No-reason argument

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Reverted vandalism by Nmusser1)
(5 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{argument-stub}}
 
{{argument-stub}}
  
The '''"No Reason" argument''' states that a perfect [[god]] would have no desire to create the [[universe]] since the very state of perfection carries with it the implication that one has everything one needs or wants.  Thus, the Christian god is the "perfect" victim of this argument.
+
"The '''"No Reason" argument''' states that a perfect [[god]] would have no desire to create the [[universe]] since the very state of perfection carries with it the implication that one has everything one needs or wants.  Thus, the Christian god is the "perfect" victim of this argument."
 
+
The Amoral God Paradox can be expressed like this:
+
 
+
Raising a volitional being’s metaphysical power will generally raise the scope and potentiality of its actions.
+
 
+
Raising a volitional being’s metaphysical power will generally lower its need to act, and therefore its moral scope.
+
 
+
Or even simpler, the higher the metaphysical power, the more powerful its moral choices are, but the least it needs or desires to make those choices.
+
 
+
 
+
The argument could be constructed like this:
+
 
+
If divine creation is true, then the universe was created by a non-limited god.
+
 
+
A god cannot have any internal motivating factor, including need, desire, ignorance, or emotion.
+
 
+
If divine creation is true, then there was no cause outside of a god before Creation.
+
 
+
If divine creation is true, then a god was not subject to exterior causes before Creation. (from 3)
+
 
+
A god before Creation cannot have any internal or exterior motivating factors. (from 2 and 4)
+
 
+
A god would never act, and divine creation cannot be true. (from 5)
+
 
+
(the imposition of any motivating factor on God contradicts the idea of a god’s nature being unlimited)
+
  
 +
This argument is built on an inadequate human understanding of "perfection". As humans, we have no understanding of what it means to be perfect. We have ideas of what perfection ought to look like, but these are merely social constructs. To say that 'one who is perfect does not need' is an implication that cannot be argued for or against. Humans have no understanding of this notion; thus this is an argument built on insufficient premises.
  
 
{{Arguments against god}}
 
{{Arguments against god}}
 
[[Category:Inductive arguments]]
 
[[Category:Inductive arguments]]

Revision as of 00:18, 21 November 2011


"The "No Reason" argument states that a perfect god would have no desire to create the universe since the very state of perfection carries with it the implication that one has everything one needs or wants. Thus, the Christian god is the "perfect" victim of this argument."

This argument is built on an inadequate human understanding of "perfection". As humans, we have no understanding of what it means to be perfect. We have ideas of what perfection ought to look like, but these are merely social constructs. To say that 'one who is perfect does not need' is an implication that cannot be argued for or against. Humans have no understanding of this notion; thus this is an argument built on insufficient premises.


v · d Arguments against the existence of god
Existential arguments   Argument from nonbelief · Who created God? · Turtles all the way down · Problem of non-God objects · Argument from incompatible attributes · No-reason argument · Santa Claus argument · Can God create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it? · Outsider test
Arguments from the Bible   Failed Prophecy · Biblical contradictions
Evidentiary arguments   Attributes of God · Inefficacy of prayer
Reasonableness arguments   Occam's Razor · Outsider test · Argument from locality · Argument from inconsistent revelations
Other arguments   Emotional pleas
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox