An argument against God

[quaestio45]

It seems as if the God of actus purus cannot be real, for to be pure actuality is to necessarily mean you are in yourself, by yourself, and through yourself complete in being and perfection. If that be so, then only the sustaining of your own being would be necessary, whilst all else would be both voluntary and a noncontributor to your perfection in being.

Now, to commit to a voluntary act is to necessarily be in a different state of being (state of creation) then if you did not commit the act (state of noncreation). This would apply even to God, as the will or conscious or intent must necessarily be commited to creation in a world where he created as opposed to a theoretical world where he did not create.

If this be so, then we know by necessity that God must be different in his state of existence in order to not create what has been created. But God cannot be different, for his essence is existence, and his existence is pure actuality. As such, his existence can never be distinct from his essence, as they are one in the same. But were God, in order to have never created, to need to be in a different state of existence then he finds himself in now, we would be forced to recognize that God’s essence must also be different between these two possibilities. But if we recognize that the essence of an entity is the immutable nature which makes an entity a given entity, and were we to recognize that God must always be pure actuality, and that pure actuality must always mean the same thing across possibilities, then we are forced to say that God’s existence cannot possibly be different because his essence cannot be possibly different.

That which is impossible to be in a different state then the one it finds itself in is called a necessary state. As such, God’s current state is necessary. But if God’s current state is that of creating, then it follows that what is created is necessary because God cannot have it any other way. But a being of pure actuality and completion is only necessitated in commiting an act if it is in purposes of sustaining its own perfection. As such, creation becomes a contributing factor to God’s perfection, but such would be a contridiction to the nature of a pure act entity (as I’ve said above, it must be complete in being through themselves and not anything external to it, and it makes it contingent to the thing created, as it cannot be maximally perfect without it). As such, we reach a reductio ad absurdum of having contridictions arising from the nature of one supposed truth (pure act God), to which must lead to the disposing of its idea. As such, God cannot exist.

 

[fhansen]

Just a comment, probably naive, but as to His essence, can it be said that God is love, God is creator, God is…etc
Existing outside of time there is not point at which God begins to create. He’s ever-creating.

 

[Anrakyr]

Existing outside of time there is not point at which God begins to create. He’s ever-creating .

That’s very good, I like that.

 

[quaestio45]

Existing outside of time there is not point at which God begins to create. He’s ever-creating .

Thats actually a good point against the idea that God isn’t pure act because hes exposed to potential options and such. But thats not what I’m getting at. What I’m attempting to say is that God can’t possibly have created by option but only by necessity, but because that is so it contradicts his being of pure actuality. As such, its not an argument based off of temporality.

 

[IWantGod]

That which is impossible to be in a different state then the one it finds itself in is called a necessary state. As such, God’s current state is necessary. But if God’s current state is that of creating, then it follows that what is created is necessary because God cannot have it any other way.

Your argument doesn’t refute the uncaused cause because existence as a nature is necessary in-order to explain the existing of anything contingent, in other-words any nature that does not exist by the power of it’s own nature is not existing by it’s nature but by the power of something which is existence by nature and has the power to give existence.

This is an unavoidable conclusion because the opposite results in absurdity and renders an intelligible ontology impossible. Existence must come first as an absolute. There has to be a nature which is existence and thus pure-actuality.

As for creation, like @fhansen pointed out, it must be the case that whatever the uncaused cause creates it must eternally create and thus there was never a time when the uncaused cause was not creating. However creation is still contingent insomuch as it doesn’t exist because of it’s own nature and is not necessary in and of its self.

But a being of pure actuality and completion is only necessitated in commiting an act if it is in purposes of sustaining its own perfection. As such, creation becomes a contributing factor to God’s perfection, but such would be a contradiction to the nature of a pure act entity

I think this boils down to the question of why God would create. A clue is given in the fact that the uncaused cause is giving existence to other things. It is in effect sharing existence, or to put it another way it is sharing it’s perfection rather than adding to it. It is the Faith of the catholic church that God is love, and this makes better sense of creation since love is by nature creative and giving.

 

[quaestio45]

any nature that does not exist by the power of it’s own nature is not existing by it’s nature but by the power of something which is existence by nature and has the power to give existence.

I very much agree.

This is an unavoidable conclusion because the opposite results in absurdity and renders an intelligible ontology impossible. Existence must come first as an absolute. There has to be a nature which is existence and thus pure-actuality

Absolute agreement on my part.

As for creation, like @fhansen pointed out, it must be the case that whatever the uncaused cause creates it must eternally create and thus there was never a time when the uncaused cause was not creating. However creation is still contingent insomuch as it doesn’t exist because of it’s own nature and is not necessary in and of its self.

Spot on agreement here.

I think this boils down to the question of why God would create.

Exactly. That’s one hundred percent it. Why does God create? Is it because of necessity or was it out of unnecessary (voluntary) love?

It is the Faith of the catholic church that God is love, and this makes better sense of creation since love is by nature creative and giving

So heres where run into problems, my friend. For were God to do things beyond himself, like create, because they are more fitting to his nature (more “perfect” we can say) we commit the contridiction of thinking God by himself and in himself is the most perfect being imaginable whilst simultaneously thinking that he could be more perfect if he acted beyond himself, you see? One of these cannot be true; he can’t be pure act and yet can be more close to perfection by performing an act external to him.

 

[fhansen]

So heres where run into problems, my friend. For were God to do things beyond himself, like create, because they are more fitting to his nature (more “perfect” we can say) we commit the contridiction of thinking God by himself and in himself is the most perfect being imaginable whilst simultaneously thinking that he could be more perfect if he acted beyond himself, you see? One of these cannot be true; he can’t be pure act and yet can be more close to perfection by performing an act external to him.

So another dumb question probably but couldn’t creating be an aspect of God’s essence? He’s a creator. His creation eternally comes from and is part of Him, not outside of Him. Or would that idea necessarily conflict with our existence being contingent on Him?

 

[Vico]

It seems as if the God of actus purus cannot be real, for to be pure actuality is to necessarily mean you are in yourself, by yourself, and through yourself complete in being and perfection. If that be so, then only the sustaining of your own being would be necessary, whilst all else would be both voluntary and a noncontributor to your perfection in being. …

This assumes that creating is not part of being and perfection of God. The Holy Trinity is essentially creator.

 

[IWantGod]

So heres where run into problems, my friend. For were God to do things beyond himself, like create, because they are more fitting to his nature (more “perfect” we can say) we commit the contridiction of thinking God by himself and in himself is the most perfect being imaginable whilst simultaneously thinking that he could be more perfect if he acted beyond himself, you see?

If there is an answer that we can comprehend, you seem to imply it must be one that allows God to be perfect irrespective of whether he creates or not, that is to say his choice (if we can call it that) has no effect on the degree of perfection that God has. This is to say it is not more perfect for God to create or less perfect to not create.

On the other-hand I would say a God that is Love has a tendency to selflessly create, perhaps predictably, and i am not sure that it would be correct to say that God is more perfect for loving creation, only that it is simply a reflection of his perfection that he does so.

Perhaps one way to resolve the issue is to say that God would never not create; that it is simply not in God’s nature to choose otherwise. Another way to put it would be that he creates because he is perfect by default.

It’s a perplexing issue nonetheless.

 

[quaestio45]

So another dumb question probably but couldn’t creating be an aspect of God’s essence? He’s a creator. His creation eternally comes from and is part of Him, not outside of Him. Or would that idea necessarily conflict with our existence being contingent on Him?

No, it’s not a dumb question, but actually the most important question. My thought is that God is pure actuality, yes? That means he is complete perfect being itself, sustained by nothing but itself. As such, its noncontingent. Now, if that be so, then God wouldn’t need to do anything or depend on anything in order to exist in a state of pure perfection. As such, he wouldn’t need to be a creator of anything or anything, lest he be contingent upon the existence of his creation in order to be perfect (which contricts a noncontingent beings existence). As such, he may be known primarily as creator to us, but only because he has already commited to the act and not to do with necessity from his essence.

 

[quaestio45]

This assumes that creating is not part of being and perfection of God. The Holy Trinity is essentially creator.

More like its a contridiction to say that a being is maximally perfect in and through and by himself but then say that he isn’t the peak of perfection unless he creates (which makes his perfection contingent upon creation).

 

[quaestio45]

Perhaps one way to resolve the issue is to say that God would never not create; that it is simply not in God’s nature to choose otherwise. Another way to put it would be that he creates because he is perfect by default.

I really wish we could, but as I’ve said, this would contridict the nature of a pure actuality noncontingent reality, as their highest perfection in being (also known as pure actuality) would be dependent upon its creation, thus making it contingent. Thus, it can never be compatible with acts of necessity in dealing with that external to itself.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

This assumes that creating is not part of being and perfection of God. The Holy Trinity is essentially creator.

More like its a contridiction to say that a being is maximally perfect in and through and by himself but then say that he isn’t the peak of perfection unless he creates (which makes his perfection contingent upon creation).

The Holy Trinity is not conditioned by time, so no contradiction.

 

[quaestio45]

The Holy Trinity is not conditioned by time, so no contradiction.

Time has nothing to do with this, but rather whether an action is necessary or unnecessary.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Are you saying that when a being creates, it then becomes less-than? Or degraded somehow?

 

[quaestio45]

Are you saying that when a being creates, it then becomes less-than? Or degraded somehow?

Not at all; I’m just saying that we can’t both say that God is the noncontingent pure act being who by himself and through himself is maximum perfection in being, and then say that he need to create in order to be maximally perfect.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Are you able to link me to the document that says God must create?

BTW, your OP doesn’t refute the existence of a God.

 

[quaestio45]

Are you able to link me to the document that says God must create?

I don’t have a link, but I do have reason. If your asking for what this general criticism is called, its formal name is the argument from modal collapse, though I think the way I describe it in my OP does a fine job at explaining the reason for it.

BTW, your OP doesn’t refute the existence of a God.

Does it not? Well thats fantastic! Could you explain to me how it doesn’t? I’m genuinely curious! I’ve been stuck on this problem for many many months.

 

[quaestio45]

(I hope you don’t mind me moving the topic here @Gorgias I think this is a more relevant place to discuss this, as the consequences of me being right is that God can’t exist.)

God works freely, out of His nature. If you want to assert that He’s constrained in some way, it would be necessary to assert who (or what) constrains Him. That’s a problematic assertion, it would seem.

So what I’m thinking is that if we agree that an entity doesn’t have to commit act x of necessity, then it must be of option/voluntude. Of course, if this be so then we can understand that the entity has the possibility of being in state of being A which allowed for result A to occur, or state of being B which did not allow for result A. Now, I think we both agree that these two states of being cannot be the exact same without contridicting the law of sufficient reason, as such we have a distinction here.

Okay, so this is the crux right here: if all acts of voluntude require that an entity be in at least one of two distinct states of being (commit to act or don’t act) then it doesn’t seem as if God can act of voluntude ever. This is because it sets up the idea of God being possibly different in his being in a conceptual universe where God didn’t create (which we musy be able to imagine to some degree, as possibilities are of such nature). But such is an absurdity, because God can never in any possibility be different then how he is now, otherwise there would be a difference in existence, which requires a difference essence, which is impossible as an essence of a being is always constant across all plains of possibility (think of a circle, for example. It must always be the same no matter the possibility). As such, it would contrict God. That which is the factor of contridiction must be eliminated; as such, God cannot act of voluntude but of necessity instead.

Again: who or what constrains God to do something?

I suppose the constraint would be his essence, perhaps?

So, if you’re considering “results of possibilities”, you only have one to consider. That doesn’t thwart the freedom of the will of God. It merely says that we know what His will is.

Well we can at least consider the consequences of saying something is possible at all, yes? For thats really all I’m using to make this argument: the consideration of whether possibility could lead to contridiction in relation to God.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

I think the way I describe it in my OP does a fine job at explaining the reason for it.

Apparently not, because we aren’t sure what you’re trying to drive at.

But unless you have a link to the Church teaching on this, it’s really hard to try to talk you through it.