Non-existence of a rational Creator God

Encountered a "new" argument that we haven't addressed? Post it here.

Non-existence of a rational Creator God

Postby WoodHorse » Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:24 pm

This is my argument for the non-existence of a rational Creator God:

Is God self-sufficient? If he is, then there is no need for him to create this world.
Since this world exists, then if God is the creator of this world, he must be irrational.
If God is not irrational, then since this world exists, God's existence is false.
If God is not self-sufficient, then he must be dependent on at least one thing that is apart from him.
If so, then God cannot be the first cause since he is dependent on at least one other thing.

Therefore, any belief in a Creator God must necessarily be a belief in an irrational God, a non-existent God or a God that is not the first cause.

For those who would like to argue that God is above or beyond such logic, I would counter that as follows:
Man's logic cannot be outside of God's logic as this would mean that there is at least a logic of man that is beyond God. Therefore, man's logic, at the very least, has to be a subset of God's logic. If man's logic is a subset of God's logic, then what holds in man's logic must hold in God's logic. This would mean that the above argument for the non-existence of a rational creator God must hold in God's logic as well. For God to be beyond the logic of the said argument, God has to be irrational or non-existent. And so, we are back at square one.
WoodHorse
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 4:19 am

Re: Non-existence of a rational Creator God

Postby lucas11 » Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:22 pm

I think your logic is flawed:

Self sufficiency does not preclude the desire to create this world, even if there is no need for it.
Rational beings don't do things purely based on need. A god who has no needs could do any number of things simply because he desires to do so while remaining rational.
God could be a mix of rational and irrational. Humans contain elements of both and it would be consistent if we are made in his image.

It also depends somewhat on your definition of self sufficient. If god requires food to survive but can create food at will, then he is self sufficient. Similarly if god requires personal relationships with lesser created beings to remain happy but can create such beings at will, he is also self sufficient.
lucas11
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 8:57 am

Re: Non-existence of a rational Creator God

Postby WoodHorse » Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:32 am

I define self-sufficiency as having no need for anything whatsoever. If a being has no need for anything whatsoever, there will be no desire for anything whatsoever. There will be no need for food nor desire to create anything, be it food, the world or man in his image. Any creation will therefore be superfluous and irrational in relation to a self-sufficient being.
WoodHorse
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 4:19 am

Re: Non-existence of a rational Creator God

Postby sepia » Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:13 pm

I had a similar idea, but think it is not (yet?) convincing. My idea was that the highest being must be the less decadent one. And creating a world without need is decadent. Since a monotheistic god is not situated and all powerful he has no need to create anything. Therefor he can't be the highest being.

What I'm lacking are good arguments, that the highest being really can't be decadent.

WoodHorse wrote:For those who would like to argue that God is above or beyond such logic, I would counter that as follows:
Man's logic cannot be outside of God's logic as this would mean that there is at least a logic of man that is beyond God. Therefore, man's logic, at the very least, has to be a subset of God's logic. If man's logic is a subset of God's logic, then what holds in man's logic must hold in God's logic. This would mean that the above argument for the non-existence of a rational creator God must hold in God's logic as well. For God to be beyond the logic of the said argument, God has to be irrational or non-existent. And so, we are back at square one.


Interesting idea, but I can't follow it. When someone says, that god is beyond logic, I would say, that then we can't talk about god. Logic is the most basic thing we need for communication. Since theists want to talk about their god they have to define him within logic.
sepia
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:38 pm
Location: austria

Re: Non-existence of a rational Creator God

Postby WoodHorse » Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:34 am

"...the highest being must be the less decadent one. And creating a world without need is decadent."
I don't understand the connection between creating a world without need and that act of creation being decadent. I need you to elaborate.

If God is beyond logic, then yes we can't talk about God using man's logic. What I tried to show is that man's logic must be within God's logic, ie. man's logic is a subset of God's logic. If that is the case then anything that holds in man's logic must necessarily hold in God's logic since man's logic is a subset of God's logic. So if through man's logic, a certain view of God is contradicted, that contradiction should also hold in God's logic. This would mean that here is something wrong in that particular view of God.
WoodHorse
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 4:19 am

Re: Non-existence of a rational Creator God

Postby sepia » Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:44 pm

WoodHorse wrote:I don't understand the connection between creating a world without need and that act of creation being decadent.

He does something more than needed. Additionaly I should say that a god could simply prevent all suffering by not creating life. But this is agains the all good god.
sepia
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:38 pm
Location: austria

Re: Non-existence of a rational Creator God

Postby WoodHorse » Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:16 pm

sepia wrote:
WoodHorse wrote:I don't understand the connection between creating a world without need and that act of creation being decadent.

He does something more than needed.
Okay, but this meaning of "decadent" still looks a little strange to me.

sepia wrote:Additionaly I should say that a god could simply prevent all suffering by not creating life. But this is agains the all good god.

The is the "God and Evil" argument. The argument was used by the Buddha 2500 years ago to deny the existence of God. Basically he argued that given the sufferings that beings faced, if a God exists, he must be a monster.
WoodHorse
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 4:19 am

Re: Non-existence of a rational Creator God

Postby lucas11 » Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:28 pm

I define self-sufficiency as having no need for anything whatsoever.


If God is not self-sufficient, then he must be dependent on at least one thing that is apart from him.
If so, then God cannot be the first cause since he is dependent on at least one other thing.


From the first definition, my example of a god who requires food to survive but can create food at will is both not self sufficient and able to be the first cause. Thus making the second statement false.

If God is beyond logic, then yes we can't talk about God using man's logic. What I tried to show is that man's logic must be within God's logic, ie. man's logic is a subset of God's logic. If that is the case then anything that holds in man's logic must necessarily hold in God's logic since man's logic is a subset of God's logic.


I think everyone is agreeing that it is rather pointless to say god is beyond logic, although it is being said in different ways.

However, the statement arguably uses the fallacy of composition. Just because something holds in a subset of god's logic does not necessarily mean it holds true in god's logic. That is like saying something which is true in a particular branch of mathematics is true in all mathematics, and there are a number of areas for which this is not the case.
lucas11
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 8:57 am

Re: Non-existence of a rational Creator God

Postby WoodHorse » Fri Dec 07, 2012 2:11 pm

lucas11 wrote:
I define self-sufficiency as having no need for anything whatsoever.


If God is not self-sufficient, then he must be dependent on at least one thing that is apart from him.
If so, then God cannot be the first cause since he is dependent on at least one other thing.


From the first definition, my example of a god who requires food to survive but can create food at will is both not self sufficient and able to be the first cause. Thus making the second statement false.

If God is beyond logic, then yes we can't talk about God using man's logic. What I tried to show is that man's logic must be within God's logic, ie. man's logic is a subset of God's logic. If that is the case then anything that holds in man's logic must necessarily hold in God's logic since man's logic is a subset of God's logic.


I think everyone is agreeing that it is rather pointless to say god is beyond logic, although it is being said in different ways.

However, the statement arguably uses the fallacy of composition. Just because something holds in a subset of god's logic does not necessarily mean it holds true in god's logic. That is like saying something which is true in a particular branch of mathematics is true in all mathematics, and there are a number of areas for which this is not the case.

Have you taken a course in logic? I hope you don't mind my asking as it is quite apparent to me that your understanding of logic is very different from mine.
WoodHorse
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 4:19 am

Re: Non-existence of a rational Creator God

Postby sepia » Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:03 pm

WoodHorse wrote:He does something more than needed.
Okay, but this meaning of "decadent" still looks a little strange to me.[/quote]
Okay, but how call it then?

WoodHorse wrote:The is the "God and Evil" argument. The argument was used by the Buddha 2500 years ago to deny the existence of God. Basically he argued that given the sufferings that beings faced, if a God exists, he must be a monster.

Yes, this is the Problem of Evil. I don't know Buddha's argument, but calling somebody a monster is not calling somebody not existing.
sepia
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:38 pm
Location: austria

Re: Non-existence of a rational Creator God

Postby WoodHorse » Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:37 pm

sepia wrote:
WoodHorse wrote:He does something more than needed.
Okay, but this meaning of "decadent" still looks a little strange to me.

sepia wrote:Okay, but how call it then?
I have no idea.

sepia wrote:
WoodHorse wrote:The is the "God and Evil" argument. The argument was used by the Buddha 2500 years ago to deny the existence of God. Basically he argued that given the sufferings that beings faced, if a God exists, he must be a monster.

Yes, this is the Problem of Evil. I don't know Buddha's argument, but calling somebody a monster is not calling somebody not existing.

I suppose that when one worships God, the general assumption is that God is good and therefore worthy of one's worship. So if someone points out that God is not good, then the God that one worships does not exist. If one insists that the God that one worships exist, then one will have to accept that God is not good. If God is not good, then why is one worshiping God? I guess the Buddha was intentionally creating a cognitive dissonance in the person whom he was responding to.
WoodHorse
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 4:19 am

Re: Non-existence of a rational Creator God

Postby lucas11 » Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:10 am

Have you taken a course in logic? I hope you don't mind my asking as it is quite apparent to me that your understanding of logic is very different from mine.


I don't mind you asking, but I think it is irrelevant. If you disagree with me or you think my argument is flawed in some way then please explain how. It is possible I might be wrong and have not heard your argument yet, or I may have come to some conclusion in my head that I didn't explain clearly but I think is apparent in my statements.

Yes, this is the Problem of Evil. I don't know Buddha's argument, but calling somebody a monster is not calling somebody not existing.

Yes. It is a reasonable argument against the existance of a "good" god or a specific god but not against the existance of gods in general.

There is also the problem that if any gods exist, then you have a real problem of how to judge what is "good" as these gods, being more intelligent than mere mortals, would legitimately be able to define what is good.

For example, if valhalla was real and the requirement for entry was to die in battle, the best thing for people would be to continually wage war and train child soldiers. It would mean a few decades of suffering the horrors of war in return for millions of years of happiness which then continue into eternity. What looks evil from mankind's perspective could easily be good from the perspective of gods who see the bigger picture and who make the rules.
lucas11
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 8:57 am

Re: Non-existence of a rational Creator God

Postby sepia » Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:47 pm

lucas11 wrote:There is also the problem that if any gods exist, then you have a real problem of how to judge what is "good" as these gods, being more intelligent than mere mortals, would legitimately be able to define what is good.

I'm not sure. If a god could decide better, what is good, this means, we can errate on this issue. In many cases this is true, since we have changed our opinions often. But this doesn't mean, that we can't be absolutely sure about every morality.
sepia
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:38 pm
Location: austria

Re: Non-existence of a rational Creator God

Postby lucas11 » Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:22 am

Sepia, would you mind rephrasing your last comment and posting it again? I don't understand what you are trying to say.
lucas11
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 8:57 am

Re: Non-existence of a rational Creator God

Postby sepia » Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:18 pm

I mean this: The premise that God's disagreement with us proves that we are wrong implies that we can be wrong at all. But in some cases this isn't true. We can't for example be wrong about the laws of logic. Maybe we have also certain knowledge about morality. If so, then divine disagreement wouldn't show, that we are right.

Okay, but otherwise: Since god is all knowing he knows also what we know. Therefor he wouldn't disagree on points we know for certain.
sepia
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:38 pm
Location: austria

Next

Return to New Arguments

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests