2 Arguments against God

[steamer]

well if you want to play logic games

1. God is perfect.
2. Perfect means lacking nothing.
3. Desires are something.
4. To lack desires would be a lack of perfection.
5. Therefore a perfect God would have desires.


And when the bible speaks of unchanging, it means God's character and motives. If he was completely static he would never be able to think or speak or even act, since that involves a degree of change. To be that static would be less than perfect.

Desires are a lack of something, not a something.

[Meh_Gerbil]

This alludes to immutability, which I don't even think applies to sequential actions God may take. I believe it refers to God's nature. Otherwise, God moving from a state of performing action A to action B would be a change.

An important distinction, that!
A pefect *cough* example of what happens when the intended meaning of a word is replaced by an overly strict dictionary definition.

[steamer]

This alludes to immutability, which I don't even think applies to sequential actions God may take. I believe it refers to God's nature. Otherwise, God moving from a state of performing action A to action B would be a change.

But moving is not a change to his nature. Having a change in his state of desires is a change to his nature. If his nature is to be unsatisfied then he must remain unsatisfied by unfulfilled desire, or if satisfied then he must remain satified with only fulfilled desires.

[btboy500]

But moving is not a change to his nature. Having a change in his state of desires is a change to his nature. If his nature is to be unsatisfied then he must remain unsatisfied by unfulfilled desire, or if satisfied then he must remain satified with only fulfilled desires.

I respectfully disagree. I believe it depends on the desire, such can be completely irrelevent to God's nature.

[anontheist]

I said, concerning God's unchanging nature, “And I have even seen some references to scripture to support this belief.” I did not say this correctly. I should have said, I have read other Christians who have made references to scripture in support of this idea; God being unchanging.

But, here are a couple of Bible references to consider. This is, of course, not exhaustive.

(NRSV)

Numbers 23:19, “God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal, that he should change his mind. Has he promised, and will he not do it? Has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?”

1 Samuel 15:29, “Moreover the Glory of Israel will not recant or change his mind; for he is not a mortal, that he should change his mind.”

Psalm 102:26+27, They with perish, but you endure; they will all wear out like a garment. You change them like clothing, and they pass away; but you are the same, and your years have no end.”

Malachi 3:6, “For I the LORD do not change therefore you, O children of Jacob, have not perished.”

2 Timothy 2:13, “If we are faithless, he remains faithful - for he cannot deny himself.”

James 1:17, “Every generous act of giving, with every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation of shadow due to change.”

Emphasis mine.

(See also Ezekiel 24:14)

Again, if you have problems with these verses, the problem is not with me, but with those Christians that believe these verses imply God is unchanging.

anon

[Sparko]

Desires are a lack of something, not a something.

Actually desire is just an emotion. In itself it is not a lack of anything. It can be generated in repsonse to a lack of something, but it can also exist while that very lack is being fulfilled.

A father desires the love of his children, even while those children are actually loving him. Their fullfillment of his desire does not quench it, so the desire is not actually a lack of anything, but just an emotion.

And desire can also be just an intention. I may desire to go to the park today. I am not suffering from a lack of parkness or a need for fresh air. I just enjoy the park, so I desire (intend) to go there. God could just enjoy the company of his creation. He may enjoy creating. He may have no need for it, but intend to create anyway.

And finally, a perfect God who is capable of creating but did not create would not be fulfilling his own potential. So it may have been actually necessary for a perfect God to create the universe in order to be perfect.

And to talk of what about before he created the universe is non-sequitor since time did not exist until he created it.

[Meh_Gerbil]

A father desires the love of his children, even while those children are actually loving him. Their fullfillment of his desire does not quench it, so the desire is not actually a lack of anything, but just an emotion.

THAR SHE BLOWS!

[steamer]

Actually desire is just an emotion. In itself it is not a lack of anything. It can be generated in repsonse to a lack of something, but it can also exist while that very lack is being fulfilled.

A father desires the love of his children, even while those children are actually loving him. Their fullfillment of his desire does not quench it, so the desire is not actually a lack of anything, but just an emotion.

If he has what he desires then his desires are not for what he has, but for the continuence of what he has.

And desire can also be just an intention. I may desire to go to the park today. I am not suffering from a lack of parkness or a need for fresh air. I just enjoy the park, so I desire (intend) to go there. God could just enjoy the company of his creation. He may enjoy creating. He may have no need for it, but intend to create anyway.

When you get to the park, you will no longer desire to go there. If you do not get to the park then your desire will be unfulfilled. If you were perfectly satisfied to stay home there would be no desire to leave. If you were unsastified to stay home you might desire to go to the park.

And finally, a perfect God who is capable of creating but did not create would not be fulfilling his own potential. So it may have been actually necessary for a perfect God to create the universe in order to be perfect.

And to talk of what about before he created the universe is non-sequitor since time did not exist until he created it.

If he has an unfulfilled desire and then fulfills it, was he perfect before he fulfilled it or after?

I don't think this argument goes anywhere, one way or the other. Not enough is known about what exactly a perfect being could or could not do, what constitutes the nature of a perfect being, etc.

[Calvinist4Him]

In my mind, perfection requires immutability. B/c if God is mutable in the sense about which we are talking, then nothing stops God from learning something he didn't know before, and thus changing his moral requirements, his moral reality. God already knows everything (omniscient)- indeed he has caused everything, and so nothing is other than the way he wants it to be. He is perfect, and his perfect will is being done.

Now the question of whether a perfect being can want for anything is different. It's pretty clear that traditionally it was thought that God was never in need of anything. Even if the universe has been around for billions of years, the universe is finite and temporal. God is not. He existed before he created . So there was a "time" when he had not created. The only way to answer this in my mind is that God is getting anything and everything he orders. He wants for nothing. So if it appears that there are things happening that are different than God's will, we must be mistaken about God's will. Necessarily, everything must be as God wants it. B/c if not, there are at least 2 problems:
1. God is not then perfect b/c he is lacking for something he wants, and not getting it.
2. God also is not omnipotent b/c things are happening that are opposed to his will, which implies that he cannot change them, and there is then something more powerful than he is.

The only answer that satisfies me is that everything is exactly how God commands. He can, and did exist, perfectly fine and complete before creation. He wanted to create, not b/c he needed to fulfill some desire, but b/c he ordered it, it could have been his whim for all we know. Everything that has ever occurred and will occur is all a part of his perfect plan- even if we can't see it from our perspective. NOthing and nobody can thwart the will of an omnipotent being. His will is being done by definition.

Hmm...reads like the perspective of a hard determinist to me. If there is such a reality as free choices (and i think so), how might the free choices of a responsible individual factor into the will of God? If God forced His will on individuals, would that be comparable to rape?

Oh, and it seems to me that the existence of a certain fallen angel could present a serious problem for the consistancy of hard determinism...

[Tickle Me Goody]

Consider how unlikely it is that your particular father met your particular mother and that out of all the millions of sperms the one that would make you, made you. Now consider all of the particular grandparents that were required to get a particular mix of genetic material to make the person you are. Now consider your great grandparents...The fact that you exist, as the person you are, is extremely unlikely. Why aren't you surprised to find that you do exist as the person you are? This is the same way I see the anthropocentric principle.

I'm agnostic to the idea that multiverses exist. Lets talk about probability for a minute. If I had a six sided die is it impossible to roll 6 on the first try? No. If I had a trillion sided die, is it impossible to roll a 6 on the first try? No. Now if I had a hundred milllion billion trillion sided die, is it impossible to role a 6 on the first try? No.

With that type of logic, would you like play some poker?

The issue is never one of a single event, but rather of the classes of things that corresponde to that event.

The probabilty of "me" is low. However, the probability of somebody similar to "me" is quite high. Similarly, the probabilty of a number (like 6) is very high (1.0 to be exact)

The issue with the unverse is what is the probabilty of a carbon based life forms? In our universe it is 1.0. The question posed by Rees, is what is the probability that a slight variation in physical constants would give rise to carbon based life at all? The answer is a very low probability. If ours is the only universe that can exist, then it does cry out for design by an external agent. However, if it is possible for many universes to exist, then it is not a big deal at all.

To say that I will just accept this extrodinarily low probabilty, is to ignore the problem altogether.

Head in the sand approach?

gg

[Mountain Man]

So have we settled on an objective definition of perfection yet? It seems to me that some posters here are trying to limit the scope of the definition to such an extent that it can only support their point of view, which isn't really a valid argument, is it? I'll leave it to the thread participants to figure out who I'm talking about.

[steamer]

So have we settled on an objective definition of perfection yet? It seems to me that some posters here are trying to limit the scope of the definition to such an extent that it can only support their point of view, which isn't really a valid argument, is it? I'll leave it to the thread participants to figure out who I'm talking about.

I think everyone has pretty much lost interest, one way or another. I have anyway.

[Calvinist4Him]

I think everyone has pretty much lost interest, one way or another. I have anyway.

Argumentum ad populum. Everyone? And how would you know? weeeeeeeee!

[steamer]

Argumentum ad populum. Everyone? And how would you know? weeeeeeeee!

Feel free to argue it if you like, I'm done with it.

[Calvinist4Him]

Feel free to argue it if you like, I'm done with it.

Made you look.