God's Existence

Con says: "Well I guess you do not see the implication inherent in the argument from non-cognitivism. You have no positively identified primary attributes for the god concept, simply ascribing relational attributes to that concept tells us nothing of what a god is. Thus the term god is simply meaningless and points to nothing in reality. If we wanted to draw an analogy we could set up the concept of the Yellow Quantum Whisperer (YQW), assign to their being the relational attribute of quantum whispering and thereby use them as an explanation for Quantum effects. At this point you may ask what a YQW is? As I would about a god for the exact same reasons." Con still maintains that describing God as creator does not tell one what God is. I am not that concerned about this point. I think that the argument I presented helps identify specific things about God. So I am not concerned about debating whether or not describing God as a creator tells one what God is. Con then says: "I see no reason why we must agree that there can be only one Ground of Existence (GOE). Even if one accepts that a GOE must be unlimited, there could be multiple overlapping unlimited entities." There must be something which distinguishes the multiple grounds of existence from one another and that distinction would then have to be some sort of limitation, which would nullify the possibility of multiple grounds of existence. Con then argues: "The point about the termination of an infinite series by invoking an infinite being leads to the same result. For instance if we are to assume that a god took a decision to create a contingent Universe, how did that infinite god cross an infinite series of mental processes to arrive at that decision. An infinite being would indeed have an infinitely long set of things to negotiate." My argument is that there cannot be an infinite regress of creators because contingent things are caused by something which transcends their limitations and this would eventually bottom out at the singular ground of existence. So Con's argument seems to be more directed to a different point. Never the less, I don't see why God could not examine an infinite number of possibilities all at once. Again, there is nothing inherently impossible about an infinite, it depends upon the situation. However, Con also argued: "Worse still to escape this problem the Theist may argue that in some utterly mysterious creative act (hitherto unknown) a god auto-bootstrapped into existence instantly with this plan already held in an utterly mysterious intelligent consciousness. But this leads to a worse outcome for the Theist. A necessary being with the attributes ascribed to a god would be incapable of doing anything else other than creating the Universe as it is. Thus in what sense is the Universe contingent? A necessary being creating things necessarily because they are programmed to do so. Nothing contingent about that possible world." I would not say that God is mysteriously bootstrapped with a plan. Rather, from all eternity God knows everything because He necessarily possesses all knowledge. So from all eternity God knows what His plan is. Yet, Con seems to argue that this would nullify God's freedom in choosing to create. However, I disagree because again God necessarily knows everything from His eternity. He does not need time to think about it. He is always aware of all possibilities and Has always decided what His plan will be. So the universe is not necessary, God still had to decide to create it. Yet, God decided from all eternity to create it, since He did not need time to deliberate. Con then argues: "Pro has also missed the point about perfection. A maximally perfect being would only create perfect things, If they choose not to they would not be maximally perfect, in that it would be possible for them to be more perfect." Con still maintains that a perfect being would only be able to create perfect things. I think that a perfect being would not be able to be unjust, but all things less than God are imperfect to some degree. I do not think it is wrong for God to create those things. Con then argues: "Placing the GOE outside of space and time is meaningless. But let us say that it is not, what then. In what sense can it be a creative causal force? Causal creation requires an act inside of time in the effects always temporally follow causes." I do not see what is meaningless about a being that is not limited by space and time. God causes everything from all eternity. To use an analogy, imagine a man from all time standing on a beach. From all time his foot has caused the sand to become compressed. This did not require time because the foot has always been there, yet the foot still causes the sand to compress. Con also says: "There are also no grounds to import the concept of intelligence into a maximally unlimited entity. A theoretical quantum field could be said to be unlimited, but what intelligence does it have? Again this is a bare assertion on Pros part." I disagree that a quantum field is truly unlimited. If it was truly unlimited then it would have the attributes that I am ascribing to God. It would be spaceless, timeless, fully intelligen, ground of existence because that is what being unlimited entails as far as I can see. Thanks for the debate so far Con. I look forward to the next response.