An argument against God

[quaestio45]

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

Basically what I’m saying is that God can only act of necessity, but if thats true then the act of creation was necessary, but a pure act being can only act of necessity if its to sustain its own perfection and not for anything else. As such, the fact that theres a contridiction here (reductio ad absurdum) can only be resolved if there is no God.

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

Church teachings? Well I can’t help you there, but Thomas Aquinas wrote on this in the summa contra gentiles and summa theolgica on the nature of God. If you want that, I’ll track down the specific passages that attempt to refute my position.

 

[fhansen]

Even humans are creators as part of their natures. And in the case of God can’t his creation still be encompassed within himself since it all originates from him anyway?

 

[quaestio45]

Even humans are creators as part of their natures. And in the case of God can’t his creation still be encompassed within himself since it all originates from him anyway?

Well that would result in pantheism, which has a number of flaws within it (like for example, if the universe was a part of God, and God is pure good, how to you explain the evil in the world?)

 

[quaestio45]

P1) In order for something to be voluntary you must have the ability to be in a commited state of being (where you do the voluntary act) or uncommitted state of being (where you don’t do the voluntary act)
P2) These two states of being must be distinct from one another
P3) God cannot be concieved as being in distinct states of being
C1) Thus, God cannot act by voluntude
P4) What isn’t voluntary is necessary
C2) Thus, God always acts by necessity
P5) God created reality
C3) Thus, reality was created by necessity
P6) God is only necessitated in doing that which directly contributes to his goodness
P7) Nothing external to God can contribute to his goodness
C4) Therefore creation cannot have been made by necessity
C5) reductio ad absurdum!

 

[fhansen]

As Augustine once put it, the only possible source of evil, is good. Moral evil at least is considered something which God allows but does not create. Its a perversion or twisting of something good into something less than good by created beamings possessing free will. So nothing in existence is inherently evil.

And pantheism might mean something more like God is in everything and that everything in creation is the sum total of God. which is not quite what I’m looking at I believe.

I also think it’s important to note that while anything a human creates is made from existing materials, anything that exists at all issues from God Himself.

 

[quaestio45]

As Augustine once put it, the only possible source of evil, is good. Moral evil at least is considered something which God allows but does not create. Its a perversion or twisting of something good into something less than good by created beamings possessing free will. So nothing in existence is inherently evil.

Well yeah, that true, but were God truly complete only though creation it can only be because creation is an actual part of him. But because God must be pure actuality and also divenly simple, it also means that there cannot be anything other than pure perfection in him. As such, if we were in God then we too must be pure goodness and perfection, to which doesn’t seem the case. So I don’t think that avenue of thought can take you to a solution.

 

[STT]

P1) In order for something to be voluntary you must have the ability to be in a commited state of being (where you do the voluntary act) or uncommitted state of being (where you don’t do the voluntary act)

True.

P2) These two states of being must be distinct from one another

True.

P3) God cannot be concieved as being in distinct states of being

True.

C1) Thus, God cannot act by voluntude

True.

P4) What isn’t voluntary is necessary

True.

C2) Thus, God always acts by necessity

True.

P5) God created reality

It can be accepted for the sake of argument.

C3) Thus, reality was created by necessity

True.

P6) God is only necessitated in doing that which directly contributes to his goodness

Not true. God only act out of necessity according to His goodness.

P7) Nothing external to God can contribute to his goodness

True.

C4) Therefore creation cannot have been made by necessity

This doesn’t follow from P6 and P7.

C5) reductio ad absurdum!

This doesn’t follow.

 

[quaestio45]

Not true. God only act out of necessity according to His goodness.

Well God is goodness itself, and not only that but perfect goodness in and of itself. As such, even to act in accordance with goodness would just be to sustain himself.

 

[STT]

Well God is goodness itself, and not only that but perfect goodness in and of itself. As such, even to act in accordance with goodness would just be to sustain himself.

What do you mean with that God sustains himself?

 

[quaestio45]

What do you mean with that God sustains himself?

As in, God simply keeps himself in a state of highest perfection (or purest actuality). Were God the completion of being then nothing can ever make him more in goodness or being. If the act of creation is necessary however, it can only be because by his nature God needs it to keep himself in highest perfection (as nothing else can cause highest reality to be constrained). But to create wouldn’t result in that, as adding a definite number to infinity leads to no increase in infinity. As such, creation can’t make God more perfect or more high in being. As such, it can’t be necessary, but it is, so its a contridiction.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

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.

You wrote: “which makes his perfection contingent upon creation”.
So I am replying that there is no contingency upon what is created (for which I used time – time is created).

 

[quaestio45]

You wrote: “which makes his perfection contingent upon creation”.
So I am replying that there is no contingency upon what is created (for which I used time – time is created).

And I am forced to respond by saying that if God is only necessitated by his nature, and his nature is pure being, then he is necessitated only in being pure being. But if we recognize that God can only act by necessity, and we see he did in fact create, then if follows that God created the world from necessity. But the world cannot contribute to the goodness or perfection of Gods being because God is perfectly good in and of himself (and if it was different, then he isn’t highest being and therefore pure actuality), therefore we come to a contradiction, as his perfect goodness becomes contingent on his act of creation and thus creation itself (which is impossible).

 

[Vico]

Vico:

You wrote: “which makes his perfection contingent upon creation”.
So I am replying that there is no contingency upon what is created (for which I used time – time is created).

And I am forced to respond by saying that if God is only necessitated by his nature, and his nature is pure being, then he is necessitated only in being pure being. But if we recognize that God can only act by necessity, and we see he did in fact create, then if follows that God created the world from necessity. But the world cannot contribute to the goodness or perfection of Gods being because God is perfectly good in and of himself (and if it was different, then he isn’t highest being and therefore pure actuality), therefore we come to a contradiction, as his perfect goodness becomes contingent on his act of creation and thus creation itself (which is impossible).

The end and sufficient reason for the Holy Trinity creating is His own goodness (one with His essence), so He must will necessarily only that goodness. Only God exists a se in total independence as a unconditioned, self-existent being. God is the final cause rather than the efficient cause.

 

[quaestio45]

The end and sufficient reason for the Holy Trinity creating is His own goodness (one with His essence), so He must will necessarily only that goodness.

Thats exactly right.

Only God exists a se in total independence as a unconditioned, self-existent being.

Yes!

God is the final cause rather than the efficient cause.

I would say both, as he did create the universe, but I think I understand what your saying.

Allow me to make a counter argument, if I may:

P1) In order for something to be voluntary you must have the ability to be in a commited state of being (where you do the voluntary act) or uncommitted state of being (where you don’t do the voluntary act)
P2) These two states of being must be distinct from one another
P3) God cannot be concieved as being in distinct states of being
C1) Thus, God cannot act by voluntude
P4) What isn’t voluntary is necessary
C2) Thus, God always acts by necessity
P5) God created reality
C3) Thus, reality was created by necessity
P6) God is only necessitated in doing that which directly contributes to his goodness
P7) Nothing external to God can contribute to his goodness
C4) Therefore creation cannot have been made by necessity
C5) reductio ad absurdum!

Now, given this argument, what do you disagree with?

 

[Vico]

Vico:

The end and sufficient reason for the Holy Trinity creating is His own goodness (one with His essence), so He must will necessarily only that goodness.

Thats exactly right.

Only God exists a se in total independence as a unconditioned, self-existent being.

Yes!

God is the final cause rather than the efficient cause.

I would say both, as he did create the universe, but I think I understand what your saying.

Allow me to make a counter argument, if I may:

P1) In order for something to be voluntary you must have the ability to be in a commited state of being (where you do the voluntary act) or uncommitted state of being (where you don’t do the voluntary act)
P2) These two states of being must be distinct from one another
P3) God cannot be concieved as being in distinct states of being
C1) Thus, God cannot act by voluntude
P4) What isn’t voluntary is necessary
C2) Thus, God always acts by necessity
P5) God created reality
C3) Thus, reality was created by necessity
P6) God is only necessitated in doing that which directly contributes to his goodness
P7) Nothing external to God can contribute to his goodness
C4) Therefore creation cannot have been made by necessity
C5) reductio ad absurdum!

Now, given this argument, what do you disagree with?

P1 seems incorrect. For example: “the voluntary is an act consisting in a rational operation” - Saint John Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii)

 

[kapp19]

God is not really related to creation, so His causation does not change Him. (Didn’t we also talk about real relations in a matter of Christology?) And the reverse-engineering of the facts of how causes and effects really exist leads us to conclude that there is indeed a First Cause which must be absolutely simple.

I think you will find this discussion helpful:

Edward Feser: Scotus on divine simplicity and creation

Simply Irresistible - Theopolis Institute

Edward Feser: A further reply to Mullins on divine simplicity (Updated)

PM me and we can talk more, I don’t come by these threads very often.

-K

 

[quaestio45]

P1 seems incorrect. For example: “the voluntary is an act consisting in a rational operation” - Saint John Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii)

That might be a definition of the voluntary, but the prerequisites still need to be that you can deciede between two states of distinct being (for example, lets say theres a candy bar on the counter. I have a minimum of two choices, both voluntary: state of being A (commitment to eat candy bar) or state of being B (uncommited to eat the candy bar). Now these two states obviously have to be different (how can you be in the same state for when you eat a candy bar and not eat a candy bar?). As such, I think the first premise isn’t misplaced.

I think you will find this discussion helpful:

Thank you. I’ll be looking at these in the evening.

 

[Vico]

…

There is no potential in the Holy Trinity: knowledge is the same as will in God.

 

[quaestio45]

There is no potential in the Holy Trinity: knowledge is the same as will in God.

Agreed, thats why he can’t act if voluntude. He doesn’t have the capability of decieding between two states of distinct being.

 

[STT]

As in, God simply keeps himself in a state of highest perfection (or purest actuality).

God, if He exist, does not hold Himself in existence. He simply exist, like me and you.