God and the nature of the Universe

[Cheerful Charlie]

The problem I raised is this. Why is the material Universe the way it is? Descartes states that God creates the underlying nature of reality. The metaphysical necessities. If so, we should live in a very different world than we do, if God is also concerned with us and totally good. But if God has nothing to do with these metaphysical necessities and the nature of reality, that has some implications also. Where does that come from if not God? What is its nature and why are things as they are?

I used "logic" in a very general way as a synonym for "reality" et al, and had I known it would offer a way to derail the debate, I would not have used it.

Any way we try to argue this, it entails that naturalism is real and outside of the most powerful, maximized God we can imagine.

It destroys the case for any sort of presuppositionalism, and theodicies. It makes naturalism strongly warranted as a belief, cutting across a lot of debate as to whether naturalism is warranted as a belief. Plantinga's claim that Christianity is a warranted belief with no need for evidence is refuted rather strongly.

It undercuts things like WC Lane's Kalam arguments. God is not the fundamental lowest level of reality that all other aspects of the material Universe need to explain their existence.

Descartes claim that God could have made the ratio of a circle's radius to it's circumference other than 1 if he so desired, that such laws are created by fiat by God, as a king lays down his laws by fiat. This very strong claim opens up a big can of theological worms. And if Descartes is wrong, that also is big problem.

I find it an interesting set of propositions. In my years of examining theological arguments, I have not seen anybody else argue this issue. Which doesn't mean somebody else has not, but it's not a common argument.

 

[Juma]

I've long had problems believing that logic needs a universe in which to exist. eg the concept of A and Not(A) will always = 1, as it does in normal situations, even if there are no sentient beings to conceive it. Does that concept really need a universe in order to exist? Do the concepts of truth or falsehood need to be specifically created, or does God get them for free?

Logic needs something like a human being to exist. There is no logic in the universe. There is only logic in the mind of humans (and some animals)

 

[remez]

The goal of science is to try to understand and describe the universe as it is, not to "invent" a universe.

If I "invented" new laws of motion contrary to what Newton described then the universe would simply ignore my "new laws" and continue behaving as it always has.

I concur.

The quoted "argument" seems to by nothing but an attempt at a nonsensical strawman.

No argument was presented. Maybe you should look up the word argument?

But then I would assume that a theologian would grant that god, being perfect, would not need logic. Logic is a structured method of reasoning (a tool) to better find truth but an omniscient god would already know truth so wouldn't need such a tool, only humans with their faulty reasoning would find logic useful.

Wrong assumption, but neverbrain that for now. I think we both agree, but for different reasons, that God did not “create” logic. So shall we move on?

 

[remez]

I've long had problems believing that logic needs a universe in which to exist. eg the concept of A and Not(A) will always = 1, as it does in normal situations, even if there are no sentient beings to conceive it. Does that concept really need a universe in order to exist? Do the concepts of truth or falsehood need to be specifically created, or does God get them for free?

Logic needs something like a human being to exist. There is no logic in the universe. There is only logic in the mind of humans (and some animals)

As a theist I would admit that Juma’s response would be the best explanation if you limited your reasoning to methodological naturalism only. Many philosophers and most theists reason that the philosophical limitations of methodological naturalism are self-refuting and limited if you are seeking the best explanation. Your pondering of “logic needing the universe to exist” is a reasonable query that goes beyond nature. Methodological naturalism can’t go there.

Theists purport that there exists an eternal mind beyond the natural that created this temporal universe. So in one incredible way we do stand in accord. You need a mind for reasoning/logic to exist. Theistically speaking, the temporal universe images the reasoning of an all intelligent eternal mind that transcends this temporal universe. Playfully speaking, “Theists just go one mind further.”

 

[remez]

The problem I raised is this. Why is the material Universe the way it is?

That is not exactly accurate but I’ll go with it for now.
Great question.
But the rest of that paragraph is real confusing.

Descartes states that God creates the underlying nature of reality. The metaphysical necessities. If so, we should live in a very different world than we do, if God is also concerned with us and totally good. But if God has nothing to do with these metaphysical necessities and the nature of reality, that has some implications also. Where does that come from if not God? What is its nature and why are things as they are?

Did Descartes say all that, or does your “argument” or challenge begin in there somewhere?
Please clarify exactly what Descartes said and what specifically you are challenging. A link to Descartes or quote would be useful.

Any way we try to argue this, it entails that naturalism is real and outside of the most powerful, maximized God we can imagine.

What is the “it” in “it entails”?

Also….

What do you specifically mean by naturalism is real? We simply can’t just assume that the philosophy of this “naturalism” is real until you specifically tell us what you mean. There are several different philosophies of naturalism such as methodological, epistemological, and metaphysical. All of which are philosophical constructs and open to debate. So what do you mean by “naturalism is real and outside of the most powerful, maximized God we can image?”

So………..Again.....

It destroys the case for any sort of presuppositionalism, and theodicies. It makes naturalism strongly warranted as a belief, cutting across a lot of debate as to whether naturalism is warranted as a belief. Plantinga's claim that Christianity is a warranted belief with no need for evidence is refuted rather strongly.

It undercuts things like WC Lane's Kalam arguments. God is not the fundamental lowest level of reality that all other aspects of the material Universe need to explain their existence.

….what is the “it” that destroys and undercuts?

Descartes claim that God could have made the ratio of a circle's radius to it's circumference other than 1 if he so desired, that such laws are created by fiat by God, as a king lays down his laws by fiat. This very strong claim opens up a big can of theological worms. And if Descartes is wrong, that also is big problem.

The vast majority of theologians would point out that Descartes “universal possibilism” is self-refuting and reasonably disregard it as irrational.

So supporting your argument (whatever “it” is) with an extreme self-refuting theological position really does not get you anywhere.

I find it an interesting set of propositions. In my years of examining theological arguments, I have not seen anybody else argue this issue.

What issue? What “set of propositions?”

Since you spent years studying theological arguments, why you would have cited Descartes “universal possibilism” as support of your yet clarified position against theism?

That would be like using Phrenology as support to cast doubt on brain studies.

 

[abaddon]

I've long had problems believing that logic needs a universe in which to exist. eg the concept of A and Not(A) will always = 1, as it does in normal situations, even if there are no sentient beings to conceive it. Does that concept really need a universe in order to exist? Do the concepts of truth or falsehood need to be specifically created, or does God get them for free?

You’re saying you have trouble believing concepts happen even when no one’s around to conceive the concepts.

Concepts only happen in minds capable of abstract reasoning. Logic is abstract reasoning. It happens in minds, not "out there" if you're not some variety of platonist.

Principles are highly abstracted from their origin: phenomenal reality. Their abstraction makes it easy to imagine they exist in and of themselves as abstractions distinct from reality, opening the door for some to entertain a platonic idealism.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Descartes in his letters to Marin Messines stated that God lays down the laws of the Universe as a King lays down his laws by fiat. God could make 2 X 4 = other than eight or could make the ration of a circle's radius to it's circumference different than 1. He states that God by fiat creates the laws of morality. It is impossible to think of mountains without valleys but that is only because of the limitations of his mind.

God is truly omnipotent without limits. This is an old idea with its basis going back to the thoughts of William of Okham, and Duns Scotus of the concepts of God's omnipotence. There have been debates on God's actual omnipotence vs his potential omnipotence, and Descartes is claiming God's omnipotence is potentially total and in actuality is total.

Given further claims about the nature of God derived from the Bible, that is revelation, God must be held to be both perfectly good and to be concerned with our activities.

Descartes and Messines were both orthodox Catholics.

These claims obvious create theological problems for the concept of God. Metaphysical naturalism trumps God.
If God creates the rules, the laws of the Universe, it's metaphysical necessities, there could be no hidden limits or reasons for God not to eliminate moral evil in the Universe. Which are the sort of claims made to explain away the problem of evil. God is limited.

But if God cannot adopt the laws of the Universe to eliminate moral evil, than naturalism is more powerful than God. Or God is, contrary to revelation, not concerned with us or morally good.

Descartes thus takes God to the maximum power imaginable but in doing so opens up the concept of God to some self defeating claims that establish naturalism as inescapable. As a strong atheist I find that interesting indeed.

If God is good, loves us, has free will and is truly super-omnipotent, then we should see a far different world than the one we are confronted with on a daily basis.

If supposed revelation is wrong, then all claims made about God based on supposed revelation are ignorable as unwarranted. If God is not super-omnipotent, God may not exist and all we need to explain the Universe is naturalism. A God that is subservient to naturalism means we have the question what is that naturalism and where dies it come from?

But we end up trying to shoehorn a less than maximum God into the Universe and revelation, a hypothesis at best. The usual theological game of saving appearances.

Descarte's statements force us to consider the ramifications of his claims, his hypotheses and his claims create some rather problematic ideas about the nature of God. And that impacts everybody else's claims about God. This puts many claims about God on the skids.

 

[remez]

Descartes in his letters to Marin Messines stated that God lays down the laws of the Universe as a King lays down his laws by fiat. God could make 2 X 4 = other than eight or could make the ration of a circle's radius to it's circumference different than 1. He states that God by fiat creates the laws of morality. It is impossible to think of mountains without valleys but that is only because of the limitations of his mind.

God is truly omnipotent without limits. This is an old idea with its basis going back to the thoughts of William of Okham, and Duns Scotus of the concepts of God's omnipotence. There have been debates on God's actual omnipotence vs his potential omnipotence, and Descartes is claiming God's omnipotence is potentially total and in actuality is total.

Just because this is an old debate does not change fact that the vast majority of theologians find it unreasonable and have completely rejected it. You have not made the case that God can do that which is logically impossible.

Given further claims about the nature of God derived from the Bible,

“Given further” indicates you are trying to make a case that God can perform logical impossibilities. He cannot. Your case fails.

These claims obvious create theological problems for the concept of God.

Not if you know a little history.

Metaphysical naturalism trumps God.

Isn’t that assuming what you are trying to prove?

If God creates the rules, the laws of the Universe, it's metaphysical necessities, there could be no hidden limits or reasons for God not to eliminate moral evil in the Universe. Which are the sort of claims made to explain away the problem of evil. God is limited.

You have not made the case that there are no limits. You have not made the case there are no reasons. You just seem to assume there is a logical contradiction between two attributes of God and volitionally reject any “nameless” claims to the contrary.

After all the existence of an (1) all loving, all powerful God and (2) evil, are not logically incompatible. Neither is a negation of the other.

In order to be considered a logical contradiction, you would need to show that (1) an all loving, all powerful God exists and (2) an all loving, all powerful God does not exist.

But there isn’t any explicit contradiction between (1) and (2) as you have argued. So if you are claiming these are implicitly contradictory then you must be assuming some hidden premises that would bring out the contradiction and make it explicit.

So what are your hidden assumptions to claim they are logically incompatible with each other?

Descartes thus takes God to the maximum power imaginable but in doing so opens up the concept of God to some self defeating claims that establish naturalism as inescapable. As a strong atheist I find that interesting indeed.

Again Descartes “hidden possibilism” is more widely rejected than phrenology. His thesis does not render theology as self-defeating. It is his thesis that is self-defeating. You have no support here.

But we end up trying to shoehorn a less than maximum God into the Universe and revelation, a hypothesis at best. The usual theological game of saving appearances.

Back at you. This is the usual atheistic game of supporting your case with a defunct and rejected piece of theological reasoning to claim God does not exist. Straw man.

Descarte's statements force us to consider the ramifications of his claims,

Only if you are desperate enough to consider such statements as reasonable to begin with.

I do not deny this concept was debated within theology. But the concept was soundly rejected. It is disingenuous to use it now as a premise for an argument that concludes God does not exist.

Thus your argument fails.

 

[DBT]

Atheistic games?

There being insufficient evidence to support a justified belief in the existence of a God or gods, forming or holding a conviction/belief in the existence of a God or gods is not justified.

 

[Learner]

Logic needs something like a human being to exist. There is no logic in the universe. There is only logic in the mind of humans (and some animals)

I would agree, if assuming you mean 'human logic by a humans own understanding . People sometimes imagine or theorize that if we are not the only intelligent life forms in the universe, meaning other civilizations out there. This then would mean logic would exist elsewhere other than a human mind by this proposition. By this theory there must be a common template or a logic base throughout.

 

[Learner]

to add .. you did of course mention animals too and not just humans are capable of some forms of logic.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Just because this is an old debate does not change fact that the vast majority of theologians find it unreasonable and have completely rejected it. You have not made the case that God can do that which is logically impossible.

Given further claims about the nature of God derived from the Bible,

“Given further” indicates you are trying to make a case that God can perform logical impossibilities. He cannot. Your case fails.

It is NOT a case of doing the logically impossible as you mischaracterize this. It is a matter of where the metaphysical necessities of this material Universe come from. For Descartes and others, God creates them.

What remains to do is work out the ramifications of these claims which to date, theologians have not done. As to whether God can do logical impossibilities, some serious theologians have speculated god could do just that, but my take on a Super-Omnipotent God does not involve that question, as you have repeatedly suggested.

The issue is, why is the Universe what it is. Either the metaphysical necessities of the Universe are created by God or they are not. Either claim you choose to think about poses problems for the concept of an Omnipotent God.

For Christianity, revelation is an important claim. You can't just wave it away without destroying a basic claim about how we can know about and understand God. Hence revelation is an important source of claimed knowledge about God. If you abandon claims supposedly backed up by revelation, you abandon revelation as a supposed source of knowledge, and as an atheist, I am then entitled to claim revelation is meaningless if it can be said to be wrong.

My disproof stands. God is not a reasonable concept.

 

[remez]

Atheistic games?

Note the context….

But we end up trying to shoehorn a less than maximum God into the Universe and revelation, a hypothesis at best. The usual theological game of saving appearances.

Back at you. This is the usual atheistic game of supporting your case with a defunct and rejected piece of theological reasoning to claim God does not exist.

CC was presenting the defeated logical version of the PoE, with the twist of trying to support his argument with Descartes’ hypothesis of “hidden possibilism”. He really checkmated himself from the beginning. He just doesn’t realize it yet.

My comment there was mirroring his simplistic unsupported dismissal of the refutations to his argument by referring to them as games. My point was to demonstrate that it does not work that way, because there is nothing wrong with simply turning the table and claiming his efforts are games as well. It’s useless and gets you nowhere.

 

[remez]

….It is a matter of where the metaphysical necessities of this material Universe come from. For Descartes and others, God creates them.

Conditionally agree, because Descartes' “hidden possibilism” goes too far and is considered theologically defunct.

…..As to whether God can do logical impossibilities, some serious theologians have speculated god could do just that, but my take on a Super-Omnipotent God does not involve that question, ….

But “hidden possibilism” has been the only support you have cited to dismiss the refutations that sink the logical version of the PoE.

What remains to do is work out the ramifications of these claims which to date, theologians have not done.

With or without “hidden possibilism”, theologians have repeatedly refuted the logical version of PoE.

For Christianity, revelation is an important claim. You can't just wave it away without destroying a basic claim about how we can know about and understand God. Hence revelation is an important source of claimed knowledge about God. If you abandon claims supposedly backed up by revelation, you abandon revelation as a supposed source of knowledge, and as an atheist, I am then entitled to claim revelation is meaningless if it can be said to be wrong.

As I understand that, it is reasonable.

My disproof stands. God is not a reasonable concept.

How?
You haven’t even presented a complete argument let alone prove it.

As I have already shown you, there is no logical incompatibility between (1) an all-powerful, all-loving God exists and (2) evil exists. Because…..again….neither is the negation of the other.

In order to be considered a logical contradiction, you would need to show that (1) an all-loving, all-powerful God exists and (2) an all loving, all powerful God does not exist. Or that (1) evil exists and (2) evil does not exist.

But there isn’t any explicit contradiction between (1) an all-powerful, all-loving God exists and (2) evil exists as you have argued. So if you are claiming these are implicitly contradictory then you must be assuming some hidden premises that would bring out the contradiction and make it explicit.

So I asked you………….

So what are your hidden assumptions to claim they are logically incompatible with each other?

You did not present your hidden premises. So here is my guess, based on your posts so far, at what you are trying to prove.…..

(3) From (1) it follows necessarily an all-powerful God can create any world he wants.
(4) From (1) it also follows necessarily an all-loving God prefers a world without suffering.
(5) Given (3) and (4) contradict (2).
(6) Therefore God does not exist.

Your thoughts?

 

[Juma]

Logic needs something like a human being to exist. There is no logic in the universe. There is only logic in the mind of humans (and some animals)

As a theist I would admit that Juma’s response would be the best explanation if you limited your reasoning to methodological naturalism only. Many philosophers and most theists reason that the philosophical limitations of methodological naturalism are self-refuting and limited if you are seeking the best explanation. Your pondering of “logic needing the universe to exist” is a reasonable query that goes beyond nature. Methodological naturalism can’t go there.

Theists purport that there exists an eternal mind beyond the natural that created this temporal universe. So in one incredible way we do stand in accord. You need a mind for reasoning/logic to exist. Theistically speaking, the temporal universe images the reasoning of an all intelligent eternal mind that transcends this temporal universe. Playfully speaking, “Theists just go one mind further.”

Theist have no evidence of such a mind and can thus be dismissed without further notice.

 

[remez]

As a theist I would admit that Juma’s response would be the best explanation if you limited your reasoning to methodological naturalism only. Many philosophers and most theists reason that the philosophical limitations of methodological naturalism are self-refuting and limited if you are seeking the best explanation. Your pondering of “logic needing the universe to exist” is a reasonable query that goes beyond nature. Methodological naturalism can’t go there.

Theists purport that there exists an eternal mind beyond the natural that created this temporal universe. So in one incredible way we do stand in accord. You need a mind for reasoning/logic to exist. Theistically speaking, the temporal universe images the reasoning of an all intelligent eternal mind that transcends this temporal universe. Playfully speaking, “Theists just go one mind further.”

Theist have no evidence of such a mind and can thus be dismissed without further notice.

I get it.
I get it.
I hear your mumbled voice through the walls crying, “That’s outside the cave.”

But, CC’s thread deals with a topic outside of your comfort zone of methodological naturalism. Some of us like to get out of that cave every now and then to reason what is outside.
Give it a try.
It won’t hurt you.

 

[Juma]

Theist have no evidence of such a mind and can thus be dismissed without further notice.

I get it.
I get it.
I hear your mumbled voice through the walls crying, “That’s outside the cave.”

But, CC’s thread deals with a topic outside of your comfort zone of methodological naturalism. Some of us like to get out of that cave every now and then to reason what is outside.
Give it a try.
It won’t hurt you.

You are making an error of category:
That is not outside my comfortzone. Its bullshit.

 

[DBT]

There is no 'proof' that a God doesn't exist.

As there is no evidence for the existence of a God (whatever that is), there is no reason to hold conviction in the existence of a God (whatever that is).

A belief in the existence of a God {whatever that is), is not justified.

 

[Juma]

There is no 'proof' that a God doesn't exist.

As there is no evidence for the existence of a God (whatever that is), there is no reason to hold conviction in the existence of a God (whatever that is).

A belief in the existence of a God {whatever that is), is not justified.

Ahum. A god of the abrahamitic sort cannot exist. It would require a force besides the known ones and that is ruled out by modern physics.

 

[Learner]

Could not the Abrahamic God be the actual unknown force ?