Problem with part of the Three O Paradox

Open discussion for all registered members.

Problem with part of the Three O Paradox

Postby Constantine » Fri May 31, 2013 6:18 am

I was looking for some clarification on the following argument posted in the three O paradox page.

E. The Immutable vs. All-Loving Argument

1. If God exists, then he is immutable.

2. If God exists, then he is all-loving.

3. An immutable being cannot be affected by events.

4. To be all-loving, it must be possible for a being to be affected by events.

5. Hence, it is impossible for an immutable being to be all-loving (from 3 and 4).

6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

I am unsure on how premise 4 stands up. It would seem that being all loving would mean unconditional love, meaning that God is unaffected by events, loving no matter what. Ergo, an all loving God would not be affected be affected by any events, and as such it would be possible for God to be all loving and immutable. Can anyone please clarify this premise for me? Thank you!
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Problem with part of the Three O Paradox

Postby NearlySane » Fri May 31, 2013 7:04 am

By itself, immutability throws up a smorgasbord of problems. It leaves God unable to do anything, as doing anything would cause a change in God. You could argue that love is a reaction to external stimuli and that without change, love becomes a meaningless term. I suppose a theist would argue back that love is an intrinsic property to Gods nature, rather than an emergent property, but this doesn't move away from God being unable to do anything but be all-loving.

Then there's the term "all-loving". It's another reduction of God, which renders "love" to be meaningless as there is nothing to distinguish between what is loved and what isn't loved. It's the typical anthropomorphising of God - giving God a human attribute and then shoving on the "omni" prefix. As soon as you do this, the attribute becomes meaningless, as the contrary attribute doesn't exist in God to be compared to.
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 8:17 am

Re: Problem with part of the Three O Paradox

Postby sepia » Fri May 31, 2013 5:19 pm

Why is God immutable?

To 4.: To love X is a form of being about X. Actually you don't need to be affected by X. You just have to have an idea of X. However humans are of course affected by hormons when loving. I wonder what God's love is like.
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:38 pm
Location: austria

Re: Problem with part of the Three O Paradox

Postby EnlightenmentLiberal » Fri May 31, 2013 10:26 pm

I think the argument is incoherent. It rests on completely naive and underspecified definitions of all of the terms. There's just way too much wiggle room in any direction to figure out if it's correct or not.

PS: This is why most of my arguments start with "For the purposes of argument, I grant that there is a first cause god. Now, let's get on to your evidence for Jesus."
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:32 am

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests