On God's Sovereignty

[Meow Mix]

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

That's consistent

Nature is sovereign, meaning that nature (will) is supreme; anything which exists exists that way because nature (wills) it to be so.
Suddenly just kinda consistent

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

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

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

I'm not sure that replacing "God" with "nature" produces the same problem -- unless it's proposed that nature has conscious sovereignty. The result of the paradox at that point would simply be that something is transcendental to conscious sovereignty: something unchosen.

 

[Meow Mix]

What's weird is the same sort of questions apply to reality in general.
As to the God question a lot of people are just using assumptions taken from Christian mythology which gets us nowhere for obvious reasons.

But we do know the Universe exists, energy exists and probably a multi-verse. But where did this energy come from?
It doesn't make sense to have always been around and it doesn't make sense that it came from nothing at some point?
You can anthropomorphize the whole thing and make it a god but it's not really needed.

Just blaming it on a god who "always existed" is a cop-out to how strange the mystery really is.

As a non-theist, I couldn't tell ya on behalf of theists.

However, I don't see a problem with a multiverse having always existed. The paradox comes from conscious sovereignty, not with things existing.

 

[Kemosloby]

You can have a variety of friends in a world where physical suffering doesn't exist. You can still have free agency. You can decide who to hang out with that day -- or who to hang out with at all. Whether you want to go watch a movie or play a game. Whether you want to study something new and interesting, or share what you've studied. Physical suffering isn't necessary to exist to have free agency. It's not necessary to exist to have challenges to overcome, either.

I guess suffering is a necessary evil in the design of mortal creatures. There are limits to how much suffering a person can take before passing out. God also put opium poppies on the planet that can easy suffering. Humans that regulate the opium and make sure you suffer a lot or pay a lot of money for some. In nature a suffering creature's suffering is ended quickly as a nice meal for another creature. Unless humans keep them in a lab for research. So I think it's just part of design, as something to try to avoid.

 

[Meow Mix]

I guess suffering is a necessary evil in the design of mortal creatures. There are limits to how much suffering a person can take before passing out. God also put opium poppies on the planet that can easy suffering. Humans that regulate the opium and make sure you suffer a lot or pay a lot of money for some. In nature a suffering creature's suffering is ended quickly as a nice meal for another creature. Unless humans keep them in a lab for research. So I think it's just part of design, as something to try to avoid.

It's not necessary to have suffering in order to avoid future suffering if there's no suffering in the first place.

What you're basically arguing is that touching a hot stove teaches you to avoid hurting yourself on hot objects: that's all well and good.

But if there's no suffering in the first place that you have to protect yourself from, your point is moot. You don't need a hot-stove-experience to protect you from objects that will burn you if there are no objects that will burn you.

 

[Kemosloby]

It's not necessary to have suffering in order to avoid future suffering if there's no suffering in the first place.

What you're basically arguing is that touching a hot stove teaches you to avoid hurting yourself on hot objects: that's all well and good.

But if there's no suffering in the first place that you have to protect yourself from, your point is moot. You don't need a hot-stove-experience to protect you from objects that will burn you if there are no objects that will burn you.

But there's no fried chicken without objects that could burn you.

 

[Meow Mix]

But there's no fried chicken without objects that could burn you.

Sure there is. It's easy to program a simulation where you can fry chicken but if you stick a living human hand in there, the hand isn't harmed.

If we can simulate it, that means it's logically possible. If it's logically possible, God can create it.

It's logically possible to have a world where the things we like exist but in which physical suffering does not. God is culpable for creating a world that has physical suffering since there was an option for otherwise.

 

[Meow Mix]

Also, how'd we get on the Problem of Evil on the Sovereignty post? I'm sleep deprived and confused XD

 

[Kemosloby]

Sure there is. It's easy to program a simulation where you can fry chicken but if you stick a living human hand in there, the hand isn't harmed.

If we can simulate it, that means it's logically possible. If it's logically possible, God can create it.

It's logically possible to have a world where the things we like exist but in which physical suffering does not. God is culpable for creating a world that has physical suffering since there was an option for otherwise.

Which is better, dreaming of fried chicken or eating fried chicken?

 

[Meow Mix]

Which is better, dreaming of fried chicken or eating fried chicken?

I think you misinterpreted what I was saying. You'd still fully be able to eat and enjoy fried chicken without hot oil being able to burn your hand.

 

[DavidFirth]

God existing atemporally doesn't defy logic though -- that is perfectly logical. It defies physicality, it defies physics, but not logic.

Logic is specifically simply about things existing as what they are, without contradictions. Mathematics is extended logic.

For a non-theist you seem to understand the concept of the God of the Bible quite well, in my opinion.

 

[Kemosloby]

I think you misinterpreted what I was saying. You'd still fully be able to eat and enjoy fried chicken without hot oil being able to burn your hand.

Like the Matrix, but the sequels kept getting worse and worse. It starts out as a good idea but I think reality is better with all its ups and downs.

 

[Meow Mix]

For a non-theist you seem to understand the concept of the God of the Bible quite well, in my opinion.

I began as a theist, though I don't know how much that helps. Thank you though ^.^

 

[DavidFirth]

I began as a theist, though I don't know how much that helps. Thank you though ^.^

I pretty much have the same view you do about God. Pretty close.

 

[Meow Mix]

Like the Matrix, but the sequels kept getting worse and worse. It starts out as a good idea but I think reality is better with all its ups and downs.

Those were SO BAD haha.

However, outside of that, I think the objection is vague. The question remains of why God would create a world where there is child leukemia when God could have created a world where there isn't. "Free will" is not the answer, because God could create a world with free will yet also without child leukemia (or any physical suffering, at that). It's an example of malevolence, it's the Problem of Evil (put in terms of suffering).

 

[Meow Mix]

I pretty much have the same view you do about God. Pretty close.

Well, I base a lot of discussion and argument on the analytical god founded in classical monotheism like Thomism and such. They were brilliant thinkers, famous for good reasons.

Edit: Lowercase g not out of disrespect but because often the god their arguments were about wasn't identified until they went into further argument specifying it as God

 

[Kemosloby]

Those were SO BAD haha.

However, outside of that, I think the objection is vague. The question remains of why God would create a world where there is child leukemia when God could have created a world where there isn't. "Free will" is not the answer, because God could create a world with free will yet also without child leukemia (or any physical suffering, at that). It's an example of malevolence, it's the Problem of Evil (put in terms of suffering).

Maybe it's death and sin thing. When people are redeemed and living in paradise, Looking back on all the suffering that came from sin, people might tell the devil No Thanks when he tempts them with the apple.

 

[Meow Mix]

Maybe it's death and sin thing. When people are redeemed and living in paradise, Looking back on all the suffering that came from sin, people might tell the devil No Thanks when he tempts them with the apple.

But again... suffering as preparation to ward off future suffering is not a problem if future suffering isn't a problem to have to ward off.

 

[DavidFirth]

Well, I base a lot of discussion and argument on the analytical god founded in classical monotheism like Thomism and such. They were brilliant thinkers, famous for good reasons.

Edit: Lowercase g not out of disrespect but because often the god their arguments were about wasn't identified until they went into further argument specifying it as God

I don't hold it against non-Christians if they don't capitalize the G when they are talking about my God. I get it, if you don't believe in Him there is no reason to capitalize it.

 

[DavidFirth]

Well, I base a lot of discussion and argument on the analytical god founded in classical monotheism like Thomism and such. They were brilliant thinkers, famous for good reasons.

Edit: Lowercase g not out of disrespect but because often the god their arguments were about wasn't identified until they went into further argument specifying it as God

What is Thomism?

Oh, it's Thomas Aquinas, I just looked it up. Awesome. I need to study him for sure.

 

[Grandliseur]

The implication is that some aspects of reality are outside even God's control;

Well, Yes! How can God not be himself?! Even scripture admits this. God cannot not be true to his own nature, being just, loyal, truthful, etc.

That God cannot turn wicked all of a sudden should be something we should appreciate. Why we have this - perhaps luck - that God is unchangeable in his attributes and that these benefit his creation - is one of the things pertaining to my preferred sayings, 'what is - is' and 'what isn't - is not.' If you go into this in philosophy, I believe that a being who is wicked - especially a god - would self-destruct. His internals that are governed by his principles couldn't survive in such a climate. This is one reason satan has to be destroyed. Why? Because he is a type of cancer that if left unchecked would destroy all things.

It also ties in a little to Euthyphro's Dilemma.

Wiki:"Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" (10a)"​

Here in the case of the 'tó hosion' , the pious - we have a little of both. In the Christian Biblical teaching, not church (? denomination dependent), we have what is called being declared righteous.
The person serving God must do what s/he can to be pure, i.e. follow the edicts. While none is perfect and all sin, this means that by the ransom of Christ, those who pursue this course of life will be declared righteous despite being sinners. That is why in the KJV, the word saint is used about such ones. Some of these may fall away, and others won't fail. (the road is narrow, etc.)