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?

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 3 by shnarkle]

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

All versions of "God" have names.

I'm going to take it that the version of "God" you are referring to is the biblical Jehovah.

I'm going to take that agency is the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices.

The biblical mythographers and propagandists certainly do give their ethnic deity, Jehovah, agency in their folklore.

And the writers certainly do have the genocidal Jehovah act independently in the stories. And they write of him making some really bad choices too. Choices so bad he had to flood the dome of Genesis One, and then incarnate himself in a human virgin to try and rectify the mess he made of the whole mud-man and rib-woman, "special creation" business.

Just as well we CAN'T find Jehovah existing outside the story books.

This New Atheist certainly wouldn't want Jehovah as the "real" capital G God of the entire cosmos and all the dimensions beyond … which is apparently where "Heaven" is in these days of science-fiction.

[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.

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

This is a claim that you haven't supported. My claim is that perfection falls within the prevue of omnipotence. The ability to not make mistakes.

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.

You are conflating morality with agency again. If a being is perfect then any action it took would also be perfect, it would be the moral thing to do regardless of if the entity could choose to do it or not.

In fact a perfectly moral being could only take perfectly moral actions, it's one more point against the idea of such a being having agency. Taking any action other than the best possible would be morally flawed.

You assume choice in your definition of creator. However is simply isn't so. To prove this choose not to produce carbon dioxide. Go ahead, decide to stop. Or realize that every autonomic function your body performs is an act of creation which does not involve agency. At best you could choose a different set of creations by dying and creating methane instead of carbon dioxide.

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.

This simply isn't so. I create poop. I do not need to imagine poop to do so, I just metabolize food, and then choose where to deposit the poop when it's ready.

It's also false to say that in being able to imagine actions other than those that will be taken is equivalent to being able to take the imagined actions.

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.

So this is interesting. You are offering a definition of omnipotent other than the one I listed at the top. Why?

The reason I didn't use your definition here is that such a proposition can be said to be false as it violates the law of identity. A thing can not be both A and not A. Yet your definition would require that it could be.

Like the sixteen sided triangle it can not be logically coherent, and thus is equivalent to gibberish. There is no sense in that combination of words.

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

Except as you have shown above it can't be. A perfectly moral being can not make immoral choices. Thus it must make moral ones, and maximally moral ones. It would possess the ability to recognize and enact the most moral possible event for all possible scenarios, so again, one option only is not a choice.

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.

Omniscience destroys imagination. A being who knows every possible thing can not imagine a new thing, it already knows every possible thing.

Autonomy implies choices which is the matter in dispute and one you have inadvertently argued against, not in favor of.

Power is irrelevant, it was granted at the beginning.

By stating that an autonomous being is capable of choice you are repeating yourself. You need to establish that a perfectly moral being could some how remain perfectly moral while enacting less than perfectly moral actions.

Omniscience should not be defined as able to do anything, that old definition self refutes. Hence the definition I am using, able to do any logically possible thing. That bypasses the make a stone so heavy … paradox.

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[/quote]

The plate assumes options. My argument is that there is only an orange and it must be taken.

[JehovahsWitness]

My claim is that perfection falls within the prevue of omnipotence. The ability to not make mistakes.

Emphasis MINE


I don't contest that, but how would this negate the ability to choose (especially as you framed it as a negative).

To illustrate: If someone has the ability to not play the piano, they cannot it be forced to play the piano. If their piano teacher, friend or a particularly proud great maiden aunt urges them to play the piano, they would be capable (ie they would have the ability, the potential/the capcity) to not play. Does that mean they cannot choose to play?

In a similar way, choice is intrinsic to the ability to not do something. While as I explained in my earlier post, "mistake" "errors" , even "perfect" are open to interpretation (see post # 14 below), the ability (as you out it) to not doing something, in no way negates ability TO do that thing; that's not a philosophical point it's simply a lexical one.


Logic,


JW

OMNIPOTENCE noun


1 : the quality or state of being omnipotent

2 : an agency or force of unlimited power
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omnipotence

[JehovahsWitness]

If a being is perfect then any action it took would also be perfect, it would be the moral thing to do regardless of if the entity could choose to do it or not.

My point exactly. Which is why I refere to choices rather than "errors" or "mistakes" which are ultimately subjective assessments.

... 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

RELATED POSTS

What is the definition of PERFECTION?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 829#797829

Who made God?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 192#925192

Can God die?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 877#951877

What would happen if God died?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 763#951763

[JehovahsWitness]

You need to establish that a perfectly moral being could some how remain perfectly moral while enacting less than perfectly moral actions.

Emphasis MINE

No I don't.

You may correct me if I misunderstood your original point, but I took it that you were proposing a "perfectly moral being" is incapable of choice. ie can he lacks the capacity/ ability to choose to be good or choose to be bad? In short I am contesting the claim that good actions by a "perfectly moral being" cannoy be by choice*.

What this is not about ...

Whether " a perfectly moral being" could , subsequent to certain decisions, still be described as such is irrelevant. The point under discussion is at any given moment in time would an omnipotent being have a choice?!

• To illustrate: I am not dealing with the question of whether a woman can be both pregnant and not pregnant at the same time - or whether a woman that has chosen to get herself pregnant can still be a woman that hasnt gotten herself pregnant ....but whether a woman can choose to become pregnant or not.

Feel free to clarify if I a arguing against a point you are not in fact making

* CHOICE:

When I refer to "choice" I mean envisioning an alternative action and for whatever reason not deciding to take it

[JehovahsWitness]

Omniscience destroys imagination.

A bold statement indeed (and essentially unprovable) but perhaps given what the dictionary definition of what "imagination" is, you might like to address my point that a being that created all subsequent realities "present to the senses" prior to the existence of any reality save himself, did so without imagination (autonomy or choice).

IMAGINATION

The act or power of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imagination

You assume choice in your definition of creator.

I most certainly do, that is a logical - and lexical* inevitability.

TO CREATE

To bring into existence
..
To produce through imaginative skill

* In its absolute sense "to create" means to make something out of nothing (Hebrew "bara"). In short if there is nothing but said omnipotent being (and no authorative limitation or constraints) then any action that one takes must by definition be completely autonomous.

[JehovahsWitness]

FOOTNOTE:

You are offering a definition of omnipotent other than the one I listed at the top. Why?

Because your defintion is not what the word means.

You are free of course to redefine words so your given premise will lead to the desired conclusion (I too like fantasy football and believe my dream team of Pele, Maradona, Ranaldo, Beckenbauer et al would win any match*) but if we take the word omnipotent at its basic (not expedient) meaning, then it means "all" powerful, not all" convenient. ie unlimited power, not power limited by logic or any other constraint.

OMNIPOTENT

1 : one who has unlimited power or authority : one who is omnipotent
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omnipotent

JW


*we are of course talking about soccer not American football. That is until soccer is redefined as a water sport played by Croatian pensioners that involves swinging a bat at a flying frog.

[1213]

...
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...

There still remains the choice to choose to do the best thing.

[Stelar_7]

[Replying to post 17 by JehovahsWitness]

Wow dictionary arguments. Perhaps you are unaware that language is as language is used. The idea of a set or "correct" use of a word is erroneous.

In any case I see you didn't bother to respond to the point that the definition you are trying to impose is logically contradictory and therefore self refutes.

If we use your definition, then an omnipotent being cannot make choices because it does not and can not exist. The definition I offered is the one that you will find in modern theology and philosophy precisely to avoid the contradiction.

Having said all that, the other point you have ignored in your responses is this. All choices have a moral implication. The Omnipotent being is perfectly moral, and thus must make choices that are maximally moral and that is one choice only as it knows the best and most moral choice in any scenario.

You tried to say that any choice such a being makes is moral on the basis that it invents morality, and that assertion renders the idea of morality empty. There is no action or inaction that wouldn't then be moral.

However there is an action that is still best. Regardless of what moral system or set of parameters such a being uses, it would still know the best thing to do and thus by it's own standard it can only be the best thing it seeks.

Any lesser action is a betrayal of itself.

As for imagination, an omniscient being has both technical and experiential knowledge of all possible things. It already knows, so how can it dream up or imagine? At best you are offering word games.

[JehovahsWitness]

Any lesser action is a betrayal of itself.

Lesser than what? If your point is that a perfect being cannot be faced with choice then it is illogical for you to suggest that the wrong one would represent a {quote } "lesser" action. Again perhaps I am arguing against a point you are not in fact making, but if you are suggesting a perfect moral omnipotent being/creator cannot conceive of alternative choice nor make one himself, it seems to disregard both logic and the fundamental meaning of all the words used to describe the being itself.

Perhaps you might like to further narrow the scope and meaning of your parameters to achieve the desired results you seem so bent on pronouncing.


JW