Post Edited (TGB) : 4/15/2005 10:11:06 AM (GMT-5)

Tom: To begin with, because the consequences of God's sinning are unacceptable. God's sinning can't be any more conceivable or possible than are the consequences of God's sinning conceivable or possible. So, what do you suppose would be the consequences of God's sinning?

Sahid: I don't know... God and all his creation melt away.

Tom: OK, let’s go with that. So is God’s “melting away” or ceasing to exist a real possibility in your view? If not, then how can any state of affairs (God’s sinning) that entails God’s melting away (an necessary impossibility) be possible? It can’t. If God can’t cease to exist, then he can’t do whatever has his ceasing to exist as a consequence. Simple.

Sahid: I've been playing with the idea that God is being itself and the demons are first in line on the path to nonexistence. If God sins maybe all hope is gone.

Tom: I’m sure it would be. But the question is, GIVEN your belief that God exists (even given the belief that God is ‘being itself’), would it be consistent with this belief to claim that God can cease to exist? That ‘being itself’ can cease to be? I think not.

Sahid: Another possibility is an "evil demon" world which is impossible to logically rule out even now. Some roughly Matrix world. Either of these would be bad, but I think I've just proven that they are conceivable.

Tom: They’re conceivable in abstract terms, yes. But the question is what can be consistently and meaningful asserted within the boundaries of one of those conceived possible worlds. I mean, assuming Descartes’ worst nightmare—the demonically generated matrix—in which belief in a necessary God was fed into us, would it be meaningful TO US to also belief in the possibility of God’s non-existence? It wouldn’t. Whether we’re in a matrix or not, WE can’t meaningfully assert the necessary existence of God and the real possibility of God’s non-existence. We could be mistaken about God’s existence, yes. And we could be mistaken about God’s existence being necessary. But we can’t be mistaken about the meaninglessness of believing that if God exists necessarily he cannot pass out of existence or do whatever has his passing out of existence as a necessary consequence. Right?

Sahid: I'm not sure what side this puts me on…

Tom: Choose a side (matrix or non-matrix world) and we’ll tell ya!

Sahid: …but the words 'moral' and 'good' seem to be ultimately meaningless….I'd prefer to construct my "good"/"evil" dichotomy with "new" language. How about "loving, giving, and sacrificial…

Tom: I’m not following ya Sahid. “Good” is ultimately meaningless but “love” isn’t? What makes “love” meaningful that doesn’t also make “good” meaningful?

Tom

PS I don't know why part of this post is white.

(this very last paragraph was modified for clarity on 4-18-05)

Post Edited (Starkman) : 4/19/2005 4:51:42 PM (GMT-5)

Hmmm. I suppose we have different definitions of "moral" then. 1 Cor. 13 ("the love chapter") describes proper GODLY morality better than anything else I know of.

Blessings,

John

Tom:  Why do you say God's existence is necessary?  (Maybe "how" is better than "why".)  I can see that to have creation and other supernatural events God must exist.  But do those things require that he keep existing?  Wearing a deist disguise for a moment, what if God wound the watch, sent his Son, did other amazing things, sinned, and ceased to exist?  I trust that he won't, but it's not inconceivable.  I still don't think I understand what you mean by conceivable, because it seems clear as day to me.  Yes, things would be meaningless.  So what?  Is meaninglessness inconceivable?  Not for most the people I know.

What I mean by love is caring for another, ascribing subjective value and acting on it.  I really don't think it ultimately has anything to do with objective right and wrong and good and evil.  Love and fear in and of themselves are neither good nor evil objectively.  Good and evil are always subjective.  There is no good and evil written into all things that is prior to God.  Even to God they are subjective.  God calls faith, hope, and love good and denial, fear, and hatred evil for shorthand, but there need be no morals prior to God.  Neither need there be Christians appealling to some erie standard of good when exhorting others to certain actions.  All that need be said is that God is love and therefore we are free to love and be happy without fear.  Still it may be easier to use the "good and evil" shorthand, but among the mature and educated we can dispense with these tools.

Starkman:  I think we're on the same page.  Maybe we disagree on some details, but in general I'm with you.

Looks like the question of God's necessary goodness is taken up here and elsewhere. Maybe we can limit it to one thread.

Starkman: There is not the slightest need for God to love within an understanding of love as a moral or within a morality. Love is simply the expression of His being. The expression of love is only morally based TO US, not to God. As I said in that original post, when God works within our sphere of existence, He then will compare within the moral in order to make the point to man.

Tom: This sounds like what I’ve been trying to express (if I’m following ya). God is not a moral creature in the sense that God’s inner Trinitarian actions, qua God, fulfill some other objective standard of love which is itself not God (viz., John’s “eternal law of love” that God is obliged to fulfill). God is moral in the sense that he’s morally obliging to persons other than himself. He IS the law of love. What is right and wrong for us is simply a application in OUR case of the way the persons of the Trinity are with respect to each other. This is why "love" is the fulfillment of the law. Again, that doesn’t mean (as John has feared would be the case if God is not morally obliged) that God could murder an innocent child and God’s doing so would “make” it right simply because it’s God who is doing it.

Starkman: I'm arguing for the idea that when God is not relating to those who ARE within a moral context, the words "moral" and "good" are meaningful.

Tom: In other words, God is not morally obliged, though he is morally obliging (when and where there are beings to so oblige).

Sahid:  Why do you say God's existence is necessary?

Tom: Aristotle was right: whatever is eternal is, by definition, necessary. True, he made the mistake of believing (so I understand) that God only imbues creation with order as opposed to having created the universe from nothing (so the universe was eternal and so necessary for Aristotle), but he was right when he reasoned that whatever is eternal is ‘necessary’. If God exists and is eternal, then God is not a contingent being who “began” to exist. He’s a ‘necessary’ being. If he exists and is not eternal, then he had a beginning and is a contingent being, in which case Craig’s excellent arguments (an old argument, the Kalam argument) would apply and we’d have to suppose there is some cause/creator of God who IS the sort of non-contingent (necessary) being we suppose God is.

Sahid: (Maybe "how" is better than "why".)  I can see that to have creation and other supernatural events God must exist.  But do those things require that he keep existing?

Tom: No, “those things” don’t require that God continue to exist. What logically requires it is the logic behind the argument that eternal objects that do not begin to exist exist necessarily. If God exists, and if God did not begin to exist, then God exists necessarily.

Sahid: Wearing a deist disguise for a moment, what if God wound the watch, sent his Son, did other amazing things, sinned, and ceased to exist?

Tom: Something a deist would never suggest. She would assume God wound the clock and then went on vacation or is passively sitting on the sidelines observing perhaps. But she’d never argue that an eternal God who did not ‘begin’ to exist—and so exists necessarily—could cease to exist.

Sahid: I trust that he won't, but it's not inconceivable.

Tom: I think it’s quite inconceivable.

Sahid: I still don't think I understand what you mean by conceivable, because it seems clear as day to me.  Yes, things would be meaningless. So what? Is meaninglessness inconceivable?  Not for most the people I know.

Tom: Atheism and the sort of meaningless you describe are conceivable, yes. I’m not denying that. What’s not conceivable is that God, on the assumption that he exists eternally (i.e., on the assumption that if he never began to exist, which means he exists ‘necessarily’), should cease to exist. You can logically conceive of there being no God. But you can’t logically conceive of there being an eternal God who had no beginning consequently passing out of existence. That’s quite inconceivable. So if you’re going to commit to an eternal creator God who didn’t begin to exist, who doesn’t have some OTHER explanation for he existence, then you have to commit to what’s entailed in such a belief, and one such entailment is that God exists necessarily, which by definition rules out the possibility of God’s ceasing to exist, since “ceasing to exist” logically requires contingent existence.

Back to the issue at hand: Can God sin? I say no. It’s inconceivable assuming God exists eternally. He might not exist, true. The atheist could be right, OK. But assuming God exists eternally (viz., did not begin to exist), God exists ‘necessarily’. Since ‘necessity’ and ‘contingency’ are logically contradictory, we can’t meaningfully say that a God who exists necessarily could possibly cease to exist, for ceasing to exist requires a contingent sort of existence. If God can’t cease to exist, then it’s nonsensical to suppose God is able to do that (sin, whatever) which has God’s ceasing to exist as a necessary consequence.

Sahid: What I mean by love is caring for another, ascribing subjective value and acting on it.  I really don't think it ultimately has anything to do with objective right and wrong and good and evil.  Love and fear in and of themselves are neither good nor evil objectively.  Good and evil are always subjective.

Tom: Well, sort of. They’re always instantiated by subjects, but they’re measured as good or as evil by God’s self-revealing acts and words, which means we’re looking beyond our own subjectivity as the ultimate measurement of what good and evil are to God’s revelation in Christ. We have to be good or evil as subjects, but we don’t limit what good and evil to our subjectivity. Clear as mud? As I see it this is Starkman’s point: God is not morally obliged but is morally obliging. So “good” and “evil” are words we use to relate our actions to those of God. If they’re the sort of things God has or would do, then they’re good. If they’re the sort of things God would not do, then they’re evil. How’s that?

I’ve now forgotten what it was this thread is supposed to be considering!

Sahid: There is no good and evil written into all things that is prior to God. Even to God they are subjective. God calls faith, hope, and love good and denial, fear, and hatred evil for shorthand, but there need be no morals prior to God.

Tom; Exactly!

Sahid: Neither need there be Christians appealling to some erie standard of good when exhorting others to certain actions. All that need be said is that God is love and therefore we are free to love and be happy without fear. Still it may be easier to use the "good and evil" shorthand, but among the mature and educated we can dispense with these tools.

Tom: The spiritually mature, perhaps. But certainly not the educated!

Mephi: Basically, I agree with the principle. IF some poor, utterly irrational fool were to act against all reason, self-care, and probability to leap into "freely" (and I use that word very loosely!) pursuing eternal self-destruction, I'm sure she'd get it. Thank goodness that chances of THAT idiocy occuring are so darn remote...as to not be a concern.

Tom: Maybe, maybe. I don’t know. I honestly don’t know. I hope you’re right. But I’m confused now, I think we were talking about whether or not God is impeccable?

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 4/19/2005 2:29:12 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Sahid) : 4/27/2005 4:36:30 AM (GMT-5)