Can god have agency?

[Stelar_7]

Assuming the god was omnipotent..

Omnipotence, the ability to do any logically possible thing. The inability to be thwarted.

Such a being could enact anything logically possible, but it would also know the best possible thing in every possible scenario and ramification for eternity. As Omniscience is a subset of omnipotence.

It would be capable of enacting any plan or series of events without error, perfection also being a subset of omnipotence.

So knowing the best possible thing to do, and being able to do the best possible thing, and not being able to get that wrong, where is there any room to make choices?

Can a being incapable of making choices be an agent? Shouldn't we just recognize such a thing would be nothing more than necessity?

[JehovahsWitness]

So knowing the best possible thing to do, and being able to do the best possible thing, and not being able to get that wrong, where is there any room to make choices?

Why would choice be negated by knowing which (choice) would be best?

To illustrate: If one knows it's best to eat your vegetable and know that doing so would procure you the greatest physical benefits, does that mean one cannot make the choice to eat or not?

Always making the best choice doesn't mean no choice is being made.





RELATED POSTS

Can an omnipotent God want anything?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 589#848589

Can a omnipotent God have desires?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 881#840881

Can an omniscient God experience emotion ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 168#798168

Can a perfect God create?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 881#840881

Go to other posts related to...

FREE WILL, PREDESTINATION and ...SELECTIVE FOREKNOWLEDGE

[shnarkle]

Assuming the god was omnipotent..

Omnipotence, the ability to do any logically possible thing. The inability to be thwarted.

Such a being could enact anything logically possible, but it would also know the best possible thing in every possible scenario and ramification for eternity. As Omniscience is a subset of omnipotence.

It would be capable of enacting any plan or series of events without error, perfection also being a subset of omnipotence.

So knowing the best possible thing to do, and being able to do the best possible thing, and not being able to get that wrong, where is there any room to make choices?

Can a being incapable of making choices be an agent? Shouldn't we just recognize such a thing would be nothing more than necessity?

All power is exhausted in creation. Prior to creation, it is potential; it is all potential, or omni-potential. It is not a subset of omniscience, or vice versa; they are equivalent in degree, but distinguished only in type. The catch is that omniscience doesn't admit to a type to begin with. You can know types which are known, but omniscience, by definition, cannot be known at all.

There are no choices or agency in God, there are only agents of, or choices from God.

[Stelar_7]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Because when there is only 1 option it isn't a choice.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Because when there is only 1 option it isn't a choice.

Except in this scenario there is more than one choice: Do what is right and for the best (#1) or not do what is right and for the best (#2).


JW

[Stelar_7]

[Replying to post 5 by JehovahsWitness]

Why do you believe behaving imperfectly is an option for a perfect being? That would be the "choice" of deliberate error.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 5 by JehovahsWitness]

Why do you believe behaving imperfectly is an option for a perfect being? That would be the "choice" of deliberate error.

The axiom that that which is perfect cannot choose to be so has not been proven and defies logic.

Being perfect for an independent intelligent being as a Creator must by definition be would involve, being moral*. An independent intelligent being incapable of morality is lacking in an essential component that guides and controls actions that effect others. We call such individuals psycopaths. A psychopath is imperfect. A "perfect creator" must therefore be moral, ie morality is part of the definition of being perfect" (complete). Otherwise he would be a perfect robot (an expression of someone else's creative power).

* By definition a Creator has made the choice to create, his creative acts display autonomy, intelligence and power.

Creating by definition involves imaging a future that is not yet a reality, there can be no creation without imagination. To suggest that he who can imagine a future reality cannot imagine an alternative to that future reality and make the choice which he prefers, is not only dealing in a logical impossibility but is detached from the fundamental meaning of the word imagination.

Is behaving imperfectly is an option for a perfect being?

• Yes, otherwise he wouldn't be omnipotent. By definition there is nothing an omnipotent being is incapable of doing including chose the worst possible option. The word "cannot" in its literal sense has no meaning for an omnipotent being but can be understood as synonymous to "will not". Not because he can't but because he chooses not to.

That would be the "choice" of deliberate error.

• But it would still be a choice. Further if one is the supreme ruler of the universe, (lawgiver, standard maker and judge) any deliberate choice would only be subject to that ones classification. If he never called any of his choices erroneous then for all intents and purposes they wouldn't be

CONCLUSION He that creates has imagination, autonomy, power and is capable of choice. A Perfect (omniscient) "Creator" must be able to conceive (imagine) all possible alternative futures at any given point in time, good or bad. Indeed one cannot make the wisest choice without concept of what the worst one would be. And one cannot be omniscient without being capable of choosing either.

Can a being incapable of making choices be an agent?

Always picking the orange from a plate of a different types of fruit doesnt mean one "incapable of making choices", it simply means ones choices are consistent.






JW

[Stelar_7]

[Replying to post 5 by JehovahsWitness]

Why do you believe behaving imperfectly is an option for a perfect being? That would be the "choice" of deliberate error.

Because being perfectly moral by definition must involve choice. If one has no choice one is a robot or a machine, to be moral one must have autonomy. Evidently he that creates morality cannot be devoid of it. JW

That isn't an argument for choice, it's one against morality. Moral agency is a subset of agency or a rebranding. It's like saying, "Of course it has a choice otherwise it wouldn't have a choice."

The argument presents reason to believe no choice is possible. If you want to refute it show where the argument is flawed or present a stronger case against it.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 8 by Stelar_7]

See edit.

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 1 by Stelar_7]

Such a being could enact anything logically possible,

The biblical Jehovah god is written of in the promotional literature as enacting all manner of illogical things …

From creating vegetation before the sun to incarnating himself in a human virgin.

But when one is writing the promotional literature of one's version of "God" and the god's wand-waving, temple crashing superheroes with amazing powers, one can have the god and its superheroes do ANYTHING.

The very fact that the biblical Jehovah is written of as enacting acts that defy the laws of physics and logic, and we can't find so much as a whiff of a hint for the existence of Jehovah outside the literature and the minds of his believers, it's safe to say that Jehovah is unlikely to be anything more than the agent of the imagination of the writers.