The Problem of God's Action

[Tree of Life]

There's an interesting argument against God's existence on which I cannot find much literature. It's the problem of God's action. The argument basically says that an omnimax being would have no reason to act. But God is said to act. Therefore there is a contradiction. Could anyone point me to some serious work related to this argument?

 

[Soyeong]

There's an interesting argument against God's existence on which I cannot find much literature. It's the problem of God's action. The argument basically says that an omnimax being would have no reason to act. But God is said to act. Therefore there is a contradiction. Could anyone point me to some serious work related to this argument?

To use an analogy, a professional athlete is perfectly capable of getting themselves a cup of water and has no need for someone to do it for them, but if they were to ask a kid to get them a cup of water, then they would make the kid's day and would be forming a relationship with them. If one person has no need of another and does not make themselves vulnerable, then there is no relationship that can be formed between them, so in order to have a relationship with us, God needs us to create us with needs that He can fulfill and create needs that we can choose whether to fulfill.

 

[zippy2006]

There's an interesting argument against God's existence on which I cannot find much literature. It's the problem of God's action. The argument basically says that an omnimax being would have no reason to act. But God is said to act. Therefore there is a contradiction. Could anyone point me to some serious work related to this argument?

There are different arguments to be had: 1) The act of creation violates the PSR, 2) The act of creation is necessary and therefore unfree, and 3) God must necessarily create the greatest possible world, and therefore He is unfree to alter the character of creation.

You are interested in (1) and unfortunately that just hasn't been a question historically. God's lack of freedom was always challenged in the opposite direction by claiming that it was impossible to not create, not that it was impossible to create. Famous early commentary on that question in the Christian tradition include Aquinas, Leibniz, and Suarez. Nevertheless the questions interleave to some extent, and we have discussed your argument on CF before:

• Rowe, William L.. Can God Be Free?, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central.
  
• Book chapter, "Is God Free to Create or Not Create?" in The Importance of Insight : Essays in Honour of Michael Vertin, University of Toronto Press, 2007. ProQuest Ebook Central.
• Garcia, Laura L. “Divine Freedom and Creation.” The Philosophical Quarterly (1950-), vol. 42, no. 167, 1992, pp. 191–213. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2220215.
  
• The Paradox of a Perfect God
  
• Why did God create humans?

 

[Tree of Life]

There are different arguments to be had: 1) The act of creation violates the PSR, 2) The act of creation is necessary and therefore unfree, and 3) God must necessarily create the greatest possible world, and therefore He is unfree to alter the character of creation.

You are interested in (1) and unfortunately that just hasn't been a question historically. God's lack of freedom was always challenged in the opposite direction by claiming that it was impossible to not create, not that it was impossible to create. Famous early commentary on that question in the Christian tradition include Aquinas, Leibniz, and Suarez. Nevertheless the questions interleave to some extent, and we have discussed your argument on CF before:

• Rowe, William L.. Can God Be Free?, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central.
  
• Book chapter, "Is God Free to Create or Not Create?" in The Importance of Insight : Essays in Honour of Michael Vertin, University of Toronto Press, 2007. ProQuest Ebook Central.
• Garcia, Laura L. “Divine Freedom and Creation.” The Philosophical Quarterly (1950-), vol. 42, no. 167, 1992, pp. 191–213. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2220215.
  
• The Paradox of a Perfect God
  
• Why did God create humans?

Thank you. What is PSR?

 

[zippy2006]

Thank you. What is PSR?

Sorry, the PSR is the principle of sufficient reason. The idea for our purposes is that any act of a rational agent would not be carried out if there were not, in the mind of the agent, a sufficient reason to carry it out. If I understand your argument correctly, it is that a perfect being would have no reason to act because actions are always meant for gain, and a perfect being is complete without any need for gain. I tried to formalize it here:

There is an argument we've seen around here quite a lot. It goes something like this:

1. If an agent acts it is to fulfill a need.
2. If an agent is in need then they are not self-sufficient.
3. Therefore, if God created then he is not self-sufficient.

This argument has very little to do with humans as opposed to just creation in general. Apparently this argument is what is behind your question in the OP?

Is that the argument you had in mind?

 

[Tree of Life]

Sorry, the PSR is the principle of sufficient reason. The idea for our purposes is that any act of a rational agent would not be carried out if there were not, in the mind of the agent, a sufficient reason to carry it out. If I understand your argument correctly, it is that a perfect being would have no reason to act because actions are always meant for gain, and a perfect being is complete without any need for gain. I tried to formalize it here:



Is that the argument you had in mind?

To be clear, it's not my argument. I'm a Christian. But I think the argument would go something like this...

1) An infinite being would have no reason to act.
2) The God of the Bible is an infinite being.
3) The God of the Bible acts.
4) Therefore the God of the Bible is logically incoherent.
4) Therefore the God of the Bible does not exist.

 

[zippy2006]

To be clear, it's not my argument. I'm a Christian. But I think the argument would go something like this...

1) An infinite being would have no reason to act.
2) The God of the Bible is an infinite being.
3) The God of the Bible acts.
4) Therefore the God of the Bible is logically incoherent.
4) Therefore the God of the Bible does not exist.

Sure, but how do you support premise (1)? Is the justification for (1) different from the argument I gave in post #5?

 

[Tree of Life]

Sure, but how do you support premise (1)? Is the justification for (1) different from the argument I gave in post #5?

Yeah it would touch on similar things you've touched on. An infinite being would have no needs. An infinite being would be perfectly happy. So it would assume that all action is based on need, imperfection, or lack. We would have to demonstrate how action can be based on something other than those things.

 

[zippy2006]

Yeah it would touch on similar things you've touched on. An infinite being would have no needs. An infinite being would be perfectly happy. So it would assume that all action is based on need, imperfection, or lack. We would have to demonstrate how action can be based on something other than those things.

Good, I agree. That definitely clarifies things. Again, I do not know of any academic work on that topic, though it probably exists somewhere. Yet the thread I cited above, "The Paradox of a Perfect God," is directly on topic.

 

[Tree of Life]

Good, I agree. That definitely clarifies things. Again, I do not know of any academic work on that topic, though it probably exists somewhere. Yet the thread I cited above, "The Paradox of a Perfect God," is directly on topic.

What do you think is the right direction to go for a response? It's very difficult for finite beings like us to conceive of action as not based on need or imperfection. All of our actions seem to be based on these things in some part because we will always be finite. Are God's reasons for action within our ability to understand?

 

[zippy2006]

What do you think is the right direction to go for a response? It's very difficult for finite beings like us to conceive of action as not based on need or imperfection. All of our actions seem to be based on these things in some part because we will always be finite. Are God's reasons for action within our ability to understand?

I think answers generally come from Pseudo Dionysius' concept of the bonum diffusivum. That is, God's goodness overflows into creation. (Ironically this is the same reason some think creation was a necessary and unfree act)

Here is my answer to OB's thread on the paradox of perfection. I tried to focus on human analogies:

I think we can even make a phenomenological case for act flowing from abundance (rather than need). Think of St. Bernard's quote:

The man who is wise, therefore, will see his life as more like a reservoir than a canal. The canal simultaneously pours out what it receives; the reservoir retains the water till it is filled, then discharges the overflow without loss to itself.
​

The most common human instance would be romantic love. The lover is open, magnanimous, overflowing. As Josef Pieper says, "Only the lover sings." I don't think the lover is compelled or has lost his freedom, he has just become some sort of spring of life.

If that can happen with us then I don't see why it can't happen with God. Indeed the Christian conception of God as outpouring love finds a close parallel to the example above. But I think Quid's "Why not?" is an important angle too.

If you really want to focus on the time 'before' creation I would offer an admittedly facile illustration. Suppose it's a beautiful Fall night and you're sitting around the fire with two friends, having a wonderful time, perfectly content. At some point it dawns on you, "Hey, this is really great. Why don't we invite more people? We have plenty of beer and room around the fire." So you do, and out of abundance rather than need. That's my deep 21st century theology for you: the Trinity had some extra beer in the keg. There was no one to invite so they created them.

 

[Tree of Life]

I think answers generally come from Pseudo Dionysius' concept of the bonum diffusivum. That is, God's goodness overflows into creation. (Ironically this is the same reason some think creation was a necessary and unfree act)

Here is my answer to OB's thread on the paradox of perfection. I tried to focus on human analogies:

I'll take it.

 

[Tolworth John]

There's an interesting argument against God's existence on which I cannot find much literature. It's the problem of God's action. The argument basically says that an omnimax being would have no reason to act. But God is said to act. Therefore there is a contradiction. Could anyone point me to some serious work related to this argument?

May I suggest you search reasonablecfaith web site link:-
Search Result | Reasonable Faith.

Or the coldcasechristianity web site.

 

[FireDragon76]

There's an interesting argument against God's existence on which I cannot find much literature. It's the problem of God's action. The argument basically says that an omnimax being would have no reason to act. But God is said to act. Therefore there is a contradiction. Could anyone point me to some serious work related to this argument?

One might say God is action itself, as the classical theists like Aquinas seem to suggest (actus purus).