Jamie_L

Uh-oh. Now we're ready for a full-blown thread hijacking to discuss free will, a topic I rarely have the willpower to resist. Apologies to all.

You seem to be saying that if I have free will, I WILL NECESSARILY do not-A at some point. Put differently, it is impossible for me to always choose A. Is that what you are saying? Free will FORCES me to commit evil at some point during my life? Doesn't sound like free will to me. Sounds like just the opposite.

Let's examine a single choice: If I chose A instead of not-A, that does not mean I did not have free will to choose not-A. By definition, free will means that when I make a choice, I could have chosen the other choice instead. Now, if I can choose A one time, I can choose A each time. And if I can choose A each time, I can choose A every time. None of this denies the fact that I could have chosen not-A all those times. Because, as we see in examining the single choice, choosing A does not mean a lack of free will to choose not-A.

Thus, it is possible for a person to exist who has free will and who chooses the "good" choice every time. If God is omnipotent, he could create this person.

Now, if we're talking about "perfect" in this theological sense, one would assume that the person who always chooses good could be perfect, but the person who chooses evil even one time cannot be perfect.

Since Adam and Eve chose evil (i.e. disobedience) in a BIG way, they were not perfect. Since God made them, He made them imperfect to begin with.

Jamie

Mageth

The_Ist:

Welcome to the board.

This seems like an argument from assertion (though maybe he further explained it in other parts of the article). Is there anything inherently illogical about a perfect being creating something imperfect?
...
I think when it is said that God “defines” perfection, what is meant is not that God decrees what perfection is, but that he literally is perfection. His very nature defines it. Since God’s nature includes non-dependency, and a creation is dependent on its creator, the latter can’t be perfect (see above).

One could view your claim "God literally is perfection" as an argument from assertion itself. How do you know god is perfection? How could god demonstrate to you, a limited, imperfect being, that he is perfection? As far as that goes, how could god prove to himself that he is perfect? He could assert he is perfect, you can assert he's perfect, we could assume for the sake of argument that he is perfect (i.e. define him that way), but how can you or he know or demonstrate that he is perfect?

The_Ist

No, that isn’t what I was trying to get across. I was trying to say that if you have free will you necessarily must possess the ABILITY to do not-A. If God creates us in a way that absolutely guarantees that we will always “freely choose” to obey him, there is no possibility of us doing not-A, i.e., disobeying. In all logically possible worlds stemming from God’s creation of the first humans, none would include an act of disobedience, because our very nature as God created us precludes it. Thus, due to the logical impossibility of disobedience, there would not be the ability to disobey (one can’t do the logically impossible), and thus humans wouldn’t actually possess free will.

Agreed, but I think this example slightly misses the point as I described above. The problem is that God is creating us so that we always “choose” to do A, which precludes the possibility of doing not-A (God doesn’t allow us to), and undermines our free will. If God created humans this way, they really WOULDN’T have the ability to chose not-A.

I agree that this is hypothetically possible, but if God creates us with such a nature that precludes the possibility of us disobeying him, we do not have free will. There is a difference between POSSIBLY being able to always do A, which doesn't preclude free will, and the NECESSITY of always doing A, the latter of which explains how humans would have been created if God had made us so that we always obeyed.

The problem is that God is foreordaining the outcome, namely that we will never disobey. He is actively disallowing the possible outcome that includes disobedience, and thus taking away our free will.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear, but I wasn’t necessarily defending this viewpoint to christ-on-a-stick, but explaining to him the usual meaning given to the phrase “God defines perfection,” which I think he was misinterpreting. However, I will take a shot at your other comments, because I think that saying that God defines perfection is at least a tenable position.

I think this argument is mainly semantic. To meaningfully discuss “God,” both sides need to have some basic working definition of the concept. Common descriptions include “a being greater than which no other can be conceived,” or “a wholly supreme being,” among others. These descriptions tend to be synonymous with saying God is perfect, because they imply that God has no flaws or needs. So theists usually define God as perfect; it seems to me that this is sort of an axiom of theistic thought. You could say that God is imperfect, or that God is an all-powerful jellyfish that zaps his opponents, but once you do so we really aren’t talking about the same concept at all. I cannot disprove either of these notions; definitions of words aren’t disprovable, they’re just the necessary tools of language.

For example, can you demonstrate or prove to me that a “cat” is “a small carnivorous mammal domesticated since early times as a catcher of rats and mice and as a pet and existing in several distinctive breeds and varieties?” How would you go about doing so? What if I defined a "cat" as a small clod of dirt?

Mageth

I think this argument is mainly semantic. To meaningfully discuss “God,” both sides need to have some basic working definition of the concept.

Understood, and note that I said "we could assume for the sake of argument that he is perfect (i.e. define him that way)". That's all fine and dandy for the sake of discussion, but when it comes to existence, or establishing the possible existence thereof (which, I assume, often comes up when discussing god), that's when you run into the problems I brought up.

Further, to meaningfully discuss "god", I'd assume it would be useful to understand the problems with the proposed attributes of the god being discussed. Such as that one could not demonstrate that such a being exists (one could never know that god was perfect, even if one knew he existed; god couldn't even demonstrate to you that he was perfect).

Common descriptions include “a being greater than which no other can be conceived,...”

That's OK for discussing a concept, but runs into a whole lot of similar problems when it comes to establishing the possibility of existence, as discussed at length in a recent thread here about the "Greatest Possible Being." So you're describing a theoretical being that couldn't be demonstrated to exist in reality, IMO. As long as you realize that, I'm OK.

...or “a wholly supreme being,” among others.

Ditto.

These descriptions tend to be synonymous with saying God is perfect, because they imply that God has no flaws or needs.

Ditto.

So theists usually define God as perfect; it seems to me that this is sort of an axiom of theistic thought.

So you have a definition of god; definition->establishing existence (or the possibility of existence) is where the problem comes in. One could never know that god was perfect. Hence, it's an assertion.

You could say that God is imperfect, or that God is an all-powerful jellyfish that zaps his opponents, but once you do so we really aren’t talking about the same concept at all. I cannot disprove either of these notions; definitions of words aren’t disprovable, they’re just the necessary tools of language.

Well, one can argue against the logical possibility of an extant perfect being. As I described, one could never determine if an extant being indeed was perfect. Hence, the most one can really claim is that "god may be perfect."

For example, can you demonstrate or prove to me that a “cat” is “a small carnivorous mammal domesticated since early times as a catcher of rats and mice and as a pet and existing in several distinctive breeds and varieties?” How would you go about doing so?

I would introduce you to my extant cat Sadie. Believe me, I don't claim she's perfect, though she thinks she is, or make any other undemonstrable claims about her.

What if I defined a "cat" as a small clod of dirt?

Then you'd be redefining "cat" to something it's not, obviously. That's not what I'm doing here. Your axiom "god is perfect" works for discussion, if all parties agree to it. I think it's flawed, in that one could never establish that any extant being was perfect, or "the greatest", or "wholly supreme". Hence, I don't accept "God is perfect" as an axiom. "God is perfect" is an unprovable assertion. God himself couldn't demonstrate himself perfect, but could only assert it. One should recognize that when discussing God.

The_Ist

Noted.

Suppose that God exists, and that he possesses the common trait of omnipotence usually ascribed to him. Since he is all-powerful, why wouldn't he have the power to demonstrate his perfection? Insofar as there is nothing inherently incoherent with him doing so, it would seem that such an act would be within the realm of omnipotence, even if you or I cannot give a definitive explanation as to how he would go about it. Thoughts?

Well, as discussed above, I think God could demonstrate his existence as a perfect being. Though I'm sure you have objections.

I think the rest of your comments would be answered similarly to above, so I will shorten our discussion and not respond to them. I realize more clearly the point you are making, and abandon the cat analogy, as it is not relevant.

Illithid

I think the whole problem stems from people getting all worked up and enthusiastic over this God guy of theirs. Not enough for him to be their god, he has to be the only god. Not enough to be the greatest being there is, he has to be omnipotent. Et cetera for all the other "omni-s" claimed by Christians for their God. They went in for all these superlatives without really thinking about what they meant, and they played the theology and apologetics game stubbornly, sticking to their guns, until they have painted themselves into a corner.

Think of all the arguments against the Christian God we wouldn't have if they would just shrug and say "okay, he knows everything that currently is, but the existence of beings having free will (whom he created) precludes him from knowing their choices, and thus from knowing the future with certainty."

One might then speculate that God created humans for that very purpose: to make choices he couldn't predict.

Maybe he set it up so that he cannot interfere with a human's choices, thus dispensing with the problem of him creating beings he loves and then condemning them. He might be hoping and wishing for each human to be saved, but that is purely a result of their individual choice, which he cannot alter, because he set it up that way.

Mix that in with the idea of Hell as not literal "burning forever" but just "separation from God", and you might have a more defensible theology.

Hmm... how long does it take to get a Th.D.? Maybe I could make a living with books about this idea. "I was an atheist, but then I had an epiphany..." Gotta use shorter words, of course.

mike_decock

My main objection to the notion of a "perfect" being is that perfection is a subjective opinion. What is an asset in the eyes of one person is a flaw in the eyes of another.

When talking about a supernatural being, what standard is there for perfection?

-Mike...

Jamie_L

What we're really hitting up against here is the problem with asserting that God can create beings with free will. That's really problematic, though perhaps not a topic for this thread.

But what you are saying is that in order to give us free will, God must create us so that we will not always obey him, which makes us imperfect. You see, that's the problem. God must decide how he will make us, unless he makes us at random (in which case, it's unlikely we'd be perfect, and it's unethical to hold us responsible for our choices). He must decide either to make us the kind of people who will choose to obey him, or make us the kind of people who won't.

What we've really hit is a paradox. It's possible to have free-will and always choose A. But if you make someone who will always choose A, they don't have free will. Re-stating one side of this paradox doesn't negate the other side.

But it comes back to this: a being that chooses evil is not perfect. If having free will means that humans will choose evil (which is still essentially what you are arguing), the having free will and perfection are incompatible. Further, if you can't be perfect without free will, and you can't be perfect if you choose evil, then it is impossible for humans to be perfect.

Jamie

Mageth

Suppose that God exists, and that he possesses the common trait of omnipotence usually ascribed to him. Since he is all-powerful, why wouldn't he have the power to demonstrate his perfection? Insofar as there is nothing inherently incoherent with him doing so, it would seem that such an act would be within the realm of omnipotence, even if you or I cannot give a definitive explanation as to how he would go about it. Thoughts?

How would god, being an allegedly perfect and omnipotent being, demonstrate to us, obviously finite and imperfect beings, his omnipotence and/or perfection, or any of his other omni-characteristics? To demonstrate his omniscience, he'd have to make us omniscient! An appeal to "He is omnipotent!" doesn't cut the mustard. You're effectively saying "He could demonstrate his omnipotence, of course, because he is omnipotent." A bit tautological, there.

As an example, suppose you meet a god that claims to be omniscient, to know everything. How would this god answer the challenge, "Prove to me that there is not a fact X which you do not know." All this god could do is assert his omniscience, claim he knows everything. He could not prove to you, or to himself for that matter, that he indeed does know everything; he could not prove that fact X does not exist. God can make no claim about the existence or non-existence of something he does not know.

The_Ist

Well, I agree that, before attributes of a perfect being can be discovered, all parties must agree to a definition of “perfect.” Such is the case for any discussion/debate – both sides need to be sure that they’re talking about the same thing. The most common definition of perfect, I think, is something along the lines of “wholly without flaw.”

Once this common ground is reached, people can debate which attributes lead to a being without flaw, but at least there is a similar definition at which everyone is aiming.

That probably would be outside the scope of this thread.

I do not think I ever said this; if so, then I did not intend to. My point is that, if God is to create us with free will, he must create us so that there is always the POSSIBILITY that we will disobey him. This does necessitate that we will disobey, but that it is always possible that we will.

If he makes us with free will, he is not determining that we will always obey him or that we won’t always obey him. One of the two will obviously come to pass, but God does not have to foreordain which of the two it is.

I do not think this is a paradox. Though it is possible for a being to always choose A, it is not possible for a being to create another being, the former of which determines beforehand that the latter will always choose A, without the creator negating any choice, i.e., free will, of the creation. Saying “it is possible for a being to always choose A” does not equate with saying “it is possible for a creator to determine beforehand that his creation will always do A without negating the free will of the creation.” The “possible” in each refers to something different – the former is a true statement, the latter is not.

Having free will means that humans will have the possibility to choose evil, not that they necessarily will. But I agree that a being without moral free will, and thus without the possibility of choosing evil, is “more perfect” than a being with moral free will, which has the possibility of committing evil. I am not arguing that humans were created or meant to be created perfectly, however, so I’m not sure how this applies.

I’m not arguing that God created humans perfectly. You may want to look at my comments a couple posts ago, in which I made the case that it was impossible for God to create us perfectly.

Point taken, Mageth. I concede that, as far as I can tell, God could not definitively prove his omniscience, omnipotence, etc., to us, because we are imperfect. However, I do not think this fact renders the definition of God as a perfect being meaningless. God could easily demonstrate to us his amazing knowledge and power, both of which would greatly exceed that of any being known to us. If, say, some other being came along and somehow demonstrated that he had greater knowledge, power, etc. than God, then we would call this being “God.” And so forth. So saying “God is perfect,” insofar as we are considering the existence of God and not his conceptuality, would equate to saying something like “God is the greatest being known.”

However, I do not necessarily think the case is similar when considering whether or not God could himself know of his omniscience. It is either logically possible for him to know of his omniscience, or not. If the former is true, then he does; if the latter is true, then he can’t and doesn’t, though this wouldn’t limit his omniscience. You seem to be suggesting the latter. But I do not think we can rule out the logical possibility of God knowing his omniscience.

Suppose you drop a heavy object on your toe. You will experience pain. You “know” you are in pain, but for no other reason than the fact that you are in pain. The knowledge of the pain comes from experience. Similarly, what is to say that God could not possibly “experience” omniscience? I am not claiming to be able to explain how God would be able to experience and know of his omniscience in the same way you or I know when we are in pain, but this fact does not negate the possibility. I think an idea from Wittgenstein is pertinent here: he basically said that human language comes from our Lebensform, i.e., our form of life. God, obviously, would have a different Lebensform than us; therefore, what we mean by the word “knowledge” may be drastically different than God’s “knowledge.” That being said, I don’t think we can conclusively state what knowledge is for God, and, therefore, I don’t think we can state that God could not know of his own omniscience. And I think the same argument applies to God “knowing” of any of his other attributes.