Godly Motivations

[John 6IX Breezy]

I never said that "without limits" is either a coherent or real concept; it is simply the god concept that many theists have. Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenvolent, etc. Their god is fabulized enough so that it can't just be a glorified version of themselves. And yet ... of course, it still is. It is basically what they WISH they could be ... non-contingent, non-dependent, and not lacking for sufficient knowledge and confidence and potency.

So that is the concept I critique.

Hmm although I agree that the idea of "without limits" might represent very lightly the beliefs of many theists, I also think that these are concepts that are very easy to strawman. For example, if you say that if God is without limits, then He should be able to create a square circle, I would say you've created a caricature. I think the infinite and the very large are very difficult for the human mind to comprehend. There are many paradoxes, such as Zeno's arrows, whose premises revolve around infinity, and I don't think that's a coincidence. I think gloves and masks are required when talking about such things, because our minds are not bound by reality and its very easy for them to imagine "square circle" scenarios as if they mapped onto the real world. So I think that even if all the omnis are true and real attributes of a true and real God, it would still be easy either misunderstand or make unrealistic.

[mordant]

I never said that "without limits" is either a coherent or real concept; it is simply the god concept that many theists have. Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenvolent, etc. Their god is fabulized enough so that it can't just be a glorified version of themselves. And yet ... of course, it still is. It is basically what they WISH they could be ... non-contingent, non-dependent, and not lacking for sufficient knowledge and confidence and potency.

So that is the concept I critique.

Hmm although I agree that the idea of "without limits" might represent very lightly the beliefs of many theists, I also think that these are concepts that are very easy to strawman. For example, if you say that if God is without limits, then He should be able to create a square circle, I would say you've created a caricature. I think the infinite and the very large are very difficult for the human mind to comprehend. There are many paradoxes, such as Zeno's arrows, whose premises revolve around infinity, and I don't think that's a coincidence. I think gloves and masks are required when talking about such things, because our minds are not bound by reality and its very easy for them to imagine "square circle" scenarios as if they mapped onto the real world. So I think that even if all the omnis are true and real attributes of a true and real God, it would still be easy either misunderstand or make unrealistic.

That is a fair point.

I can tell you that "the omnis" were true and real so far as I and my compatriots were concerned, when I was a fundagelical. At least in dogmatic, theological terms. But in everyday real life, we were still obliged to function, and it can be argued that we did not live 100% according to our beliefs. We might have SAID god is immutable and unchanging, yet we prayed to him to change what was clearly his mind on certain issues (e.g., "you are to have fatal cancer for no particular reason you are aware of"). We might have SAID god is omnipresent and omniscient, yet we would inform him of our needs as if he wasn't already aware of them. We might have SAID god was omnipotent and omnibenevolent and blesses the righteous (= "us") and yet we resorted to doctors and various best practices like safe driving because "god helps those who help themselves".

So if our positions were easy to ridicule perhaps it is because we took them, at least theoretically, to ridiculous ends that we ourselves didn't fully embrace or believe. And because it could not be empirically shown that we lived more fortunate, salubrious, or charmed lives compared to random controls.

[Drich]

God does stuff, and has done stuff.  We're told this constantly.

Why?  What could possibly motivate such a being to create or do anything?  God knows everything and can do everything.  God is complete and unchanging.  How could such a being possibly have any motivation whatsoever? 

Boru

Why does God do stuff?
Why has God done stuff?

What motivates the doing of stuff given his all knowing nature.

I would ask what does Jesus say was the reason.

We are told love is the key to all of this. We are created to be loved, to love, and to love God.

[The Grand Nudger]

I would have went some way other than stalking golems, if I were a believer answering that question.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

God does stuff, and has done stuff.  We're told this constantly.

Why?  What could possibly motivate such a being to create or do anything?  God knows everything and can do everything.  God is complete and unchanging.  How could such a being possibly have any motivation whatsoever? 

Boru

Why does God do stuff?
Why has God done stuff?

What motivates the doing of stuff given his all knowing nature.

I would ask what does Jesus say was the reason.

We are told love is the key to all of this. We are created to be loved, to love, and to love God.

Yeah, no.  I'm not really asking 'why' God does stuff, but how it is possible for him to do anything at all.  Actions depend on motivations, and a perfect Being can't have motivations.

Boru

[EgoDeath]

To first talk about what god can or cannot do, we should probably define what god is. Once we do that, as a society, as a world, then and only then can we even discuss god. Until then, it's a concept that's ultimately pointless to talk about, in many ways.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why can't a perfect being have motives, is the obvious question. Imagine the perfect human being. They would still have motivations. Human motivations, in all likelihood. Just like a god's. Its clearly possible in concept for a perfect being to have motivations...having motivations is not remarkable. Perfection does not rule out motivation.

A perfect god having fallen human motivations, is an issue, though. Even if it's a real perfect god that really exists. Especially if it's a real god that really exists. Theres a superpowered human-alike pervert living in the sky.........

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Why can't a perfect being have motives, is the obvious question.  Imagine the perfect human being.  They would still have motivations.  Human motivations, in all likelihood.  Just like a god's.  Its clearly possible in concept for a perfect being to have motivations...having motivations is not remarkable.  Perfection does not rule out motivation.  

A perfect god having fallen human motivations, is an issue, though.  Even if it's a real perfect god that really exists. Especially if it's a real god that really exists.  Theres a superpowered human-alike pervert living in the sky.........

A motivation is a desire.  The presence of a desire necessitates a lack.  A lack requires incompleteness.  A perfect Being would, by definition, be complete.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

These sound like arbitrary rules of desire. Its not clear why desire necessitates a lack. Or "a lack" requires incompleteness.

Is it impossible for you to desire something you don't lack? Is it possible for there to be some lack you desire to fill which isn't related to any personal incompleteness? Do you desire to help people because you lack and are therefore incomplete, for example? Can that be stated as a rule of Boru and why he helps?

Couldn't it also be argued that a being without desires is incomplete..and has "a lack"?

I know, I know, christian theologians have been mortified by the idea that their walking bundle of human desires-as-god might somehow be insufficient on account of that, but those guys are nuts and it's not at all clear why these things mean what they worry about.