Why would god be interested in creating anything?

[Joshua260]

As I said, a maximally great being would not make something that is not maximally great.

It is not rocket science.

If not, then why would a maximally great being create something that was corrupted? Either that maximally great being is not maximally great being or is evil.

You have not proven that a maximally great being would choose not to create a world without free will. That's why your syllogism fails.

As I explained in your other thread, what God created was "good". Evil is an act which originated from man, not from God.

I think that if you would correct your view of evil from a thing to an act, things might make more sense to you. Evil is an act. Man freely chose to commit an evil act.

 

[Messy]

Some theists claim that god created the universe.

Why would god be interested in creating anything?

He wanted kids just like any other dad and a nice place for them to live.

 

[Hentenza]

As I said, a maximally great being would not make something that is not maximally great.

Why not?

It is not rocket science.

No is not.

If not, then why would a maximally great being create something that was corrupted? Either that maximally great being is not maximally great being or is evil.

God, a maximally great being, created a maximally great world. In fact, He called His creation good. The corruption came after His creation and not by His hand.

BTW- You are yet to prove that your argument is logically valid and that your premises are true. You are welcomed to use either prepositional or predicate logic methods.

 

[workmx]

You have not proven that a maximally great being would choose not to create a world without free will. That's why your syllogism fails.

I don't need to, because I never made that claim.

If you want to make that claim, then prove it.

If you cannot, the syllogism stands.

As I explained in your other thread, what God created was "good". Evil is an act which originated from man, not from God.

So, humans can create things that an omnipotent god cannot...?

I think that if you would correct your view of evil from a thing to an act, things might make more sense to you. Evil is an act. Man freely chose to commit an evil act.

I like this line of thinking.

I will apply it in reverse: God is love. But love is an act not a thing/being.

So god cannot, by your defintion, exist.

 

[workmx]

Accidental duplicate post.

 

[workmx]

Why not?

Because the two things are logically contradictory.

If they are both true, they defy the logical absolute of non-contradiction.

Either a god is omni-max or not.

God, a maximally great being, created a maximally great world. In fact, He called His creation good. The corruption came after His creation and not by His hand.

As I stated in the OP, we are talking about an omni-max creator god. If god can't/ddin't create evil, then that god is not omni-max.

Vice versa, if humans can create things that an omni-max creator god cannot, then human’s are greater than god.

BTW- You are yet to prove that your argument is logically valid and that your premises are true. You are welcomed to use either prepositional or predicate logic methods.

I fail to see how you can claim this.


So I will accept as a pure assertion.

 

[oi_antz]

Hey man, I'm really struggling to see a meaningful purpose for this. Is there something that you are trying to understand? It seems like you have this idea of what God is and you are saying it cannot be correct because a, b and c. What about who God really is, do you think that is important or worthwhile? Can you describe to me why you think that what you are doing here is important? I don't get it.

 

[workmx]

Hey man, I'm really struggling to see a meaningful purpose for this. Is there something that you are trying to understand? It seems like you have this idea of what God is and you are saying it cannot be correct because a, b and c. What about who God really is, do you think that is important or worthwhile? Can you describe to me why you think that what you are doing here is important? I don't get it.

I am trying to undersatnd why the Christian god, who was supposed to create the universe, be interested in creating such. I though Christians would be the best people to ask about that. No?

 

[oi_antz]

I am trying to undersatnd why the Christian god, who was supposed to cretae the universe, be interested in cretaing such. I though Christians would be the best people to ask about that. No?

Ok, I had not seen that intention. I don't know if Christians are necessarily the best people to ask about that, unless He has actually told them. It would be useful therefore to ask those who offer their opinion what is the origin of their opinion.

 

[workmx]

Ok, I had not seen that intention. I don't know if Christians are necessarily the best people to ask about that, unless He has actually told them. It would be useful therefore to ask those who offer their opinion what is the origin of their opinion.

Fair enough. Thanks for that.

 

[oi_antz]

Fair enough. Thanks for that.

I hope you find out. I will keep watching because it is an interesting question.

 

[Hentenza]

Because the two things are logically contradictory.

If they are both true, they defy the logical absolute of non-contradiction.

Either a god is omni-max or not.

God is not the world and the world is not God. God created a perfect world, the world did not remain perfect. A perfect machine can create a perfect car but the car will not remain perfect. There is no contradiction.

As I stated in the OP, we are talking about an omni-max creator god. If god can't/ddin't create evil, then that god is not omni-max.

Evil is not a thing. Evil is not created but developed. It is the antithesis of good. God brought good, the world developed evil.

Vice versa, if humans can create things that an omni-max creator god cannot, then human’s are greater than god.

God can create things that are consistent with His nature and His attributes. God is good, therefore God brings good to His creation. God cannot create things that are opposed to His nature or His attributes. Man was perfect when first created but man developed evil. Evil is not consistent with God's nature or with His attributes. Therefore, God created according to His nature and man created according to his nature. This, in no way, contradicts God's attributes, such as omnipotence.

I fail to see how you can claim this.

I'm not the one claiming anything. You proposed an argument but you cannot defend it logically. The first thing that you have you have to prove is that your argument is structurally valid and then you have to prove that your argument is both valid AND sound.

So I will accept as a pure assertion.

No. You accept is as opinion (yours) since you are yet to prove it as logically valid. Again, you are welcomed to use either propositional or predicate logic proof methods.

 

[workmx]

God is not the world and the world is not God. God created a perfect world, the world did not remain perfect. A perfect machine can create a perfect car but the car will not remain perfect. There is no contradiction.

So, once again: god is either not omnipotent and/or not omnibenevolent.

Evil is not a thing. Evil is not created but developed. It is the antithesis of good. God brought good, the world developed evil.

It is just a linguistic shift, but I am happy to play along: so god developed evil.

Or, as above, god is not omnipotent and/or omnibenevolent.

Plus, if god is omniscient it would know that humans would "create" evil.

So either god is not omniscient or not omnipotent (can't create humans without the tendency to "create" evil).

Or humans are more powerful than god (which also means god is not omnipotent).

It is clear that the idea of an omni-max god is simply incompatible with evil.

You cannot have it both ways.

The only other option is to admit that god is evil.

God can create things that are consistent with His nature and His attributes. God is good, therefore God brings good to His creation. God cannot create things that are opposed to His nature or His attributes. Man was perfect when first created but man developed evil. Evil is not consistent with God's nature or with His attributes. Therefore, God created according to His nature and man created according to his nature. This, in no way, contradicts God's attributes, such as omnipotence.

So clearly man is NOT made in the image of god?

I'm not the one claiming anything. You proposed an argument but you cannot defend it logically. The first thing that you have you have to prove is that your argument is structurally valid and then you have to prove that your argument is both valid AND sound.

No. You accept is as opinion (yours) since you are yet to prove it as logically valid. Again, you are welcomed to use either propositional or predicate logic proof methods.

The argument is sound, you just don't like it.

There is a world of difference.

Of course, if you have any logically sound criticisms of the argument, I will be happy to hear them.

 

[Joshua260]

Originally Posted by Joshua260

You have not proven that a maximally great being would choose not to create a world without free will. That's why your syllogism fails.
​

I don't need to, because I never made that claim.

You implied that it was necessary in order to defend your P2. You said:
"Because the Christian God is to be understood as a maximally great being, P2 stands."

...and your P2 says:

"P2: If Godworld is the unique BPW, then the Christian God would maintain GodWorld."

Put those two statements together. You're saying that God would not create anything other than a world with God in it all by himself (you specifically explained that also earlier). Maybe you need to revisit your older posts...you seem to be getting confused.

If you want to make that claim, then prove it.
If you cannot, the syllogism stands.

Here, you actually contradict yourself (because you're the one who put forth your defense of P2)!

Originally Posted by Joshua260

As I explained in your other thread, what God created was "good". Evil is an act which originated from man, not from God.
​

So, humans can create things that an omnipotent god cannot...?

Did you not read where I said that evil is NOT a thing?

Originally Posted by Joshua260

I think that if you would correct your view of evil from a thing to an act, things might make more sense to you. Evil is an act. Man freely chose to commit an evil act.
​

I like this line of thinking.

I will apply it in reverse: God is love. But love is an act not a thing/being.

So god cannot, by your defintion, exist.
I don't need to, because I never made that claim.

If you want to make that claim, then prove it.

If you cannot, the syllogism stands.

You're using very poor logic in this thread. First, you're the one who put together your faulty syllogism. The onus is on your to defend, not me.

Obviously, love is not a thing either, is it? That description "...God is love" (1 John 4:8) is describing part off God's nature.

 

[workmx]

You implied that it was necessary in order to defend your P2. You said:
"Because the Christian God is to be understood as a maximally great being, P2 stands."

...and your P2 says:

"P2: If Godworld is the unique BPW, then the Christian God would maintain GodWorld."

Put those two statements together. You're saying that God would not create anything other than a world with God in it all by himself (you specifically explained that also earlier). Maybe you need to revisit your older posts...you seem to be getting confused.

Here, you actually contradict yourself (because you're the one who put forth your defense of P2)!

No, the argument does not in any way assert that free will exists.

I do not even know how or why you are trying to shoehorn it in.

Additionally, I would never make an appeal to free will as I do not see any evidence that it actually exists.

So, it seems I am not the one who is confused.

Did you not read where I said that evil is NOT a thing?

Yes, but I do not agree with your assertion.

You're using very poor logic in this thread. First, you're the one who put together your faulty syllogism. The onus is on your to defend, not me.

Technically logic cannot be poor: something is either logical or it is not.

Obviously, love is not a thing either, is it? That description "...God is love" (1 John 4:8) is describing part off God's nature.

If I were to accept your asertion that love/evil is not a thing (which I don't), then we would only be able to measure it by the actions that are are motivated by it.

For example, I believe that my daughter loves me based on her actions (and vice versa).

Can you tell me of one occassion, that can be scientifically verified, where god has acted in the world, not including events described in the bible?

 

[workmx]

Since some are having trouble understading P2, here it is in long form:

An omniscient being would be aware of the fact that himself existing alone for eternity as GodWorld is the unique best possible world that could ever exist, and because God is essentially morally perfect, he couldn’t have a motivating reason to intentionally alter the overall maximal purity and, therefore, the quality of the unique best possible world - because any alteration in overall purity by the introduction of a universe or any Non-God object, would, by necessity, be a degradation of overall purity and, therefore, overall quality.

God wouldn’t introduce limited entities each with their own unimpressive set of degraded great-making properties like the creation myth of Genesis records.

While Adam and Eve clearly do have great-making properties (knowledge, power and at the end of the myth the knowledege of good and evil), they have them to an unimpressive degree and so introducing such beings would result in a degradation of overall ontological purity and, therefore, a degradation of overall ontological quality.

To suggest God is in the degrading business is to suggest he wasn’t maximally great in the first place

 

[Hentenza]

So, once again: god is either not omnipotent and/or not omnibenevolent.

How so?

It is just a linguistic shift, but I am happy to play along: so god developed evil.

Man developed evil.

Or, as above, god is not omnipotent and/or omnibenevolent.

How so? Your conclusion does not follow.

Plus, if god is omniscient it would know that humans would "create" evil.

Yep. And God did.

So either god is not omniscient or not omnipotent (can't create humans without the tendency to "create" evil).

Why would God do that? Your conclusion, again, does not follow. God has perfect knowledge. He has known, knows, and will know all. He is perfectly aware that man would develop evil because He created man with man reason and an independent drive. God created man perfect and man fell from perfection.

Or humans are more powerful than god (which also means god is not omnipotent).

Which, once again, does not follow. Man's falling from perfection does not make God contingent on man.

It is clear that the idea of an omni-max god is simply incompatible with evil.

Nope.

You cannot have it both ways.

i am not having it both ways. You are simply creating a dilemma that does not exist.

The only other option is to admit that god is evil.

Not my "other" option.

So clearly man is NOT made in the image of god?

Huh? what do you think "made in the image of God" means?

The argument is sound, you just don't like it.

lol You have not even yet proven that your argument is logically valid.

 

[workmx]

God is not the world and the world is not God. God created a perfect world, the world did not remain perfect. A perfect machine can create a perfect car but the car will not remain perfect. There is no contradiction.

So, once again: god is either not omnipotent and/or not omnibenevolent.

How so?

Eirther god made a world that it knew was flawed (because of omniscience) but did it anyway. So, not omnibenevolent.

Or could not create a world without evil. So, not omnipotent.

Evil is not a thing. Evil is not created but developed. It is the antithesis of good. God brought good, the world developed evil.

It is just a linguistic shift, but I am happy to play along: so god developed evil.

Man developed evil.

How? When? Do you have evidence of that?

If I grant that assertion (which I do not), then humans are more powerful than god. Therefore god is not omnipotent.

Or, as above, god is not omnipotent and/or omnibenevolent.

How so? Your conclusion does not follow.

See above.

Plus, if god is omniscient it would know that humans would "create" evil.

Yep. And God did.

Well done. You just proved god is not omnibenevolent.

So either god is not omniscient or not omnipotent (can't create humans without the tendency to "create" evil).

Why would God do that? Your conclusion, again, does not follow. God has perfect knowledge. He has known, knows, and will know all. He is perfectly aware that man would develop evil because He created man with man reason and an independent drive. God created man perfect and man fell from perfection.

Well done. You have just proved that god is evil.

Or humans are more powerful than god (which also means god is not omnipotent).

Which, once again, does not follow. Man's falling from perfection does not make God contingent on man.

Yes, it does. Because humans can do things that god cannot. As Genesis says: humans became like gods.

It is clear that the idea of an omni-max god is simply incompatible with evil.

You cannot have it both ways.

The only other option is to admit that god is evil. [/quote]

i am not having it both ways. You are simply creating a dilemma that does not exist.

Yes, you are. But I grant that you may be unaware of it.

God can create things that are consistent with His nature and His attributes. God is good, therefore God brings good to His creation. God cannot create things that are opposed to His nature or His attributes. Man was perfect when first created but man developed evil. Evil is not consistent with God's nature or with His attributes. Therefore, God created according to His nature and man created according to his nature. This, in no way, contradicts God's attributes, such as omnipotence.

So clearly man is NOT made in the image of god?

Huh? what do you think "made in the image of God" means?

I don’t know. Please explain.

I'm not the one claiming anything. You proposed an argument but you cannot defend it logically. The first thing that you have you have to prove is that your argument is structurally valid and then you have to prove that your argument is both valid AND sound.

No. You accept is as opinion (yours) since you are yet to prove it as logically valid. Again, you are welcomed to use either propositional or predicate logic proof methods.

The argument is sound, you just don't like it.
There is a world of difference.

Of course, if you have any logically sound criticisms of the argument, I will be happy to hear them.

lol You have not even yet proven that your argument is logically valid.

Yes.

I have.

And you have no come back.

So are reduced to denial and juvenile tactics.

 

[Hentenza]

Eirther god made a world that it knew was flawed (because of omniscience) but did it anyway. So, not omnibenevolent.

1. Omniscient does not equal omnibenevolence. Each is a separate attribute. One does not lead to the other nor does one require the presence of the other. Therefore your conclusion does not follow.

2. God created a world that was perfect but knowing that it would become imperfect. This is much different from what you are saying.

Or could not create a world without evil. So, not omnipotent.

God created a world without evil knowing that it would fall into evil. God has the potency to fully destroy evil but to do such would be to destroy His creation. He is not yet ready to destroy His creation because without evil mankind would not know what good is. If mankind does not know what evil is then mankind cannot love and if mankind cannot love then mankind cannot choose God. God created a real world and real moral agents.

How? When? Do you have evidence of that?

Read Genesis 3 and then read the world's history of war from ancient times to the present.

If I grant that assertion (which I do not), then humans are more powerful than god. Therefore god is not omnipotent.

Again, how so? God created a perfect world that He knew would become imperfect. How can man be ore powerful than God if man merely did what God already knew they would do?

Well done. You just proved god is not omnibenevolent.

Nope. Do you know what omnibenevolent mean?

Well done. You have just proved that god is evil.

Nope. Your conclusion does not follow.

Yes, it does. Because humans can do things that god cannot. As Genesis says: humans became like gods.

Do you know what "humans became like gods" mean?

It is clear that the idea of an omni-max god is simply incompatible with evil.

it is clear that your conclusions do not follow.

Yes, you are. But I grant that you may be unaware of it.

lol

I don’t know. Please explain.

It means that man is analogous to God not equivocal nor univocal with God. An image is not an exact replica.

Explain to me how your conclusion that man is not then made in the image of God follows from my comment: "God can create things that are consistent with His nature and His attributes. God is good, therefore God brings good to His creation. God cannot create things that are opposed to His nature or His attributes. Man was perfect when first created but man developed evil. Evil is not consistent with God's nature or with His attributes. Therefore, God created according to His nature and man created according to his nature. This, in no way, contradicts God's attributes, such as omnipotence."

Yes.

I have.

Proof please.

And you have no come back.

So are reduced to denial and juvenile tactics.

Asking you to provide a proof that your argument is logically valid as well as valid and sound is not juvenile at all. Do you know anything about logic arguments and proofs?

Here is your syllogism in which you base your argument. P3 is a conclusion not a premise. Your argument is not structurally valid therefore your conclusion does not follow. Secondly, as far as logical soundness, uniqueness does necessarily not lead to maintenance as maintenance does not necessarily lead to uniqueness. P2 is logically false. Have you ever taken a logic class?

Summary of argument, so far:

‘The Problem of Non-God Objects’ in syllogism:

P1: If the Christian God exists, then GodWorld is the unique best possible world.

P2: If Godworld is the unique BPW, then the Christian God would maintain GodWorld.

P3: GodWorld is false because the Universe (or any non-God object) exists.

-Therefore, the Christian God, as so defined, does not exist.

 

[workmx]

1. Omniscient does not equal omnibenevolence. Each is a separate attribute. One does not lead to the other nor does one require the presence of the other. Therefore your conclusion does not follow.

Strawman. I never said they were.

What an idiotic statement.

2. God created a world that was perfect but knowing that it would become imperfect. This is much different from what you are saying.

Where is your evidence that god even exists?

Let alone is interested in creating things?

Let alone can create anything?

God created a world without evil knowing that it would fall into evil. God has the potency to fully destroy evil but to do such would be to destroy His creation. He is not yet ready to destroy His creation because without evil mankind would not know what good is. If mankind does not know what evil is then mankind cannot love and if mankind cannot love then mankind cannot choose God. God created a real world and real moral agents.

So, once again: god is not omnibenevolent. If god created a world knowing that evil will exist, then that god is not a good god.

If fact, it could be argued that a deity or a being that knows something is evil and does it anyway is evil in nature.

So, once again : thank you for helping to prove that the Christian god is evil by nature.

Read Genesis 3 and then read the world's history of war from ancient times to the present.

That is assertion NOT evidence.

Again, how so? God created a perfect world that He knew would become imperfect. How can man be ore powerful than God if man merely did what God already knew they would do?

Because humans possess an ability that the christian god does not.

Either that or the Christian god is evil.

Nope. Do you know what omnibenevolent mean?

Yes. but I suspect you do not.

Nope. Your conclusion does not follow.

Yes it does. You just assert that it does not.

Do you know what "humans became like gods" mean?

Yes. They gained the knowledge of good and evil.

This is knowledge that they did not have before eating the fruit and thus cannot be held accountable for their accounts.

it is clear that your conclusions do not follow.


lol

Assertion. You have clearly not fully comprehended the argument.

It means that man is analogous to God not equivocal nor univocal with God. An image is not an exact replica.

So, you are saying that the bible is incorrect on this point?

Explain to me how your conclusion that man is not then made in the image of God follows from my comment: "God can create things that are consistent with His nature and His attributes. God is good, therefore God brings good to His creation. God cannot create things that are opposed to His nature or His attributes. Man was perfect when first created but man developed evil. Evil is not consistent with God's nature or with His attributes. Therefore, God created according to His nature and man created according to his nature. This, in no way, contradicts God's attributes, such as omnipotence."

Strawman again.

That was phrased as a question to you.

And you did not answer it.

I made no conclusion about humans being made in the image of god.

Asking you to provide a proof that your argument is logically valid as well as valid and sound is not juvenile at all. Do you know anything about logic arguments and proofs?

Here is your syllogism in which you base your argument. P3 is a conclusion not an argument premise. There is no if/then statement. Your argument is not structurally valid therefore your conclusion does not follow. Secondly, as far as logical soundness, uniqueness does not lead to maintenance as maintenance does not lead to uniqueness. P2 is logically false. Have you ever taken a logic class?

It seems clear that you cannot honestly engage with this question.

It is a pity really.

The conclusion to the argument is that the Christain god as so defined does not exist.

It does not say that no gods exist.

A honest and logical christian would acknowledge this and modify the properties of their god removing the ideas that it is omni-max.

It is not a lot to ask.