Is god bound by the laws of the universe?

[rumborak]

All it really says it (a) God created stuff, (b) God created man to have dominion over stuff. That's it.

Well, and that element that women are not trustworthy and the reason for just about all misery in the world. We could have lived in Eden, but women fucked it up for us.
That's btw the comment I made earlier that this misogynist aspect of Genesis gets conveniently glossed over these days.

[Adami]

All it really says it (a) God created stuff, (b) God created man to have dominion over stuff. That's it.

Well, and that element that women are not trustworthy and the reason for just about all misery in the world. We could have lived in Eden, but women fucked it up for us.
That's btw the comment I made earlier that this misogynist aspect of Genesis gets conveniently glossed over these days.

Not to mention that it promotes a sense of ophidiophobia.

[theseoafs]

All it really says it (a) God created stuff, (b) God created man to have dominion over stuff. That's it.

Well, and that element that women are not trustworthy and the reason for just about all misery in the world. We could have lived in Eden, but women fucked it up for us.
That's btw the comment I made earlier that this misogynist aspect of Genesis gets conveniently glossed over these days.

Not to mention that women were created to be companions to men, cementing their god-endorsed role as second-class citizens.  Neat!

[eric42434224]

All it really says it (a) God created stuff, (b) God created man to have dominion over stuff. That's it.

Well, and that element that women are not trustworthy and the reason for just about all misery in the world. We could have lived in Eden, but women fucked it up for us.
That's btw the comment I made earlier that this misogynist aspect of Genesis gets conveniently glossed over these days.

Not to mention that it promotes a sense of ophidiophobia.

And Malusdomesticaphobia.

And Epistemophobia.

[yeshaberto]

JD, while what u stated is definitely a biblical truth, being the small minority is not necessarily an indication of being right.  in fact, within christendom it is often an indication of the opposite

[Ħ]

JD, while what u stated is definitely a biblical truth, being the small minority is not necessarily an indication of being right.  in fact, within christendom it is often an indication of the opposite

Really? I'm very skeptical of orthodox teaching for the very fact that it's orthodox. If I were to take a crap shoot, I would say that orthodox Christianity is probably wrong on most counts.


IMO, if anyone knows the truth, it's likely a minority.

[yeshaberto]

While there are many things of orthodox or mainstream christendom that I think are off track from the truth, I generally agree with the core issues of the majority.  Whenever a splinter comes up with straying ideas (eg. Jesus is "a" god, etc), it often is indicative of being off track.

[Ħ]

Here's an interesting thought:

God, as a perfect being, is bound to only do that which is perfect. If a given action is less than the best, God cannot perform that action. So God made the laws of nature such that they'd be the best possible laws. So, in a sense, God is "bound" to creating the laws which He did.

I guess that doesn't mean He Himself must follow those laws, though. *shrugs*

[Adami]

Here's an interesting thought:

God, as a perfect being, is bound to only do that which is perfect. If a given action is less than the best, God cannot perform that action. So God made the laws of nature such that they'd be the best possible laws. So, in a sense, God is "bound" to creating the laws which He did.

I guess that doesn't mean He Himself must follow those laws, though. *shrugs*

Doesn't that presume that the universe is the best possible version and that the laws of physics are the best possible laws?

There's no possible way we can know that.

[Sigz]

I don't even see how it's possible to have an objectively "best" set of physical laws.

[Adami]

I don't even see how it's possible to have an objectively "best" set of physical laws.

Exactly, it's not like physical laws are the same as morals.

[Ħ]

The whole thing presumes the existence of God, from which it follows that the universe and laws of physics are the best they could possibly be. Whatever that means. Obviously this world has flaws (e.g. suffering). But maybe a flawed world with free will is better than a perfect world with no free will.

[Ħ]

I don't even see how it's possible to have an objectively "best" set of physical laws.

Depends on how you define objective, I think. If you define objective as "outside of all opinion", then I think you are right. If you define objective as "outside of human opinion" or "God's opinion", then I definitely think you can have an objectively best set of physical laws. Ones that fulfill God's goals with his setting of those laws.

[theseoafs]

It seems rather silly to me that our physical laws might be inherently better than any other possible physical laws, God or no God.

[Sigz]

I don't even see how it's possible to have an objectively "best" set of physical laws.

Depends on how you define objective, I think. If you define objective as "outside of all opinion", then I think you are right. If you define objective as "outside of human opinion" or "God's opinion", then I definitely think you can have an objectively best set of physical laws. Ones that fulfill God's goals with his setting of those laws.

So you're saying that if God decided that one set of laws was inferior to another, he literally could not make a universe with that inferior set of laws?

[Ħ]

LOADS of philosophers use "best world" jargon. Maybe they're all just silly billies.
 

I don't even see how it's possible to have an objectively "best" set of physical laws.

Depends on how you define objective, I think. If you define objective as "outside of all opinion", then I think you are right. If you define objective as "outside of human opinion" or "God's opinion", then I definitely think you can have an objectively best set of physical laws. Ones that fulfill God's goals with his setting of those laws.

So you're saying that if God decided that one set of laws was inferior to another, he literally could not make a universe with that inferior set of laws?

I don't know if God is restricted like that in the first place. I was just presenting food for thought. But, supposing I had to defend it, I would say yes, he could not make that universe.
 
Where the argument fails, I think, is that there is no best world. For any world, there's a conceivably better one. So God couldn't make any world if all he could make is the best one (because there is no best one).

[eric42434224]

One thing I am sure of from this discussion...with all the restrictions that have been put on god and its nature....I don't think it can be referred to as "perfect".  How can a perfect being, if it cant do something against its nature, create something imperfect? 

[Adami]

One thing I am sure of from this discussion...with all the restrictions that have been put on god and its nature....I don't think it can be referred to as "perfect".  How can a perfect being, if it cant do something against its nature, being create something imperfect?

Actually they make sense. Like a perfect shape, it can't be anything other than that exact shape or ceases to be perfect. Perfect by definition requires complete stagnation, change at all negates perfection.

[Ħ]

Perfect by definition requires complete stagnation, change at all negates perfection.

Mmmmm....no. Think of a shape that has time as one of its dimensions.

[Adami]

Perfect by definition requires complete stagnation, change at all negates perfection.

Mmmmm....no. Think of a shape that has time as one of its dimensions.

Doesn't matter. If a perfect being changes, then the previous version is inferior to the new version therefore negating its perfection. If it moves from point A to B, then it can move from B to C and C to D etc meaning that it never actually reaches perfection.

[Ħ]

Let's take three properties of God.

1) God is good.
2) God speaks to Abraham at 4000 BC.
3) God speaks to Adami at 2012 AD.

So some of God's properties have different timestamps, but all are true of God at any moment. 10000 years ago, (2) was true. Tomorrow, (2) is true. So none of God's intrinsic properties (which we are assuming perfect) are changing, even though his actions have a time element.

[Adami]

Doing something at a different time is what I meant.

[Ħ]

Not sure what you're saying. I'm saying that you can do one thing at one time, and one thing at another time, and be perfect.

[Adami]

Not sure what you're saying. I'm saying that you can do one thing at one time, and one thing at another time, and be perfect.

I agree. But you can't be one thing at one time and then be another thing at another time and still be perfect.

[eric42434224]

Regardless, you cant be perfect if you create things that are imperfect.

[Ħ]

Not sure what you're saying. I'm saying that you can do one thing at one time, and one thing at another time, and be perfect.

I agree. But you can't be one thing at one time and then be another thing at another time and still be perfect.

Totally disagree. Think of everyday life. You alter your actions based on your circumstance. You eat when you're hungry, but you're not always eating.

[Ħ]

Regardless, you cant be perfect if you create things that are imperfect.

Disagree with this as well. If you are faced with two types of worlds to create, one being a perfect world with no free will, and the other being an imperfect world with free will, I'd say the latter is the better and the one that God would create.

[theseoafs]

Any world you create can't be better than a perfect world.  That's not even philosophy, that just defies the definition of the word.

[eric42434224]

He is saying you are then different, and not the same.  Changes have been made.  Perfection is perfection, and if you are now something different, you cant still be perfect. 

And with my example, more related to christianity, if god is perfect, and he is only able to do things consistent with his natue (one aspect of which is perfection), then he is not able to create imperfect things.  We see imperfections of his creation in everyday life, and in the bible.  Therefore he is not perfect.

[Ħ]

Any world you create can't be better than a perfect world.  That's not even philosophy, that just defies the definition of the word.

I think it's reasonable to assume a distinction between "perfect" and "best" in this discussion. For example: you could have a perfect square and a perfect pentagon. But the pentagon is "better" because it has more sides (provided that your criterion for judging shapes was the number of sides).

He is saying you are then different, and not the same.  Changes have been made.  Perfection is perfection, and if you are now something different, you cant still be perfect.

I understood what he was saying from the beginning. And clearly, you can have a perfect object that changes over time. I see no inherent contradiction between perfection and action based on time.


As for your argument that because this world is imperfect, a perfect creator cannot exist...again, I don't see why a perfect creator has to create a perfect world. It seems to me like he would have to create the best world, but not necessarily the perfect world. And the best world is one that has free will, which over time leads to imperfection.

[eric42434224]

Oh, IMO I absolutely agree that a perfect being can create anything, perfect or imperfect.  My point was that I didnt believe that god is bound by the requirement that it can only act in its "nature".  If you follow that premise, then a perfect god cant do anything imperfect.

[Ħ]

You're not following what I'm saying at all.


1 - God is bound by his nature and must create the best world.
2 - The best world contains free will and imperfection.
3 - God is bound to create a world that contains free will and imperfection.

[eric42434224]

Youre not following what I am saying either, and we disagree on a few things:

1) If his nature is perfection, he must create perfection...."perfect" is not synonymous with "best"

2)Considering some of the things that have happened in this "world", I would hardly think it was the best god could have come up with.

3) There is no reason he is bound to do so....unless you say he is bound by his nature, and his nature is imperfection.

[Ħ]

Okay. Well, your argument is valid. But I disagree with this premise:

If his nature is perfection, he must create perfection

I don't see why that has to be true.

[eric42434224]

I dont agree it has to be true either, but some have been working on the premise that god can only do things that are in its nature.  If one wants to operate on that premise, then one has to follow through with it, not discard it in the instances where we see things everyday that are in discord with it.

So, if you say god is perfect, that is its nature.  If it is bound to do only things in its nature, it must only do perfect things.  Its creations must then be perfect.