A Critique of Theism as Objective Idealism

[Shikoku]

Basically the criticism goes as follows, according to Christianity God has existed forever, as a sort of Mind, or Objective Ideal (the latter defined in the sense as something non-material, yet existing outside of human subjectivity). The problem with this viewpoint however is that if God has no Genesis, then the fact that such a God is capable of change is by its very nature contradictory. For how do the elements separate from that of the Eternal-Absolute-God being come about by which to contrast to the Absolute God being?

In other words, for God to create the material universe, God must invoke elements that are non-God. But God is supposed to be absolute-complete and unchanging. Yet God was all that existed at one point, ergo, how did God create non-God elements out of God?

Such would make it so existence was God- and non-God simultaneously, with God simultaneously encompassing all of existence.

Thus the notion of God is by definition contradictory if God is posited as eternally existing prior to all other existence.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

the fact that such a God is capable of change is by its very nature contradictory. For how do the elements separate from that of the Eternal-Absolute-God being come about by which to contrast to the Absolute God being?

In other words, for God to create the material universe, God must invoke elements that are non-God. But God is supposed to be absolute-complete and unchanging. Yet God was all that existed at one point, ergo, how did God create non-God elements out of God?

According to the Judaeo-Christian view God created non-God elements out of nothing. They aren't made out of God.

Since these elements are made out of nothing, I'm not seeing in what way God has changed.

 

[Shikoku]

According to the Judaeo-Christian view God created non-God elements out of nothing. They aren't made out of God.

Since these elements are made out of nothing, I'm not seeing in what way God has changed.

But that itself only answers the contradiction with another contradiction, in that nothing then becomes something, which presumes nothingness has some sort of substantial element by which existence can be derived-meaning something did exist apart from God (as one could view the source of existential derivatives as something that exists). Either that or the nothingness is an absolute/pure nothing (something completely absent of the existential by which nothing existential can be derived), in which case deriving existence is contradictory by definition.

Likewise the issue of what caused the absolute being to change in such a manner as to create is not answered.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

But that itself only answers the contradiction with another contradiction, in that nothing then becomes something, which presumes nothingness has some sort of substantial element by which existence can be derived-meaning something did exist apart from God (as one could view the source of existential derivatives as something that exists). Either that or the nothingness is an absolute/pure nothing (something completely absent of the existential by which nothing existential can be derived), in which case deriving existence is contradictory by definition.

You keep looking at this like something has to be made out of something else as a material, like a shirt is made out of some fibre.

Talking about "absolute/pure nothing" is nonsense.

Nothing, is well nothing, it can't really have properties.

"Creation out of nothing" doesn't mean there is some material "nothing" floating around out there of which something can be made.

It simply means that created objects had no antecedents and no dependencies to prior conditions.

They simply popped into existence then and there.

*Pop*

They weren't made of some preexistent material surrounding God, and they weren't made of God-stuff.

Just...*pop*

Likewise the issue of what caused the absolute being to change in such a manner as to create is not answered.

You are assuming God exists in some sort of time.

God created time.

When exactly would this change have happened if there was no time before God created time, and when time existed God was creating?

 

[Sojourner<><]

According to the Judeo-Christian world view, straight from scripture, all things are contained within God and are made through Him. I can't speak for the classic Christian philosophers as I have a hell of a time trying to understand them, but the problem seems easily reconciled at least to me when I think about the mind of an inventor.

As an example, picture a normal every day pocket watch that's nothing out of the ordinary. Without getting into a lengthy epistemological argument here, let's just start with the assumption that it is known that the watch was invented and fashioned into being by some watch maker or inventor. The important thing about that watch is that its design must have existed within the mind of its inventor before he could have ever created it, and that design is no simple idea. The main idea itself must contain many smaller ideas all with their own properties and relationships, each interconnecting with others to form the whole. In effect, depending on his cognitive abilities, I would say it's at least possible that a complete and fully functional pocket watch could exist within the mind of this inventor, its substance being thought.

Now assume that the mind of God has an unfathomable capacity as compared to the mind of this man. If God is somehow able to comprehend all the information required for the existence of our reality, then I believe it's possible that it all exists within his mind as thought, much like the pocket watch in my example. This would explain that God is all knowing, all seeing, and all powerul just as you are among the thoughts within your own mind.

Would it follow then that all things are God? I would say no more than a single thought defines you. As it applies to his eternal attributes, I don't see why we have to assume that God is changeless in His entirety. Even if we assume that God doesn't exist, and that our reality as we know it hasn't always existed, something must still have existed for eternity without a genesis. It wouldn't follow that that something is also not capable of change, so I don't see how the problem could be applied to an eternal God.

 

[quatona]

They simply popped into existence then and there.

*Pop*

They weren't made of some preexistent material surrounding God, and they weren't made of God-stuff.

Just...*pop*

I was under the impression that theists usually defend their idea of a creator with the argument that "things just popped into existence out of nothing" is not a satisfactory explanation.
Now that you work from the assumption that things can "simply pop into existence and there - *Pop*", the idea that god made them pop into existence is just adding an unparsimonous assumption, in that it doesn´t make the asssumption any more plausible, doesn´t explain the process any better, but simply adds a couple of more unanswered questions.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

I was under the impression that theists usually defend their idea of a creator with the argument that "things just popped into existence out of nothing" is not a satisfactory explanation.
Now that you work from the assumption that things can "simply pop into existence and there - *Pop*", the idea that god made them pop into existence is just adding an unparsimonous assumption, in that it doesn´t make the asssumption any more plausible, doesn´t explain the process any better, but simply adds a couple of more unanswered questions.

Parsimony is an entirely different issue, and one not contained in the OP (which is what I was criticizing).

Nevertheless, when pressed, things popping into existence is an issue contained in any cosmology.

The simple Big Bang model is itself a case of things popping into existence (including space and time) from nothing.

Since it is going to be an issue no matter what theory you put forward, it is something everyone has to live with.

 

[quatona]

Parsimony is an entirely different issue, and one not contained in the OP (which is what I was criticizing).

Yes. Of course, with the attempts of justifications and explanation the focus of criticism will change.

Nevertheless, when pressed, things popping into existence is an issue contained in any cosmology.

Not necessarily.

The simple Big Bang model is itself a case of things popping into existence (including space and time) from nothing.

I´m by no means an expert in big bang theory, but from what I know I don´t think this is entirely accurate.
But, assuming this would be what big bang theory postulates - it would still be the more parsimonous explanation over godditit, and godditit wouldn´t add any useful explanations to it.

Since it is going to be an issue no matter what theory you put forward, it is something everyone has to live with.

I don´t know that I have to live with it. I am quite comfortable in saying "I have no clue".

However, if having to pick one the three options "things just so popped into existence from nothing", "god just so made things to pop into existence from nothing" and "metagod just so made god pop into existence from nothing, and then god just so made things pop into existence from nothing" I would tend to find the first more reasonable than the second and the second more reasonable than the third. With every additional entity I would find them even less reasonable.

But, yes, maybe that´s off topic.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Basically the criticism goes as follows, according to Christianity God has existed forever, as a sort of Mind, or Objective Ideal (the latter defined in the sense as something non-material, yet existing outside of human subjectivity). The problem with this viewpoint however is that if God has no Genesis, then the fact that such a God is capable of change is by its very nature contradictory. For how do the elements separate from that of the Eternal-Absolute-God being come about by which to contrast to the Absolute God being?

In other words, for God to create the material universe, God must invoke elements that are non-God. But God is supposed to be absolute-complete and unchanging. Yet God was all that existed at one point, ergo, how did God create non-God elements out of God?

Such would make it so existence was God- and non-God simultaneously, with God simultaneously encompassing all of existence.

Thus the notion of God is by definition contradictory if God is posited as eternally existing prior to all other existence.

I think you can have an unchanging God who does things such as these by saying he doesn't change on a level abstracted for the one we are viewing. An example of this is that you think murders should be punished. A kills B out of spite, you say they should be punished. C kills D out of self defense, you don't think they should be punished. E looks at you and says you have a double standard, but you reply to E that it is because the actual killing isn't right or wrong, it is the more 'abstracted' (granted that is probably a poor word choice) concept of murder in which you did not change.

So, as long as God stays constant on higher level, all is well.

Another way of think the function f(x) = xsin(x) - sqrt(sin(x)^2).

If you ever looked at it on a graph, it would appear to be greatly changing, but the function itself has not changed.

 

[lawtonfogle]

You keep looking at this like something has to be made out of something else as a material, like a shirt is made out of some fibre.

Talking about "absolute/pure nothing" is nonsense.

Nothing, is well nothing, it can't really have properties.

So, like how the null set is still a set, and nothing is even the lack of the null set, not the null set.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Yes. Of course, with the attempts of justifications and explanation the focus of criticism will change.

In any case there is nothing wrong with rejecting parsimony.

It could well be that the universe we exist in is not a parsimonious one.

[quoteNot necessarily.[/quote]

I like the utter lack of an example.

I´m by no means an expert in big bang theory, but from what I know I don´t think this is entirely accurate.
But, assuming this would be what big bang theory postulates - it would still be the more parsimonous explanation over godditit, and godditit wouldn´t add any useful explanations to it.

Again, it could just be that the universe we exist in isn't the most parsimonious possible.

Parsimony is an arbitrary assumption after all, and not based on anything but a desire to have a simple theory.

No one said the universe was necessarily simple.

I don´t know that I have to live with it. I am quite comfortable in saying "I have no clue".

However, if having to pick one the three options "things just so popped into existence from nothing", "god just so made things to pop into existence from nothing" and "metagod just so made god pop into existence from nothing, and then god just so made things pop into existence from nothing" I would tend to find the first more reasonable than the second and the second more reasonable than the third. With every additional entity I would find them even less reasonable.

But, yes, maybe that´s off topic.

Yes we are getting off topic.

Let us bear in mind that the OP involves a claim that a certain grouping of propositions generate a contradiction, and that that contradictions forces us to reject a particular proposition.

One can counter the logic in that claim without advancing a particular theory.

 

[quatona]

In any case there is nothing wrong with rejecting parsimony.

It could well be that the universe we exist in is not a parsimonious one.

Sure that could be. In any case the preference for "parsimony" doesn´t refer to how things are, but about the way we think about things.
As I said in a previous example, the mere addition of more unnecessary entities doesn´t make an explanation more plausible.

I like the utter lack of an example.

Whilst I don´t like the sarcasm.
The alternative would be that something has always existed. It is equally counterintuitive as "things just popped into existence", but once we accept the premise that the laws we observe within the universe are not applicable to the universe itself, these criteria aren´t valid anymore, anyway.

Again, it could just be that the universe we exist in isn't the most parsimonious possible.

That doesn´t change the fact that the mere addition of unnecessary entities doesn´t make the explanation more plausible.

Parsimony is an arbitrary assumption after all, and not based on anything but a desire to have a simple theory.

No, parsimony is postulation that inflating explanations unnecessarily doesn´t make them more plausible (unless it really does).

No one said the universe was necessarily simple.

I didn´t say that either. When talking about parsimony, I am not talking about things, but about a reasonable approach in explaining things.

Let us bear in mind that the OP involves a claim that a certain grouping of propositions generate a contradiction, and that that contradictions forces us to reject a particular proposition.

One can counter the logic in that claim without advancing a particular theory.

I personally don´t think that acting can leave an entity unchanged.
However, I guess we would first have to agree on a definition of "change".

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Sure that could be. In any case the preference for "parsimony" doesn´t refer to how things are, but about the way we think about things.
As I said in a previous example, the mere addition of more unnecessary entities doesn´t make an explanation more plausible.

So it looks like we agree on this. Parsimony isn't being invoked as a logical rule to which the universe must adhere, but rather to an aesthetic preference regarding our models.

Whilst I don´t like the sarcasm.

I genuinely apologize.

For some reason I find statements of disagreement without accompanying explanations particularly annoying.

Again, the above wasn't intended as sarcastic either. It is just an honest statement of my own personal issues.

The alternative would be that something has always existed. It is equally counterintuitive as "things just popped into existence", but once we accept the premise that the laws we observe within the universe are not applicable to the universe itself, these criteria aren´t valid anymore, anyway.

We agree that we are faced with two equally bad alternatives (i.e. that somethings have existed infinitely far back, or that things popped into existence, or some combination of the two).

Let us remember that the OP addressed God's ability to create at all. So the OP puts us back to a situation where the laws we observe to apply in the universe itself go beyond its region of validity.

The question of whether God can create at all (and by this I intend the creating of the universe itself) cannot be limited by what the laws are which apply in the universe which ends up being created.

We agree that as we push our inquiry far enough back the laws we observe no longer apply. It is simply a question of invoking a theistic or atheistic (or other) alternatives at this point.

The OP is trying to claim that the theistic alternative is contradictory.

That doesn´t change the fact that the mere addition of unnecessary entities doesn´t make the explanation more plausible.

Often the correct explanation isn't the most plausible one.

No, parsimony is postulation that inflating explanations unnecessarily doesn´t make them more plausible (unless it really does).

Indeed, but we cannot confuse parsimony with something is necessarily met for a set of propositions to be true.

I didn´t say that either. When talking about parsimony, I am not talking about things, but about a reasonable approach in explaining things.

I personally don´t think that acting can leave an entity unchanged.

However, I guess we would first have to agree on a definition of "change".

I'd have trouble defining "change" without some reference to time.

If God creates time, it is hard to say that doing that changed God in anyway, since there is no "before" for the creation of time from which he changed.