The Apathetic God Paradox-Refuted

[Carrikature]

Induction is the process whereby gathering evidence eventually leads to the formation of a hypothesis (or premise). The validity of induction has long been a contentious topic in philosophy. IMO induction is not logical. The relevance to the arguments in this topic is that IMO again is simply that there can never be enough evidence to "back" any assertion irrefutably. While I do suspect there are facts that are well nigh irrefutable (I exist; I eat; I sleep; etc.), they are all but irrelevant compared to the vast sea of ignorance we all are swimming in.

Depending on one's epistemology, there are various mechanisms for establishing premises. My take is that certain beliefs are held as axioms and are thus unassailable to a large degree. Consistency becomes the method for determining if a given axiom is reasonable, but even that can only be evaluated in relation to other axioms. The idea of a properly basic belief is a similar idea, so far as I can tell.

[Truthseeker]

Depending on one's epistemology, there are various mechanisms for establishing premises. My take is that certain beliefs are held as axioms and are thus unassailable to a large degree.

I think that means it takes a great degree of finesse to get someone to change his beliefs.

Consistency becomes the method for determining if a given axiom is reasonable, but even that can only be evaluated in relation to other axioms. The idea of a properly basic belief is a similar idea, so far as I can tell.

Consistency with other beliefs? Anyway, how about this: If a proposed or candidate premise appears to be more reasonable than another that has been adopted, it can replace that.

[Carrikature]

I think that means it takes a great degree of finesse to get someone to change his beliefs.

It can, yes. It depends on the someone, the belief, and how strongly the belief is held. I'd go so far as to say that some beliefs may be unchangeable.

Consistency with other beliefs?

Consistency with other beliefs and one's understanding of relevant information.

Anyway, how about this: If a proposed or candidate premise appears to be more reasonable than another that has been adopted, it can replace that.

Works for me.

[seer]

The only credible objection would be to say that God’s creative action, or at least the existence of motivational factors, was non-volitional – part of God’s nature. Indeed, to restrict God’s choices when faced with a theological problem is the hallmark of presuppositionalism, for example. So it’s easy to imagine that a theologian would use such an excuse here also.

But just as in the case of the presuppositionalist positing that logic is part of God’s nature, such an objection is built on completely ad hoc grounds. Furthermore, the imposition of any motivating factor on God contradicts the idea of a god’s nature being unlimited.

This is nonsense. It is not ad hoc even scripture puts limits on God (i.e. God can not lie, not that He chooses not to lie, and I am the Lord God, I change not). God's nature certainly does constrain Him, or compels Him. And this idea of God's unchangeable nature is not limited to presuppositionalists.

[TimelessTheist]

It's also not the case that he asserts end-relational theory without any substantiation. He has provided a line of reasoning in support of the claim.

How did he substantiate end-relational theory, exactly?

You are free to disagree that desires come from limits, but if you wish to show him wrong, you need to do more than just say so.

Actually, if he wants his argument to work, he has to prove that his line of reasoning is correct. The burden is on him.

No one has said anything about morality being created.

I'm not sure what you're saying then.

Anyway, the solution to this argument is to basically say that God's creative drives are an intrinsic part of his being, but the piece rightly points out that this is ad-hoc. However, if it was true that morality, and certain desires such as love, creativity, ect. were innate to all of mankind, the ad-hoc accusation completely falls apart.

As I said, neither position has been proven yet, however, since neither position has been proven, his argument will not convince anyone on the opposite side.

[Carrikature]

How did he substantiate end-relational theory, exactly?

The underlying premises are 1) that humans have needs, and 2) humans possess limited ability (what he calls metaphysical power) to meet those needs. Neither of these are questionable. You said:

I also do not grant that certain desires come from limit, but are innate to the being.

This is less of a disagreement than it is a rephrasing. He too considers the desires to be innate, and he considers the limits to be innate. The difference is that he suggests a being with unlimited metaphysical power could self-fulfill any and all innate desires. We do not have unlimited metaphysical power, so we are left with desires that remain unmet. It's not so much that the desires come from limits, but that our limits give rise to unmet desires.

Further, our limited metaphysical power means that we have to pick and choose what desires we seek to fulfill. To quote him: "We need morality because we are faced with choices and we have to manage our resources – be they money, time, social relationships, whatever." This is basically end-relational ethics in a nutshell.

Actually, if he wants his argument to work, he has to prove that his line of reasoning is correct. The burden is on him.

As I've mentioned once already in this thread, shifting burden of proof around is a pointless exercise. Moreover, this response misunderstands what I said. The title of this thread claims to have refuted the argument. You have not done so. Simply stating that you disagree with the premises is not enough. Mandating that the author prove his line of reasoning is also not refuting the argument.

I'm not sure what you're saying then.

You said that you don't grant morality is created. That statement is irrelevant. Since neither the author of the article nor myself have claimed morality is created, it matters not one whit whether or not you grant that it was.

Anyway, the solution to this argument is to basically say that God's creative drives are an intrinsic part of his being, but the piece rightly points out that this is ad-hoc. However, if it was true that morality, and certain desires such as love, creativity, ect. were innate to all of mankind, the ad-hoc accusation completely falls apart.

This is false. The issue presented is that the existence of intrinsic creative drives means that God's actions are non-volitional. If God's actions are non-volitional, this means he has limits on his actions (and inactions). This is only a problem if you suppose God is either unlimited or possesses free will, but both are almost definitional anyway.

As I said, neither position has been proven yet, however, since neither position has been proven, his argument will not convince anyone on the opposite side.

As I said before, it's certainly fine to stipulate that it is unconvincing. Don't confuse that with the argument being wrong.

[Truthseeker]

It seems to me that the author needs to define "morality" in a way that is independent of the argument. For one thing, someone could say that every being has his own system of morals or ethics. Even Hitler could be said to have his.

[Carrikature]

It seems to me that the author needs to define "morality" in a way that is independent of the argument. For one thing, someone could say that every being has his own system of morals or ethics. Even Hitler could be said to have his.

I'd actually say that the author needs to remove morality from the article altogether. The intent of the article was to show how an omnipotent being would be apathetic. One need never mention morality to do that. It reads to me as if the first few paragraphs are really the author getting to his point rather than being part of the point.

[seer]

The difference is that he suggests a being with unlimited metaphysical power could self-fulfill any and all innate desires.

God is love, could it not be an innate characteristic of God's love to share said love?

[JonathanL]

I'd actually say that the author needs to remove morality from the article altogether. The intent of the article was to show how an omnipotent being would be apathetic. One need never mention morality to do that. It reads to me as if the first few paragraphs are really the author getting to his point rather than being part of the point.

He also needs to define what he means by potentialities. I know of one type of potentiality, and traditionally it has been held that God does not contain any potentialities at all while the author on the contrary seem to think that God contains all potentialities within Himself. Based on the fact that he thinks that God also contains all actualities within Himself it would seem to me that his understanding of God contain one big glaring contradiction, unless he has some idiosyncratic definition of the word "potentiality".

IOW, until he defines what he means by potentialities his argument is impossible to evaluate. And in the case that he uses potentiality in the traditional sense it's patently invalid.

[Truthseeker]

The author talks about Superman becoming more apathetic than ordinary humans because he can do things that we can't. Yet in every comic book that he appears in, he appears to be busy enough. And always having to cope with a serious problem or more. And if he has love for people, like Christians are supposed to, I can conceive his doing stuff like helping to clean up Fukushima or the junk in the Pacific Ocean. Or rescuing the people of North Korea from its government. Increasing police brutality in the USA. Many problems for him to help with.

[Carrikature]

He also needs to define what he means by potentialities. I know of one type of potentiality, and traditionally it has been held that God does not contain any potentialities at all while the author on the contrary seem to think that God contains all potentialities within Himself. Based on the fact that he thinks that God also contains all actualities within Himself it would seem to me that his understanding of God contain one big glaring contradiction, unless he has some idiosyncratic definition of the word "potentiality".

IOW, until he defines what he means by potentialities his argument is impossible to evaluate. And in the case that he uses potentiality in the traditional sense it's patently invalid.

I agree. This guy isn't terribly good at expressing what he means for all that he *might* have an interesting point.

The author talks about Superman becoming more apathetic than ordinary humans because he can do things that we can't. Yet in every comic book that he appears in, he appears to be busy enough. And always having to cope with a serious problem or more. And if he has love for people, like Christians are supposed to, I can conceive his doing stuff like helping to clean up Fukushima or the junk in the Pacific Ocean. Or rescuing the people of North Korea from its government. Increasing police brutality in the USA. Many problems for him to help with.

Superman is not without desire. He may not have all of the same needs/desires that ordinary humans do, but it's still possible that his existing desires are very strong. In fact, having fewer needs would probably mean he can devote more time/energy to meeting the needs he does have.

[shunyadragon]

God is love, could it not be an innate characteristic of God's love to share said love?

I consider 'God is love' to be too simplistic to reflect 'What is God?' Love would be an attribute of the nature of God and an attribute of Creation reflected in the nature of being human that evolved by natural processes. The different types of love are necessary for the survival of the family and community required to cooperate, and nurture and raise each generation.

[seer]

I consider 'God is love' to be too simplistic to reflect 'What is God?' Love would be an attribute of the nature of God and an attribute of Creation reflected in the nature of being human that evolved by natural processes. The different types of love are necessary for the survival of the family and community required to cooperate, and nurture and raise each generation.

Yes shuny, I'm sure you do think it is to simplistic but thankfully we have Scripture to set us straight. And yes when Scripture says that God is love, or God is just, or merciful or righteous, it is speaking of His attributes. And in keeping with the objection in the OP these attributes are inherent to His nature, not merely attributes He decides to exercise as if He could decide otherwise.

[Jedidiah]

I consider 'God is love' to be too simplistic to reflect 'What is God?' Love would be an attribute of the nature of God and an attribute of Creation reflected in the nature of being human that evolved by natural processes. The different types of love are necessary for the survival of the family and community required to cooperate, and nurture and raise each generation.

Scripture does not teach anywhere that God can be fully defined by love. This is clearly nothing more than a strawman.