Why would god be interested in creating anything?

[dcalling]

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

I don't think anything can be omnipotent, that is just illogical.
And God could be omniscient before he created free will. Once free will is created, omniscient is no longer possible (free will=>true randomness). However God is very powerful so he is nearly omniscient because he can change things his way against man's free will.

But why is omnipotent and omniscient so important to you? Do you only want to believe in a omnipotent and/or omniscient God? The bible never teaches God is omnipotent or omniscient, so any such teachings might be peoples own thoughts.

 

[workmx]

I don't think anything can be omnipotent, that is just illogical.
And God could be omniscient before he created free will. Once free will is created, omniscient is no longer possible (free will=>true randomness). However God is very powerful so he is nearly omniscient because he can change things his way against man's free will.

But why is omnipotent and omniscient so important to you? Do you only want to believe in a omnipotent and/or omniscient God? The bible never teaches God is omnipotent or omniscient, so any such teachings might be peoples own thoughts.

DC - Thanks.

That is an interesting response.

The omni-max definition of god is not really important to me.

It just troubles me because it is logically incoherent.

As you say, omniscient is no longer possible.

 

[theophilus777]

The bible never teaches God is omnipotent or omniscient, so any such teachings might be peoples own thoughts.

It certainly doesn't define God as omnipotent, but "most" powerful. As in, more powerful than any other. Anything it might allude to about omniscience is easily qualified to being within what is knowable, without creating language problems.

 

[theophilus777]

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

Gold plainly states He will do evil. He even goes so far as to warn us we will be punished for thinking otherwise. I find any pretense of omnibenevolence to be disturbing.

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

Why would you suppose this was His plan? It clearly goes against His stated plan.

 

[theophilus777]

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.

This is fantasy. You do not get to dictate these conditions into the real world. There is no logic by which you could.

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)

You totally misunderstand what it means to have knowledge of good and evil. There is nothing "great making" about it.

 

[theophilus777]

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?

He wanted to. That's pretty much it. You seem to be wanting to attach grave matters of eternal consequence to it, when none exist. The whole thing is temporal. The created Universe expresses who He is, albeit imperfectly. There will come a time when He shucks the whole thing and does it again; by comparison the way you and I change clothes.

 

[workmx]

It certainly doesn't define God as omnipotent, but "most" powerful. As in, more powerful than any other. Anything it might allude to about omniscience is easily qualified to being within what is knowable, without creating language problems.

Yeah - that is interesting.

The bible does recognise that other gods exist.

I always found that curious for a monotheistic religion.

 

[workmx]

God plainly states He will do evil. He even goes so far as to warn us we will be punished for thinking otherwise. I find any pretense of omnibenevolence to be disturbing.

I agree.

Why would you suppose this was His plan? It clearly goes against His stated plan.

I don't know. And I can't begin to comprehend why.

Mysterious ways?

 

[workmx]

He wanted to. That's pretty much it. You seem to be wanting to attach grave matters of eternal consequence to it, when none exist. The whole thing is temporal. The created Universe expresses who He is, albeit imperfectly. There will come a time when He shucks the whole thing and does it again; by comparison the way you and I change clothes.

But what about the rainbow being the sign of the convenent that god will not wipe humans out again?

Does the bible not promise that?

 

[workmx]

This is fantasy. You do not get to dictate these conditions into the real world. There is no logic by which you could.

But god is a special case right? Is god not seperate from the real world?

I am thinking that is true due to the supernatural aspect of god. Ie: Super, as in beyond, nature.

Maybe I have it wrong.

You totally misunderstand what it means to have knowledge of good and evil. There is nothing "great making" about it.

Okay.

 

[bling]

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.

I will try again since you keep pressing the idea, but I did address your question a month ago.

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

Will it is the very best unique possible world for the greatest most wonderful purpose!

If you do not understand this world’s purpose than it will not look like the very best possibility?


I said:



Post 5:
That is a valid question.


God’s Love would compel God to create beings that He could shower with gifts to become like He is (the greatest gift possible.


This would not be done to fulfill some “need” God had, but would unselfishly be done for those that would become like He is.


Since the Christian God is Love, to be like God is to have this greatest power in all universes (Love to power that even compels God to do all He does).


Unfortunately:


There are something even an all powerful Creator cannot do and the one thing He cannot do that would apply to humans is create humans with instinctive Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it His Love. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice that has real alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)


This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or even deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).


This means God would be doing all He can to help willing individuals to make that free will decision to accept His Love. Again, since God will not be forcing these individuals, they have to be willing (it is their choice) and God cannot “make” them willing since that is robotic action. God can only at best make them free will agent (like God is) and capable of make the right decision.


This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). Few people that call themselves Christians seem to even have this type love or do a good job of hiding it. If you see this Love you see God. Church might not be the best place to find this Love, but where there are huge tragedies there hopefully you can find God Loving others through these Christians.


Let me just give you an example of How God works to help willing individuals.


All mature adults do stuff that hurts others (this is called sin) these transgressions weigh on them burden them to the point the individual seeks relief. Lots of “alternatives” can be tried for relief, but the only true relief comes from God with forgiveness (this forgiveness is pure charity [grace/mercy/Love]). The correct humble acceptance of this Forgiveness (Charity) automatically will result in Love (we are taught by Jesus “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…&#8221. Sin is thus made hugely significant, so there will be an unbelievable huge debt to be forgiven of and thus result in an unbelievable huge “Love” (Godly type Love).


You really need to read the Gospels because this “Love” is defined by all Christ did and said.

Post 11:

You asked:

Originally Posted by workmx
“If there is something that an all-powerful deity cannot do, then that deity is not all powerful.”

I responded with:

That is not true at all.


There are just some things that cannot be done (period).


For example concerning God’s ability to create beings:



God cannot create a being that has always existed (if it always existed it was not created). Christ has always existed, so Christ has always had Godly type Love and did not have to obtain (somehow) Godly type Love. Do you agree God could not “make” another Christ from the outset of the other Christ’s existence?


Godly type Love cannot be “created” in a person (being instinctive to that person). If God created a person with a “love”, that “love” would not be like God’s Love, because God’s Love is not instinctive or robotic, but it is the product of a choice. That “choice” cannot be reduced to: “the most logical alternative” and in many ways Godly type Love is not logical, it might be the “best” thing for the other totally undeserving person, but have no “reward”/ benefit for the Lover and could require great sacrifice for the Lover (that is not logical).


For any being too thus obtain this Godly type Love, the being must be able to make at least one free will choice that must have likely alternatives. The choice is as easy as God can make it and still have it the individual’s choice. The individual chooses to accept or reject God’s Love (help/charity/mercy/grace/forgiveness) in the form of humbly accepting God’s forgiveness.

 

[Hentenza]

Strawman. I never said they were.

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

You are assigning causation where one attribute leads to the other. If this then that. Your statement does equate (make a positive relationship) between omniscience and benevolence. This is not a strawman.

What an idiotic statement.

Ad homs are the typical default stance for those that cannot support their position. Please keep the conversation civil.

Where is your evidence that god even exists?


Let alone is interested in creating things?

Let alone can create anything?

Causation. The universe is finite and came to existence at some point in the past. Likewise, mankind is finite and came into existence at some point in the past. Natural occurrences are not sufficient to prove causation but God is sufficient to prove causation.

Can you prove that God does not exist?

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.

This does not follow.

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.

God does not do "evil." Mankind does evil.

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

Nope. Once again, your premises do not follow.

That is assertion NOT evidence.

Just because you refuse the evidence does not in any way mean that the evidence is not true. Your opinion does not count.

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

Nope. Mankind developed a sinful nature that is not inherent in God.

Either that or the Christian god is evil.

Once again, your conclusion does not follow.

Yes. but I suspect you do not.

How so?

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

Once again, you presented an argument and the burden of proof is yours.

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.

So a child that grows to commit a crime is not responsible for their crime? Mmmm....

Assertion. You have clearly not fully comprehended the argument.

It is hard to comprehend an invalid logical argument.

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

The bible is correct in this point. Your understanding of the bible is in error.

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.

This is the progression of answers for this point:

Originally Posted by Hentenza

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.
​

Originally Posted by workmx

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

Originally Posted by Hentenza

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

Originally Posted by workmx

​

I don’t know. Please explain.

​

Originally Posted by Hentenza

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

I answered your question and then asked you:

Originally Posted by Hentenza

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."

Your question: "So clearly man is NOT made in the image of god?" implies negation and it is a statement disguised as a question. I am asking you to explain the implication in the context of my question to you.

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

In other words, you will attack the opponent because you cannot address the logical errors in your proposed argument. Can you not address the logical errors that I have outlined for you?

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

The conclusion does not follow given the logically invalid argument.

It does not say that no gods exist.

Again, anything follows from a logically invalid argument.

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

lol We must all follow your logic because you alone are right and the rest of us are wrong. Ok, I've heard that before.

 

[theophilus777]

Yeah - that is interesting.

The bible does recognise that other gods exist.

I always found that curious for a monotheistic religion.

The term is "henotheism." Another thing the Bible teaches is panentheism, not to be confused with pantheism. Monotheism only applies in the sense that there is only one true God, and only One worthy of worship. I hope that helps? Not all the fine details are intuitive.

 

[theophilus777]

I don't know. And I can't begin to comprehend why.

So let's consider a world in which people literally could not do evil. Let's forget terminology like free will and such that seem to mainly serve as causes for people to argue about, and just be practical. In this hypothetical existence that obviously is not our own, anything anyone did could never please God. Service to Him would be meaningless.

Now contrast that to the world in which we do live, where not doing evil but instead doing good requires a choice, effort, planning, determination, and everything else that goes along with it. Every step of that is "serving God," He involves Himself in the process, and literally enjoys it. Kinda mind-blowing to think about, isn't it?

 

[theophilus777]

But what about the rainbow being the sign of the convenent that god will not wipe humans out again?

Does the bible not promise that?

No. He Promises never again by water, but also Promises that the Earth itself is held in reserve until Judgment, by fire. Of course those being burned up by it will likely perceive that as doing evil, but personally I look around and view this as a generally good thing because of all the evil that really needs to be 'burned up,' one way or another.

What Christianity teaches me is that I should focus on burning up the evil within me, first and foremost. Evil that I see around me I should try to redeem, or improve, aligning it to His will. Which I can only have any hope of doing if I already know what He wants in that particular instance.

And that when all is said and done, He will make everything not just ok, but better than I have ever known, or can currently comprehend. That part is not always so easy, because I am not inherently a trusting individual. Further, this world we live in actively teaches me not to be too trusting. So life indeed includes conflict, and God's Judgment is the final resolution to that.

The story of Noah primarily tells us we will have to tolerate evil to exist, at least in this life. So in a way it affirms your basic assertion in this thread? Yes, God (in some sense, at least) becomes "less pure" by creating anything. Although from a theological standpoint, God Himself is unchanged by the creative process. In fact He never changes - another mind-blower ...

 

[theophilus777]

But god is a special case right? Is god not seperate from the real world?

I am thinking that is true due to the supernatural aspect of god. Ie: Super, as in beyond, nature.

Maybe I have it wrong.

I think you have this part correct. I think your error is failing to realize that God, being the one "beyond nature," is the One who gets to dictate the conditions by which things consist. Not you. I know, that disappoints me too

But if you apply that premise, if for no other reason than being part of the definition of "God," see if that doesn't help your logic to make sense out of both the things you know exist in reality, as well as the Biblical claims you are struggling to reconcile with them.

 

[Joshua260]

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

That's good enough for me. You arguments in this thread are not logical.

I'm bowing out now. This thread has veered off topic in some places, and you've failed to prove your case...which, BTW, is NOT the goal of this forum. The goal of this forum is to explore Christianity, not explore atheism.

Have a good day.

 

[workmx]

Ad homs are the typical default stance for those that cannot support their position. Please keep the conversation civil.

I am going to address this point seperately and in a simple manner, as you seem to have trouble understanding my posts.

I said: "What an idiotic statement."

Notice the word order.

1.1 The adjective "idiotic" preceeds the noun "statement".

1.2 This means that the statement is idiotic.

1.3 A statement is not a person.

1.4 On that grounds, this is not an argumentum ad hominem.

Additionally:

2.1 An argumentum ad hominem is an attempt to dismiss an argument by attacking the person making it.

2.2 Given that no person is being attacked, this is not an argumentum ad hominem.

Addiitionally:

3.1 The statement does not address the validty of the argument. It addressed the strawman version of my argument that you presented.

3.2 Given that the validty of the argument is not addressed, this is not an argumentum ad hominem.

Your statement fails to meet the definition of argumentum ad hominem on all 3 (three) grounds on which it is defined

Well done.

That is a spectatular acheivement.

Now consider:

4.1 There was a person in this thread telling people to take logic classes.

4.2 That is directed at a person in order to degrade their intellect.

4.3 This may be taken as an attempt to dismiss their argument.

So, who needs to remain civil?

Would you like to try again?

 

[workmx]

That's good enough for me. You arguments in this thread are not logical.

I'm bowing out now. This thread has veered of topic in some places, and you've failed to prove your case...which, BTW, is NOT the goal of this forum. The goal of this forum is to explore Christianity, not explore atheism.

Have a good day.

Um! We are exploring the charactertistics of the Christian god.

If you don't even get that, how can you judge the validity of the argument?

In fact, it seems you do not even want to understand the argument just to hastily dismiss it as not logical.

For those reasons, I am glad you are bowing out.

Have a lovely day.

 

[workmx]

Your question: "So clearly man is NOT made in the image of god?" implies negation and it is a statement disguised as a question. I am asking you to explain the implication in the context of my question to you.

In other words, you will attack the opponent because you cannot address the logical errors in your proposed argument. Can you not address the logical errors that I have outlined for you?

I stated that the bible claims that humans are made in the image of god.

You said that this is not true.

You negated the original proposition in the bible. I asked a clarifying question.

So, the burden of proof is on you not me.

This is one of at least two points where you attempt to switch the burden of proof.

The other being:

Can you prove that God does not exist?

Again adds evidence to my suspicion that you cannot deal honestly with this issue.