Thomas Ash

Hi Kenny,
I can't believe I'm posting to Internet Infidels on Dec. 25th . I do actually celebrate Christmas (though with a suitably ironic, 'hip' attitude of course...) so I guess I should wish you and xianseeker: happy Christmas.

Quote:

Actually, within orthodox Christianity, the statement that God’s decision to create the world is “a necessary part of his nature” would be looked on with some suspicion because it is fundamental to orthodox Christian doctrine that God freely chose to create the world. The creation of the world is understood to be a volitional act on God’s part as opposed to something which God is essentially such as, say, God’s being Triune.

I don't see why - I wasn't suggesting that it was anything other than volitional, just that it was a God's nature necessarily leads to him ahving the volition to create the world and the redemption of humans that goes along with it. Whether you see the difference depends on what view of free will you take (I realize free will isn't the best term for God's volitions, but it'll have to do...) In completely the same way as I think compatibilist determinism for humans still leaves them with free will, I think God's volitions are still his choices even if they flow inevitably from his omnibenevolent, etc. nature.

Quote:

Well, not quite. This is my position with respect to the problem of evil. I believe that the reason evil exists in this world is because the presence of evil allows for certain moral positives (such as justice, forgiveness, mercy, the ultimate triumph of the good, etc.) which could not have been manifested otherwise so that, on the whole, in the long run, a world in which evil occurs winds up being morally superior to one in which evil is absent. With respect to the motive for creation itself, however, I’m not sure that the phrase “It is better for God to create than not to create” is even meaningful. That is, I’m not sure any legitimate moral comparison can be drawn between these two states of affairs because it seems to involve the comparison of a state of existence to a state of non-existence.

I won't answer your problem of evil paragraph in too much depth for fear of getting sidetracked. But I think you can draw a legitimate comparison between creating an not creating. The second state wouldn't be just "a state of non-existence" as you'd say God exists in some sense, wouldn't you? And it's likewise a possible viewpoint (though I don't share it) that if evil and suffering is necessary it would be better for the universe not to exist.

Quote:

So, what motive did God have to create? The most plausible Biblically consistent answer, to me, is that God did so as an act of self-giving love. The OP seems to presuppose that the only motivations for action stem from some sort of self-impoverishment and therefore from self centered need. But love is not that way. Love is, by its very nature, extravagant. Love reaches out beyond itself and draws others into it. Love gives, not to fulfill some personal need, but because it is the nature of love to give. I give things to my wife, for example, simply because I love her, not because I expect or need anything from her in return. Likewise, I believe that God, Who is love, Who exists as a Triune being in eternal inter-personal relationships where perfect love is always expressed, created the world as an expression of overflowing, extravagant love.

I'm not sure if you were reffering to me as that 'OP', or the person who started this thread. I'll just say that I don't share the viewpoint that God would have to create would be self-centred need. Very picturesque descriptions of 'overflowing, extravagant love by the way.

Quote:

As I already pointed out, my opinion in this matter pertained to the problem of evil as it pertains to the world of human experience. In other words, I was only speaking of God’s plan in-so-far as it pertains to human beings. This is not to say, however, that human beings necessarily stand in the center of God’s all encompassing plan for creation or that they are even a very large part of it.

Well, so far as we can tell, most of the universe is empty, and a large majority of planets are inhospitable to life of any kind. This is what I meant by humans being only a very small part of the universe God created. Doesn't all this 'empty space', unconnected (so far as I can see) to any divine plan, argue against creation as being something performed by God for any moral purpose?

Quote:

Because an “end state of redemption” requires that redemption precede it; otherwise, it’s just a shame.

I'm not being 'clever' or tricky with my wording. I don't see why it is a sham, and if that "end state of redemption has moral worth associated with it (people having learnt selflessness, everyone being close to God, etc.) I don't see how you wouldn't have that moral worth within it if you created an exact mirror of it from scratch.

Quote:

Well, as Princess Lea (SP?) of Star Wars once said, “It’s not over yet.” In light of your “human centric” objection above, I would say it’s a bit pre-mature to evaluate the effectiveness of God’s plan without having seen it all played out.

I think it's Princess Leia - though I'm not sure. As a sidenote, I thought it was rather godsmacking that Lucas gave her brother Anakin (and possibly her) a virgin birth - I don't get what the obvious Christian parallel is meannt to imply, given that he goes on to become Darth Vader. . OK, I haven't seen 'God's plan' played out yet. But given that I never will, it's reasonable to make a 'half-time evaluation', including reasonable predictions about the way it looks to be going.

Quote:

Well, you’re just flat out wrong about that one God Bless, Kenny

Oh no I'm not!... Oh yes you are - God exists!... Oh no I'm not!...

Amie

ummm no. I somehow doubt the conversation would not have become heated if you were respectful of the beliefs.

Infinity Lover

Post removed, because life's too short.

Darkblade

Anakin Skywalker (aka Darth Vader) was Princess Leia's father, not brother. Anakin had sex with Queen (and later senator) Amidala, who then gave birth to Leia and Luke, Leia's fraternal twin brother. But Anakin was conceived without his mother being impregnated by anyone (of course, this makes a lot of sense).

Darth Dane

Think of it like this:

The universe is a computergame that God created. He programmed it so to say to work within certain parameters, like gravity and so on. However just like we create AI, so did God. And within that AI there was the possibility of creative thought. God gave them freewill AI. And within also the possibility to change the programming of the program that they are part of. Maybe the dinosaurs was a failed experiment so to say, and like we in simcity can order/place a tornado as we wish, so can God with us.

God just loves and thinks its fun to play, which is incedentally also the word "Lila" which is sanskrit and means the play of the God(s).





DD - Creative Spliff

Thomas Ash

Oh yeah.

Kenny

Hello Thomas,

Thanks! My wife and I are home for the holidays. This is also the first Christmas season that we have spent together as a married couple! We had wonderful first Christmas together. I hope you had a good Christmas also. And, happy new year!

Actually, I am a compatiblist determinist also. That’s why I said that the view you described would be “looked on with suspicion” within orthodox Christianity, not necessarily that it was an unorthodox view. However, I do think the issue of God’s choices in relation to His nature in relation to counterfactuals has to be handled with some delicacy and for certain technical reasons which are not worth going into at the moment, I personally would not choose to express things as you have.

Right, like I said, I’m “not sure” that a legitimate moral comparison can be made between a possible world in which God has created and a possible world in which there is only God, but I am not certain that no such legitimate comparison could be made. However, I am reluctant to affirm that such a comparison is meaningful for at least three reasons.

The first reason has to do with the orthodox view that God is completely self-sufficient and completely content within Himself. Since God exists in a state of infinite glory, perfection, and satisfaction there is nothing which could possibly add to Him. Thus, it would seem strange that a possible world in which God has created something in addition to Himself could be “better” than a world in which there is just Himself. However, since God is morally perfect, He would not have produced a state of affairs that is in any way morally “worse” than the state of affairs in which there is just Himself. So the fact of creation combined with the doctrines of God’s self-sufficiency and God’s moral perfection would seem to imply that God’s choosing to create is neither better nor worse than God’s choosing not to create – they are merely different states of affairs.

Second, there is the orthodox doctrine that God created the world freely without any sort of compulsion. If creation is better than non-creation, however, then that might imply that God was in some sense morally obligated to create the world. Though, technically, if such were the case, God’s creating the world would have still been a free act, it would also have been an act of duty, but this is not the sense in which the notion of God’s acting freely in creation is typically understood within orthodox Christianity.

Third, I find the notion of creation as being a free act of love more beautiful and more consistent with the overall sense of Scripture and the theological understandings which have prevailed throughout Christian history.

Thanks! By OP (“original post”) I was not referring to you but to the first post in the thread.

Who says that life is the only thing of moral value in the universe? All that “empty space” filled with numerous quantum fluctuations, electromagnetic radiation, gravity waves, perhaps consisting of an underlying structures resonating in harmony throughout multiple dimensions – its all very beautiful, something glorious and wonderful in and of itself, and that’s not to mention all the splendor of galaxies, stars, and planets which occasionally interrupt it.

Because the end state is not possible without the process which precedes it. How could we be eternally grateful for Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf or magnify God’s expression of love in such an act if there had never really been a need for it or it had never really occurred?

I didn’t get that whole thing either. I wasn’t particularly offended, just confused. But, I hated Episode I anyway. I loved Episode II however. I saw it in the theater twice (which I rarely ever do for any movie)!

But, considering that God’s plan is being carried out over all eternity, it isn’t really even half time yet. And considering the stats on the abilities of the home team…

God Bless,
Kenny

Thomas Ash

Hi Kenny. I'm glad you both had a wonderful Christmas, and happy new year likewise. I saw my grandparents and had a very enjoyable day. It even avoided raining, which for the UK is quite an achievement. The remains of the turkey (pehaps the most important thing about Christmas if you're an atheist ) have just been finished. Christmas lunch is a big thing here in the UK, though if I remember correctly you have your big meal in the States over Thanksgiving.

Without going into any depth as to the reasons why, how would you express it? Yes, I imagine it would be slightly different, as - not being a theist - when you write about God it's as a philosophical hypothesis rather than as something you believe in.

If the state of affairs with the universe isn't "better" than the state of affairs without it, then why does God prefer the former? Or if he doesn't 'prefer' the former, why does he choose it then? I'd find it surprising (to say the least) that a Christian would say this decision on God's part was in some sense arbitrary - I'm not implying that you're automatically saying this.

I don't see that it would have been any less a free act. It's not as if God says "oh drat, I have to act morally and create the world so human beings can come into existence" - as a benevolent being, it's what he "wants" to do. Of course this assumes a certain view of morality as being in some sense external to God, as God would never view anything other than moral truths like "the avoidance of suffering is a good thing" (or whatever, that's just an example of a possible moral truth) as moral.

Well, "a free act of love" is more or less what I mean by "a moral obligation", though I've phrased it in terms which connote cost-benefit calculation.

Hmmmm... (I'll leave my comment at that .)

[quote][b]Because the end state is not possible without the process which precedes it. How could we be eternally grateful for Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf or magnify God’s expression of love in such an act if there had never really been a need for it or it had never really occurred?
If there's an end state at which we're eternally grateful for Christ's sacrifice on our behalf, then why can't God just replicate that exact state, including our thoughts, memories and states of mind? (The events of Christ's life would not actually have happened.) Of course, I don't expect that you'll see this as a good idea.

Yes, I don't know quite what it was meant to mean. Is a virgin birth all of a sudden a prerequisite for being either a very good or very bad person?! I though Episode II was a good movie, though I could have imagined a better one.

Um... (struggles to keep track of this extended metaphor) (gives up) who's the home team again?

August Spies

This has probably already been said but it seems to me a perfect being would be inert. It would not think (since it would know everything instantly) and it would not act since it has no needs or desires.

I can kinda buy the Schellian creative god, but that is a different type of creativity than is normally thought

Thomas Ash

It might act, not out of a need or desire, but in a way that was required to realize the optimal situation (whatever that might be - a possible example is a world in which humans can be redeemed, though it'd be off topic to discuss the particular merits of that in this thread) that it seeks because it's omnibenevolent.