Jac3510 wrote:Kurieuo wrote:Ok, I'm going to dance on some pin heads here with angels, because I'd like to.
I'm not so sure I agree that the "greatest conceivable being" necessarily extends to morality. This part of Craig's argument would need fleshing out. To be clear about what I mean, the "Necessary Something" (i.e., Being) responsible for all other existence must be the greatest
ontological being, but what
qualities such has needs further revealing before being conceived.
Nonetheless, in virtue of God being foundational to all else there can be nothing that exists higher than God. Therefore, if morality is a quality we witness the reality of in life, then there can be no higher morality than God. We do all identify moral rightness and wrongness in some way or another, so therefore it is right to say morality is a quality that God has even if such isn't a necessary logical condition of God's mere existence. We know God has a morality, because we see such a morality, and all things come from God who is the necessary foundation of all existence. So then, we believe God is moral and further that there is no morality higher than God who is the foundation.
SO then, if we can conceive of a higher moral God than a particular "God" we get told about (i.e., in the Koran) -- either our understanding in which we can see a higher moral God is wrong (e.g., we misunderstand what is being said or don't have all the information) [`A`],
or the God conceived off who does actually contain a lesser morality is wrong (i.e., Allah, the God conceived of by Islam) [`B`].
Having this disjunction (`A` or `B`) is important and relevant. It also provides a way out of Craig's argument against the verses in the Koran. Muslims could opt for `A` perhaps.
Take for example someone who turns to the OT and says a higher moral, more loving and merciful God would have told Israel to save the Amalekites. Really, why did God order the killing of children? Now it looks like the God we believe in isn't the maximal one. Indeed, it is very hard to reconcile all qualities -- love, mercy, righteousness, justice, etc. BUT then perhaps
we don't understand the fuller circumstances around such, which would actually lead to a more coherent understanding of God in the story.
With Islam, we can say that God hating this and that shows God to be less moral or loving, but then such is pinning God's morality or love against God's righteousness. In a way, God does not love the wicked since their sins make them like filthy rags, but nonetheless God loves the wicked and desires them to change, be cleansed and have a heart for Himself. Indeed some of the Koran verses of God seem hard to reconcile or "get off the hook".
At the end of the day though, Muslims are more likely to embrace God's will rather than lower God to man's judgement. This is why, in Muslim eyes, saying Jesus is God incarnate is a major insult to God -- because God wouldn't associate and dirty Himself with us human "swine". He's better than that. There can be no lowering of God whatsoever. It's a very strong sovereign view of God.
And also at the end of the day, it is often hard to see how Righteousness can be reconciled with Love and vice-versa. How the two can be made compatible. But, they must. For the foundational Something that exists, must possess both qualities. And since there is nothing higher than that Something (i.e., God), God must possess both maximally. We identity such qualities in the world, therefore they have a foundation, and I'd argue rather than treating each in an
individual maximal sense that
these qualities actually have a conjoined maximal foundation in God Himself. God is divinely simple after all, right Jac?
So finally, turning back to these verses in the Koran. One must be able to say that the ideal balance of God's Love and Mercy isn't wrongly outweighed by God's Righteousness. If God's Love and Mercy could be a higher
creating a more optimal balance with God's Righteousness, then the God described by the Koran is incorrect. Rather than just focusing on one side of the ratio -- all God's qualities must be taken collectively into consideration. I'd argue ("Allah willing"
) that the Islam view of God is so strong on God's Righteousness and Sovereignty that it throws away a maximum and perfectly optimised balance of "God's Love and Mercy" to "God's Righteousness and Sovereignty."
I think this is a very good analysis. I would only add one caveat when it comes to reconciling any of God's attributes, e.g. love and justice. I'm of the view that we need to make sure that we aren't placing God under necessity. So God's love cannot be interpreted to mean that He
has to act this way whereas His justice means that He
has to act that way. It seems to me that the basic assumptions behind the claim that it's hard to reconcile things has just that sort of necessity in mind, e.g., "If God were
really just, He would punish all sin; but if God were
really loving, He would forgive us. Therefore, God must do
x to allow Himself to be just/loving/both." But that whole line of thought is a mistake, because it assumes that God must do anything at all. It seems to me that we ought to take seriously the idea that God doesn't owe us anything whatsoever. We literally cannot place God under ANY obligation. We only say that God cannot do the logically impossible, but that is due to no obligation but simply to the fact that the logically impossible isn't a thing to be done and is ultimately reduced to nonsense.
All that, then, is to say that these attributes like Justice and Love are deep metaphors. Love, properly understood, is when one acts in for the benefit of the other. So to say that God is love is to say that acts for our benefit. And, of course, that is true--not by necessity, mind you, but just in fact. And the same with all the other attributes. We can actually appeal to a type of strong anthropic principle to help understand this a bit more. God is under no necessity to love us (not even an internal necessity). But because He has freely chosen to love us, the fact is that we do exist. Were God to have not so chosen, we wouldn't even be here to debate the question!
So all that just strikes me as one more reason not to get into "better world" arguments with Muslims (or anyone else). Not only is there no guarantee that our moral sentiments accurately reflect objective morality (which must be grounded in God's (simple) nature), but there is further no way to place God under any sort of moral necessity whatsoever even if our moral sentiments COULD be proven to accurately reflect OM. And then add to all
that the fact that the whole idea of "better" or "worse" is absolutely meaningless to an infinite God, and the whole question just because absurd on its face. No, once again, we would do well to drop this whole notion of "better" and stick with an analysis of nature as it is, which tells us something about the nature of God (which He is, not by necessity, but freely).
Jac, there's not much I necessarily disagree with. I entirely agree with your point of view that we can't say God must act in this way or that -- provided we do without a doubt know it is God who we are dealing with. Without that knowledge though, people make their determinations of whether this or that picture of God seems true or false.
It becomes really complicated, once we're talking optimum levels for God with attributes like the maximum love:righteousness ratio, to really define how God should have necessarily behaved and acted (
which is trying to measure and quantify Philip). Then we add into the equation all attributes we come including love, justice, fairness, righteousness, patience, kindness, peace, joy, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-controlled and to infinity and beyond. These attributes are like Jac says, "deep metaphors" extending out of who God is, they just symbolise who God is - the great "
I AM" who just is. Is it really possible for us to measure all these attributes and know what an optimum ratio for God would be? Phil I have to agree with you that such is just ridiculous to quantify.
Especially given we are just creatures, and by no means have the fuller picture, can't see what future paths happen giving this action or that in an tangible manner like God could, don't even fully understand all of God's good objectives and purposes.
To use Jack Bauer in 24 as an example, he looks evil to many, but necessary to others. Killing this person, torturing that to bring about the maximum good for America using his best judgement possible and still be as loving and compassionate as possible (to appeal to the audience) while doing what is in the best interests of greater America.
It's kind of like CS Lewis in A Grief Observed, "
What do people mean when they say, 'I am not afraid of God because I know He is good'? Have they never even been to a dentist?" Unless we have all the information, or are perhaps even God Himself, then we cannot truly judge God's actions, even if the creature could rise above the source of its own morality.
HOWEVER, I'd be clear that in many cases we're not defining how God ought to behave, like we're telling God you must necessarily do `X`, `Y` and `Z` if God really does love us (which people kind of do
do, even Christians in their prayer life
)... however, perhaps it more comes down to we'd expect the true God to not freely indulge in behaving this way or that because such characteristics are anti-God. Where a conception of God is presented that contradict God's nature, then we can make a determination or further investigation ought to be undertaken and is required.
So, for example, a particular "God" someone embraces such as the Islamic "God" who does not love the unbelievers, does not love the evildoers, does not love the proud, does not love the transgressors, does not love the prodigal, does not love the treacherous and furthermore God is an enemy to all unbelievers. This is clearly is not the God I believe in, not the God Christ Himself presented, nor what I'd expect other Christians to believe in. Certainly God would not love our sinful behaviour, but He nonetheless ought to love us because He is God. And provided love truly exists, there is no higher love than God who is its source. So I think a strong argument can be made against this "God", but we can't rule out perhaps we don't have all the right understanding of what is being said in the Koran such that further investigation is actually required.
Or maybe we're dealing with the "God" that Kirk confronts in Star Trek: The Final Frontier movie. Well, Kirk was able to quickly determine this "God" was not all he said he was. Largely based upon its unloving nature.
So there is an issue. Certainly, we can't quantify God's actions, and yet on some level we do and are able to in order to distinguish the one True God from false gods and even given I'm a Christian those who are anti-Christ. How are we to determine such? By their fruit (Matt 7:15-20) And the fruits of the spirit are many godly attributes: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. (Gal 5:22-23) But, Scripture isn't necessary. Anyone can determine that if love truly exists, then no one can have this more the source it came from.
It does seem initially hopeless try to work out what God should be like, but I'd suggest however, that it doesn't really come down to mathematical quantifications with ratios and the like. Assigning a value to this attribute and that attribute and trying to work out the optimum "God" levels. Rather it comes down to our hearts feeling such out, gut intuitions and the like -- whether we can determine and sense whether the "God" we're being told of is legitimate. Yes, imperfect, but God didn't leave us humans without an apparatus, but has implanted His moral standard in us. Therefore, this moral compass being unaffected and in good working order, even those of us who don't have God can know and do by nature things that are good. (Romans 2:14)
Now the exact kind of argument William Lane Craig made in Paul's opening post, is really much the same as the one your Positive Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and company make against the God of the OT and as such God who Christians believe in. And it can be very forceful, not for Atheism
per se, but against Christians and perhaps more for making Apatheists (i.e., those who don't care about God one way or the other even if God exists, because clearly God doesn't care much about us).
It is interesting that the main arguments Positive Atheists seems to make against God, is that God is malicious, evil and vindictive given what we see in life and find in each of the main religions of the world. There is this expectation that God ought to be morally good and love us. But, to reach a conclusion of no God, it seems to me their intuition or understanding is wrong which I'll explain.
If something must have always existed (which is true given many things exist), then that foundational something that has always existed can be called "God". The point of difference is whether such is intelligent. I reason that if we accept the immaterial realities of morality, love, goodness and the like, that their source isn't found in a material or physical world having always existed, but rather an intelligent personal entity who has always existed. Therefore, a moral argument (which requires the existence of morality) can't be used to argue against God's existence, even against the existence of a loving and caring God, but it can be used to argue against a particular conception of God.
Positive Atheists go too far then, in declaring a loving God does not exist. Which really casts suspicious on their ability to determine which "God" that has been made known to us through this religion or that, or which "God" perhaps seems to be the most legitimate candidate worth our time looking into further.
If I'm honest, not even the OT where God seems to have unfairly taken one nation to Himself inspires me. This God disheartened me when I read the Bible for the first time like "
what about me" if I lived back then outside of Israel, "
it isn't fair!" Until I see Christ and God becomes revealed through Him.
Christ epitomises pretty much all I'd expect of God in the right ratios. My heart just connects and the dots seem to align. And then who does Christ point us back to? The God of Israel. So now I'm left to theologically work out what the hell is going on and the misunderstandings that I might have of this God who only makes a deal with Israel forsaking it seems all other nations, this God who asks some guy called Abraham to sacrifice his son like you'd see in some pagan religion and the like. But, for me, it starts and indeed ends with Christ.
