August Spies

That only makes since if humans were some seperate force. But clearly such a being would have had to create humans. Why would he do that in the first place?

it would not be a test (he would already know the outcome) it would not prove anything. It would serve no purpose for him.

Starboy

Reminds me of a line from one of the StarTrek movies: "What does god need with a space ship?"

Indeed, what does god need with a human? As in the movie, any "god" that needed humans would not be a god.

Starboy

Agricola Senior

Any god that needed anything would not be the God.

August Spies

exactly.

Kenny

I hope you had a Happy New Year. Ours’ wasn’t that great actually. My wife and I flew into the Las Vegas international airport from Missouri on New Years Eve where our car was parked in long term parking. We had it there because, even though we live in Pasadena California, we got our tickets late and Vegas was the only flight out to Missouri we could get (of course, I don’t know if you’re familiar with all the geography here since you live in the U.K.). Anyway, we discovered that our car had been broken into – the rear passenger window was busted out – and it looks as if the culprits had tried to get under the dash and hotwire it. Thank God that they didn’t steal the car , but out we found out New Years day that our insurance will not cover the damages. The airport told us that they weren’t liable and (paraphrasing) that we were pretty much screwed. They even made us pay the long term parking fee ($110)!!!

But, then we went to the park and saw the Rose Bowel parade floats and things were better

I’m glad you had a good Christmas. My wife and I also spent our Christmas with each other’s families. You’re right about turkey being a Thanksgiving thing in the U.S., but large meals are also common on Christmas or Christmas Eve. My Mom cooked us all a huge roast. Perhaps that’s why we Americans are so fat; we love to eat on any occasion!

Well, honestly I’m not sure if I have found a good way to express it. Perhaps it would be helpful if I were to describe the paradox I am trying to avoid. I would be perfectly comfortable (being a compatiblist) in describing the free actions of human beings as being actions which flow inevitably from the natures of said human beings, where the term ‘nature’ is understood in terms of transworld identity (i.e. the set of properties that an individual possesses in every logically possible world in which that individual can be said to exist). But, with respect to God’s free acts, this such language is problematic because it leads to modal collapse.

Since God is understood to be a necessary being Who thus exists in all logically possible worlds and Who, furthermore, is sovereign over all that is external to His own nature and not conditioned by any factors external to His nature, if God’s free acts flow inevitably from God’s nature (the set of properties God has in all possible worlds), then there are no logically possible worlds where God chooses to actualize any state of affairs other than the state of affairs which describe what we know to be the actual world. Consequently, there is only one possible world in the logic space and that is the world in which we live. But, if that is the case, any discussion of God choosing between alternate possible worlds or of counterfactuals becomes meaningless.

I think the solution to this paradox is along the lines of what Leibniz had to say about it. Since we are asking the question as to why God chose to create this world rather than another one, the whole notion of counterfactuals precedes the question of God’s choices. Thus, when we speak of differing possible worlds we are speaking of a condition logically prior to that in which God has made any choices, a condition in which the divine mind contemplates all that is within the power of divine omnipotence to carry out and the consequences of all conceivable choices which God might make – prior to any teleological evaluation of any of those conceivable choices, on God’s part, in terms of God’s goals or moral ends. But, since differing logical possible worlds include different possible choices on God’s part, God’s choices cannot be said to flow inevitably from God’s nature if, by the term ‘nature’ we are speaking of the properties that a being has in all possible worlds in which it exists.

Perhaps a better phrasing would be: “God’s choices flow inevitably from God’s character.” The analogy here would be similar to the manner in which a human being’s nature might be said to be distinguished from his or her character. Since, as human beings, much of our identity is shaped by contingent factors external to ourselves, there are many conceivable characters we might have had if our lives had been different and our character is further subject to change over time as new contingencies are encountered. However (as the very discussion of differing possible characters an individual might have had presupposes), we can still locate a particular individual in differing possible worlds by a larger set of properties – namely that person’s nature – which dictate how that person would have reacted to different possible contingencies and set a range of possible characters which might have been associated with the individual. Consequently, we can distinguish between one’s nature as a broader category which describes an individual in all possible worlds and between one’s character which is a narrower category which varies between possible worlds as a function of one’s nature and contingent circumstances.

Of course, God’s ‘character’ differs from human character in that God’s character is not shaped any contingent factors outside of God Himself. Thus, the analogy only works insofar as God’s nature is the means by which God is located transworldy and God’s character is how God is defined in relation to the actual world. There are still technical difficulties to be sorted through even with this phrasing, but given that this discussion is already rather technical, esoteric, and not all that related to the subject matter, I think that is enough for now.

Phew!!!


I’m not saying that God’s choices are arbitrary, merely that moral considerations are not necessarily the only motivating factors which God has for taking action. Love, in its extravagance, goes beyond mere morality. Love acts in ways that morality does not require. I am faithful to my wife, for instance, both because I love her and because it is my moral duty given the nature of our relationship and the promises that we have made to one another. However, I often do things for her and give her things which morality or duty do not require simply because I love her. Likewise, with God, I believe that God always acts in accordance with the good, but that God’s love often motivates Him to go beyond mere considerations of morality. However, this does not make God’s actions arbitrary, but merely attributes motivations behind God’s actions which differ from moral evaluations.


Certainly, it would be a free act and, since God is good and delights in the good, it would not be a begrudging act either. Still, if it is morally obligatory, there is still a certain sense in which it could be said that God had to do it. But, the sense of freedom God had in creating the world seems to be understood as being stronger than that within historic Christian theology. The notion seems to be that God was not under any sort of compulsion whatsoever in creating the world, moral or otherwise, but that it was simply an act of His own good pleasure.

Well, as I’ve already argued, the motivations of love often move beyond moral obligations and, I might add, beyond mere cost-benefit considerations.

Maybe the idea Lucas was driving at is that the virgin birth is simply a sign of a child of destiny – a child that had to be born for some larger cosmic reason. It reminds me of an episode of Deep Space Nine (a Star Trek spin off) where the captain of the space station on the show discovers that an alien which transcends linear time once possessed his mother and caused her to marry his father simply so that he could be born so he in turn could act on behalf of those same time transcending aliens. When the captain asked the alien “Why me?” her response was “because it could be no one else.” Perhaps a similar idea is behind the Metichlorines (SP?) impregnating Anikan’s mother so that he could be born and then bring balance to the force? Perhaps he simply had to be born to fulfill destiny and so his birth came about in an unusual way to make sure that it occurred?

Sorry, I just meant that God’s abilities are more than adequate to pull off a victory. If God exists, then everything is working in accordance with His plan and everything is ultimately being directed to positive moral ends. Though certain things are indeed evil in and of themselves, horrendously evil in some cases, they are part of a larger causal network and that overall network is bringing about the good. If God exists, then evil will not have the final say in anything – ultimately the good will be victorious, not only at the end, but in all things that have occurred and ever will occur (even broken car windows ).

God Bless,
Kenny

Thomas Ash

Hi Kenny,

I saw your message. I'm just off to Ghana tomorrow morning to teach English for 3 months (I'm feeling a bit nervous about it right now) so I'll try and reply to it from an internet café, but if you don't get any reply for 3 months, don't think its because I just forgot about it!

Best wishes,

Thomas

Thomas Ash

Hi Kenny,

I've just got to an internet cafe here in Accra, the capital of Ghana. It's boiling hot and very humid, but a fasinating place (and incredibly religiose, with 'I Believe in God Signs' on every shop; plus, people are always coming up to you and asking whether you're religous! Clearly they don't have atheists here... )

That sounds a pain, and I think it could be the basis of an Argument From Broken Car Windows . I know Northern Calfornia's geography a little, as my dad actually has a visiting post at the Hoover Institution in Stanford University, and we go there once a year.

Quote:

But, then we went to the park and saw the Rose Bowel parade floats and things were better I’m glad you had a good Christmas. My wife and I also spent our Christmas with each other’s families. You’re right about turkey being a Thanksgiving thing in the U.S., but large meals are also common on Christmas or Christmas Eve. My Mom cooked us all a huge roast. Perhaps that’s why we Americans are so fat; we love to eat on any occasion! Well, honestly I’m not sure if I have found a good way to express it. Perhaps it would be helpful if I were to describe the paradox I am trying to avoid. I would be perfectly comfortable (being a compatiblist) in describing the free actions of human beings as being actions which flow inevitably from the natures of said human beings, where the term ‘nature’ is understood in terms of transworld identity (i.e. the set of properties that an individual possesses in every logically possible world in which that individual can be said to exist). But, with respect to God’s free acts, this such language is problematic because it leads to modal collapse. Since God is understood to be a necessary being Who thus exists in all logically possible worlds and Who, furthermore, is sovereign over all that is external to His own nature and not conditioned by any factors external to His nature, if God’s free acts flow inevitably from God’s nature (the set of properties God has in all possible worlds), then there are no logically possible worlds where God chooses to actualize any state of affairs other than the state of affairs which describe what we know to be the actual world. Consequently, there is only one possible world in the logic space and that is the world in which we live. But, if that is the case, any discussion of God choosing between alternate possible worlds or of counterfactuals becomes meaningless.

Yes, I think I see the problem. But I think the problem might lie with thinking about these things in terms of other possible worlds. Barring quantum mechanics potentially being random, I'm quite happy to imagine there being only one possible world that could exist with or without God existing. I don't thnk this poses a problem for human free will if it's understood in a compatibilist sense, and I don't see why it would be any different with God in that respect... (assuming his free will is understood to be comparable to that of a human.)
I still don't seem to have got your problem with God making choices based on teleological moral ends. The only problem I can think of with it is that implies a prior moral standard which God is in some sense bound by - was that your objection?

So how would you define love? (Actually, that's a bit of a big question to spring on you )
Yes, I loved DS9, whch thought was by far the best ST series - it's a shame it had to end. I thought the treatment of treligion was a bit dubious though. Were the prophets Gods or just Wormhole Aliens? I guess the producers didn't want to be too controversial, though they did some good episodes on religion.

Well, I think the broken car windows close the case...

Thieving Magpie

Would a perfect being be creative?

I'm creative.

Kenny

Hey Thomas,

Good luck in Ghana! It sounds like a really cool opportunity you have. I hope you enjoy your time there and learn new and valuable things about life (as such opportunities usually allow). I haven’t forgotten either, but I have been tied up over at another thread. Still you can expect a response from me sometime in the future.

God Bless,
Kenny

Thomas Ash

Hiya Kenny,

Good to hear from you. Believe it or not, I'm logged in to Infidels from an internet cafe in the middle of Teshie Nungua, an outlying estate of Accra, the capital. Thanks for the good luck wish; I'm really enjoying my time here at the moment,and the teaching is going well. It is a real learning experience - particularly on the religion front actually, with the religiosity over here being something else (I don't think they've ever heard of an atheist for the most part! )

I'll look forward to your reply, and maybe evem try to answer it from here, tactically covering up the huge 'Internet Infidels' logo that would appear on my screen!

Best wishes,

Thomas