in the OP needs to be modified from "Therefore God does not exist" to instead be "Therefore, the God of classical theism does not exist, but the god of skeptical theism or open theism may exist."Hugh_Jidiette wrote: ↑January 7th, 2021, 3:33 amYour response misses the point. This argument is against the God of classical Theism, not skeptical Theism, or open Theism.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.
With my earlier suggested modification to your argument, if you make it as suggested, the new conclusion would be:
"Therefore, the God of classical theism does not exist, but a pantheistic god may exist, or the god of skeptical theism or open theism may exist."
That's a good question. I would also ask Hugh_Jidiette how the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics relates to the argument in the OP?Atla wrote: ↑January 8th, 2021, 11:39 amCan't there be two worlds?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.
baker, I don't think that makes it necessarily impossible to refute. If you claim a married bachelor with god-like power named Greg runs the world, and if I don't believe in Greg it's because Greg made me not believe in him with his godlike power, I think I can refute that with sound logic; don't you?
Nonetheless, secondarily, there is a big difference between (1) refutability versus (2) believability. A great example of that fact is Russell's Teapot.
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: The aloneness argument against classical Theism
Well technically the MWI deals with the superposition of one world, which would be our godless world.. but maybe it's not impossible for a God to exist alone somewhere else in this superposition.Scott wrote: ↑January 24th, 2021, 2:14 amThat's a good question. I would also ask @Hugh_Jidiette how the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics relates to the argument in the OP?Atla wrote: ↑January 8th, 2021, 11:39 amCan't there be two worlds?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.
But we don't really need the MWI or the more common multiverse ideas here. If God is supernatural, he could just use Magic to create a second world outside his own world. Impossible to tell if we are living in such a world.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: The aloneness argument against classical Theism
If the creator deity is not only all powerful and all benevolent but also omniscient then there will be no sins for Him to forgive.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.
-
- Posts: 2165
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: The aloneness argument against classical Theism
If we put aside that it's people who came up with the notion of a perfect god and what such a god would be like -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
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.
Then I think a perfect god is bullet-proof, because how can we imperfect creatures begin to understand perfection or what a perfect omni god would do?
A perfect god must have perfect reasons for the way the world is, which we can only imperfectly speculate about. Such as the free will argument, or the argument that a perfectly benevolent god has to be benevolent in some way (eg by forgiving the imperfections god gave us).
But how can we know. Once we accept premise 4 that a perfect god exists, we lose the grounds to question god's logic or actions. As you say -.
''A world where God exists is by definition devoid of imperfections''
hence the error must lie in our understanding.
-
- Posts: 605
- Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am
Re: The aloneness argument against classical Theism
None of this is an issue in Hinduism, for there, one is not threatened with eternal hellfire if one doesn't make the right religious choice in this lifetime.Scott wrote: ↑January 24th, 2021, 2:14 ambaker, I don't think that makes it necessarily impossible to refute. If you claim a married bachelor with god-like power named Greg runs the world, and if I don't believe in Greg it's because Greg made me not believe in him with his godlike power, I think I can refute that with sound logic; don't you?
Nonetheless, secondarily, there is a big difference between (1) refutability versus (2) believability. A great example of that fact is Russell's Teapot.
Western theistic and atheistic discourse is permeated with Christianity's threat of eternal hellfire for making the wrong religious choice. The very relevance of discussing about God and trying to come to certainty about his existence or lack thereof is driven by this threat. Take away this threat, and the whole apologetics changes.
-
- Posts: 605
- Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am
Re: The aloneness argument against classical Theism
I don't see why. Could you explain it in brief?Count Lucanor wrote: ↑January 20th, 2021, 9:40 pmIf this deity "thinks", then it has all the attributes of a person and we're back to the same problems of contradictions in its nature faced by any other personal god.
The threat of eternal damnation shapes the approach to discussing theistic issues, like I noted above.Eternal damnation is purely contingent to the narratives.
- 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
I already did. Only a person, a conscious agent with volition and purpose, thinks.baker wrote: ↑February 13th, 2021, 3:38 pmI don't see why. Could you explain it in brief?Count Lucanor wrote: ↑January 20th, 2021, 9:40 pmIf this deity "thinks", then it has all the attributes of a person and we're back to the same problems of contradictions in its nature faced by any other personal god.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
-
- Posts: 605
- Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am
Re: The aloneness argument against classical Theism
Yes. How is it a problem if God is like that?Count Lucanor wrote: ↑February 14th, 2021, 1:12 pmI already did. Only a person, a conscious agent with volition and purpose, thinks.
- 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
I will repeat myself:baker wrote: ↑February 14th, 2021, 4:07 pmYes. How is it a problem if God is like that?Count Lucanor wrote: ↑February 14th, 2021, 1:12 pmI already did. Only a person, a conscious agent with volition and purpose, thinks.
Count Lucanor wrote: ↑January 9th, 2021, 4:41 pmGood enough reason to understand it is a mere product of imagination.baker wrote: ↑January 9th, 2021, 4:28 pmTo wit: Krishna/Vishnu. He has all those attributes (and more).Count Lucanor wrote: ↑January 9th, 2021, 3:16 pmA 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.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5748
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Re: The aloneness argument against classical Theism
Hi, baker, I could be wrong but I suspect there is a miscommunication here. I didn't mention hellfire in the slightest, and I am not sure what hellfire or such has to do with any part of my post at all, let alone specifically the main point that there is a significant and critical difference (1) refutability versus (2) believability.baker wrote: ↑February 13th, 2021, 3:35 pmNone of this is an issue in Hinduism, for there, one is not threatened with eternal hellfire if one doesn't make the right religious choice in this lifetime.Scott wrote: ↑January 24th, 2021, 2:14 ambaker, I don't think that makes it necessarily impossible to refute. If you claim a married bachelor with god-like power named Greg runs the world, and if I don't believe in Greg it's because Greg made me not believe in him with his godlike power, I think I can refute that with sound logic; don't you?
Nonetheless, secondarily, there is a big difference between (1) refutability versus (2) believability. A great example of that fact is Russell's Teapot.
Western theistic and atheistic discourse is permeated with Christianity's threat of eternal hellfire for making the wrong religious choice. The very relevance of discussing about God and trying to come to certainty about his existence or lack thereof is driven by this threat. Take away this threat, and the whole apologetics changes.
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
-
- Posts: 711
- Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am
Re: The aloneness argument against classical Theism
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023