Inspired by Sara, I would like to add a private philosophy of my own to the debate about God. This is an old and probably leaky theory, but I'd like to figure out exactly how it leaks, so responses are welcome.
Basically, I theorized a while back about the seeming inconclusiveness in God's attributes. Theologists summarise God as:
1. Omniscent, All-knowing
2. Omnipotent, All-powerful
3. Omnibeneficient, All-good
4. Omnipresent, i.e. Everywhere
and
5. Eternal and always existing.
This is basically how God is described, and most arguments against His existence are based on that these cannot fit together. If God is all-knowing and all-powerful he cannot also be all-good, since he would know disasters beforehand and prevent them. There's no goodness in introducing diseases to the world, and arguments about "testing Man" strike me as a tad ridiculous.
But, I figured - if we're to adhere to the principles of Logic, the definition of all-powerful becomes interesting. Basically - can an all-powerful being do something logically impossible? Those who argue against God's existence generally say God should be able to do this - i.e. create a rock so large he cannot lift it. But if we presume that logic restricts God, not because God is flawed but because logic is the natural boundary of all that exists - illogical events not only cannot occur, but in fact, are not part of the universe.
In this case, God cannot do something logically impossible. This does not restrict his omnipotence in any way, because illogical events simply do not exist. The argument is valid because an omnipotent being couldn't perform a non-existing action anymore than he could pet a non-existent dog.
If this is the case, might it not be so that God foresaw the world from the point where everything started (since he knows literally everything), saw a myriad logically possible universes, and then created the best one? Every improvement, say, a world where murder was impossible, would have logical consequences that would be harmful. Therefore, God saw all the myriad possible universes and created the best one. This certainly satisfies that omniscence, omnipotence and omnibenevolence fits together.
Does this satisfy the idea of a logically coherent God?
13 kommentarer:
I missed this post at first, these links are even better, rspct.
On Topic: While your theoy is one of the better ones I've heard so far, it still doesn't solve everything. The number of possible universes should, I think, be infinite or nigh-infinite, and if they are, there is no reason to believe one of them would not be perfect. You mention diseases, and while these do serve a purpose in our world (thinning out the population and avoid overpopulation) there is no reason to think there might not have been another universe in which another, 'perfect' solution was available.
Your argument also invalidates, in my mind, the concept of free will, which is a major problem, but that's not an inherent problem with your theory, but rather with any theory involving omniscience.
Something just struck me, that I haven't thought about before. I just re-read you list of features inherent in God, and I started thinking about the last one, "Eternal". This one has always annoyed me, since it would mean that God was existing for an eternity before creating anything, and during that entire time knowing exactly when he/she/it was going to create it. However, my point is, are there any arguments, anywhere, saying that this world/universe/creation is the first one created? If free will exists, then God is not in absolute control of what happens, and it is therefore possible for something or other to ruin creation, forcing God to start over. I might have read something like this sometime, come to think about it..
Actually, the Psalmist states that God is Lord over "ALL the worlds". Meaning that yes, the Bible does imply that there are other worlds beyond ours.
And yes, it is possible to *conceive* of a perfect universe, but my point is, it might not be possible for such a universe to exist, for reasons we cannot comprehend. For instance, a disease-less or Paris Hilton-less universe might carry with it unexpected drawbacks that would be even worse than these respective features of our universe.
Yes, that is a possibility, but if God made a choice from an infinite number of universes, then an infinite number of them would be 'perfect'.
Yes, including ours. If by perfect you mean the best logically possible universe, the whole argument is that we would be living in it.
God would not create any universe that was any *less* good than ours because he's omni-good and wants us all to have the best lives possible, but he *could* not create any better, because better universes would be logically impossible.
Therefore, he may have created a great amount of equally perfect yet different universes.
Why, among an infinite number of possibilities, would every single one of them be flawed in different ways?
I just can't see the logical reasoning behind an All-Powerful God, choosing between an Infinite number of possibilities, and being Unable to find one that is, in all ways and possibilities, perfect.
Sure, going with free will, he can not stop rape or murder. But look at all the "random" things that have happened? The Tsunami, Katrina, earthquakes? Why would such things happen, in a "perfect" universe?
Because God had to design coherent rules for a stable universe, and cannot break those rules without unwinding things. It's impossible to create a planet without continental plates, ergo, it's impossible to avoid earthquakes, which cause tsunamis.
Presumably God *could* break his own rules, but that would lead to a whole bunch of other problems. Dead stopping two continental plates on their way to collide would cause worse earthquakes elsewhere.
Now you're saying God has to accept causality, as well as the laws of physics, which I don't think he needs to. All Powerful, remember?
No, my argument was that God cannot do something logically impossible, as such actions are not part of the universe.
God *can* tamper with the laws of physics, yes. My point is that this would have worse consequences than the Tsunami itself. Basically, God has made this world with such rules as are most beneficient to us, considering all possible rules one could logically construct.
Yes, tampering with this and that would have consequences. If God chose to allow them. My point is that God would stand outside the facts of causality and consequences. The rules of "equal and opposite force" does not apply to god, he would be able to say "no", and simply remove any forces in an earthquake without consequences. (I just realized that sounds an awful lot like Mage, and I think that's a good point. Think of God as an all-powerful mage, without Paradox. Don't want en earthquake? It doesn't happen. Want a earthquake? It happens, whether there are forces to start it or not.)
I see Rikard's point and is forever thankful for someone putting the things I have tried to formulate for so long, into word.
*bows and applause*
There's an interesting counter-point here - there *is* one thing restricting God, namely his own goodness. If something would cause humans unnecessary harm, God could not do it on account of that violating the "perfect goodness" principle.
Ergo, my assumption here is a very simple one, namely: Whatever bad things happen in the world right now, are there to prevent even *worse* things from happening. Why? Who knows. Maybe God needs to follow causality to some extent because our fragile human minds cannot handle a too unpredictable universe.
"But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from."
Skicka en kommentar