Argument from Dictatorship - Argument for God's existence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bohm_Bawerk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bohm_Bawerk

Guest
It’s an idea that has been in my head for quite a while, so I thought I might just share it here and hear your criticisms (I know it’s poor but forgive me 😊):

Those with power always want to retain or increase the amount of power they possess. There is no truer quote than “power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely” as Lord Acton famously remarked. The dictators/politicians/rulers/etc in mind include Hitler, Stalin, British Empire, and in more recent times, talks about a “new world order” amongst certain think tanks (not that I agree with the subsequent conspiracies involved).

The idea of wishing to extend power across the globe to conform to a certain ideal as dictators have previously endeavoured on must necessarily imply a mimicking of God’s omnipotence. Similar to Descartes’ trademark argument, which in short says that:

1. I have an idea of God.
2. Everything which exists has a cause.
3. Therefore, there is a cause of my idea of God
.,

as well as using Plato’s argument of Forms (i.e. that abstract concepts like Justice and Beauty exist in another dimension), the argument from dictatorship is as follows:
  1. Dictators have an idea of control.
  2. Dictators extend the idea of control to the abstract concept of perfect control.
  3. Perfect control, like the abstract concept of Beauty and Justice, exists in another realm.
  4. Only God has perfect control, a.k.a. omnipotence (as argued by standard Christian theology).
  5. Therefore, dictators necessarily attempt to copy God.
And hence God’s glory can even be seen through dictators, who wish to be like God, but fail miserably in doing so.

I also think the argument has a biblical backing:
"For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” (Romans 9:17).
 
I think this argument fails if the hearer considers the idea of control (perfect or otherwise) to be nonsensical or illusory.
 
The existence of personal power implies the existence of God - unless you can explain how it is produced by **impersonal **power…
 
The word “power” seems to be a standin for “control” there, so if someone considers power in that sense to be nonsensical or illusory, the objection still stands. “Personal” vs. “impersonal” seems quite irrelevant.
 
It’s an idea that has been in my head for quite a while, so I thought I might just share it here and hear your criticisms (I know it’s poor but forgive me 😊):

Those with power always want to retain or increase the amount of power they possess. There is no truer quote than “power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely” as Lord Acton famously remarked. The dictators/politicians/rulers/etc in mind include Hitler, Stalin, British Empire, and in more recent times, talks about a “new world order” amongst certain think tanks (not that I agree with the subsequent conspiracies involved).

The idea of wishing to extend power across the globe to conform to a certain ideal as dictators have previously endeavoured on must necessarily imply a mimicking of God’s omnipotence. Similar to Descartes’ trademark argument, which in short says that:

1. I have an idea of God.
2. Everything which exists has a cause.
3. Therefore, there is a cause of my idea of God
.,

as well as using Plato’s argument of Forms (i.e. that abstract concepts like Justice and Beauty exist in another dimension), the argument from dictatorship is as follows:
  1. Dictators have an idea of control.
  2. Dictators extend the idea of control to the abstract concept of perfect control.
  3. Perfect control, like the abstract concept of Beauty and Justice, exists in another realm.
  4. Only God has perfect control, a.k.a. omnipotence (as argued by standard Christian theology).
  5. Therefore, dictators necessarily attempt to copy God.
And hence God’s glory can even be seen through dictators, who wish to be like God, but fail miserably in doing so.

I also think the argument has a biblical backing:
"For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” (Romans 9:17).
I think its a pretty good argument for the existence of God, as convincing as anything by Aquinas. But it works only if one is a pretty strong Platonist, which is rare.

What does it really mean to say the Beauty, Justice or Perfect Control exist in another realm? The realm of imagination? The realm of words?

Most people define being ‘real’ and ‘existing’ as meaning existing in this realm (rather than a Platonic one).
 
What does it really mean to say the Beauty, Justice or Perfect Control exist in another realm? The realm of imagination? The realm of words?

Most people define being ‘real’ and ‘existing’ as meaning existing in this realm (rather than a Platonic one).
Agreed, and even then it would only prove the existence of an abstract source rather than “our” God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top