On God's Sovereignty

[Meow Mix]

This was one of my first posts to this forum, but I think it's been long enough to bring some fresh blood into the discussion.

There are two commonly held intuitions about God which create a paradox (which Alvin Plantinga calls the "aseity-sovereignty paradox"):

1) God exists a se, unto God's self, meaning God isn't relevantly dependent on any other states of affairs in order to exist and to exist as God: nothing created God, God needn't rely on anything existing causally prior in order to exist, etc.

2) God is sovereign, meaning that God's will is supreme; anything which exists exists that way because God wills it to be so.

The paradox is introduced when we ask the question: is God self-sovereign? Did God choose to be God?

Here, things get sticky: if God had no choice but to be God, then God isn't self-sovereign. But then why does God exist as God unless something transcendental to God and outside God's control makes that the case? If God isn't self-sovereign, then God is neither a se nor completely sovereign, and this goes against our common intuitions.

So, what happens if we try to argue God does have self-sovereignty (and chose to be God)? Well, we quickly find that this is impossible. It puts the cart before the horse: in order for God to do something like, say, pick and choose God's own properties, God must paradoxically already possess some properties -- for instance, knowledge of what properties are possible for God to possess and power to actualize them. The question immediately arises -- where would those properties have come from? It's obvious God couldn't have chosen them because in order to choose them God needs to have already had properties of power and knowledge -- and I hope you can see this is an endless quagmire. In the end, we find that God having self-sovereignty over God's "initial" properties isn't even a possibility to ponder.

As this dilemma is dichotomous -- either God is a se/sovereign or not -- turns out the answer can only be "not." If a God exists, something must exist transcendentally to said God in ways that said God has no control over (if anything, at least whatever that is that allows God to have the properties that God has).

 

[Kemosloby]

That brings up a question I wonder about. God the Father does things by the power of the Holy Spirit. So why does the Holy Spirit do what God wants the Holy Spirit to do? It would seem that the Holy Spirit has all the power yet chooses to do what God the Father decides.

 

[Tumah]

This question I think can be answered using an apophatic approach. G-d does not have any discernible qualities to His existence. There is no quality of being G-d, that's a label we give to the One whose existence is independent of any quality.

 

[Meow Mix]

That brings up a question I wonder about. God the Father does things by the power of the Holy Spirit. So why does the Holy Spirit do what God wants the Holy Spirit to do? It would seem that the Holy Spirit has all the power yet chooses to do what God the Father decides.

I've never been able to make logical sense out of the Trinity

 

[Enoch07]

This was one of my first posts to this forum, but I think it's been long enough to bring some fresh blood into the discussion.

There are two commonly held intuitions about God which create a paradox (which Alvin Plantinga calls the "aseity-sovereignty paradox"):

1) God exists a se, unto God's self, meaning God isn't relevantly dependent on any other states of affairs in order to exist and to exist as God: nothing created God, God needn't rely on anything existing causally prior in order to exist, etc.

2) God is sovereign, meaning that God's will is supreme; anything which exists exists that way because God wills it to be so.

The paradox is introduced when we ask the question: is God self-sovereign? Did God choose to be God?

Here, things get sticky: if God had no choice but to be God, then God isn't self-sovereign. But then why does God exist as God unless something transcendental to God and outside God's control makes that the case? If God isn't self-sovereign, then God is neither a se nor completely sovereign, and this goes against our common intuitions.

So, what happens if we try to argue God does have self-sovereignty (and chose to be God)? Well, we quickly find that this is impossible. It puts the cart before the horse: in order for God to do something like, say, pick and choose God's own properties, God must paradoxically already possess some properties -- for instance, knowledge of what properties are possible for God to possess and power to actualize them. The question immediately arises -- where would those properties have come from? It's obvious God couldn't have chosen them because in order to choose them God needs to have already had properties of power and knowledge -- and I hope you can see this is an endless quagmire. In the end, we find that God having self-sovereignty over God's "initial" properties isn't even a possibility to ponder.

As this dilemma is dichotomous -- either God is a se/sovereign or not -- turns out the answer can only be "not." If a God exists, something must exist transcendentally to said God in ways that said God has no control over (if anything, at least whatever that is that allows God to have the properties that God has).

God defies logic. But lets give it a go. And I'll tell you why yours is faulty.

God is the Alpha and Omega. So He was the first and will be the last. So He is eternal, always has been, and always will be.

That being said, He did not just poof and self create or be created as your logic claims. Which makes the rest of your argument pointless.

 

[Kemosloby]

I've never been able to make logical sense out of the Trinity

Well, There is God the Father who is the head of things. The Holy Spirit is the power which God the Father gets things done by. Then there is the Son of God who God the Father created everything for.

 

[Terese]

There was never a time where God did not exist. Not in the past, present or future. When something begins, it always has an end. God has always existed has always been present, and so God has eternally been self sovereign.

 

[Quintessence]

This is something I've never thought about. I'm not sure how to approach it, as these ideas don't seem applicable to my theological orientation. I suspect these ideas came out of philosophy/theology of classical monotheism? For I would not say the gods are not dependent on anything, nor would I say they are sovereign. These ideas are really weird to me.

 

[Etritonakin]

This was one of my first posts to this forum, but I think it's been long enough to bring some fresh blood into the discussion.

There are two commonly held intuitions about God which create a paradox (which Alvin Plantinga calls the "aseity-sovereignty paradox"):

1) God exists a se, unto God's self, meaning God isn't relevantly dependent on any other states of affairs in order to exist and to exist as God: nothing created God, God needn't rely on anything existing causally prior in order to exist, etc.

2) God is sovereign, meaning that God's will is supreme; anything which exists exists that way because God wills it to be so.

The paradox is introduced when we ask the question: is God self-sovereign? Did God choose to be God?

Here, things get sticky: if God had no choice but to be God, then God isn't self-sovereign. But then why does God exist as God unless something transcendental to God and outside God's control makes that the case? If God isn't self-sovereign, then God is neither a se nor completely sovereign, and this goes against our common intuitions.

So, what happens if we try to argue God does have self-sovereignty (and chose to be God)? Well, we quickly find that this is impossible. It puts the cart before the horse: in order for God to do something like, say, pick and choose God's own properties, God must paradoxically already possess some properties -- for instance, knowledge of what properties are possible for God to possess and power to actualize them. The question immediately arises -- where would those properties have come from? It's obvious God couldn't have chosen them because in order to choose them God needs to have already had properties of power and knowledge -- and I hope you can see this is an endless quagmire. In the end, we find that God having self-sovereignty over God's "initial" properties isn't even a possibility to ponder.

As this dilemma is dichotomous -- either God is a se/sovereign or not -- turns out the answer can only be "not." If a God exists, something must exist transcendentally to said God in ways that said God has no control over (if anything, at least whatever that is that allows God to have the properties that God has).

I'm not saying this is what happened, but....

If God is essentially everything -and developed into a complex self from the most basic self possible -then he could have become master of all.

It would not be completely dissimilar to humans increasing in mastery of Earth -and perhaps beyond -but would have preceded states which required self-awareness, creativity, etc.

God would not have had to reverse-engineer already-complex things as we do -but would have become increasingly aware as he became more of which to be aware -increasingly self-aware as he became a more complex self of which to be aware.

God (at least the God of the bible) does not give much detailed information concerning that which preceded things on Earth -and we tend to assume many things not stated.

One statement given is "I am... the beginning and the end"

As it is logically impossible for something to be produced from absolute nothing, it would then be impossible to claim responsibility for the existence of everything -or the most basic nature of everything. It would only be possible to claim responsibility for states thereof.

 

[Super Universe]

This was one of my first posts to this forum, but I think it's been long enough to bring some fresh blood into the discussion.

There are two commonly held intuitions about God which create a paradox (which Alvin Plantinga calls the "aseity-sovereignty paradox"):

1) God exists a se, unto God's self, meaning God isn't relevantly dependent on any other states of affairs in order to exist and to exist as God: nothing created God, God needn't rely on anything existing causally prior in order to exist, etc.

2) God is sovereign, meaning that God's will is supreme; anything which exists exists that way because God wills it to be so.

The paradox is introduced when we ask the question: is God self-sovereign? Did God choose to be God?

Here, things get sticky: if God had no choice but to be God, then God isn't self-sovereign. But then why does God exist as God unless something transcendental to God and outside God's control makes that the case? If God isn't self-sovereign, then God is neither a se nor completely sovereign, and this goes against our common intuitions.

So, what happens if we try to argue God does have self-sovereignty (and chose to be God)? Well, we quickly find that this is impossible. It puts the cart before the horse: in order for God to do something like, say, pick and choose God's own properties, God must paradoxically already possess some properties -- for instance, knowledge of what properties are possible for God to possess and power to actualize them. The question immediately arises -- where would those properties have come from? It's obvious God couldn't have chosen them because in order to choose them God needs to have already had properties of power and knowledge -- and I hope you can see this is an endless quagmire. In the end, we find that God having self-sovereignty over God's "initial" properties isn't even a possibility to ponder.

As this dilemma is dichotomous -- either God is a se/sovereign or not -- turns out the answer can only be "not." If a God exists, something must exist transcendentally to said God in ways that said God has no control over (if anything, at least whatever that is that allows God to have the properties that God has).

God formed Himself. I know this is difficult for you to accept. Think of it this way. A particle formed, then another, then another, until there was a one dimensional string. The string had sentience, it knew of itself but it did not know anything else. The string grew longer. The string wiggled, then the end formed a circle, then a triangle, then a square, then more and more complex shapes. The shapes could disconnect from the other strings while still having one mind, so the being learned from the multiple inputs of new information.

God's will is supreme? Sort of. Initially this was correct but once God placed certain rules the rules control further action. God cannot interfere because that would violate the purpose of the universe to exist.

Did God choose to be God? If you are asking whether God chose His initial being, I don't know. Did God chooose to be who He is now? Yes, but, He did not choose for angels to mess up but once they did He can't interfere.

God only does the things that only God can do.

 

[Super Universe]

I've never been able to make logical sense out of the Trinity

God created Himself, then He created a new being, the Son, then God and the Son created another new being called Spirit.

 

[Meow Mix]

This question I think can be answered using an apophatic approach. G-d does not have any discernible qualities to His existence. There is no quality of being G-d, that's a label we give to the One whose existence is independent of any quality.

I'm not sure I would agree this response is tenable philosophically. "Created the world" is something like a property that could be ascribed to God if it's believed that God created the world -- to argue that God has no properties doesn't work, I wouldn't think. God has power, God has knowledge if God exists, etc. If I'm interpreting you incorrectly or if you disagree, could you clarify maybe?

 

[Meow Mix]

There was never a time where God did not exist. Not in the past, present or future. When something begins, it always has an end. God has always existed has always been present, and so God has eternally been self sovereign.

This doesn't work because there's an infinite regress of sovereignty. Even if it doesn't make sense to speak of a "temporally initial" set of properties, it makes sense to speak of a *causally* initial set of properties: God's causally initial set of properties couldn't have been chosen by God.

Now, the aseity-sovereignty paradox doesn't mean that God can't exist. Just that if God does exist, some intuitions about God are just slightly off. It really doesn't damage theism. It's just a fun little exercise.

It does pre-empt some theistic arguments though, like the TAG.

 

[Meow Mix]

God defies logic. But lets give it a go. And I'll tell you why yours is faulty.

God is the Alpha and Omega. So He was the first and will be the last. So He is eternal, always has been, and always will be.

That being said, He did not just poof and self create or be created as your logic claims. Which makes the rest of your argument pointless.

It wasn't argue that God self-created or began to exist. I tried to denote I wasn't talking about a temporally initial set of properties, but a causally initial set: these aren't the same thing. It's still the case that it would be putting the cart before the horse to say God had any control over what God's properties were because no matter what point in eternity you check, it requires an already existing property of knowledge and power to do.

Also, that's a curious position; even most theists grant that omnipotence is still bounded by logical possibility. It isn't logically possible to even claim logical impossibilities, as a note.

 

[Terese]

God's causally initial set of properties couldn't have been chosen by God.

Why not?

It does pre-empt some theistic arguments though, like the TAG.

May i ask, what is TAG?

 

[Meow Mix]

Well, There is God the Father who is the head of things. The Holy Spirit is the power which God the Father gets things done by. Then there is the Son of God who God the Father created everything for.

I know these things; I mean it makes no logical sense to have three separate things which are supposed to be one whole thing. It makes sense if there are three phases of one thing, but you can't have separate things being a thing and not a thing at the same time and in the same respect. (I'm trying to discuss the philosophy without being disrespectful to the religious belief, it's hard)

 

[Meow Mix]

This is something I've never thought about. I'm not sure how to approach it, as these ideas don't seem applicable to my theological orientation. I suspect these ideas came out of philosophy/theology of classical monotheism? For I would not say the gods are not dependent on anything, nor would I say they are sovereign. These ideas are really weird to me.

Yes, a lot of these concepts came from classical monotheism as you thought. It doesn't sound like this paradox affects your worldview at all. (It really doesn't affect classical monotheism all that much either other than amending some intuitions slightly and pre-empting some bad arguments). ^_^

 

[Meow Mix]

I'm not saying this is what happened, but....

If God is essentially everything -and developed into a complex self from the most basic self possible -then he could have become master of all.

It would not be completely dissimilar to humans increasing in mastery of Earth -and perhaps beyond -but would have preceded states which required self-awareness, creativity, etc.

God would not have had to reverse-engineer already-complex things as we do -but would have become increasingly aware as he became more of which to be aware -increasingly self-aware as he became a more complex self of which to be aware.

God (at least the God of the bible) does not give much detailed information concerning that which preceded things on Earth -and we tend to assume many things not stated.

One statement given is "I am... the beginning and the end"

As it is logically impossible for something to be produced from absolute nothing, it would then be impossible to claim responsibility for the existence of everything -or the most basic nature of everything. It would only be possible to claim responsibility for states thereof.

While interesting, this doesn't help the conundrum of self-sovereignty: no matter where in eternity we might check, it would be the case that in order to have whatever properties God has, God would have had to have already had properties. It turns out God couldn't have *ultimately* chosen God's own properties; and that's a problem for aseity and sovereignty. It would mean there is at least something which is transcendental to God and something over which God had no control.

 

[Meow Mix]

Why not?

God's causally initial set of properties couldn't have been chosen by God because for ANY set of properties God has, in order to change them, God must have already had the properties of "knowledge how to change it" and "power to change it." So no matter where we look in eternity, we will never find a place where God's properties are satisfactorily self-instantiated. It implies necessarily that God ultimately couldn't help but to have had some initial (causally, not temporally initial) set of properties that God had no control over.

May i ask, what is TAG?

The Transcendental Argument for God['s existence]. This argument goes that things such as the laws of logic are dependent on God's existence, such that in order to doubt or deny God's existence we must use those very same laws of logic to do so, contradicting ourselves. The argument doesn't work for various different reasons (including the OP) in various different incarnations.

 

[Terese]

It implies necessarily that God ultimately couldn't help but to have had some initial (causally, not temporally initial) set of properties that God had no control over.

How does it imply that?