This hurts my brain :'(

[Andrew]

I've been playing this over in my mind for the past few days and can't seem to be able to find a solution. Hopefully someone can help, or recommend the writings of a great theological mind.

In classical Christian theology, there was no need in God to either:
1) create anything; or
2) create this particular universe

In other words, the universe was created as an act of free will; and is 'contingent' rather than 'necessary'.

Now, G. W Leibniz writes that a rational, omnipotent, perfect, omniscient being must inevitably choose the best of all possible worlds because if a perfect God selected a world that was less than perfect, that would be irrational. So, how does this affect 2)?

Furthermore, one might assume that an infinitely good God would only create that which produces the most good. Is that a valid assumption? Could it even be said that an infinitely good God (good by His very nature) even has a choice but to do good? Could it be that God is obliged by His nature to do good? And if that's so, and so is the assumption that the universe, on balance, produces the greatest possible good, then did God have a choice but to create it? And if He didn't, doesn't the universe move from being 'contingent' to 'necessary'?

Extending this, if the above is correct, how could God do other (read no free will) than create infinite universes exactly the same as ours?

Any help would be GREATLY appreciated. This is mind bending me. :argh:

[geebob]

For one, the notion of a best possible world is an absurdity. For example, is a world in which Americans speak the language that in our world is known as russian and the Russians spoke what we call english any better or worse than ours? Is a world in which goats are the smartest of animals instead of pigs better or worse than ours? We could go on and list an limitless examples, perhaps some of them would be more controversial, but it strains reason to insist that every detail about the world or any world is significant to it's level of perfection such that if it was any other way, it would be worse off.

Also, I'm not sure if you are saying that leibnitz was saying this, but I don't believe that God had to create.


Furthermore, one might assume that an infinitely good God would only create that which produces the most good. Is that a valid assumption?

I don't see why. If God wanted to create a universe filled with only asteroids and planets, I don't see that there is much we can say about this contributing "the most good" but if he doesn't have to create but chooses to create a world like this, (maybe because it's fun, maybe he want's to incarnate himself build a spaceship and play the ultimate game of asteroids), I don't see how it's status of contributing to the most good has any bearing. It may be good in some sense, but not only do I question why it has to be the most good, I wonder what that even means.

[Captain Ochre]

It's probably also contradictory to countenance a world in which the free actions of the created are planned in detail.
*If* free will is a pre-requisite for the created to achieve goodness of action, then it would appear that free will (along with a possibility for ~good) is a requirement of the "BPU".


As was noted, the requirement to create infinite universes falls on the point that action is not required of God in the first place. If God didn't have to create one universe (which is fairly standard Christian theology, as I understand it), then God certainly isn't required by his nature to create more than one.

Beyond that, if the person advancing the BPW argument tries to work in an argument from evil, he needs to demonstrate that the present world isn't the best possible.
It's not as easy as it may sound.;)

[Dee Dee Warren]

This Glenn Miller piece is not totally on point, but I think the philopshy expressed therein goes a long way to answering this:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part4.html

[Solly]

Or simply, since we are not God, how do we know he has or has not created the best possible world?
Secondly, since God is the greatest possible good, a created universe must have some bearing on that.
Since God's glory is usually seen as the greatest possible good, then the universe so created must work towards that.
Since God's glory is apparently most evidently revealed in his grace in the salvation of human beings -

Moses - "Show me thy glory"

God - "The Lord, the Lord God, forgiving transgression, iniquity and sin"

-then it seems that this world is the best possible world for bringing about those purposes. God, as a being is good. The most we can say, is that what he does is good, even when we don't understand how or why.

As far as the use of the term "necessity" is concerned, that does not mean that it was "necessary" for God to do something in the sense that he was compelled to do it by an outer or greater force; that is not how the term is used in a technical sense.

[geebob]

As far as the use of the term "necessity" is concerned, that does not mean that it was "necessary" for God to do something in the sense that he was compelled to do it by an outer or greater force

that isn't the concern anyway though.

[J G Mortimer]

The Leibniz statement is fatally flawed in that it refers to God as "A...being". If God is a Being, (albeit the supreme being), alongside other beings, then the scripture, "For in Him we live and move and have our being", is absurd. God, as regards being, is the ground of all being...it is an insult to refer to Him as, "a being".
Furthermore, the assertion that chosing that which is not perfect is irrational is nothing short of blind arrogance; in order to make an assesment of the rationality of any venture, (even the creation of the universe), one must know what the purposes of the venturer are. I doubt if Leibniz had any esoteric advantge in his knowledge of the purposes of his Creator.

J G M

[J G Mortimer]

God is infinitely free. Our Christian definition of freedom should be "Godliness" as a consequence. From this it is clear that the ability to think and act and be as God thinks, acts and is, represents actual freedom. The bad or evil tendancies we experience, (the "ungodliness"), in our thoughts, actions and being are, in absolute terms, restrictors of our freedom. This may run contrary to our intuition but our intuition is distorted by our sinful nature.

J G M

[HemofHisGarment]

There must be a contrast in order for either one to exist..

~good vs. evil
~joy vs. misery
~pleasure vs. pain

[HemofHisGarment]

02-19-2003 @ 12:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=18652#post18652)
J G Mortimer:

...it is clear that the ability to think and act and be as God thinks, acts and is, represents actual freedom. The bad or evil tendancies we experience, (the "ungodliness"), in our thoughts, actions and being are, in absolute terms, restrictors of our freedom. This may run contrary to our intuition but our intuition is distorted by our sinful nature.

J G M

I have to agree with this statement...And as we "sin" we lose our precious freedoms. You can see examples of this in our country as freedoms are abused they are taken away.

[Woman]

JG Mortimer:


Leibniz should have stuck to mathematics
(post#7 )

The Leibniz statement is fatally flawed in that it refers to God as "A...being". If God is a Being, (albeit the supreme being), alongside other beings, then the scripture, "For in Him we live and move and have our being", is absurd. God, as regards being, is the ground of all being...it is an insult to refer to Him as, "a being".

I just read something about that. The gist of the article said that we are used to talking about God using words and phrases which have no meaning when applied to Him. (like HIM) But both our language and minds are inadequate to really discuss God. God has no "qualities" in the way we understand them, no body, certainly no sex, etc.

I've been wanting to start a thread on the "essence of God" but after reading that article which was on a RC site, I thought I'd better see what I could find about in other Judeo Christian doctrine so I could at least ask intelligent questions.

[Socrates]

Woman:I just read something about that. The gist of the article said that we are used to talking about God using words and phrases which have no meaning when applied to Him. (like HIM) But both our language and minds are inadequate to really discuss God. God has no "qualities" in the way we understand them, no body, certainly no sex, etc. Our minds may be inadequate to discuss God -- on their own reasoning -- but it doesn't follow that God is inadequate to reveal His essential nature and will to mankind.

And God has chosen to reveal HIMself as a HIM. As you say, this has nothing to do with any sex, but it reflects the symbolism of Israel as the Wife of YHVH and the Church as the Bride of Christ.

[J G Mortimer]

Today @ 03:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47493#post47493)
Woman:

JG Mortimer:


I just read something about that. The gist of the article said that we are used to talking about God using words and phrases which have no meaning when applied to Him. (like HIM) But both our language and minds are inadequate to really discuss God. God has no "qualities" in the way we understand them, no body, certainly no sex, etc.

I've been wanting to start a thread on the "essence of God" but after reading that article which was on a RC site, I thought I'd better see what I could find about in other Judeo Christian doctrine so I could at least ask intelligent questions.
It's interesting that John Calvin, no less, agrees with the RC article regarding the ESSENCE of God. We must begin any discussion of God's essence by realising that we, as creatures, cannot comprehend the essence of our creator.
I hope you do begin a thread on the topic; the great thing is that we actually can discuss the subject in terms of what God's essence clearly is not.
As regards the He/His/Him thing...wouldn't it be great if we had a PERSONAL pronoun which was gender neutral?! Your point illustrates the awesome power of language...something we often take for granted.

J G M

[geebob]

We must begin any discussion of God's essence by realising that we, as creatures, cannot comprehend the essence of our creator.

I can't help but think that to begin the discussion that way is to end all means for meaningful discussion.


If God is a Being, (albeit the supreme being), alongside other beings, then the scripture, "For in Him we live and move and have our being", is absurd.

In America, Ohio has it's land. But it is not absurd to say that America is composed of land.


I hope you do begin a thread on the topic

here's fine unless Andrew objects. Whether we must stay on topic or not is up to the topic starter.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 05:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47830#post47830)
geebob:



I can't help but think that to begin the discussion that way is to end all means for meaningful discussion.


There's that, plus the fact that the statement is self-stultifying since it implicitly claims that it is understood that God cannot be understood. IOW, the one thing that we definitely understand about God is that He cannot be understood.

This is actually true, if the terms change their meaning. We cannot have an exhaustive understanding of God, however we might be able to achieve a limited understanding through natural revelation and additional understanding through divine revelation.
IMH(umble)O, of course.

[Hitch]

You deserve a head-ache.

H

[J G Mortimer]

Today @ 05:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47830#post47830)
geebob:



I can't help but think that to begin the discussion that way is to end all means for meaningful discussion.

By establishing what God's essence is not, we bring to light and annihilate any nonsense, (concerning this most sacred of topics), which might have been lurking in our minds. I would say that was meaningful.

In America, Ohio has it's land. But it is not absurd to say that America is composed of land.

In fact this illustrates my point...calling God "A being" would be like saying, "In America, Ohio has it's land. But it is not absurd to say that California is composed of land".

here's fine unless Andrew objects. Whether we must stay on topic or not is up to the topic starter.