Theism and Morality

[EnterTheBowser]

john doran:

where did you get this “classical” argument? i have only ever seen premise one phrased in terms of beginning to exist, or of contingent existents.

Indeed, the Kalam is a marginally better argument than the “classical” version, which is basically what might be called the argument from first cause. I’ve seen it used, though I don’t recall where; I can go looking if you like.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Sherlock:

Yes, I did, and find fault with your premise that “it is more or less impossible to show that this particular God is the only logically possible God”.

Well, I don’t see any prima facie reason to suppose that every other kind of God (aside from the Christian one) is logically inconsistent, or reasons to suppose that there is something about the Christian God that makes it logically necessary - true in every possible world. Do you?

 

[Sherlock]

EnterTheBowser:

Well, I don’t see any prima facie reason to suppose that every other kind of God (aside from the Christian one) is logically inconsistent, or reasons to suppose that there is something about the Christian God that makes it logically necessary - true in every possible world. Do you?

I don’t see how an infinite, omniscient, eternal God (in other words, the God of Jews and Christians) admits of a multiplicity of gods—where would one god “stop” and another “begin”? And if there is an edge, a boundary, to a god (necessary if you’re going to posit distinct gods) then that “god” isn’t infinite. In which case, it no longer fits the definition of the God of Jews and Christians.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Sherlock:

I don’t see how an infinite, omniscient, eternal God (in other words, the God of Jews and Christians) admits of a multiplicity of gods—where would one god “stop” and another “begin”? And if there is an edge, a boundary, to a god (necessary if you’re going to posit distinct gods) then that “god” isn’t infinite. In which case, it no longer fits the definition of the God of Jews and Christians.

I think you misunderstand me - I don’t mean to say that there actually are a number of different Gods in this world. I am suggesting that it is possible that we have a different God. As an analogy, imagine a basket with an apple in it. When I talk about it being possible for there to be other fruits in the basket, I don’t mean that there actually are other fruits in the basket - just that there might be (that in another possible world there is an orange in the basket, for example).

 

[Sherlock]

EnterTheBowser:

I think you misunderstand me - I don’t mean to say that there actually are a number of different Gods in this world. I am suggesting that it is possible that we have a different God. As an analogy, imagine a basket with an apple in it. When I talk about it being possible for there to be other fruits in the basket, I don’t mean that there actually are other fruits in the basket - just that there might be (that in another possible world there is an orange in the basket, for example).

How is this different “god” different, then? Is this god the First Cause? If not, what is? Is this god the Unmoved Mover? Is this god the necessary (vs. contingent) being? If not any of these things, then why would you call this supposed god a “god”?

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Sherlock:

How is this different “god” different, then? Is this god the First Cause? If not, what is? Is this god the Unmoved Mover? Is this god the necessary (vs. contingent) being? If not any of these things, then why would you call this supposed god a “god”?

I imagine this God is the creator of the universe, all-powerful, all-knowing, personal, etc etc.

 

[Sherlock]

EnterTheBowser:

I imagine this God is the creator of the universe, all-powerful, all-knowing, personal, etc etc.

I asked you to describe how this “god” of yours might be different than the God of Jews and Christians. You’ve not done that with the above description.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Sherlock:

I asked you to describe how this “god” of yours might be different than the God of Jews and Christians. You’ve not done that with the above description.

OK… this God - let’s call her Sally, because that’s what she likes to be called, created the universe, knows everything that goes on, and can effect any change she wishes to that universe. In addition to being called “Sally,” she grounds a morality in which the rape of one’s family is, in fact, a moral (even obligatory) act. Sally never incarnated on the planet Earth, and although she did reveal herself to humans at one point, it was not to the Jews; in addition knowledge of her is written on the hearts of all humans.

Sound different enough from the Judeo-Christian God?

 

[Sherlock]

EnterTheBowser:

OK… this God - let’s call her Sally, because that’s what she likes to be called, created the universe, knows everything that goes on, and can effect any change she wishes to that universe. In addition to being called “Sally,” she grounds a morality in which the rape of one’s family is, in fact, a moral (even obligatory) act. Sally never incarnated on the planet Earth, and although she did reveal herself to humans at one point, it was not to the Jews; in addition knowledge of her is written on the hearts of all humans.

Sound different enough from the Judeo-Christian God?

Sounds like a version of Islam…

But in order for you to posit this make-believe “god” as something I should really consider as a possibility, you need to give me reason to believe that “knowledge of her is written on the hearts of all humans”. Otherwise, you’ve simply produced an uncompelling piece of fiction. Also, if Sally is the author of a morality in which raping one’s family is an obligatory act, then I would expect that all cultures would have some form of that obligatory act enshrined in their respective rituals (as, for example, the concept of “sacrifice” seems to be universal).

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Sherlock:

Sounds like a version of Islam…

But in order for you to posit this make-believe “god” as something I should really consider as a possibility, you need to give me reason to believe that “knowledge of her is written on the hearts of all humans”. Otherwise, you’ve simply produced an uncompelling piece of fiction. Also, if Sally is the author of a morality in which raping one’s family is an obligatory act, then I would expect that all cultures would have some form of that obligatory act enshrined in their respective rituals (as, for example, the concept of “sacrifice” seems to be universal).

I do not mean to say that Sally actually exists in this world. I mean to say that it is possible for Sally to exist. As in my fruit basket example, I would not expect my fruit basket to be filled with possible fruit, nor would I expect these possible fruits to tip a scale.

 

[Sherlock]

EnterTheBowser:

I do not mean to say that Sally actually exists in this world. I mean to say that it is possible for Sally to exist. As in my fruit basket example, I would not expect my fruit basket to be filled with possible fruit, nor would I expect these possible fruits to tip a scale.

But Sally could not co-exist with God as understood by Jews and Christians. Since there is good reason to believe that the God of Jews and Christians does exist, and no reason to believe that Sally exists, then, using reason, I am quite comfortable telling you that it is not possible that Sally exists.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Bowser, rather than coming up with “Sally”, why not give us examples of beings/gods whom people actually believe in, or believed in? You know, Zeus, Thor, Mithras, Ahura Mazda, Baal, Vishnu, Horus, the Kamis, etc. . .all the way through “the goddess” of today’s pagans or anybody major I left out.

After all, these are examples of beings whom many people believed in as a god, even a supreme god.

You seem to think that there can exist more than ONE God, at least more than one according to “Judeo-Christian” standards–but you really don’t understand the standards properly. The Judeo-Christian God not only created the earth, and the universe etc. but He himself is infinite and everlasting. You seem to feel that there can exist other infinite, everlasting beings (like Star Trek’s Q continuum?) and that we, thinking we have “Q”, really have “Q2” or “Q3” or whatever. But the Q are all equals and they are themselves created beings, because a thing cannot both be a creator AND the created. If God is creator, He is NOT created, and if there exists an ‘equivalent’ being, BOTH the beings become “created”, since there cannot be TWO beings which are “GOD” as Christians understand God–eternal, ONE IN BEING, and infinite. . .not “one of many superbeings”.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Tantum ergo:

Bowser, rather than coming up with “Sally”, why not give us examples of beings/gods whom people actually believe in, or believed in? You know, Zeus, Thor, Mithras, Ahura Mazda, Baal, Vishnu, Horus, the Kamis, etc. . .all the way through “the goddess” of today’s pagans or anybody major I left out.

After all, these are examples of beings whom many people believed in as a god, even a supreme god.

You seem to think that there can exist more than ONE God, at least more than one according to “Judeo-Christian” standards–but you really don’t understand the standards properly. The Judeo-Christian God not only created the earth, and the universe etc. but He himself is infinite and everlasting. You seem to feel that there can exist other infinite, everlasting beings (like Star Trek’s Q continuum?) and that we, thinking we have “Q”, really have “Q2” or “Q3” or whatever. But the Q are all equals and they are themselves created beings, because a thing cannot both be a creator AND the created. If God is creator, He is NOT created, and if there exists an ‘equivalent’ being, BOTH the beings become “created”, since there cannot be TWO beings which are “GOD” as Christians understand God–eternal, ONE IN BEING, and infinite. . .not “one of many superbeings”.

As I previously stated: let’s imagine I’ve got a basket with an apple in it. The basket is so small that I can only fit one apple in the basket. But there’s nothing wrong with saying that I might have an orange instead of an apple in the basket. Saying that the apple would take up the space in the basket that the orange needs is bad argument to make if you want to say that it is not possible to have an orange in the basket.

Similarly, I don’t mean to say that Sally actually exists. I do mean to say that there’s some possible world where Sally exists. At that point Sally would not in some way conflict with the Judeo-Christian God, or any other God for that matter.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Sherlock:

But Sally could not co-exist with God as understood by Jews and Christians. Since there is good reason to believe that the God of Jews and Christians does exist, and no reason to believe that Sally exists, then, using reason, I am quite comfortable telling you that it is not possible that Sally exists.

Imagine I’ve got a basket, with a single fruit - an apple - in it. The basket has just enough room for this single fruit, and no more. Now, I look into the basket, and I see an apple there. I take the apple out, bite it - it tastes like apple - and put it back. I call a friend over; the friend examines the basket and tells me there’s an apple in it. All in all, I’ve got good reason to suppose that there’s an apple in the basket, and good reason to suppose that there is no orange in the basket. BUT these are not good reasons to suppose that there could be no orange in the basket.

I feel compelled to add that I would dispute the claim that there are good reasons to believe that the God of the Christians exists, but this is not really the thread for that.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, “Sally” would exist in the world of imagination. . .

Your argument reminds me a bit of reading Frank Herbert’s DUNE books. . .you know, thousands and millions of “possible” futures. . .

Or like Mobius and anti-Mobius. . .(I have children, does it show?)

Again I reiterate: There can be no “Sally”, even on some alternate universe, even in some remote form of the galaxy or the universe, because there is no way that there can be both the Judeo-Christian God and some other, “equal” god-being.

 

[Sherlock]

EnterTheBowser:

As I previously stated: let’s imagine I’ve got a basket with an apple in it. The basket is so small that I can only fit one apple in the basket. But there’s nothing wrong with saying that I might have an orange instead of an apple in the basket. Saying that the apple would take up the space in the basket that the orange needs is bad argument to make if you want to say that it is not possible to have an orange in the basket.

Similarly, I don’t mean to say that Sally actually exists. I do mean to say that there’s some possible world where Sally exists. At that point Sally would not in some way conflict with the Judeo-Christian God, or any other God for that matter.

But what’s the point, then? What’s the point in making up a pretend-world with a pretend-god? You can do that, of course, and if that’s how you like to spend your time, well, there’s no accounting for tastes. But if the basket is “this world”, then yes, I am going to apply what is observable in this world and decide whether or not an apple or an orange is in it based on that observation. But your analogy is a poor one anyway, as there is no necessity of relationship (creator, creation) between fruit and baskets. It helps to use an analogy that maintains crucial relationships and attributes of what is being illustrated.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Tantum ergo:

Well, “Sally” would exist in the world of imagination. . .

Your argument reminds me a bit of reading Frank Herbert’s DUNE books. . .you know, thousands and millions of “possible” futures. . .

Or like Mobius and anti-Mobius. . .(I have children, does it show?)

Again I reiterate: There can be no “Sally”, even on some alternate universe, even in some remote form of the galaxy or the universe, because there is no way that there can be both the Judeo-Christian God and some other, “equal” god-being.

I think you misunderstand what exactly a “possible world” is. Even God would not have the power to affect things in another possible world - that follows from the very meaning of “possible world.”

But anyways, disregarding that point, would you say that there’s a strict dichotomy between atheism and the existence of the Christian God - that these are the only two possibilities? Or is it similarly logically impossible for there to a universe without a God?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hmmm. You have tasted an apple, your friend has tasted an apple, and yet you feel there’s no good reason an orange MIGHT NOT be in the basket?

So. . .you cannot make an empiric judgment based on the evidence of your senses and your reason, nor on that of your friend’s as well?

Why not? Probability? (You know, it is 99.99999999999. . . % probable that I am sitting here typing this response. . .but there is a probability that I am not. Is THAT it? Gosh, that almost reminds me of the “angels who can dance on the head of a pin” debate. )

I myself faced with your fruit scenario would say that, based on my knowledge and reason, and my friend’s knowledge and reason, to say the least, that there would be no good reason an apple WOULD NOT be in the basket. If by some fluke there WERE an orange, well, that would be a miracle–and I believe in miracles.

From my point of view, not only are the odds in my favor, but intellect and reason and natural law are in my favor as well. PLUS–in the extreme unlikelihood that an orange somehow shows up in the basket–I STILL have a reason for it–and an explanation.

Faith and reason. The dynamic duo. You can’t beat them. (You really can’t).

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Sherlock:

But what’s the point, then? What’s the point in making up a pretend-world with a pretend-god? You can do that, of course, and if that’s how you like to spend your time, well, there’s no accounting for tastes. But if the basket is “this world”, then yes, I am going to apply what is observable in this world and decide whether or not an apple or an orange is in it based on that observation.

I am only concerned with showing Sally to be a possible God because the argument I made regarding theism, atheism, and moral justification (in post #46 I believe) depends on only that: the possibility of such a God.

But your analogy is a poor one anyway, as there is no necessity of relationship (creator, creation) between fruit and baskets. It helps to use an analogy that maintains crucial relationships and attributes of what is being illustrated.

Let’s say that, perhaps, a fruit basket is a basket which has a fruit basket in it. That being said, I can only have a fruit basket if there’s a fruit in the basket - I think that satisifies your point about necessity (in a sense, the fruit causes the fruit basket, because there would be no fruit basket without the fruit). I can have a fruit basket and not have an apple in the basket - I could have an orange instead.

I also want to add something about possibility and necessity. If there’s an apple in my basket, then it is necessarily true of this world that there’s an apple in my basket. It is not possible in this world for there not to be an apple in my basket. The important bit in the two previous sentences was the “in this world.” Take that out and it is certainly possible for my basket to have an orange in it. This is the sort of possibility - that things might have been otherwise - that I’ve been talking about. In a sense, when I said “in this world” I ruled out the possibility of things being otherwise - that’s the meaning of of the “in this world” - that things are the way they are.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

A “possible world” that God could NOT have power to affect?

No such thing. God having the nature of God, His power is infinite. There can be no “possible world” without God.

I think I see what you’re trying to get to, but the fact is, you can’t really say, “suppose there really wasn’t a God, or that there was, but he is different from what you think is God”.

First, that’s really changing this thread. . .we aren’t arguing really over whether God is God, are we? We are, I believe, attempting to discuss theism and morality. So we can’t say, “well, let’s set aside the THEISTIC view, because after all, there COULD be other places with OTHER gods”.

Please let’s stick to the God we have. If you want to discuss what gods might exist elsewhere, start another thread. We don’t have “sally” or “q” or sonic the hedgehog as our God, we have a well defined Judeo-Christian God and that God is what we are discussing, thanks.