Theist and atheist metaphysics

[ateista]

The basic difference between theists and atheists is the question of metaphysics: “What is the nature of reality?”, or “What exists?”. Theists assert that there is some being (called God) who created this whole “stuff” we call our universe.

Here comes my analysis of this question.

The basic problem is that of the Matrix. Is this existence “real” or do we live in a Matrix? The relevance of this question depends on a few things. If we live in the “natural” world, then the question is irrelevant. The assumption that we live in the Matrix is simply false, and should be discarded. And that is the solution of the atheists.

The theist’s assumption is different. They assume that we do indeed live in the Matrix - an artificial, designed and created world. (Do not confuse this with the movie. I just selected the name for the sake of easy understanding.)

Let’s examine what follows from this assumption. First, they can never be sure that the creator of the Matrix is “real” or it simply dwells in “his” Matrix, and his creators also live in “their” Matrix, and so on. (By the way, it is not necessary to posit one creator. There may be a team of creators. There is no logical necessity to assume only one. For the sake of simplicity I will speak of “one”.)

Obvioulsy the infinite regress must be discarded, so even the theists will assume a “final” world, which is truly “natural” or as they posit it: “supernatural”. Why should it be “super”-natural? No need for that assumption. They assume that it is the “next” level, which is the final one. Nothing at all supports this assumption.

The real thorny question is the interaction between the hypothesized creator and the created world. If the creator does not interfere with the creation, does not reveal his existence, does not perform any purported miracles, then for all practical purposes, his existence is irrelevant. He may as well not exist. That is the reasoning of the deists, whose stance is very close to that of the atheists.

The final possible scenario (which is what the theists believe) is that the creator communicates with his creation. First of all, that is the ultimate cruelty. To notify your creation, that their existence happened simply as a “whim”, that they are created as hopelessly inferior, whose existence can be terminated at any time, just because the creator “feels like it”, is so horrendous, so evil that I am at a loss finding the proper words. To tell them that they could have been created as equals, but the creator chose to do it otherwise - tells them that they are of no consequence, their whole existence is for the creator’s amusement only. What could be more cruel than creating living, feeling beings with at least **some level of understanding **and then relegate them to the role of helpless slaves?

And that cannot be whitewashed by some nonsense talk about “love”. There cannot be “love” between such vastly different beings. At least not the love of mutual respect and understanding, only the love of a loyal pet dog, who will not cease to love his master even if the master keeps on kicking him.

Now let’s go one step further. The creator of the Matrix can create two more additional “units”. One, where he will “reward” those who worshipped and obeyed him (heaven), and the other one, where he will punish the ones who chose not to (hell). This would be the “icing” on the cake - as far as cruelty goes. It is the most “naked” equivalent of “I have the power, so OBEY me” type of the “might makes right” “moral” system.

That is my analysis of the God-question. So even if the teists would be correct, I would side with the Lightbringer, and proclaim: “Non Serviam!”. I would say: “you cannot punish me in the name of decency and justice”, you can only punish me in the name of power.

 

[annem]

The basic difference between theists and atheists is the question of metaphysics

I’m sorry, but I disagree.

The basic difference between believers and nonbelievers is that the believers have repented.

Nontheists haven’t.

That’s my take, God bless, Annem

 

[Sarpedon]

The theist’s assumption is different. They assume that we do indeed live in the Matrix - an artificial, designed and created world. (Do not confuse this with the movie. I just selected the name for the sake of easy understanding.)

 

[ateista]

Catholic’s don’t believe that we live in a virtual reality distinct from the true reality. What our senses percieve as true, is true. We do live in a designed and created world- think of it as a terrerrium.

There is no difference. For the inhabitants of the Matrix their environment is “true”. They cannot “step outside” and examine their world from that perspective. The creator can, but only in respect of the created world. He may as well live in his Matrix, which is “true” according to his senses.

When Catholic speak of God, they are referring to the one entity that breaks the regress- the uncauses cause, the uncreated creator, etc. Thus, He is not just in our world, but over all worlds.

I know that. But here I am trying to talk about the suggested metaphysics of the theists. There is no need to assume that the “final” world, which break the regress is not just another “natural” world, unplanned, undesigned. It simply exists. There is no reason to assume that the “final” world is “supernatural”.

I believe that it has been demonstrated through classical theology that there can be only one “ultimate” God. I would reccomend reading the article on “God” at Newadvent.org.

No, it has not. None of the arguments (and there are many) can withstand the scrutiny of serious philosphical examination. But that is again theology, and I would like to concentrate on metaphysics.

I don’t understand exactly what you are saying, but God is in the same reality as us and any other created beings.

No, he is not. We live in a physical reality, in our own world. We are constrained by space and time. The creator is definitely “outside” of this world. He can use his instruments and examine it, even change it. What he cannot do is “enter” it.

Just like we can create (in theory) a Matrix, which is distinct from our Universe (though it is part of it), and we can examine it, but cannot physically enter it. The inhabitants can surmise our existence, but can never prove it.

If their Matrix is sufficiently large and complex, they can build their own Martix, and so on…

If this is the case, I see no reason for God to create the world.

There could be. Intellectual curiosity, for example. It may be applied “theogony”. In this case the strict “hands off” policy would make perfect sense. The basic rule for any scientific experiment is not to interfere with it, because any interference distorts the process.

This is not what Catholicism teaches at all. God created us our of selflessness, with nothing to gain from us. He loves us, and desires that we love Him in return. He freely gives us, inferior though we might be, the means to be able to love Him and thus recieve His love in return He didn’t create on a whim, but rather for us.

That is another example where the teaching makes no sense. It is impossible to do anything “for” those who do not exist. Those who do not exist, need nothing.

You can do one thing: you can create them. But you can’t say that being “created” is for their benefit. The nonexistent beings have no needs, no desires. You cannot give them “presents”. You cannot hurt them. The creation can only be for the benefit of the creator. Now, if the creator is dishonest, he will deny that. But his denial is bogus.

The rest of your post is purely theology, and even though I am itching to answer it, I won’t, because it is not relevant to the purpose of this thread.

 

[HelenaMT]

The basic difference between theists and atheists is the question of metaphysics: “What is the nature of reality?”, or “What exists?”. Theists assert that there is some being (called God) who created this whole “stuff” we call our universe.

Here comes my analysis of this question.

The basic problem is that of the Matrix. Is this existence “real” or do we live in a Matrix? The relevance of this question depends on a few things. If we live in the “natural” world, then the question is irrelevant. The assumption that we live in the Matrix is simply false, and should be discarded. And that is the solution of the atheists.

The theist’s assumption is different. They assume that we do indeed live in the Matrix - an artificial, designed and created world. (Do not confuse this with the movie. I just selected the name for the sake of easy understanding.)

Let’s examine what follows from this assumption. First, they can never be sure that the creator of the Matrix is “real” or it simply dwells in “his” Matrix, and his creators also live in “their” Matrix, and so on. (By the way, it is not necessary to posit one creator. There may be a team of creators. There is no logical necessity to assume only one. For the sake of simplicity I will speak of “one”.)

Obvioulsy the infinite regress must be discarded, so even the theists will assume a “final” world, which is truly “natural” or as they posit it: “supernatural”. Why should it be “super”-natural? No need for that assumption. They assume that it is the “next” level, which is the final one. Nothing at all supports this assumption.

The real thorny question is the interaction between the hypothesized creator and the created world. If the creator does not interfere with the creation, does not reveal his existence, does not perform any purported miracles, then for all practical purposes, his existence is irrelevant. He may as well not exist. That is the reasoning of the deists, whose stance is very close to that of the atheists.

The final possible scenario (which is what the theists believe) is that the creator communicates with his creation. First of all, that is the ultimate cruelty. To notify your creation, that their existence happened simply as a “whim”, that they are created as hopelessly inferior, whose existence can be terminated at any time, just because the creator “feels like it”, is so horrendous, so evil that I am at a loss finding the proper words. To tell them that they could have been created as equals, but the creator chose to do it otherwise - tells them that they are of no consequence, their whole existence is for the creator’s amusement only. What could be more cruel than creating living, feeling beings with at least **some level of understanding **and then relegate them to the role of helpless slaves?

And that cannot be whitewashed by some nonsense talk about “love”. There cannot be “love” between such vastly different beings. At least not the love of mutual respect and understanding, only the love of a loyal pet dog, who will not cease to love his master even if the master keeps on kicking him.

Now let’s go one step further. The creator of the Matrix can create two more additional “units”. One, where he will “reward” those who worshipped and obeyed him (heaven), and the other one, where he will punish the ones who chose not to (hell). This would be the “icing” on the cake - as far as cruelty goes. It is the most “naked” equivalent of “I have the power, so OBEY me” type of the “might makes right” “moral” system.

That is my analysis of the God-question. So even if the teists would be correct, I would side with the Lightbringer, and proclaim: “Non Serviam!”. I would say: “you cannot punish me in the name of decency and justice”, you can only punish me in the name of power.

 I am not a philosopher so I won't bother trying to post some made up personal theories about metaphysics. But I find some other parts of your posts interesting. 

 I do think God created us for a reason other than "our benefit".  I can't say I know what it is, not being God. But if we are in God's image, meaning having free will and reason, then we can certainly hypothesize that there might be more to the plan than we have been told.

 Could God have created us as "equals" ? Now that's an interesting question...created a bunch of other Creators? That reminds me a little of the Q Continuum. 

 Why He set evolution up to allow us to be selfish, petty, arrogant and violent, and then demand we act contrary to that, I have no clue.  Maybe we are a bit of an experiment, who knows? If we are, I'm still glad I exist. 

 As His creations, the only ones on earth that can seek Him out at present anyway, I do feel that He wants what is best for us now. I believe that is evident through Jesus' teaching. 

  If we all loved one another beyond social/cultural/religious boundaries, forgave people who wronged us, and lived unselfishly, life would be pretty wonderful in God's little Petrie dish. 

  Whatever His "ulterior motive" was/is, He obviously wants us to take care of eachother here, while He will take eternal care of us afterward. (when the "experiment" is over?) 

 I don't understand why you find the third position you mentioned the most disturbing. Believing there is something beyond simple matter is fascinating.  The God Jesus presents to us is one who loves us and forgives sins we commit (on eachother mostly), not one who arbitrarily changes the rules and damns people who seek forgiveness. As for there being no possibilty of a love between equals, I don't know, when He was in the flesh, he seemed pretty able to love people around him. I doubt He's forgotten about that. 

 This may all be silliness to you as an atheist, but I felt like expressing it anyway. :)

 

[Sarpedon]

There is no difference. For the inhabitants of the Matrix their environment is “true”. They cannot “step outside” and examine their world from that perspective. The creator can, but only in respect of the created world. He may as well live in his Matrix, which is “true” according to his senses.

God can’t be in His own matrix because God is the only self-existent “thing”. Anything that is not God is contingent upon God, and He knows that which is contingent upon Him.

You may argue that God’s “matrix” is contingent upon Him but God doesn’t know that. This can’t be true, because God is understood to be perfect in every regard. Therefore, He lacks nothing, including knowledge. If “God” didn’t know that His “matrix” is contigent upon him, he would not be the god that we worship. We worship the “final” God, the uncaused cause, wherever He is.

I know that. But here I am trying to talk about the suggested metaphysics of the theists. There is no need to assume that the “final” world, which break the regress is not just another “natural” world, unplanned, undesigned. It simply exists. There is no reason to assume that the “final” world is “supernatural”.

If the final world is purely natural, then all the problems of atheism are just moved up a level. All this accomplishes is moving the issue up a few levels, but it still remains.

Theists don’t move up a level to the final world, and then discover God through that final world. Rather, we discover God on this world, and then as a matter of course the final world is deemed supernatural.

Atheists often try to find the truth of atheism on this world, but then move the problem up and up through possible “worlds” in an attempt to evade the question. (not saying that you necessarily do that)

No, it has not. None of the arguments (and there are many) can withstand the scrutiny of serious philosphical examination. But that is again theology, and I would like to concentrate on metaphysics.

Did you read the article?

I can’t really debate this, because it is only your opinion.

No, he is not. We live in a physical reality, in our own world. We are constrained by space and time. The creator is definitely “outside” of this world. He can use his instruments and examine it, even change it. What he cannot do is “enter” it.

I said that God is in the same reality as us, not that He is in space and time. For example, the caretaker of a terrerrium is in the same reality as the terrerrium, even though he is outside of it and not bound by its confines.

Why can’t God enter His creation? I would like to see an argument in support of your position

Just like we can create (in theory) a Matrix, which is distinct from our Universe (though it is part of it), and we can examine it, but cannot physically enter it. The inhabitants can surmise our existence, but can never prove it.

How could we do this?

There could be. Intellectual curiosity, for example. It may be applied “theogony”. In this case the strict “hands off” policy would make perfect sense. The basic rule for any scientific experiment is not to interfere with it, because any interference distorts the process.

As a matter of course, the “ultimate” God, the uncaused cause, knows everything, because He is perfect. He lacks nothing.

The article on “God” at newadvent.org explains how natural philosophers (not theologians) arrive at God’s perfection, immutability, etc.

If God lacks nothing, then He knows all knowledge. If so, then He has no need to “experiment”. In fact, He has no need for anything at all. Thus, God created out of pure selflessness, since He needs nothing.

This is why deism makes no sense to me. They maintain that God creates but does not interfere, but cannot explain why God doesn’t interfere. God has nothing to gain from us, so I see no reason for Him to create other than selflessness. If His creation is out of selflessness, I cannot fathom why He would abandon us.

That is another example where the teaching makes no sense. It is impossible to do anything “for” those who do not exist. Those who do not exist, need nothing

You can do one thing: you can create them. But you can’t say that being “created” is for their benefit. The nonexistent beings have no needs, no desires. You cannot give them “presents”. You cannot hurt them. The creation can only be for the benefit of the creator. Now, if the creator is dishonest, he will deny that. But his denial is bogus.

Do you have children?

If so, why did you have them? For your own benefit? Did you bring them into being purely for the benefit of yourself, the “creator”?

The rest of your post is purely theology, and even though I am itching to answer it, I won’t, because it is not relevant to the purpose of this thread.

OK. However, it was in response your theological positions in the OP, so I didn’t think I was going off topic.

Want to start another thread?

 

[ateista]

God can’t be in His own matrix because God is the only self-existent “thing”. Anything that is not God is contingent upon God, and He knows that which is contingent upon Him.

We are still on different wavelegths. For the time being, I am not talking about God, I am only talking about the hypothetical creator of this world, and see what can we say about it. We should make as few assumptions as possible.

In theory we can create a Matrix of our own - inside our world - say in a giant computer. We can populate it with conscious beings. Compared to those beings we are “God”, extremely powerful and knowledgable. We can manipulate their world, we can create new beings, we can destroy existing ones.

For those beings the hypothesis of living in a created world would be true. But they would not know that and unless we would notify them about our existence (some kind of interference or revelation) they would never be able to verify their hypothesis.

Now what should be their behavior toward us, their creators? Do they owe us anything? Do we owe them anything?

What can we say about our own “creator”, if there is one? Only that the being (or beings) who created our world are immensly knowledgable and powerful compared to us. Nothing more. We can also ponder what should our attitude be toward those beings (if they exist)? What should their behavior be toward us?

Those are interesting problems.

If the final world is purely natural, then all the problems of atheism are just moved up a level. All this accomplishes is moving the issue up a few levels, but it still remains.

Exactly. Now why do you think it is a problem? The “final” world just “is”. Their inhabitants could wonder if their world was created, but they could not verify it either.

The conclusion is simple: whether any particular world is “standalone” or “created” it is an irrelevant question to ponder. In each world the beings should behave as if their world was the “final” one.

Why can’t God enter His creation? I would like to see an argument in support of your position

We could not enter into the Matrix, because it is a totally different type of existence. We could create a simulation of ourselves inside the Matrix, but it would just be a “copy”, while the original would still stay outside.

Do you have children?

If so, why did you have them? For your own benefit? Did you bring them into being purely for the benefit of yourself, the “creator”?

Yes, I have one kid. I love him very much, but his existence was unplanned. I never wanted to have children.

But the parents owe the children a decent upbringing, while the children do not owe the parents anything.

OK. However, it was in response your theological positions in the OP, so I didn’t think I was going off topic.

It was a different aspect of the question, which we can explore later.

Want to start another thread?

We probably shall.

 

[Contarini]

The basic problem is that of the Matrix. Is this existence “real” or do we live in a Matrix? The relevance of this question depends on a few things. If we live in the “natural” world, then the question is irrelevant. The assumption that we live in the Matrix is simply false, and should be discarded. And that is the solution of the atheists.

Well no. I don’t think it’s that simple. If materialistic atheism in its most common contemporary form (heavily informed by Darwinianism and regarding science as the most reliable source of truth) is correct, then many of our instincts and perceptions about the universe (including all our moral intuitions and all our aesthetic and emotional experiences) are side-effects of a blind process of evolution. When I act in response to an impulse of love or honor or compassion, when I experience and desire beauty–in the standard materialist account the real reasons for my feelings and actions are entirely different from what they appear to me. It seems to me that it is materialistic atheism that posits a “matrix,” in the sense that we live in a world of illusion and are manipulated by forces whose “purposes” (to speak inaccurately and anthropomorphically) are completely alien from ours.

The theist, on the other hand, believes that our impulses toward truth and goodness and beauty, our sensory and intellectual and emotional interactions with the world around us, are true and valid expressions of the fundamental nature of things–in the terminology of Christian Platonism (the classical Christian position until roughly about 1300), we live and move by participating in the Being of God. This is a completely different worldview from the silly caricature that you present in the rest of your post. (I would be quite happy to hear that your own view of the universe is very different from the no doubt clumsy description I have given above–but this is the way most of the atheists I have talked to seem to think.)

The theist’s assumption is different. They assume that we do indeed live in the Matrix - an artificial, designed and created world.

No. Nothing artificial about it. Creation reflects the nature of God.

Let’s examine what follows from this assumption. First, they can never be sure that the creator of the Matrix is “real” or it simply dwells in “his” Matrix, and his creators also live in “their” Matrix, and so on. (By the way, it is not necessary to posit one creator. There may be a team of creators. There is no logical necessity to assume only one. For the sake of simplicity I will speak of “one”.)

Obvioulsy the infinite regress must be discarded, so even the theists will assume a “final” world,

Exactly. So you are simply positing a needless hypothesis. There are in fact many people who have held to some such view, and for the basic issue at stake here it’s irrelevant whether we have direct contact with God (i.e., with the Being in whom all reality participates) or with some mediating principle. You’re just confusing the issue.

And as for the question of one God or many, in the metaphysical sense at issue here there can’t possibly be more than one God. We are talking about the ultimate nature of reality. If there were two Ultimate Natures, neither one would be ultimate.

 

[Contarini]

which is truly “natural” or as they posit it: “supernatural”. Why should it be “super”-natural? No need for that assumption.

Again, you create a pointless complication and then dismiss it with a flourish. The term “supernatural” is probably more confusing than useful. I’m happy to leave it aside.

They assume that it is the “next” level, which is the final one. Nothing at all supports this assumption.

Which assumption? That we have direct contact with Ultimate Being? (That appears to be what lies behind your language of “levels.”) That there is a “final level” of reality? I should think that the second was obvious–you just admitted that there can’t be an infinite regress. And the first is not really the point at stake here.

The real thorny question is the interaction between the hypothesized creator and the created world. If the creator does not interfere with the creation, does not reveal his existence, does not perform any purported miracles, then for all practical purposes, his existence is irrelevant. He may as well not exist.

Balderdash. If you really want to talk metaphysics, for heaven’s sake talk metaphysics. Metaphysically it’s extremely significant whether there exists an ultimate Being in which all things participate or whether reality is simply mater in motion. As I’ve suggested above, the question has great importance for how we think about human life. Theists believe that our perceptions of beauty, truth, and goodness come from God. What do you believe is the metaphysical status of such perceptions? This is not a trivial question.

The final possible scenario (which is what the theists believe) is that the creator communicates with his creation. First of all, that is the ultimate cruelty. To notify your creation, that their existence happened simply as a “whim”,

You call it a whim. I call it a free gift.

that they are created as hopelessly inferior,

This makes no sense. The point of view of classical theism is that God is an infinite Being. It is impossible for any other being not to be “hopelessly inferior” to infinite Being.

whose existence can be terminated at any time,

Because we are made from nothingness. This should be self-evident. We both agree that humans live mortal and contingent lives, and that we might not have existed and could cease to exist. How positing the existence of a God who has granted us existence and can grant us eternal life (and according to most traditional Christian views has granted us unconditional immortality, although we can choose to make it a living death) makes this self-evident reality “cruel” is beyond me.

just because the creator “feels like it”, is so horrendous, so evil that I am at a loss finding the proper words.

Truly weird.

To tell them that they could have been created as equals, but the creator chose to do it otherwise

No. “Created as equals” is a logical contradiction. To be created means by definition that we are less than infinite, less than eternal. You aren’t thinking straight.

• tells them that they are of no consequence, their whole existence is for the creator’s amusement only.

Again, this makes no sense to me. We start from the reality that humans are mortal and contingent beings. We are discussing two basic possibilities: either there is an ultimate Being from whom our limited and contingent being derives, or their isn’t. How the former hypothesis makes our lives of less consequence than the latter is utterly beyond me. You may be arguing that our lives are of no consequence in any event, but you have not stated this explicitly.

 

[Contarini]

What could be more cruel than creating living, feeling beings with at least **some level of understanding **and then relegate them to the role of helpless slaves?

The language of “helpless slaves” is irrational. A “slave” is a human being relegated to a position of servitude by another human being. Such language is only metaphorical when applied to our relationship with God. It is one legitimate metaphor, because it describes our dependence on God. But it’s not the best metaphor, because it misses the fact that we participate in God’s being and that God has chosen to make us His children (also a metaphor, but a more adequate one).

And “helpless,” again, doesn’t make any sense. Helpless compared to what alternative? Not existing at all? Existing as collections of matter and energy whose impulses and aspirations are ultimately irrelevant?

And that cannot be whitewashed by some nonsense talk about “love”. There cannot be “love” between such vastly different beings.

Well then there can’t be slavery either. Slavery is a name for what happens when one human being treats another as inferior. One can perhaps speak (animal-rights activists do) of domesticated animals as slaves, because humans and other animals are fairly similar in many ways. But if we are as different from God as all that, then calling us “slaves” makes as much sense as calling my computer a slave. (Perhaps I am my computer’s slave, but that’s another question!)

At least not the love of mutual respect and understanding, only the love of a loyal pet dog

The Christian view (admittedly we’re getting beyond the purely metaphysical question here) is that God makes us sharers by grace in His nature in such a way that something like a “love of mutual respect and understanding” is possible. However, without bringing in such specific claims based on revelation, I think you’re right. But I don’t think a “pet dog” is the best analogy. The best analogy for the relationship with God that we have purely by nature and by reason is our relationship with the universe as a whole–after all, the basic claim we are making for God is that He is the Reality behind the universe. I am not the pet dog of the universe. My relationship with it is in one sense much less, and in another sense much more, because I can understand and appreciate the universe far more (at least I think so, though this may just be arrogance) than a dog could appreciate humans and their culture.

The problem with your entire argument is that you’re starting out with a radically anthropomorphic view of God, and then ridiculing it for not being anthropomorphic enough. You start with a God who is like a very big and powerful human, and then you complain that this God doesn’t treat you like an equal. Well, your picture of God is wrong from beginning to end. It’s exactly the other way round. God is far more than just a powerful person in the sky, but He has chosen to bestow on us a finite reflection of His infinite being, and relate to us in a way analogous to the way one person relates to another. It’s quite the opposite of cruelty or tyranny. Your tyrannical God is self-contradictory. He obviously doesn’t exist. We agree on that. Now can we move on and discuss the view of God in which I and other traditional theists actually believe?

Now let’s go one step further. The creator of the Matrix can create two more additional “units”. One, where he will “reward” those who worshipped and obeyed him (heaven), and the other one, where he will punish the ones who chose not to (hell).

What Christians have often (perhaps inaccurately and unwisely, as N. T. Wright has recently argued) referred to as “heaven” is simply the direct experience of God by those who have responded to His grace and have become sufficiently like Him to enjoy that experience. It is not a “creation” of God (which is perhaps why Wright is right that “heaven” is a misleading term, since the Bible speaks of heaven–i.e., the sky–as a creation of God, and then speaks metaphorically of God living in heaven).

Hell can be described in several different ways. The way you describe it is one way Christians have spoken about it–as a place of punishment created by God originally for fallen angels, and secondarily for those humans who have chosen to reject God. However, this kind of language is liable to misunderstanding of precisely the sort into which you’ve fallen! So many of us prefer to say that hell is the absence of God–or (this is probably another way of saying the same thing) the way God is experienced by those who have finally chosen to reject Him.

It is the most “naked” equivalent of “I have the power, so OBEY me” type of the “might makes right” “moral” system.

No, that is not what Christians have classically believed. Even Calvin agreed that such a God would be monstrous. But on the hypothesis that God does exist–that there is an ultimate Being and that we can have something analogous to a relationship with Him–then to turn away from such a relationship would be to deny oneself happiness. There is nothing whatever of “might makes right” here. Hell is not arbitrary.

That is my analysis of the God-question. So even if the teists would be correct, I would side with the Lightbringer, and proclaim: “Non Serviam!”. I would say: “you cannot punish me in the name of decency and justice”, you can only punish me in the name of power.

Of course that’s how you’d respond to the silly caricature of God you have constructed, if such an impossible being actually existed. I hope and pray (to the real God) that any of us would do the same.

Now how about addressing *actual *theistic metaphysics?

Is there an ultimate Being or not? If there isn’t, what is the status of our intuitions of truth, goodness, and beauty?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I know that. But here I am trying to talk about the suggested metaphysics of the theists. There is no need to assume that the “final” world, which break the regress is not just another “natural” world, unplanned, undesigned. It simply exists. There is no reason to assume that the “final” world is “supernatural”.

Of course God (who *is *the "final world) is unplanned and undesigned. That’s precisely what theists argue.

And I’m not sure what meaning you’re giving to the word supernatural. When trying to prove that something is not the case, it helps to make it clear what that something is. God is “supernatural” in the sense that His nature infinitely surpasses the world that we know and perceive by our senses. If there were other worlds with lesser creators in them, they would not be “supernatural” in the metaphysical sense. The created world is by definition everything other than Ultimate Being (on the hypothesis that such an Ultimate Being exists).

Just like we can create (in theory) a Matrix, which is distinct from our Universe (though it is part of it), and we can examine it, but cannot physically enter it.

Sure we could enter it. We’d just have to become a being of the sort that inhabits the “Matrix” in order to do that.

Didn’t you watch the movies? What do you think the Agents are? (Of course, the hypothesis of the Matrix is that the designers are malevolent, and the theist hypothesis is that the Creator is benevolent–we can discuss the reasons for this if they are not obvious to you!)

You can do one thing: you can create them. But you can’t say that being “created” is for their benefit. The nonexistent beings have no needs, no desires.

It’s not for the benefit of the nonexistent beings. It’s for the benefit of the existent beings! In other words, it is not that there are “beings” before existence who are benefited by being created. It’s that there are beings who exist and enjoy various goods. I for one am very glad that I exist. So of course being caused to exist was to my benefit. Not the benefit of a nonexistent being, but the benefit of the me who actually exists now!

The creation can only be for the benefit of the creator.

Your logic is flawed. Indeed, on the classical theist hypothesis (according to which God is an infinite Being), nothing at all can be to God’s benefit. You can’t add to infinity.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

We are still on different wavelegths. For the time being, I am not talking about God, I am only talking about the hypothetical creator of this world, and see what can we say about it.

I’m sorry. The title of the thread was “theist and atheist metaphysics.” I naturally concluded from this that you were going to compare two forms of metaphysics–the atheist one that you hold and that of classical theism. If, instead, you are going to ask what a creator would look like starting from the premises of your atheist metaphysics, then that’s a very different discussion. You aren’t discussing theistic metaphysics at all (at least not the kind of theistic metaphysics I adhere to), and I have no interest in that discussion. It seems rather pointless to discuss what a creator would be like if he existed on atheist premises! But if you want to do that, go ahead and have fun with it!

In theory we can create a Matrix of our own - inside our world - say in a giant computer. We can populate it with conscious beings. Compared to those beings we are “God”, extremely powerful and knowledgable.

But God in classical theistic metaphysics is not simply an extremely powerful and knowledgeable being.

I suppose it was stupid of me to think that you were actually interested in discussing traditional theistic metaphysics. But hey–hope springs eternal!

Edwin

 

[ateista]

I’m sorry. The title of the thread was “theist and atheist metaphysics.” I naturally concluded from this that you were going to compare two forms of metaphysics–the atheist one that you hold and that of classical theism.

I am not sure what do you mean by “classical” theism. Theism is general in the belief of some “god” or “gods”, where the term “god” is very loosely defined.

I merely wanted to cut the metaphysics to the bare bones, and the only common denominator is that the world is not “standalone”, rather it has been "created’.

As such I am interested in discussing what kind of logical corollaries can be found based upon that premise. As it turns out, not much. The creator does not have to be “supernatural”, does not have to be “omnimax”, does not have to be “eternal”, does not have to be “unique” etc. The only logical inferences we can draw from the basic theistic assumption (namely that the world was created) are that the creators have to be very knowledgable and very powerful. That is all.

Now, if you want to extend the inferences further, you are most welcome to do so. All I ask is some logical arguments which indicate that the creators also must have certain attributes “A”, “B”, “C”, etc… which are necessary for them to have the creating power.

But God in classical theistic metaphysics is not simply an extremely powerful and knowledgeable being.

Right. In the Christian line of thought there are quite a few other attributes God is supposed to have. We could talk about those, too. I would rather do it in another thread. I prefer to keep this one simple and generic. If you wish to participate, great. If you do not, that is your choice.

I suppose it was stupid of me to think that you were actually interested in discussing traditional theistic metaphysics. But hey–hope springs eternal!

Why would it be stupid? I am very much interested in discussing the Christian variety of metaphysics, too, once we have finished the “generic” version.

 

[Sarpedon]

I wil be gone on a trip until Friday, so I will not be able to participate until then (I wonder how long the thread will be when I return… )

 

[Kim_in_Montana]

We are still on different wavelegths. For the time being, I am not talking about God, I am only talking about the hypothetical creator of this world, and see what can we say about it. We should make as few assumptions as possible.

In theory we can create a Matrix of our own - inside our world - say in a giant computer. We can populate it with conscious beings. Compared to those beings we are “God”, extremely powerful and knowledgable. We can manipulate their world, we can create new beings, we can destroy existing ones.

For those beings the hypothesis of living in a created world would be true. But they would not know that and unless we would notify them about our existence (some kind of interference or revelation) they would never be able to verify their hypothesis.

Now what should be their behavior toward us, their creators? Do they owe us anything? Do we owe them anything?

No idea. You haven’t given us enough information to be able to say who owes whom what.
Have we communicated with them at all? Have we given them signs that we exist? Have we put an inate desire in their heart to find us and get to know us? Have we given them a Way to get to know us? Have we let them know our expectations and desires for them? Have we given them reason to think we are good?
If the answer to these is yes, then our created beings would indeed be much happier by learning of us and obeying us.

Theists, especially Christians, don’t serve and worship God just because He created them. We worship God because of what He has revealed of Himself in Jesus. This makes us love and want to worship Him.

What can we say about our own “creator”, if there is one? Only that the being (or beings) who created our world are immensly knowledgable and powerful compared to us. Nothing more. We can also ponder what should our attitude be toward those beings (if they exist)? What should their behavior be toward us?

Yes, if this is all the knowledge you are allowing us, our plight does seem pretty bleak and it seems that we indeed owe God nothing just because He’s bigger than us.
That’s why we don’t love and worship God just because He’s powerful. Power does not get my love.
Not sure why you’re asking what we owe Him, anyway. How does that fit with the title of this thread?

The conclusion is simple: whether any particular world is “standalone” or “created” it is an irrelevant question to ponder. In each world the beings should behave as if their world was the “final” one.

Exactly! That’s why I don’t worry about all these other possible gods that supposedly could be out there. The God over me is the final one, as far as I’m concerned. He’s the one I need to worry about.
Though I agree with what others have said about the theist definition of God being Ultimate Reality, therefore, anything less is not rightly termed as God, and anything equal would be part of the One Ultimate Reality, i.e. God Himself!

Yes, I have one kid. I love him very much, but his existence was unplanned. I never wanted to have children.

But the parents owe the children a decent upbringing, while the children do not owe the parents anything.

Really?
If you provide your kid with a decent upbringing, he doesn’t owe you anything? Not respect? Loyalty? Care in your old age? Anything?

You seem to be saying that just because the created thing has no choice in being created, he is a powerless pawn who owes his creator nothing.
I think the more the created thing has been given by way of blessings, intelligence, etc. the more responsibility he has to look for a source.

Kim

 

[ateista]

No idea. You haven’t given us enough information to be able to say who owes whom what.

The question is left open intentionally. So far I only used the minimum amount of assumptions. We (hypothetically) created a new universe (the Matrix) and populated them with conscious beings. We are God to them, their creator and the creator of their universe. (Forget about the “ultimate being” for the time being. That assumption is not needed here, we can explore it some other time.)

Have we communicated with them at all? Have we given them signs that we exist? Have we put an inate desire in their heart to find us and get to know us? Have we given them a Way to get to know us? Have we let them know our expectations and desires for them? Have we given them reason to think we are good?

Again, I left the question open. You can attempt to answer with both assumptions, namely that we did and the one that we did not.

As a matter of fact, God did very well in this respect (if he exists). He did not give any clear-cut, unambiguous, unmistakable signs of his existence. He did not communicate with us. He did not put any “innate” desire into us to find him. And so on. The signs that believers take as a positive answer to these questions are just wishful thinking. There is no sign anywhere: “Kilroy was here”.

If the answer to these is yes, then our created beings would indeed be much happier by learning of us and obeying us.

Would they now? Why would they be happy to learn that they are just a “simulation” of reality, that they are imprisoned in an artificial environment? And “obey”? Why should we ask them to obey? What can they give us? We would give them freedom to act, and not burden them with “commandments”.

And what if we do not interfere when they come to harm? (The interference could be hidden, so they cannot know about it - but we never interfere.) The world we create is without any declaration of “sin”. We allow them to do as they please, and both good and bad happens to them. They could rightly and justly demand us to protect them from harm.

There is an ancient Oriental custom: if you save someone’s life, you assume full responsibility for his continued well-being. The creator is always responsible for the well-being of his creation.

Before anyone jumps in with the parent-child scenario, I will answer it now. The parent can relinquish his duty when the child becomes an adult. The creator can relinquish his duty if and when the created becomes his equivalent. And that is impossible. The created cannot “escape” their world, so they can never become like the creator.

Theists, especially Christians, don’t serve and worship God just because He created them.

Very well. So you agree that simply for “being created” the creator cannot expect any gratitude.

Yes, if this is all the knowledge you are allowing us, our plight does seem pretty bleak and it seems that we indeed owe God nothing just because He’s bigger than us.

That is all the actual, positive knowledge you have. The rest is just imagination.

That’s why we don’t love and worship God just because He’s powerful. Power does not get my love.

Good!

Not sure why you’re asking what we owe Him, anyway. How does that fit with the title of this thread?

It is part of the inferences coming from contemplating the relationship between the creator and the created.

Exactly! That’s why I don’t worry about all these other possible gods that supposedly could be out there. The God over me is the final one, as far as I’m concerned. He’s the one I need to worry about.

Though I agree with what others have said about the theist definition of God being Ultimate Reality, therefore, anything less is not rightly termed as God, and anything equal would be part of the One Ultimate Reality, i.e. God Himself!

If you can substantiate that the creator of the world cannot be any less, then we can talk about it in this thread. Otherwise let’s reserve those qestions for another one.

Really?
If you provide your kid with a decent upbringing, he doesn’t owe you anything? Not respect? Loyalty? Care in your old age? Anything?

Nope. If he wishes to give me those, well, and good. But that is a choice, not a duty. His duty is toward his kids.

You seem to be saying that just because the created thing has no choice in being created, he is a powerless pawn who owes his creator nothing.

Right. And let’s forget about the parent-child analogy. It is really a poor analogy.

I think the more the created thing has been given by way of blessings, intelligence, etc. the more responsibility he has to look for a source.

No. If he is visibly, unamibiguously being helped (as you say: blessed), then and only then would he have a reason to “love” his creator. That “love” should be freely given by the created, should be earned by the creator and not expected by the creator for doing his unshakeable duty.

 

[gmknowles]

I want to thank ateista for posing and bring a “philosophical” argument to the table.

As stated we need to work from philosophical arguments. Theological “believes” are not philosophical proofs.

 

[Kim_in_Montana]

The question is left open intentionally. So far I only used the minimum amount of assumptions. We (hypothetically) created a new universe (the Matrix) and populated them with conscious beings. We are God to them, their creator and the creator of their universe. (Forget about the “ultimate being” for the time being. That assumption is not needed here, we can explore it some other time.)

Again, I left the question open. You can attempt to answer with both assumptions, namely that we did and the one that we did not.

As a matter of fact, God did very well in this respect (if he exists). He did not give any clear-cut, unambiguous, unmistakable signs of his existence. He did not communicate with us. He did not put any “innate” desire into us to find him. And so on. The signs that believers take as a positive answer to these questions are just wishful thinking. There is no sign anywhere: “Kilroy was here”.

Would they now? Why would they be happy to learn that they are just a “simulation” of reality, that they are imprisoned in an artificial environment? And “obey”? Why should we ask them to obey? What can they give us? We would give them freedom to act, and not burden them with “commandments”.

And what if we do not interfere when they come to harm? (The interference could be hidden, so they cannot know about it - but we never interfere.) The world we create is without any declaration of “sin”. We allow them to do as they please, and both good and bad happens to them. They could rightly and justly demand us to protect them from harm.

There is an ancient Oriental custom: if you save someone’s life, you assume full responsibility for his continued well-being. The creator is always responsible for the well-being of his creation.

Before anyone jumps in with the parent-child scenario, I will answer it now. The parent can relinquish his duty when the child becomes an adult. The creator can relinquish his duty if and when the created becomes his equivalent. And that is impossible. The created cannot “escape” their world, so they can never become like the creator.

Very well. So you agree that simply for “being created” the creator cannot expect any gratitude.

That is all the actual, positive knowledge you have. The rest is just imagination.

Good!

It is part of the inferences coming from contemplating the relationship between the creator and the created.

If you can substantiate that the creator of the world cannot be any less, then we can talk about it in this thread. Otherwise let’s reserve those qestions for another one.

Nope. If he wishes to give me those, well, and good. But that is a choice, not a duty. His duty is toward his kids.

Right. And let’s forget about the parent-child analogy. It is really a poor analogy.

No. If he is visibly, unamibiguously being helped (as you say: blessed), then and only then would he have a reason to “love” his creator. That “love” should be freely given by the created, should be earned by the creator and not expected by the creator for doing his unshakeable duty.

 

[Contarini]

I am not sure what do you mean by “classical” theism.

Fair enough, since the term can mean several different things. But basically classical theism means the theistic philosophy developed by Christians, Jews, and Muslims on the basis of classical Greek philosophy (primarily Plato and Aristotle, or more precisely Aristotle read through the lens of Neo-Platonism). When I use the term I’m thinking first and foremost of St. Thomas Aquinas, but also of the Church Fathers (Augustine, the Cappadocians, etc.), other medieval Christian philosophers (Anselm, Bonaventure), and also Jewish and Muslim thinkers (Maimonides, Avicenna, etc.).

You are on a Catholic board, not a fundamentalist one. Fundamentalists and other Protestants may not care about classical theism. But most of us here, whether Catholic or not, start from classical presuppositions. If you aren’t going to argue against classical theistic metaphysics, you have nothing to say that is of interest to us (with regard to the philosophical question of God’s existence). At least I can speak for myself, but I suspect that I speak for most of the Catholics on the forum as well.

There are serious philosophical alternatives to classical theism. If you want to argue against those (open theism, process theism, etc.), find someone who believes in them.

Theism is general in the belief of some “god” or “gods”, where the term “god” is very loosely defined.

That is so loose as to be meaningless. We can’t possibly have a discussion on this basis. It’s like saying that you want to discuss the question of whether unicorns exist, and then defining “unicornism” as the belief in “either real or stuffed unicorns.” (Stuffed toys in the shape of unicorns do exist in plenty in Barnes & Noble–my daughter makes a beeline for them whenever we go there.) There is far more difference between God and a god (in the point of view of classical theism) than between a real unicorn and a stuffed one.

The belief in “gods” isn’t a metaphysical belief at all. A “god” as you’re defining it appears to be just any superhuman entity. An advanced alien would arguably be a “god.” I don’t know of any metaphysics that excludes the possibility that beings much better and/or more powerful than ourselves (defined in any way you choose) may exist. The question of the existence of “gods” isn’t metaphysically interesting, any more than the question of the existence of stuffed unicorns is biologically interesting.

I merely wanted to cut the metaphysics to the bare bones,

You cut them out altogether.

and the only common denominator is that the world is not “standalone”, rather it has been "created’.

As you defined theism above, that isn’t a common denominator at all. In many polytheistic mythologies, the gods just evolve along with the rest of the universe.

As such I am interested in discussing what kind of logical corollaries can be found based upon that premise. As it turns out, not much.

Depends on what you mean by “created” and what you mean by “world.” That’s why you have to start with the real metaphysical questions. If “creation” just means “fashioning a certain set of phenomena” (which seems to be what you mean by it) then it’s not a metaphysical question at all. As you point out, we can create in this sense.

Right. In the Christian line of thought there are quite a few other attributes God is supposed to have. We could talk about those, too. I would rather do it in another thread. I prefer to keep this one simple and generic.

But there is no generic “theistic metaphysics” of the sort you are discussing. Your premise isn’t a metaphysical premise at all. It sidesteps the primary metaphysical questions.

If you want to talk metaphysics, talk metaphysics. If you want to talk what logical inferences could be drawn from the hypothesis that all the phenomena we observe with our senses were created by some being not perceptible by the senses (this is my best summary of what you seem to be saying), then do that. But don’t kid yourself that you are addressing theistic metaphysics.

Why would it be stupid? I am very much interested in discussing the Christian variety of metaphysics, too, once we have finished the “generic” version.

But what you are describing is not a genus of which traditional Christian metaphysics is a subspecies. It’s a non-metaphysical premise about how the phenomena we observe came to be, and you are trying to draw metaphysical conclusions from this premise and then triumphantly announcing that the conclusions are incoherent. Of course they are.

Edwin

 

[Kim_in_Montana]

The question is left open intentionally. So far I only used the minimum amount of assumptions. We (hypothetically) created a new universe (the Matrix) and populated them with conscious beings. We are God to them, their creator and the creator of their universe. (Forget about the “ultimate being” for the time being. That assumption is not needed here, we can explore it some other time.)

Again, I left the question open. You can attempt to answer with both assumptions, namely that we did and the one that we did not.

If we did not communicate with them in any way and gave them no hint that there was something beyond their world, then I suppose they would be justified in not looking for us. But if they had anything akin to the curiosity of human beings, then it seems perfectly natural that they would look for their cause, us, and be thankful to us or at least in awe of us. But they wouldn’t owe this to us unless they felt that we had comunicated with them, blessed them, loved them, and let them know our requirements.

Religious people Do believe these things. They’re not just serving power because it is power.

As a matter of fact, God did very well in this respect (if he exists). He did not give any clear-cut, unambiguous, unmistakable signs of his existence. He did not communicate with us. He did not put any “innate” desire into us to find him. And so on. The signs that believers take as a positive answer to these questions are just wishful thinking. There is no sign anywhere: “Kilroy was here”.

Says you.
But billions of others think differently. They believe the signs of God are abundant. Not unmistakable signs, but signs nonetheless.
Some of us believe the signs are intentionally ambiguous so that our faith and free will can be preserved. That’s precisely why we Don’t believe God wants us to serve Him because He’s powerful. If that’s all He wanted, He could have forced our service and worship a long time ago.

So can you tell me, if you were the creator of a world and you wanted your creations to serve you out of love, not force, what type of signs would you give them of your existence?
I’m quite curious about this. I’ve talked with lots of people who are disgusted with God’s lack of evidence for Himself, but no one has been able to give me even one example of how God should have done things. Why the disgust if they don’t have a better alternative in view? Saying that an all-powerful God could have come up with something is just a cop-out, in my opinion.
Christians believe He has acted as He has because itt was the best alternative. Your choice not to believe that, but just your saying so does not convince me that the better alternatives do exist…

Would they now? Why would they be happy to learn that they are just a “simulation” of reality, that they are imprisoned in an artificial environment? And “obey”?

Why not?
If not for us, they’d have no life at all!
Their world is all they know. Why should they assume our world is any better or that their own world could be better than it is? What they have is what they have! They’d better just live with it, not speculate about how unfair we are! Seems to me that would be like a vanilla cake complaining that it was not chocolate. If we made it chocolate, the vanilla cake would cease to exist. It’s whole identity would be gone…

We are God’s creation just as we are. Why should we wish to be other? We cannot even imagine what the Other would be! More power at our disposal? The thought of sinful human beings with more power than they have now is rather scary!

Why should we ask them to obey?

Why not? if we know bestt? We programmed them, gave them their existence and designed the laws of their world. If we choose to tell them how they can make their existence better, why wouldn’t they be smart to listen to us?

Again, your assumtion is that we are requiring them to obey simply because we are powerful. But that is not why religious people believe.

What can they give us? We would give them freedom to act, and not burden them with “commandments”.

Why do you get to define them as burdens?
Maybe we are giving them rules to help them in the world we have designed for them.

And what if we do not interfere when they come to harm? (The interference could be hidden, so they cannot know about it - but we never interfere.) The world we create is without any declaration of “sin”. We allow them to do as they please, and both good and bad happens to them. They could rightly and justly demand us to protect them from harm.

Why?
If we stepped in every time and protected everyone from harm, how would they ever learn about the real world we had set up for them?
The world we set up for them includes oceans, mountains, fire, etc. How would they ever learn that fire burns if we stepped in and rescued them every time the fire got hot? Should our world not include mountains because someone might fall down them? Should it not include oceans because someone might drown?

I’m having a hard time imagining your scenario. So much depends on why we would create this world to begin with. If we make a beautiful world with mountains and oceans, is that beauty going to be used against us when someone gets hurt? Are our creatures going to sulk and get mad at us when they come to harm instead of learning how to survive in the world we have given them?

God gave us a world with natural law and order, so we can grow in knowledge and safety. We couldn’t grow if He was always stepping in to protect us.

There is an ancient Oriental custom: if you save someone’s life, you assume full responsibility for his continued well-being. The creator is always responsible for the well-being of his creation.

So, if you save someone’s life, does that require you spare him the “pain” of having to pay his bills? Do you demand he not take up mountain-climbing because he might get hurt?
There are lots of different ways to view taking up responsoibility for someone’s well-being…

If you can substantiate that the creator of the world cannot be any less, then we can talk about it in this thread. Otherwise let’s reserve those qestions for another one.

Well, I like Aquinas’s arguments for the attributes of God. He’s not just looking for the Creator of our world as we know it. He’s looking for the source of all existence and drawing conclusions about what that source must be like.

Nope. If he wishes to give me those, well, and good. But that is a choice, not a duty. His duty is toward his kids.

So, the only duties we have toward anyone here are toward those we have brought into existence?
I’m not following you there. But I suppose since hyou don’t like the analogy of parent-child anyway, there’s no use following it…

No. If he is visibly, unamibiguously being helped (as you say: blessed), then and only then would he have a reason to “love” his creator. That “love” should be freely given by the created, should be earned by the creator and not expected by the creator for doing his unshakeable duty.

Not sure what you mean by “expected.” God wants our love given freely. He doesn’t demand it simply because He is up there. What kind of love would that be?

I’m still confused as to the purpose of this thread. Your whole point seems to be to try to argue against something no one has said!

Kim