How to refute this argument?

[MarcusAndreas]

I see where y’all are going with this. One of the key things that should be mentioned which I haven’t is von Mises’s definition of action, the problem is I’m not entirely sure what he means by it.

I think I might be getting way too bent out of shape by the man’s argument, considering he was a theological, philosophical, historical, and economic (oh yes, I went there) illiterate.

 

[sw85]

Libertarian philosopher Ludwig von Mises argued that God does not act because only discontented beings act, and attributing action to God is an anthropomorphism. I know this is an absurd argument but I can’t figure out how to refute it.

Strictly speaking, this is true, but not for the right reasons. God does not “act” in the sense that we mean – i.e., doing this and then doing that. This would imply that God is not entirely present to Himself.

God’s action in the world is one single, continuous act of love, manifesting itself in different ways in different times and places. Actually, there cannot even be a distinction between God and his actions for Him to satisfy the demands of unlimited being: He must* actually be* that single, unlimited, continuous act of love.

Presumably von Mises (an idiot) meant this argument to support deism.

 

[Ben_F]

In a manner of speaking, he’s right. God doesn’t act, per se. (Action implies prior inaction, and stimulus, and response, doesn’t it? And that would imply change within the actor, wouldn’t it?)

Instead, it’s more accurate to say that God wills. His will is eternal and unchanging. Moreover, anything that we perceive of, within the confines of time & space, as being an ‘action’ of God, is instead, in fact, an example of God’s eternal will being actualized in the framework of His creation.

So, would we say that God ‘waited’, and then ‘acted’ in 1 A.D., causing the incarnation of His Son? Nope. Rather, God willed the Incarnation eternally. We experienced the Incarnation, as time-and-space bound humans, as an event that occurred at that point in time.
Very good. God bless:thumbsup:
Hope that helps…!

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Strictly speaking, this is true, but not for the right reasons. God does not “act” in the sense that we mean – i.e., doing this and then doing that. This would imply that God is not entirely present to Himself.

God’s action in the world is one single, continuous act of love, manifesting itself in different ways in different times and places. Actually, there cannot even be a distinction between God and his actions for Him to satisfy the demands of unlimited being: He must* actually be* that single, unlimited, continuous act of love.

Very well said!

 

[jochoa]

The trouble with this argument is that it concludes that having a purpose for acting/willing means being discontent/dissatisfied.

Not only is this a pessimistic view of thinking, but given this line of thinking, one can never resolve the following paradox of faith: God is eternally perfectly content, yet God acts/wills creation, even purposes it.

 

[austenbosten]

Strictly speaking, this is true, but not for the right reasons. God does not “act” in the sense that we mean – i.e., doing this and then doing that. This would imply that God is not entirely present to Himself.

God’s action in the world is one single, continuous act of love, manifesting itself in different ways in different times and places. Actually, there cannot even be a distinction between God and his actions for Him to satisfy the demands of unlimited being: He must* actually be* that single, unlimited, continuous act of love.

Presumably von Mises (an idiot) meant this argument to support deism.

How is Ludwig von Mises an idiot, if I might ask?

 

[JohnAlexander]

Libertarian philosopher Ludwig von Mises argued that God does not act because only discontented beings act, and attributing action to God is an anthropomorphism. I know this is an absurd argument but I can’t figure out how to refute it.

What is the basis for asserting that only discontented beings act? I think his assertion is wrong. He does not give any proof for his assertion.

Love for example leads to action. When you love someone you want to show your love. You are not “discontented”

You can also get to much more complicated ideas. What exactly is meant by action? God is existence itself. God is action. In his Being, God acts. The assumption is that God is static and would only be moved to action to accomplish something in order to fix some state of affairs that he was unhappy about. But what if instead of being static, God’s resting state is actually acting. The universe exists, and continues to exist because of God’s action. He maintains the universe by doing it. The universe and everything in it is an on going action of God. The second God stops doing the universe, the universe disappears. But such a thing can not happen because time only exists in the universe. God does not exist in time, time exists in God.