A question to theists . . . . . . .

[aneeshm]

A general question to all theists here ( and not just monotheists , against whom I stand accused of having a bias ) , about the nature of God and creation .

0) Assume that in the beginning , only your God existed
1) Assume that your God possesses consciousness
2) Assume that your God possesses omnipotence
3) Assume that your God possesses onmiscience
4) Assume that your God possesses perfection

From 1) and 2) and 4) , we can deduce that

5) God does not possess the quality of desire , for desire arises only when there is limited potential to achieve the object of desire , whereas there is no object to desire in the beginning ( when only god exists ) , and the potential of God is unlimited

Therefore , we conclude that

6) God never desired

Therefore , we conclude that

7) The act of creation is impossible to God , as God has no motive to create , being completely free from desire and suffering

But that is a contradiction - for creation actually has happened . So one of our assumptions must be wrong . However , our assumptions being the definition of God itself , negating any of them involves negating the concept most people have of God itself .

Let me quote the passage which explains and suggests this ( from the book "Indian Philosophy" , regarding the alleged atheism of the Samkhya system of Hindu thought ) :

The difficulties of creation are noticed . All actions are motived by self-interest or benevolence . God , who has all his interests fulfilled , can have no more selfish interests . If God is affected by selfish motives or desires , then he is not free ; if he is free , then he would not involve himself in the act of creation . To say that God is neither free nor fettered is to remove all basis for argument . The creation of the world cannot be regarded as an act of kindness , since the souls , prior to creation , have no pain from which they require to be released . If God were moved by goodwill , he would have created only happy creatures . If it is said that differences of conduct require God to deal with men in accordance with these differences , the answer is that the law of karma is the operative principle and the aid of God is unnecessary .

With regard to the last sentence of that quote - any generalisation of that type is applicable to any rule-based property of God - that it can be explained away as a low of the universe and not requiring God .

How do you , the theists , reconcile this apparent contradiction ?

[Elok]

That argument doesn't work. "Perfection" in the sense of being free from flaws doesn't mean He's happy alone.

[SlowwHand]

That's a very good point, Elok.

[beingofone]

aneeshm:

0) Assume that in the beginning , only your God existed
1) Assume that your God possesses consciousness
2) Assume that your God possesses omnipotence
3) Assume that your God possesses onmiscience
4) Assume that your God possesses perfection

0) This is a premise that cannot be made, for anything or anyone to 'exist' there must of necessity be a comparison.

If God is 2, 3, and 4 he cannot exist of logical necessity. He must transcend existence.

From 1) and 2) and 4) , we can deduce that

5) God does not possess the quality of desire , for desire arises only when there is limited potential to achieve the object of desire , whereas there is no object to desire in the beginning ( when only god exists ) , and the potential of God is unlimited

If God cannot see and has no will, he is limited of and by what he cannot determine nor be made aware of. God is subjected to his own causality. He cannot escape himself and therefore; is subjected to his own chaos.

If there is logical deduction it must be drawn from a pattern, regardless our mind deriving such, a pattern exists none the less.

That is how we deduce cause and effect. It of necessity is true and therefore; intent to create effect.

We could say the effect creates the cause before the arrival of reality as Totality, it is pattern by and through a logical inference.

If the Totality is infinite in its nature and essence it follows as being beyond bounded or beyond all limits. If it cannot transcend and expand itself it is not infinite but must be finite as per the Law of Identity.

If the Totality is infinite it must transcend itself of necessity and therefore; intent/will with design/pattern.

7) The act of creation is impossible to God , as God has no motive to create , being completely free from desire and suffering

If Totality cannot escape itself it is finite and subject to its own cause of chaos, true.

If that which is internal to itself cannot be anything other than what it is it therefore; is bound to its own cause.

If it is infinite it is in a state of transcending all limits and boundedness and therefore; will/design.

But that is a contradiction - for creation actually has happened . So one of our assumptions must be wrong .

Two - God cannot expand or transcend himself and that God exists.

However , our assumptions being the definition of God itself , negating any of them involves negating the concept most people have of God itself .

If logic is timeless therefore; pattern, order, design as logic must have these attributes to be logic itself.

If logic then will/intent as deduced by cause and effect.

So if the Totality contains cause and effect it therefore; transcends itself as it is not limited by a cause with intent.

The difficulties of creation are noticed . All actions are motived by self-interest or benevolence . God , who has all his interests fulfilled , can have no more selfish interests . If God is affected by selfish motives or desires , then he is not free ; if he is free , then he would not involve himself in the act of creation .

Then God is limited to what it is and therefore; finite because of boundedness.

How do you , the theists , reconcile this apparent contradiction ?

If the Totality can only be itself:

Then it has an inherent limit and therefore; finite.

Any thing that can be identified is limited as it must of necessity have properties of boundedness.

If the Totality is infinite and eternal it must explore all impossibilities of necessity.

Therefore; transcendance of possibilities with will/intent with design/purpose.

If it can be nothing other than what it is, it is not infinite nor eternal.

It is beyond everything possible and impossible as per the nature of eternal and therefore; will/design.

Just look outside - it is in constant flux, never changing change. Eternal momentum and the only constant in the Totality is its very own momentum.

Follow that logic of what is self evident and tell me where you end up?

[Whaleboy]

Aneesham, while you're on the right lines, you're argument presupposes a theist premise, which is that existence in itself necessitates creation, which is not the case when considered alone. In other words, your argument depends in part on the Cosmological argument.

You'd be far better off looking at the problem of evil as expounded by Epicurus which is a more consistent argument. From Wikipedia because I can't be bothered to paraphrase:

God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, he is weak -- and this does not apply to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful -- which is equally foreign to god's nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?

[OzzyKP]

God wants to eliminate evil, and can, but it would necessitate eliminating human free will from which evil stems. And as much as God hates evil, he loves us too much to eliminate our free will. He has of course tried to get us to leave our evil/sinful ways behind, its just been difficult to convince us.

[aneeshm]

Theodicy ? It's true that that is the most unanswerable argument yet against the existence of a personal God , but it leaves open the possibility of other Gods or divinities , such as the impersonal universal consciousness Purusha of the Vedas . The above argument ( which I have presented ) eliminates the concept of a prime mover altogether , by showing that assuming he existed , he would have no motive to move anything .

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
God wants to eliminate evil, and can, but it would necessitate eliminating human free will from which evil stems. And as much as God hates evil, he loves us too much to eliminate our free will. He has of course tried to get us to leave our evil/sinful ways behind, its just been difficult to convince us.

Does this not mean that God loses his onmipotence - i.e. , he is forced to do X in order to do Y , which means that he is not potent enough to do Y without X ?

[OzzyKP]

On God's Omnipotence:

Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible. These last words of the definition do not imply any imperfection, since a power that extends to every possibility must be perfect. The universality of the object of the Divine power is not merely relative but absolute, so that the true nature of omnipotence is not clearly expressed by saying that God can do all things that are possible to Him; it requires the further statement that all things are possible to God. The intrinsically impossible is the self-contradictory, and its mutually exclusive elements could result only in nothingness. "Hence," says Thomas (Summa I, Q. xxv, a. 3), "it is more exact to say that the intrinsically impossible is incapable of production, than to say that God cannot produce it." To include the contradictory within the range of omnipotence, as does the Calvinist Vorstius, is to acknowledge the absurd as an object of the Divine intellect, and nothingness as an object of the Divine will and power. "God can do all things the accomplishment of which is a manifestation of power," says Hugh of St. Victor, "and He is almighty because He cannot be powerless" (De sacram., I, ii, 22).

More here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm

[Jaguar]

If only your talent for logic were matched by a will to punctuate like a normal person.

[SlowwHand]

He. It's He. And you can't even disprove by your theory, so how can you prove or disprove His motive? Hell, you can't even write His reference corrently.

[Sandman]

0) Assume that in the beginning , only your God existed

God exists outside of time. This raises more problems, but deals with this.

[OzzyKP]

Creation:

Since the production of something from nothing, the bridging of the chasm between non-existence and existence demands infinite power, and since the reason for the action of an infinite being must lie within that being Himself, the primary subjective motive of creation must be the Creator's love of His own intrinsic goodness. The love of that absolute good is conceived by us as "inducing" the Creator to give it an extrinsic embodiment (creation in its passive sense, the universe). The type-idea according to which this embodiment is constructed must exist within the Creator's intelligence and as such is called the "exemplary" or archetypal cause of creation (passive). The objective realization hereof is the absolute final objective end, or final cause, of creation.

More:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04470a.htm

[SlowwHand]

Time is a convenience contrived by man, and nothing else. It's only important at all on Earth.

[aneeshm]

I think it is because of the problems inherent in talking about God that Indian philosophers , whether of the six orthodox Hindu schools , or the heterodox Jain or Buddhist schools , used human consciousness as a starting point of philosophy instead of the concept of God . Because of this , the Samkhya school and Buddhism are agnostic , and Jainism is atheistic .