God’s reason for regularity

[Speakpigeon]

If an almighty and omniscient god wanted to create a complex universe with man in it, presumably he wouldn’t need to create a regular universe, i.e. one that could be considered as governed by strict laws*. Assuming that he would also want man to have free will, this almighty god would presumably be capable of creating any irregular universe he would want to without being limited in the level of complexity he would wish it to have. What kind of compelling reason do you think such a god could have in choosing nonetheless a regular universe?
EB

(*) Laws may or may not exist independently of the created universe.

 

[Horatio Parker]

If an almighty and omniscient god wanted to create a complex universe with man in it, presumably he wouldn’t need to create a regular universe, i.e. one that could be considered as governed by strict laws*. Assuming that he would also want man to have free will, this almighty god would presumably be capable of creating any irregular universe he would want to without being limited in the level of complexity he would wish it to have. What kind of compelling reason do you think such a god could have in choosing nonetheless a regular universe?
EB

(*) Laws may or may not exist independently of the created universe.

The Platonic answer is that some inherent quality in matter, the stuff available to God to work with, prevents it from achieving the perfection of the idea.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If an almighty and omniscient god wanted to create a complex universe with man in it, presumably he wouldn’t need to create a regular universe, i.e. one that could be considered as governed by strict laws*. Assuming that he would also want man to have free will, this almighty god would presumably be capable of creating any irregular universe he would want to without being limited in the level of complexity he would wish it to have. What kind of compelling reason do you think such a god could have in choosing nonetheless a regular universe?
EB

(*) Laws may or may not exist independently of the created universe.

The Platonic answer is that some inherent quality in matter, the stuff available to God to work with, prevents it from achieving the perfection of the idea.

I don't see why you restrict yourself to Plato's philosophy. Any reason?

I'm not entirely sure how you mean it but why would matter have any inherent qualities, i.e. have qualities before the god could decide on the specifics of the universe he's going to create? Why would an almighty god found himself somehow restricted in his choices by mere matter. Cannot matter and its properties be entirely his creation?

Also, I'm not sure why you think the god would be prevented from achieving the perfection of the idea. It is assumed in the OP that the god wanted to create a complex universe with man in it and for man to have free will. What idea gets to remain imperfectly implemented here?
EB

 

[Bronzeage]

If an almighty and omniscient god wanted to create a complex universe with man in it, presumably he wouldn’t need to create a regular universe, i.e. one that could be considered as governed by strict laws*. Assuming that he would also want man to have free will, this almighty god would presumably be capable of creating any irregular universe he would want to without being limited in the level of complexity he would wish it to have. What kind of compelling reason do you think such a god could have in choosing nonetheless a regular universe?
EB

(*) Laws may or may not exist independently of the created universe.

Assume there is an omnipotent omniscient entity who is independent of time and space, who happened to create the universe and all in it.

Why why would one assume a human being who is a very small part of that universe could understand it, or accurately perceive pattern and regularity? Why should our vantage point and limited view give us the information to draw valid conclusions about the universe or its creator?

 

[Horatio Parker]

The Platonic answer is that some inherent quality in matter, the stuff available to God to work with, prevents it from achieving the perfection of the idea.

I don't see why you restrict yourself to Plato's philosophy. Any reason?

No reason other than I like it.

I'm not entirely sure how you mean it but why would matter have any inherent qualities, i.e. have qualities before the god could decide on the specifics of the universe he's going to create? Why would an almighty god found himself somehow restricted in his choices by mere matter. Cannot matter and its properties be entirely his creation?

Obviously God in this scenario either isn't all powerful or, just as bad, erred in using faulty material. Ex nihilo is a Christian invention AFAIK. In the Platonic universe, the order or intelligibility of creation is the divine creation, not the matter. The potential ie raw material existing formless or chaotic was preexisting.

Also, I'm not sure why you think the god would be prevented from achieving the perfection of the idea. It is assumed in the OP that the god wanted to create a complex universe with man in it and for man to have free will. What idea gets to remain imperfectly implemented here?
EB

I would say the universe isn't perfect. Maybe I'm wrong and God is right, but if this is a perfect universe, I can't see it.

Seems to be an attempt to reconcile the idea of perfection with the limitations we all know exist. The Gnostics pose a corrupt creator God(which explains a lot). In Christianity, suffering is central but still the imperfection manifests itself in injustice.

From Timaeus

Let me tell you then why the creator made this world of generation. He was good, and the good can never have any jealousy of anything. And being free from jealousy, he desired that all things should be as like himself as they could be. This is in the truest sense the origin of creation and of the world, as we shall do well in believing on the testimony of wise men: God desired that all things should be good and nothing bad, so far as this was attainable.

Anyway, all of these stories are really about one thing: the emergence of consciousness and the problems that that emergence entails.

 

[Bronzeage]

...
I would say the universe isn't perfect. Maybe I'm wrong and God is right, but if this is a perfect universe, I can't see it.

....

Take two toxic substances, sodium and chlorine, combine the two with a stable bond and create a substance that is not only critical to life processes, it also makes food taste better.

That may not be perfect, but it's damned convenient.

How do you know you are not looking at a perfect universe?

 

[Horatio Parker]

The same way those who know its perfect know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bronzeage]

The same way those who know its perfect know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What are the chances of being wrong on this one?

 

[Speakpigeon]

If an almighty and omniscient god wanted to create a complex universe with man in it, presumably he wouldn’t need to create a regular universe, i.e. one that could be considered as governed by strict laws*. Assuming that he would also want man to have free will, this almighty god would presumably be capable of creating any irregular universe he would want to without being limited in the level of complexity he would wish it to have. What kind of compelling reason do you think such a god could have in choosing nonetheless a regular universe?
EB

(*) Laws may or may not exist independently of the created universe.

Assume there is an omnipotent omniscient entity who is independent of time and space, who happened to create the universe and all in it.

Why why would one assume a human being who is a very small part of that universe could understand it, or accurately perceive pattern and regularity? Why should our vantage point and limited view give us the information to draw valid conclusions about the universe or its creator?

There is absolutely no a priori reason that man created by an almighty god should necessarily understand his reasons. I also don't see any good reason to assume that man should be able to understand the working of the universe, created or uncreated. However, people seem to at least try to act according to their beliefs and I'm sure (I believe) that many people have this incontrovertible urge to explain the actions of the god they believe in when they do.
EB

 

[Bronzeage]

Assume there is an omnipotent omniscient entity who is independent of time and space, who happened to create the universe and all in it.

Why why would one assume a human being who is a very small part of that universe could understand it, or accurately perceive pattern and regularity? Why should our vantage point and limited view give us the information to draw valid conclusions about the universe or its creator?

There is absolutely no a priori reason that man created by an almighty god should necessarily understand his reasons. I also don't see any good reason to assume that man should be able to understand the working of the universe, created or uncreated. However, people seem to at least try to act according to their beliefs and I'm sure (I believe) that many people have this incontrovertible urge to explain the actions of the god they believe in when they do.
EB

Discussions such as this always degenerate to the absurd, as soon as someone sees fault in the universe, because "it's not the way I would have done it."

Similarly, it's just as absurd to declare the universe to be perfect, based on such a tiny sample as a human brain can absorb.

It's a battle of the absurdities, with the only viable position being, "don't we have something better to do?"

 

[Speakpigeon]

I don't see why you restrict yourself to Plato's philosophy. Any reason?

No reason other than I like it.

I'm not entirely sure how you mean it but why would matter have any inherent qualities, i.e. have qualities before the god could decide on the specifics of the universe he's going to create? Why would an almighty god found himself somehow restricted in his choices by mere matter. Cannot matter and its properties be entirely his creation?

Obviously God in this scenario either isn't all powerful or, just as bad, erred in using faulty material. Ex nihilo is a Christian invention AFAIK. In the Platonic universe, the order or intelligibility of creation is the divine creation, not the matter. The potential ie raw material existing formless or chaotic was preexisting.

Also, I'm not sure why you think the god would be prevented from achieving the perfection of the idea. It is assumed in the OP that the god wanted to create a complex universe with man in it and for man to have free will. What idea gets to remain imperfectly implemented here?
EB

I would say the universe isn't perfect. Maybe I'm wrong and God is right, but if this is a perfect universe, I can't see it.

Seems to be an attempt to reconcile the idea of perfection with the limitations we all know exist. The Gnostics pose a corrupt creator God(which explains a lot). In Christianity, suffering is central but still the imperfection manifests itself in injustice.

From Timaeus

Let me tell you then why the creator made this world of generation. He was good, and the good can never have any jealousy of anything. And being free from jealousy, he desired that all things should be as like himself as they could be. This is in the truest sense the origin of creation and of the world, as we shall do well in believing on the testimony of wise men: God desired that all things should be good and nothing bad, so far as this was attainable.

Anyway, all of these stories are really about one thing: the emergence of consciousness and the problems that that emergence entails.

Ok, so this is clearly a derail: First, the god is assumed all-powerful and omniscient. Second, I didn't specify that it was our universe he created.

Also, it would be Ok to have the god starts from preexisting formless or chaotic raw material as long as the god could do anything he wanted to do with it.
EB

 

[PyramidHead]

Soluble fiber?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Discussions such as this always degenerate to the absurd, as soon as someone sees fault in the universe, because "it's not the way I would have done it."

This is the metaphysics forum. Please address your complaint to the manager.

Similarly, it's just as absurd to declare the universe to be perfect, based on such a tiny sample as a human brain can absorb.

I didn't assume the universe to be perfect. I start with assuming the god wants two things: a complex universe with man in it and free-will given to man. Whether the result would be perfect may not even make sense beyond including these two elements.

It's a battle of the absurdities, with the only viable position being, "don't we have something better to do?"

Do you? And if so why are you even responding?

Also, you are assuming perhaps that this is a frivolous topic or something but compared to most of the posts on this website I think this is serious stuff.
EB

 

[Bronzeage]

This is the metaphysics forum. Please address your complaint to the manager.

Similarly, it's just as absurd to declare the universe to be perfect, based on such a tiny sample as a human brain can absorb.

I didn't assume the universe to be perfect. I start with assuming the god wants two things: a complex universe with man in it and free-will given to man. Whether the result would be perfect may not even make sense beyond including these two elements.

It's a battle of the absurdities, with the only viable position being, "don't we have something better to do?"

Do you? And if so why are you even responding?

Also, you are assuming perhaps that this is a frivolous topic or something but compared to most of the posts on this website I think this is serious stuff.
EB

I said absurd, not frivolous. If you want to present an argument which proposes there is some seriousness to it, you have the free will do so, if we do not consider the possibility that an omnipotent entity has already ordained you will do so.

 

[Eldarion Lathria]

Soluble fiber?

I was thinking milk of magnesia.

Eldarion Lathria

 

[Horatio Parker]

The same way those who know its perfect know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What are the chances of being wrong on this one?

You are apparently assuming an objective perfection or lack thereof that can be measured and compared with my concept, with a result expressed numerically?

Not sure how that relates to a context of God creating universes.

As for my perception of a lack of perfection, there's no chance I'm wrong about that.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Ok, so this is clearly a derail: First, the god is assumed all-powerful and omniscient. Second, I didn't specify that it was our universe he created.

Also, it would be Ok to have the god starts from preexisting formless or chaotic raw material as long as the god could do anything he wanted to do with it.
EB

Ah, not this universe.

A regular universe would be predictable which seems indispensable to free will. After all, you can't choose without perceiving the choices.

 

[Bronzeage]

What are the chances of being wrong on this one?

You are apparently assuming an objective perfection or lack thereof that can be measured and compared with my concept, with a result expressed numerically?

Not sure how that relates to a context of God creating universes.

As for my perception of a lack of perfection, there's no chance I'm wrong about that.

The context is quite plain. One one side of the scale we have the mental capacity of the creator of all things, and on the other side of the scale, a human brain.

Can a human truly judge perfection? My mother thought I was perfect, but others disagree. What is the use of an infinitely subjective standard?

 

[braces_for_impact]

Metamucil?

 

[Horatio Parker]

You are apparently assuming an objective perfection or lack thereof that can be measured and compared with my concept, with a result expressed numerically?

Not sure how that relates to a context of God creating universes.

As for my perception of a lack of perfection, there's no chance I'm wrong about that.

The context is quite plain. One one side of the scale we have the mental capacity of the creator of all things, and on the other side of the scale, a human brain.

Can a human truly judge perfection? My mother thought I was perfect, but others disagree. What is the use of an infinitely subjective standard?

What alternative is there?