Misconception: you can have all possibilities, and all be good

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So I just wanted to address something that I see being used to attack God, which when you think about it, doesn't really make sense. The claim is "God could alleviate suffering". Now, putting aside that God delegates to us to deal with suffering, there is an assumption here that is contrary to evidence - the assumption is that God could create every possibility and simultaneously make every possibility good. Yet if God creates "every possibility" some of them will inherently not be good.

There is even a good reason for this, good compensates for bad, bad averages out good. If you did not have both, you would have less good overall. The good would look forward to good less and the bad would demand the good be bad. God therefore is wise, both in answering our request for as much good as possible and not refusing the totality of possibility presented to Him as omnipotent, from being created.

Finally, we are complicit in this as sinners. Every sinner asks for his sin to apply to as many different possibilities as possible, not less, for precisely the same reasons, if he is wise. That means as a sinner, you have implicitly asked for the good to be included with the bad, for the wrong reasons, perhaps, but nevertheless. The fact that the good can still be sorted from the bad, means that the best of all possible worlds is achieved: the bad have a reason to regret wanting so much bad and the good have a focus of resistance in rejecting the bad (in themselves - let the reader note that there is no hypocrisy here).

The fundamental point is that possibility is just that, if you want more possibility, you have to accept that bad is just as likely as good.

 

[J0hnSm1th]

Rev 21:4 says "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
Revelations also says that the redeemed will no longer sin. That 'possibility' sounds really good to me!

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi there - the assumption is that God could create every possibility and simultaneously make every possibility good. Yet if God creates "every possibility" some of them will inherently not be good.

There is even a good reason for this, good compensates for bad, bad averages out good. If you did not have both, you would have less good overall.

Christian "Yin Yang" ..

 

[GrowingSmaller]

We are finite, contingent, morally fallible.

 

[Inkfingers]

Christian "Yin Yang" ..

In Chinese Bibles, the word "Logos" at the start of the Gospel of John is translated as.....Tao. When early Christians first got to China they were surprised by the similarities between the Greek "Logos" and the Chinese "Tao", hence the translation.

 

[Inkfingers]

- the assumption is that God could create every possibility and simultaneously make every possibility good. Yet if God creates "every possibility" some of them will inherently not be good.

Where do you get God creating every possibility from?

And do you mean that He creates every event that happens?
Or do you mean that He actually makes everything that is possible to happe actually happen?

 

[Gottservant]

Where do you get God creating every possibility from?

That's what reality is, a composite of every possibility.

And do you mean that He creates every event that happens?

I mean every event that is created, is created through God, whether by God or by someone God delegates the task to.

Or do you mean that He actually makes everything that is possible to happe actually happen?

I mean reality is a composite of every possibility, because God delegates to everyone to create at least one possibility out of infinity. If you are someone, you have created a possibility of being you, hence you are here, hence you are part of reality, where all possibilities come to be.

The point is, we do not ask to be part of reality because it is a subset of possibilities, which we would prefer were better rather than worse - that is a naive view of creation that suggests God moulds something specific for us to enjoy, and not allow us to choose our own perspective (which we do).

 

[Gottservant]

But if reality is a composite of every possibility then "reality is not a composite of every possibility" is, while a possibility, certainly left out.

Two problems: one, a negation is not a possibility, it is a negation of a possibility

A possibility it is because if it weren't then its negation i.e., "reality is a composite of every possibility" would be a necessity, unavoidable & wouldn't require any choice on the part of the Creator.

and two, how do you know these things are not true? did you think when we worshipped God it was because he kept choices to Himself, before He created?

 

[Gottservant]

But then "a negation is not a possibility" is not a possibility & because of "it is a negation of a possibility" you get that a negation of a possibility is quite possible.

Which? The negation? Or the possibility?

Merely observing a relationship between the two does not make them a new thing.

Besides it is perfectly possible for both something & its contradiction to be possible: it is an actuality that any consistent formal system has undecidable, i.e., neither provable nor disprovable, statements. Hence any such statement, together with its negation, is possible as far as the consistent formal system is concerned.

Godel never claimed that undecidable statements make a system more "possible".

You are quite out on a severed limb, there.

A god for whom it is possible not to create anything is greater than one for whom it is impossible not to create all possibility.

God does not concern Himself with being "greater" than what is logical, much less flawed logic (not that you have failed at creating flawed logic, just that God does not concern Himself with it).

If I ask you to take three lefts, have you created a square simply because a square is not a square until you have taken four (lefts)?

 

[Gottservant]

From what you wrote it follows, as demonstrated, that "the negation of a possibility" is a possibility: against your intention.

You're not making a lot of sense, you're basically just contradicting me, when I am flat out telling you there is a difference you need to choose between. If you can't see the difference, that is my problem I guess (or the conversation's) but it hardly seems like you're trying (to do anything but contradict me).

When a statement & its negation are consistent with some axiomatic system, both of these are possible for the system: you won't obtain a contradiction whether you add the one or the other to the system. What you would obtain are two consistent systems, describing possible worlds, and yet each of these contradicts the other.

I am not talking about substitution, you seem to think I am talking about realities; I am not talking about realities, I am talking about possibilities - possibilities, uniquely, cannot be self-negatory (or they are necessarily impossibilities).

It is perfectly possible for God not to create anything. He created something because of His mercy.
On the other hand, something for which it is impossible no to produce all possibility is a kind of white noise generator.

Well, white noise is something, so I don't see a problem there, however it seems you are saying "God chose a particular possibility for reality, against other possibilities" but this is a massive presumption, God does not "select" God delegates.

If you want to prove that God deliberately chose the worst possible reality, you would have to show intent to kill or destroy or steal, except these are all clearly attributes of the Devil.

So either you accept that God does not cherry-pick or you contradict who God is.

 

[Gottservant]

What do "possible", "necessary" & "actual" mean?

A possibility is the culmination of all the variations that extend from a point of reference that coheres those variations. For example a tree has certain fruits, which coherently is a possibility of fruit from the tree.

Something is necessary, when it cannot be otherwise.

Something is actual, when no matter which angle you come at it from, it is the same.

 

[parsley]

In human behavior, I think harmful actions can outweigh helpful ones. God puts a lot of responsibility in our hands for alleviating suffering -- managing judicial systems, holding ourselves accountable, teaching our children well. But look how rampant opposition still is.
And selfishness.
And scams.
And theft.