The Apathetic God Paradox-Refuted

[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?

[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.

[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]

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.

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.

[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.

[seer]

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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[Carrikature]

1) Well, the end-relational theory is essentially materialistic in nature, as is any attempt to explain morality that doesn't involve transcendent, objective moral values. Not to mention that the end-relational theory is just one of many, but in the article, he asserts it as if it is the proven explanation.

This is false. Nothing in end-relational theory requires materialism, nor is materialism required in the manner you suggest. Materialism is an ontological belief, not a moral/ethical one. The way you discuss materialism, it's as if you think that's the only option available to and/or held by non-theists. It's not.

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. That reasoning is logically valid. Using that same reasoning, he establishes an apathetic God. If you wish to refute the article, you need to show how the argument is either unsound or invalid. Merely saying that it is unsound is not good enough.

2) It does not use premises that are already accepted. I don't accept that morality is created by careful consideration of which option to take in light of multiple goals, heck, I don't even grant that morality was "created" at all, at least, not by mankind. I also do not grant that certain desires come from limit, but are innate to the being.

No one has said anything about morality being created. You need to be really careful to respond to what's being said without inserting your own interpretations into it. 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. Again, all you're doing is rejecting the argument's soundness because you don't share the premises. That is not the same thing as having refuted it.

I don't have to if he can't substantiate his claim that morality and all desires are purely the product of limits.

You're right, you don't have to refute his argument. Nonetheless, that is what you've claimed to do in the OP. If you wish to simply reject the argument, there's no point continuing the discussion. Just don't suffer under the illusion that your rejection means anything to anyone else.

Alright, you're right, there.

If the premises are not objective, then I would, indeed, consider the argument to be unsound.

Consider it that way all you like, but don't expect anyone else to take it seriously until you bother to substantiate it.

[Truthseeker]

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.

[TimelessTheist]

This is false. Reread the article. He does not assert morality and desire as materialistic. Rather, he claims that desire comes from the existence of a limit. The pursuit of the desire is a goal which generates action. The deliberation of which action to take in light of multiple goals which are not all achievable gives rise to morality. This is basically end-relational ethics, and it's presented using premises that are already accepted (unless you wish to dispute that we have limits). Further, the real thrust of the article is to show that a theistic representation of God is one in which God lacks all limits and therefore lacks a reason to act. God is already 'fulfilled' or, as the authors puts it, full of 'metaphysical power'. You haven't refuted his argument if for no other reason than you've yet to substantially interact with it.

1) Well, the end-relational theory is essentially materialistic in nature, as is any attempt to explain morality that doesn't involve transcendent, objective moral values. Not to mention that the end-relational theory is just one of many, but in the article, he asserts it as if it is the proven explanation.

2) It does not use premises that are already accepted. I don't accept that morality is created by careful consideration of which option to take in light of multiple goals, heck, I don't even grant that morality was "created" at all, at least, not by mankind. I also do not grant that certain desires come from limit, but are innate to the being.

You haven't refuted his argument if for no other reason than you've yet to substantially interact with it.

I don't have to if he can't substantiate his claim that morality and all desires are purely the product of limits.

This is false. An unsubstantiated claim is an assertion. Begging the question is stating the conclusion as a premise and using that premise to prove the conclusion. It's a form of circular reasoning.

Alright, you're right, there.

Now you're misusing still more terminology by confusing validity with soundness. An argument can be valid (the conclusion follows from the premises) without it being sound (the premises are true). There is a difference between 1) showing an argument to be invalid, 2) showing an argument to be unsound, and 3) rejecting the soundness of an argument because you don't accept the premises. You can refute an argument by achieving #1 or #2, but that isn't what you're doing. You're doing #3. That's why I say you haven't refuted the argument but rejected it.

If the premises are not objective, then I would, indeed, consider the argument to be unsound.

[Carrikature]

No he doesn't. He just asserts his materialistic understanding of morality and innate desires, with no objective reason for people who don't share his own worldview to accept it.

This is false. Reread the article. He does not assert morality and desire as materialistic. Rather, he claims that desire comes from the existence of a limit. The pursuit of the desire is a goal which generates action. The deliberation of which action to take in light of multiple goals which are not all achievable gives rise to morality. This is basically end-relational ethics, and it's presented using premises that are already accepted (unless you wish to dispute that we have limits). Further, the real thrust of the article is to show that a theistic representation of God is one in which God lacks all limits and therefore lacks a reason to act. God is already 'fulfilled' or, as the authors puts it, full of 'metaphysical power'. You haven't refuted his argument if for no other reason than you've yet to substantially interact with it.

"Backing" and "evidence" are the same thing.

Please quote the entirety of my sentences as a whole. You would better see why this statement is irrelevant. That you can present evidence for a position does not mean you've successfully proven it. Perhaps more importantly, no one has even used the term evidence in this thread.

When you make an unsubstantiated premise, that people of your worldview accept, towards people with a different worldview than yours, who have no objective reason to accept said premise, then it is question begging.

This is false. An unsubstantiated claim is an assertion. Begging the question is stating the conclusion as a premise and using that premise to prove the conclusion. It's a form of circular reasoning.

Well, now you're just trying to argue semantics. If an argument isn't logically sound, that is, if it uses a logical fallacy (such as question begging), then, yes, I would consider it "refuted". I guess you could say that "it isn't convincing" as well, but I don't see the difference.

Now you're misusing still more terminology by confusing validity with soundness. An argument can be valid (the conclusion follows from the premises) without it being sound (the premises are true). There is a difference between 1) showing an argument to be invalid, 2) showing an argument to be unsound, and 3) rejecting the soundness of an argument because you don't accept the premises. You can refute an argument by achieving #1 or #2, but that isn't what you're doing. You're doing #3. That's why I say you haven't refuted the argument but rejected it.

By the way, 'semantics' is a word which refers specifically to meaning. If we're arguing the meaning of a word or given words, that can be extremely important. If we don't agree on meaning, we can't successfully communicate. 'Just arguing semantics' is a common pejorative that is too often misused, as it is here. I'm pragmatic enough to not argue over a definition unless I think the difference is significant. If you don't understand why I think it significant, just ask.

I never 'said' that the other premise was proven false, I simply said that there's no objective reason to accept it, and then argument fails as a result of it.

Again, what you have done is #3 while claiming to do #1 or #2. The argument has NOT been refuted, merely rejected. Those are different things, as I've shown.

[TimelessTheist]

First, he does provide backing for his claim.

No he doesn't. He just asserts his materialistic understanding of morality and innate desires, with no objective reason for people who don't share his own worldview to accept it.

his is not the same thing as it being proven.

"Backing" and "evidence" are the same thing.

Second, an unsubstantiated claim is not the same as question begging. Getting the terminology right is a necessary start to coherent discussion.

When you make an unsubstantiated premise, that people of your worldview accept, towards people with a different worldview than yours, who have no objective reason to accept said premise, then it is question begging.

Those are different things. If you simply wish to say that the argument is unconvincing, the only real response is, "so what?" What you attempted was a refutation, but your support for the refutation is invalid.

Well, now you're just trying to argue semantics. If an argument isn't logically sound, that is, if it uses a logical fallacy (such as question begging), then, yes, I would consider it "refuted". I guess you could say that "it isn't convincing" as well, but I don't see the difference.

That is the backing to which I've been referring.

I never 'said' that the other premise was proven false, I simply said that there's no objective reason to accept it, and then argument fails as a result of it.

[Carrikature]

What do you mean "the backing you provided fails"? What backing? I never provided any backing to the theistic viewpoint, I simply pointed out that people who don't already share his worldview have no reason to accept the starting premise of his argument, thus, it's not going to convince anyone who doesn't already share his worldview. 'He's' the one that needs to provide the backing, if he doesn't want his entire argument to amount to question begging. The fact that it has no objective backing in the first place means that it IS an unproven assertion.

There are several issues with what you're saying. First, he does provide backing for his claim. This is not the same thing as it being proven. Second, an unsubstantiated claim is not the same as question begging. Getting the terminology right is a necessary start to coherent discussion. Third, you did not initially state anything in reference to the argument's efficacy. Rather, you claimed that the argument was refuted. Those are different things. If you simply wish to say that the argument is unconvincing, the only real response is, "so what?" What you attempted was a refutation, but your support for the refutation is invalid. The existence of an unproven premise does not demonstrate that another unproven premise is false. That is the backing to which I've been referring.

You've already substantially changed your claim and this is only post #10. That's not a good sign...