Board index ‹ Creation and Evolution

[Newbie]

Christians are quick to say that the universe is obviously fine-tuned, and thus, designed by God.

But does the act of creation not acknowledge a poverty of power?

For example, ID proponents argue that an engine obviously indicates a designer, and that they can apply that same logic to the universe. God is thus the designer.

But why was that engine created? It was created by desire of man, to fulfill a power that he lacked himself.
Ahh the ID proponent says, but not everything is made for a utilitarian purpose. For example, look at poetry! What uselessness in the form of fancy prose!

But I say this: why do we create poetry, or any type of art? It is born of a desire. Maybe a desire to feel, or a desire to be heard. But there is always some type of desire. If one had not a desire, art would not be created.

And what is desire but a poverty of some quality?

Intelligent creation is anthropomorphization of a natural phenomenon. If you wish to say god is a transcendental mind, you imply this mind desires something by creating. And because of this desire, you acknowledge God's imperfection.

So what is more likely? That the bible is the inerrant word of God? Or that maybe we created God and his "inerrant word" out of a poverty of knowledge, a desire to rest our impoverished thoughts?

[jimwalton]

> But why was that engine created?

The analogy lies in the causal mechanism behind the product, not in the intent of the designer.

> And what is desire but a poverty of some quality?

But a poverty of some quality is not a moral deficiency or a deprivation of one's attributes. Sometimes desire is the expression of perpetuity rather than paucity. When I want to love my wife more, it's not because my love has been lacking, but because it's exploding.

I disagree that intelligent creation is anthropomorphization of a natural phenomenon. The Bible would say that it's an expression of God's eternal nature. God's desire to augment the number of creatures to love is not a statement of privation but of expansion, which is part of his infinite nature.

And your conclusion I think is a false choice. The Bible can be inspired and authoritative, and it's the revelation of a God who does not experience or manifest any poverty of power or deprivation of knowledge.

[Newbie]

"But why was that engine created? The analogy lies in the causal mechanism behind the product, not in the intent of the designer."

It was a rhetorical question. Obviously, I realize it was not the point of the argument.

"And what is desire but a poverty of some quality? But a poverty of some quality is not a moral deficiency or a deprivation of one's attributes. Sometimes desire is the expression of perpetuity rather than paucity."

Paucity of love would be an inherent weakness that would indicate non-omnipotence. Just so we're clear, impoverishment does not mean "devoid of." The fact that God is not maximal in any case proves he is not omnipotent.

"When I want to love my wife more, it's not because my love has been lacking, but because it's exploding."

Lack of self containment, another impoverishment.

"I disagree that intelligent creation is anthropomorphization of a natural phenomenon. The Bible would say that it's an expression of God's eternal nature. God's desire to augment the number of creatures to love is not a statement of privation but of expansion, which is part of his infinite nature."

He would have no desire to do so if he were all good, which is perfect completeness, which comes from omnipotence. If he desired something, it is an admittance of weakness, and God is not weak in any way, he is the absolute. Therefore it is an anthropomorphization, because we attribute our feeling of desire to God, but desire is born of imperfection.

[jimwalton]

It sounds like anything can come under your definition of lack. "Happiness" is impoverished because it's a lack of despair; "purpose" is impoverished because it's a lack of meaninglessness. Love is a lack of self-containment? A statement like that borders on the absurd.

"Paucity of love would be an inherent weakness that would indicate non-omnipotence."

Right. I said the opposite. I said that some love is an expression of perpetuity, not paucity.

"The fact that God is not maximal in any case proves he is not omnipotent."

This statement is another absurd one. First of all, you haven't given any evidence that God is not maximal. Secondly, you haven't defined omnipotence. So thirdly, you're conclusion that this point is "proved" doesn't follow.

"If he desired something, it is an admittance of weakness"

I couldn't disagree more. Desire can easily come from fullness.

[Newbie]

"It sounds like anything can come under your definition of lack. "Happiness" is impoverished because it's a lack of despair; "purpose" is impoverished because it's a lack of meaninglessness. Love is a lack of self-containment? A statement like that borders on the absurd."

That's not what I was implying at all. All I'm saying is that desire is born of a poverty, because you want or wish for something; if you did not want or wish for something, you would feel as though your needs are sufficiently met, therefore there is no insufficiency, or as I called it: a poverty.

"What is completely absurd is saying that 'God could not contain himself and his love and the universe was born from that.' "

I don't want to be offensive, so I will refrain from sharing my full analysis of such a statement; but I will clue you into the fact that a statement like that is not only beyond what humans are capable of even reasoning about, but that it is the biggest stretch one can make to wiggle out of an argument. It seriously takes cajones to even say such a thing... And it takes quite bit of restraint on a rational mind's part to not tear that terrible "argument" a new one.

I said, "Paucity of love would be an inherent weakness that would indicate non-omnipotence," and you replied, "Right. I said the opposite. I said that some love is an expression of perpetuity, not paucity."

Admittedly, i misread that on my first read through. What love is an expression of perpetuity other than your claim of God?

I also said, "The fact that God is not maximal in any case proves he is not omnipotent," and you replied: "This statement is another absurd one. First of all, you haven't given any evidence that God is not maximal. Secondly, you haven't defined omnipotence. So thirdly, you're conclusion that this point is "proved" doesn't follow.

According to apologetics on the UA, god must be omnipotent to be the hypothetical pure potentiality that hypothetically could start the universe. It follows from omnipotence that he must have the ability to do anything that is not contradictory to logic, his existence, or his nature. All powerful is not talking about literal strength, clearly the UA does not need our concept of strength as a transcendental, timeless, spaceless being. If he is not maximal in all logical cases, then he is lacking power and therefore not omnipotent.

Then I said, "If he desired something, it is an admittance of weakness," and you replied, "I couldn't disagree more. Desire can easily come from fullness."

Oh? What desire comes from fullness? Why would someone want or wish for something if they are satisfied with their state of being?

[jimwalton]

You asked, "What desire comes from fullness? ... What love is an expression of perpetuity other than your claim of God?"

My daughter has 3 children: 2 natural born, and one adopted. They are very happy and complete as a family, but they keep looking at abandoned children around the world and wish to do something about it. Despite that they are very happy as they are, they want to help another child. Now, in my mind that desire is not one of insufficiency, but of perpetuity. They have more love that they want to share, not because they are lacking, but because it is overflowing in them.

You said, "god must be omnipotent to be the hypothetical pure potentiality."

I guess we need to talk about omnipotence. I don't understand when you say first that "omnipotence [means] he must have the ability to do anything that is not contradictory to logic, his existence, or his nature," but then you seem to chide God for lacking omnipotent power "if he is not maximal in all logical cases." So help me understand: if omnipotence means he is maximal in all logical cases (not contradictory to logic, existence, or nature), how can you conclude then that he is not maximal in all logical cases and therefore not omnipotent? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to understand what you are saying.

[Martha]

This is going to be lengthy, and so I warn you. But i like to give thought out arguments rather than what Aquinas did when he made the argument: "god created out of an abundance/excess of joviality/love." (Or however he wrote it, I've been linked to the summa before and read the arguments, so I'm not mocking exactly what he wrote if that's what you're thinking).

What desire comes from fullness? What love is an expression of perpetuity other than your claim of God?

I read your illustration of your daughter and her adopting another child. I think you may be taking "poverty" a little too literally, or in other words, you're allowing a certain connotation of the word -a negative one- to discolor your analysis of my use of it. Poverty, or a lacking if you will, does not have this meaning you seem to be inferring upon its use in this argument.

First off, to even make a claim that love is quantifiable -as you are doing with this Thomistic argument- is unreasonable.

Secondly, the metaphor of "the fall" is a great demonstration of how ignorance is bliss, and with knowledge comes responsibility and discontentedness of suffering.

Your daughter, with the knowledge that they have of these children -most likely due in part to the world's current state of "interconnectedness"- have a sense of discontentedness, or a lacking of sufficient contentedness, that these children are suffering. The capacity to love is directly inverse to the feeling of being perfect -that is: the more one feels they are perfect, the less capacity they have to love others- and the ones who admit to their imperfections the most, happen to be the ones with the greatest capacity for love. What I argue is that their desire to help these children stems from a lack of contentedness with the knowledge of the condition of those kids' lives. If they had not the knowledge, they would not help the children. Ignorance is bliss. But feigned ignorance is inexcusable (why capitalism is pretty shitty and why Jesus would completely be against it).

This is also another one of my arguments against omnibenevolence in an omnipotent UA: for if he is omniscient and omnipotent (of which the UA is defined to be), there should be no human suffering. Some may argue that people suffer because of other humans, and the problem of evil is solved by God giving us free will. But this completely sweeps under the rug the fact that millions die from natural disasters or natural occurrences -like brain aneurysms- all the time.

I argue that it is the Christian's lack of awareness due to living in such a cushy society such as the US, that allows them to believe in this personal God who hears them, but doesn't hear the millions of others suffering.
Seriously, Jesus was so heavily embraced by people because they were sick of "God on earth," (naturally royal bloodlines, kings, dictatorships). And it's totally understandable that people would die and fight for the idea that the one true ruler must be in the sky and not on earth. Who wouldn't die for that cause? I implore you to empathize with a plebian of roman times. How sick would it make you to hear that some people are just born into holiness and royalty and that you just naturally aren't worth the same? It would make anyone sick. Hence Christianity's popularity, its secrecy at first, and why the Romans killed them in droves. People have forgotten the whole reason why we wanted so badly an immaterial ruler: so that all humans became intrinsically equal. A noble cause it was, but now that we have rowed ashore, to use the boat of religion is to impede our progress.

You said, "god must be omnipotent to be the hypothetical pure potentiality .... I guess we need to talk about omnipotence. I don't understand when you say first that "omnipotence [means] he must have the ability to do anything that is not contradictory to logic, his existence, or his nature," but then you seem to chide God for lacking omnipotent power "if he is not maximal in all logical cases." So help me understand: if omnipotence means he is maximal in all logical cases (not contradictory to logic, existence, or nature), how can you conclude then that he is not maximal in all logical cases and therefore not omnipotent. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to understand what you are saying."

Because you're starting from the unfounded assumption that God, as defined by Thomism must have necessarily created the universe. There are a couple things I'm arguing here:

First, that if God did create the universe, he wasn't omnipotent.

Secondly, that the UA as defined by Thomism is strictly incompatible with the creation of the universe, and what goes on in said universe.

And thirdly, that if Thomism is correct in its hypothetical analysis that the only way that God could exist and have created the universe is if he is the UA, that God necessarily did not create the universe and that there is no God. (But to say Thomism is the only correct interpretation is silly... Right?)

I'm saying an Omnipotent being as defined by Thomism, the UA if you will, isn't contradictory in terms of logic, his nature, or his existence. It is only contradictory in light of the claim that he has anything to do with the existence of the universe and mankind.

[jimwalton]

Well, I'll readily admit that I'm not well-read in Thomas Aquinas, but I'm surprised how easily you dismiss him. Even when people disagree with him, they still respect him as a formidable intellect.

Secondly, I'm quite confident, even from your single sentence, that you have a serious misunderstanding of the fall, since it had nothing to do with ignorant bliss. That's a subject we could take up as you wish.

Thirdly, I would ask for a patient explanation for my benefit of your first conclusion: If God created the universe, he wasn't omnipotent.

[Martha]

I never said Thomas Aquinas wasn't a formidable intellect. Newton was a genius, but he heavily believed in alchemy. Just because I don't agree with some things an intellectual says, doesn't mean i dismiss them outright.

These men were geniuses no doubt, but they are a slave of their times. If I was around before 1850, there's no doubt that I would be a christian. They just didn't have the knowledge we have now.

Their ideas were cutting edge, years ago, but now we have so much more evidence that religious people purposely ignore; evidence that happens to be unfavorable towards God existing, or wholly unnecessary.

You said, "Secondly, I'm quite confident, even from your single sentence, that you have a serious misunderstanding of the fall, since it had nothing to do with ignorant bliss. That's a subject we could take up as you wish."

There are many things you can learn from that story. There is no misunderstanding, because it is a metaphorical story that you give meaning to yourself.

To say you have the proper interpretation is a "serious misunderstanding" of your authority on such a topic, among many other things. I never said the story's meaning is limited in its scope to what I inferred, which you seem to be mistakenly inferring. It is but one inference we can draw from the story, it doesn't mean I think that is the point of the story of the fall (because I never said that).

You also asked for a patient explanation for my benefit of your first conclusion: If God created the universe, he wasn't omnipotent.

The problem is that christians think they can just choose which traits they think suit god best. That is not how it works.

If he is (logic-)omnipotent, he is all powerful and has the ability to do anything that does not defy logic, his nature, or his existence.

This means he cannot make 2+2=5, he cannot know what it is like to not know something (because if he is all powerful, he is obviously omniscient, or else he wouldn't be all powerful), and he cannot have the ability to not exist (or else he wouldn't exist).

If god is all powerful, it follows that he lacks no thing (that does not defy logic, his nature or his existence). If he lacked some thing, he would not be all powerful. Hence God is "all-good" or perfectly complete. He lacks no thing. If he lacks no thing, he would not create the universe, because that would be admitting the he lacked some thing... The universe.

The problem is that Christians don't realize that God's attributes aren't to be based around our "creation," or in other words, having God made out to be a certain way to fit the "evidence." So just because his omnipotence is contradictory with the creation of our universe, doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It just means he wouldn't be omnipotent, because he wouldn't lack anything if he were.

[jimwalton]

Agreed that Aquinas, Newton, and all of us are products of our culture and our environment and times. No question about it.

> it is a metaphorical story that you give meaning to yourself.

There's nothing in the story to suggest it's a metaphor. That's an interpretation you are overlaying on it, I would guess because that's the way you want to see it. The Bible lays it out as an archetypal story, not a metaphoric one. Adam & Eve in the text are portrayed as historical personages, and that interpretation/perception is confirmed throughout Scripture. Yet the point of the writing is the role that they played as archetypes for humanity. As such, given the intent of the author and the literary and theological context of the segment, the "ignorance is bliss" interpretation is not one of the possible choices.

> That is not how it works.

I couldn't agree more. I don't know what discussions you've had that brought up the perception that Christians think they can pick and choose. It's just not so, as is logically obvious. The character of God is not subject to popular vote or anyone's opinion.

Your first three paragraphs under the "omnipotent" section I agree with wholeheartedly, until you get to the sentence "If he lacks no thing, he would not create the universe, because that would be admitting the he lacked some thing... The universe." That goes back to your previous premise that any desire betrays a deficit, but that's what you haven't proved. Being a creator is an expression of his character, not an acknowledgement of a deficiency. I'm a musician; I do music; I like to do music. It doesn't logically stem from a deficiency in me, but is an outworking of a love that I have. God is a creator; he creates; he likes to create. But his attributes, despite your false accusation, are not based around creation. His attributes have nothing to do with it, except that creation reveals his attributes, as my music reveals something about my personality. We see God in creation, but he doesn't need us to be fulfilled. Ah, but I can already see your mind spinning: "How could God fulfill his attribute of 'Creator' without creation?", hence he lacked something without it.

First, I would comment that it's a diminution of God to assert that his creative energy can only find a legitimate outlet in material things. The Bible says he created time, and he created spirit beings, for example. It's reductionistic to claim that without the material world God is deficient.

Secondly, some attributes of God are expressed in different measures, and can even be withheld, even though they are attributes of his being. Power is one of them. Despite that God is omnipotent, his power can be issued in certain directions, certain places, and in varying amounts. (That's different from his holiness, for instance, that is constant.) This is not something I'm making up, but is clearly taught in the Bible. God's attributes are not based around creation, and Christians don't have to contort God to make him fit the evidence, as you have claimed.

You still haven't proved your premise (A desire necessitates a deficiency). I'd love to see a tight syllogism if you have one.