The Impossibility of God Creating the Universe: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » The Impossibility of God Creating the Universe » The Impossibility of God Creating the Universe

The Impossibility of God Creating the Universe
What reason would a perfect being have to make something imperfect?

Page: 1 2 3

The Impossibility of God Creating the Universe

Raugust
Dysangelist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 21, 2005
Location: United States
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 291

Posted 01/05/07 - 03:04 AM: Subject: The Impossibility of God Creating the Universe	#1
(Note that "God" is defined here as the perfect, all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing creator of the universe. This discussion will not necessarily be relevant to other, more nebulous conceptions of "God", so responses should be careful to avoid equivocating between those conceptions and the one discussed here.) The Problem of Evil can ultimately disprove God's existence with certainty only if it can be shown, as a consequence of the theist's own premises, that God's act of creating the specific universe we live in is inferior to some other possible course of action God could have chosen instead (including inaction). In other words, it must be shown that this is not the best of all possible worlds, at the very least with regards to God's direct actions (if not the whole of their indirect consequences, as per free will). Unfortunately, because of our limited knowledge, it is problematic to try and discern whether God could have created some other universe that would be superior to this one; theists are free to appeal to our ignorance of God's ultimate plan in order to justify horrific atrocities, arguing that we simply cannot know with certainty that it was possible for God to create any better world. And this is all theists need show to confirm the possibility of their belief—probability is not relevant here, as long as they can confirm any window of uncertainty whatsoever for their conception of God to slip through. Both natural evils and moral evils could, at least in theory, be justified by "the greater good", and if we assume that God's omnipotence is limited by logical contradiction, it is not inconceivable to suppose that a greater good might require an evil, simply as an inherent, immutable aspect of that good. Although some might argue here that the ends don't justify the means, we cannot say so with certainty, because the ends are (deliberately) ambiguous. Consequently, discussion of the Problem of Evil seems to have hit a roadblock. Evil might imply the nonexistence of God, but does it really logically necessitate it? I would argue that, in fact, it does. To demonstrate this, we need not go to the trouble of comparing this universe to other possible universes; rather, we need only compare this universe to the absence of any universes, or any (imperfect, finite, etc.) creations whatsoever. Doing so is much simpler, and requires less appeal to debatable hypotheticals (e.g., "could God have created a world lacking in natural evils without sacrificing the greater good?") than conventional Problem of Evil arguments. 1. God is perfect. (premise) 1a. God is perfectly knowing, i.e., omniscient. (from 1) 1b. God is perfectly powerful/able, i.e., omnipotent. (from 1) 1c. God is perfectly good. (from 1) 1d. God is not lacking, deficient, or flawed in any way; God cannot be improved upon, and nothing can be greater than God. (from 1) 2. God was the first thing, and all subsequent things arose from God as a result of God's will and act of creation, and are contingent upon God's will that they exist. (premise) 3. Because created things are contingent upon God's will that they exist, it is possible for created things to not have existed, had God not willed that they exist. (from 2) 4. The universe exists and is not God. Unlike God, the universe is imperfect and limited, and was at the very least created with the potential for evil—evil can, and does, arise from/in God's creation. (premise) 5. Because the universe exists and is not God, God willingly created the universe. (from 2 and 4) 6. It is possible for God to have not created anything, and if God had not created anything, then only God would exist; the universe would not exist. (from 3 and 5) 7. If only God existed, it would be impossible for any imperfection or evil to exist, because God, being perfect, is both completely flawless and absolutely good. (from 1) 8. Therefore if God had not created anything, there would be no imperfection or evil in the world; only perfection and goodness would exist. (from 6 and 7) 9. Because God is perfect and cannot be improved upon, it is impossible for God's creation to lead to better results than if God had not created anything. The original whole of existence, encompassing only God, is necessarily either equal to (if God only creates perfect things) or superior to (if God creates imperfect things, or things with the potential for imperfection) any later state of existence in which both God and created things exist. (from 1d and 2) 10. Because the universe is imperfect and flawed, a state of affairs in which both God and the universe exist is inferior, not equal, to a state of affairs in which only God exists. (from 4 and 9) 11. Because there would be no evil or imperfection if God had not created the world, and because there is no potential way to improve upon the perfection of God through such a creation, no results could possibly arise from God creating the universe that would be superior to God existing alone. Creation can only lead to greater imperfection, ignorance, impotence, and evil existing than there was originally; God's initial absolute perfection means that performing any action, in fact, can only cause things to go downhill, or at best be neutral. (from 8 and 10) 12. God, being perfectly good, would not choose to perform an act that would lead to worse consequences than if he hadn't performed it; being omniscient, would know the consequences of every possible action; and being omnipotent, would be capable of doing or not doing any possible action. (from 1a, 1b, 1c) 13. Therefore God would not create the universe. To knowingly and willingly create something imperfect and evil (or something with potential imperfection and evil), and to do so unnecessarily (since God was perfect and did not lack or need anything), would be an evil act, and God, being perfectly good, never willingly perform evil acts. It is thus a logical impossibility for God to have created the universe. (from 11 and 12) Any questions, comments, or objections? If this argument (or one like it; feel free to propose simpler versions of it) works, then I think we can safely say that the existence of a perfect God that created the universe is impossible.

hipskipdip
||||||||||||||||||

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2006
Location: Michigan
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 538

Posted 01/05/07 - 11:54 AM:	#2
That was very insightful Raugust! I really admire your ability to analyze arguments and I‘m happy to see you posting on the forum again! Here's two premises I would like to question: (A1) God being himself "all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing creator of the universe," as a result of his own existence there was the imperfect world or that which we can simply term “not God." (A2) Without a non-God-value as a point of imperfection there would be no definition and therefore no good or evil or perfection or imperfection in any meaningful sense (or to reverse the perception: you could just as easily say God exists as you could say he doesn't exist in this state. Since there is nothing outside of God, then there is no point is accounting for his condition). In a non-descript state in which there is nothing to be compared to God and no otherness/non-God-value, then there is no definition to premise (A2), but with the premise (A1) God there is a definition and therefore I am incline to conclude that there is an unspoken state or non-God-value of otherness. In this case, an objective observer to the God and non-God-otherness could equally choose one state to be more perfect than the other (according to the objective being's inclinations and self definition!). From our perspective, it is the God-value for which we attribute perfection (as it is the God-value who is immediately concerned with our human affairs). Concerning premise (A2), without a universe or anything that wasn't God already, would any definitions pertaining to God hold any defining attributes? (in which case, (A1) seems to hold no value without a value of comparison) My thinking follows the line that within our subjective view we've termed what is good and bad for humans, but lack that definition for a universe at large (God‘s objective view or an even greater objective view of God‘s condition). Perhaps, a sub-premise could be that God would be distinctly interested in the universe as related to humanity, otherwise, how would we know that it's imperfect or perfect? God, serving as our alternate point of view seems ridiculous since we're human and not God (and therefore appealing to our ignorance of God's, or any other objective agent’s, perspective). To abandon the premise that humanity is God‘s primary concern is to undermine the human connectedness with the God-value that so many religions claim to hold. Perhaps this could be a useful criteria. (Not to mention, concerning the human perspective, this goes back to another thread you created in which you asked if God was a good parent/creator, and therefore Good or Bad in relation to humanity and thus a contradiction to premise 1 and 1c specifically). Edited by hipskipdip on 01/05/07 - 09:47 PM. Reason: Desperate need for Clarity!
"What the world calls clever more often is vanity and narrowness." - Goethe, Faust. "I am God! How do I know? Everytime I pray to God I realize that I'm just talking to myself." - The Ruling Class "You may not agree with everything I say, but at the very least, you'll understand that your differing opinion is wrong." -Steven Colbert

ragus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 1513

Posted 01/05/07 - 12:52 PM:	#3
Raugust wrote because there is no potential way to improve upon the perfection of God through such a creation, no results could possibly arise from God creating the universe that would be superior to God existing alone. Creation can only lead to greater imperfection, ignorance, impotence, and evil existing than there was originally; God's initial absolute perfection means that performing any action, in fact, can only cause things to go downhill, or at best be neutral. (from 8 and 10) I can't see how this follows from 8 and 10. Have you established that there is no potential way for imperfection to decrease? I can see that if such potential did exist it could not logically result in a universe more perfect than God.
feeling cheerful

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 4337

Posted 01/05/07 - 01:26 PM:	#4
Raugust wrote: Any questions, comments, or objections? If this argument (or one like it; feel free to propose simpler versions of it) works, then I think we can safely say that the existence of a perfect God that created the universe is impossible. I don't see how any argument can prove (or disprove) an ontological possibility. If your argument works, the most that we can say is that we can't understand how a perfect God would have created the universe. As for the argument itself, 4 depends on the interpretation of both "evil" and "is" (the sentence "the universe is not God" is not univocal). This has some repercussions in the argument. But the major problem is that you assume that God willed the universe in order to "increase perfection" (I couldn't find a premise that says this, but it sounds like that -- please clarify). This is not univocal either. The Christian theory is that God created the universe out of love for us; in other words, the compound "God-cum-universe" is indeed more perfect (in God's eyes) than God alone, because the universe allows for people to love God, which is the greatest gift that God can give. In other, famous, words -- God is love. This is the mode of His perfection. His power, knowledge, glory, are secondary traits compared to this. And according to this mode, this universe is the perfect setting.
"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

FishFace
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 08, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 297

Posted 01/05/07 - 02:29 PM:	#5
Mariner wrote: I don't see how any argument can prove (or disprove) an ontological possibility. If your argument works, the most that we can say is that we can't understand how a perfect God would have created the universe. This carries with it two possible conclusions. Firstly, that god, as defined, did not create the universe, or that we cannot understand "perfect" and it is thus meaningless to say that god is perfect (and that he is perfectly good, powerful and knowledgeable.) As for the argument itself, 4 depends on the interpretation of both "evil" and "is" (the sentence "the universe is not God" is not univocal). Firstly, the rejection of this interpretation of evil would imply that the universe is perfect. Is this what you believe? The definition of god as the universe is firstly pointless (we already have a word for universe) secondly misleading (when people think "god" they think of something different than when they think "universe") and thirdly (to most people) contradictory to the initial premise that god is perfectly good, powerful and knowledgeable. This has some repercussions in the argument. But the major problem is that you assume that God willed the universe in order to "increase perfection" (I couldn't find a premise that says this, but it sounds like that -- please clarify). The assumption seems actually to be that a perfectly good being would not decrease perfection in the universe.

sooperhotshiz
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 90

Posted 01/05/07 - 02:33 PM:	#6
Yea, as said above, there is really no way to define perfection in God.

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 4337

Posted 01/05/07 - 02:57 PM:	#7
FishFace wrote: Firstly, the rejection of this interpretation of evil would imply that the universe is perfect. Is this what you believe? Yes, along with Leibniz (the best of all possible worlds). I add this to clarify what I mean by "perfect" -- I don't mean "without blemish". The definition of god as the universe is firstly pointless (we already have a word for universe) secondly misleading (when people think "god" they think of something different than when they think "universe") and thirdly (to most people) contradictory to the initial premise that god is perfectly good, powerful and knowledgeable. I agree, but many people wouldn't. I was not talking solely from my viewpoint. The assumption seems actually to be that a perfectly good being would not decrease perfection in the universe. I agree, but perfection is not univocal.
"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

FishFace
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 08, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 297

Posted 01/05/07 - 04:11 PM:	#8
Mariner wrote: Yes, along with Leibniz (the best of all possible worlds). I add this to clarify what I mean by "perfect" -- I don't mean "without blemish". Yes, indeed, and I thought Leibniz was a bit koo-koo when I read this particular belief, as well First of all, do you have any evidence or justification for your belief that the world is perfect? Because if not, assuming that there are more than two possible worlds, it is more likely we are in a less-than-perfect world. Then, what about having "blemish" is necessary - that must appear in every single possible world? This is a similar point; you have no justification (at least non declared) for claiming an unblemished world impossible. I agree, but many people wouldn't. I was not talking solely from my viewpoint. To which point is this directed. I agree, but perfection is not univocal. So your criticism is that the definition of god as perfect is meaningless/incoherent/wrong/something similar? I might agree, but this remains a powerful argument against those theists who believe otherwise (although, as above, the "path of least resistance" for such a theist would be to alter their belief about perfection, not about the existence of god!)

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 1529

Posted 01/05/07 - 04:49 PM:	#9
The premise that God is ‘perfect’ is vacuous. Perfect what? Perfect is a state or condition that applies to predicates. No predicate, nothing to be perfect about. To ascribe predicates such as ‘knowing,’ ‘powerful,’ and ‘good,’ and not others such as ‘angry,’ ‘jealous,’ ‘vengeful,’ ‘arbitrary,’ and ‘punishing’ is to apply arbitrarily preferred value judgments in the selection of ‘Godlike’ predicates (and to allow traditional theological speculation to trump actual Biblical evidence.) To defeat the theist's argument by showing that even given his own premises, his argument fails is indeed a tactic that appeals to my sense of irony. But still, the premise "God is perfect" is flawed. So it actually cannot function as a premise in any rational argument.
OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

Mr.Anonymous
Mr.Anonymous

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 05, 2007
Location: The Internet
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 611

Posted 01/05/07 - 06:20 PM:	#10
(Note that "God" is defined here as the perfect, all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing creator of the universe. This discussion will not necessarily be relevant to other, more nebulous conceptions of "God", so responses should be careful to avoid equivocating between those conceptions and the one discussed here.) Your agrument is perfect as long as we accept these conditions. However, God is not perfect, all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing, since such concepts cannot apply to God. The reason why many religions fail to provide a complete description of God is because they are limited by human concepts that have no meaning to that which is beyond those concepts.
Hi.

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.