Can we subject God to questioning?

Something that always perplexed me about the Book of Job is that it seems God doesn't consider Himself accountable to His creatures.

From Wikipedia:

God's speech also emphasizes his sovereignty in creating and maintaining the world. The thrust is not merely that God has experiences that Job does not, but that God is king over the world and is not necessarily subject to questions from his creatures, including men. The point of these speeches is to proclaim the absolute freedom of God over His creation. God is not in need of the approval of his creation. It is only the reader of the book who learns of God's conversations with Satan; Job himself remains unaware of the reason or source of his sufferings. The traditional interpretation is that, humbled by God's chastising, Job turns speechless, giving up and repenting his previous requests of justice. However, another interpretation is that Job's silence is defiant, and that what he gives up is not his belief that justice be done, but his confidence that God will behave justly.

I don't mean that God has no good reason to allow suffering. God may have a fantastic reason. My concern was I didn't understand why we can't hold God to account.

For example, surely if you had a child who was suffering, while their parent was standing around and could seemingly assist that child, then it would be reasonable to demand that the parent explain their inaction. Maybe the parent has an excellent reason, e.g. the pain involved in the medical operation was necessary for the child's future health. But, at least with parents, courts can demand an explanation for apparently negligent actions.

It occurred to me that one way to justify the Book of Job's position might come from the definition of God.

Consider these verses:

James 1:13: "When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone"

Titus 1:2: "in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago"

Hebrews 6:18: "God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged."

They seem to say that God is unable, not just unwilling, to sin (maybe because sin means acting on some untruth, and truth is so firmly planted in God that He cannot so act).

If you define God as a being who is unable - not just unwilling, but unable - to commit evil, then asking God whether or not He is committing evil seems a bit silly. It would be like defining a triangle as an object with three sides and then asking why there is no fourth side. E.g. the answer why there is no fourth side is that a triangle can only have three sides. Similarly, if God is defined as unable to do evil, then you already know whether that particular God has committed evil before you even ask the question.

Under the definition of God as a being who is unable to commit evil, it's fair to say that you shouldn't demand that God tell you whether He is committing evil. Why? Because, with that assumption, the question doesn't make sense. If you already accept that God is unable to do evil, then the answer has to be: God didn't commit evil.

So I suppose you can make an argument that if you are running with view that God is unable to commit evil, then you shouldn't question God because the question is nonsensical.

Applying this to Job, one main difference is that even though the Bible tells us that God is unable to commit evil, by looking at the world we can have some doubt about that. So are we really in the position of being able to say God cannot commit evil before we discuss the problem of suffering?

If we can't start off with that assumption, then you can't say that questioning God is nonsensical.

I would say that if we look at the world, then yes, we don't know that God is a being who is unable to commit evil, but consider the issue from the point-of-view of a God who is unable to commit evil and created the world. According to this God's point-of-view, He is allowed to disagree with our negative impression. For this God knows the real situation. So from that God's point-of-view, maybe He is allowed to say, 'Well, if you knew the truth, then you would know it is nonsensical to question me', and put forth this view to His creations.

In summing up, I think that for people who don't know that God cannot commit evil, I don't think it's necessarily wrong to question God. But this doesn't take away from the fact that from God's point-of-view, questioning His goodness is literally nonsensical (assuming us Christians are right), on the basis of inability. That is, on the basis that God is unable to do evil, it makes no sense to ask whether God did evil. So I suppose that God could in this way have a right to tell people they are unable to question His ethical conduct.

God's suffering

One thing that distinguishes Christianity from other religions is that in Christianity God is supposed to have experienced the evil and suffering that humanity experiences in everyday life. Jesus is supposed to be God in the same way that you are you, and I am myself (John 10:30, Mark 2:5-12, John 14:9). This means that although God hasn't taken away evil and suffering in this life, God has experienced a pretty broad range of evils and sufferings, which, I suppose, is more comforting than if it wasn't the case.

The fact that God has suffered from the things that we go through means that God can more easily have empathy for what it's like, having been in our situation. God knows exactly what we're going through. God's ability to emphathise with our situation reminds me of John 11:33-5: "When Jesus saw her crying, and the Jews who were crying with her, he was deeply moved and troubled. So Jesus asked, "Where did you put Lazarus?" They answered him, "Lord, come and see." Jesus cried."

An interesting aspect to God's suffering is whether Jesus on the cross experienced more than purely anguish at his situation and physical pain. When Jesus "bore our sins in his body on the tree" (1 Pe 2:24), did this involve more than being crucified? One analogy I have heard about this is that you can imagine humanity's sins like a big pool of black sludge, and then this is somehow collected and poured onto Jesus on the cross.

If so, then Jesus' crucifixion involved much more than the anguish of his situation and physical pain. It also involved the pain of carrying humanity's sins, which could be quite horrible. Carrying all of humanity's sins would be an act on a massive scale. It is also an act with a terrible nature - we don't know what it feels like to carry someone's sins, but it could be really horrible. Perhaps it is the most painful experience anyone can go through. And maybe Jesus was also spiritually separated from the first member of the trinity in some way while it happened (Mark 15:34), which could be quite awful for God to undergo.

Suppose this is correct, then perhaps God is the one who has suffered the most in the history of the world.

This is a very surprising idea. Normally when we think of suffering we don't see God as an example of the miseries in the world. We might imagine a starving child in Africa, or someone with terrible chronic pain, or a victim of horrible evil. But, actually, according to this reasoning God is actually the person who has suffered the most in history. God's story is a good example of what it means to live in a world of pain and evil.

Why is it so hard to describe heaven?

Why can't Christians come up with a really fantastic description of heaven (or rather the new heavens and new earth)? Here is my attempt to explain a large part of the reason.

Something interesting about our happiness in this life is that it is very, you could say, 'temporal'. That is, people's happiness experiences a huge issue with boredom. Some people would be happy to live forever as long as they could keep experiencing new things forever, but in polls a lot of people say that they wouldn't want to live forever even if they could do so.

I believe this is because human happiness is not naturally hardwired for eternity. Our ability to be happy cannot sustain us for that long. E.g. it's a relatively common motif in horror stories that someone is condemned to live forever even though they can do whatever they want.

But it's interesting to note that God is probably not at all like this, if any God exists, because otherwise God would have gone completely insane with boredom. In most theologies God is eternal and outside time, and thus God has already lived for an infinite length of time. If God's happiness can't handle eternity, then God would be mad with depression (Isaac Asimov actually wrote a short story based on this premise called "The Last Answer").

And this leads to the conclusion that, because God is naturally eternal or for some other reason, God's happiness is a kind of happiness we have no experience of in this world - apart from through the Holy Spirit's sense of peace, if Christianity is to be believed. This can be indicated, if any God exists, from the reasoning above (unless Isaac Asimov's short story is right!)

Thus I conclude that part of why heaven is such a great place is because we have access to this divine kind of happiness that allows someone to be at peace and contented forever without being insane or something like that.

See Rom 14:17: "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,"

1 Cor 2:9: "However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him""

Psalm 16:11: "You will make clear to me the way of life; where you are joy is complete; in your right hand there are pleasures for ever and ever."

Psalm 36:7-8: "How precious is your unfailing love, O God! All humanity finds shelter in the shadow of your wings. You feed them from the abundance of your own house, letting them drink from your river of delights. For you are the fountain of life, the light by which we see."

Rom 8:18: "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us."

We get this happiness through being connected to God through His Holy Spirit. And this is made possible by Jesus Christ removing our sins when He took them into himself on the cross (1 Pe 2:24).

I believe this is a significant part of the reason why heaven is so hard to describe in a really fantastic way.

Defining God

One philosophical definition of God could go like this:

You could say that everything we interact with is finite because you can place a limit on it. So your computer screen is finite because it has a limited width, height, number of atoms in the screen, etc. Same for everything else we interact with, of course. Even our imagination is like this. Everything we imagine is limited in at least one way. For example, when I imagine infinity I imagine an object that goes on forever, but that object looks a certain way and thus expresses a limit in the 'drawing' of it.

But what about an 'unlimited' reality where something like e.g. width/height can't exist because width/height expresses a limit? And so on for size, colour, location, dimensions, time, cause-effect, etc?

God is described as without limits in some places of the Bible, and so maybe that idea has something to do with a philosophical definition of God:

Psalm 90:2: Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

Psalm 147:5: Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit.

1 Timothy 1:17: Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

The Bible, after all, does say that God is 'the invisible God' (Col 1:15) and there's only two ways something can't possibly be represented: it's either a metaphor or about a reality where, for example, you can't represent size because size involves a world that deals in limits (hence you can't draw God with an accurate size!) You can't accurately represent something with no limits when you think about our drawing tools.

The problem with this view is that it doesn't convey God's loving personal nature or hardly anything else about God. It's a very abstract and 'irrelevant' God that is described, but at least it talks about God's infinite nature in a way that our reason can grasp at in some way.

Where does sin come from?

An interesting theory on where sin ultimately comes from...

God is perfect, but why couldn't He make us perfect just like He is? Where does sin come from?

There's an answer that I find helpful on this issue: because of reason X, which is true in the same way that 2 + 2 = 4 is true, only God can be 100% perfect. That is, only God can be a completely perfect being.

Therefore God cannot make any other being equal to Himself in perfection. So God can make beings that are 99% perfect, or 99.999...% perfect, but only God can be 100% perfect. This is a fundamental limit on the nature of reality and God's power, because only the creator, only God, can be completely perfect.

Of course, in reply, it might be said that a computer program can be made to perfectly calculate someone's tax returns, and what about a perfect circle existing? So some types of perfection can be made outside of God, mainly relating, I guess, to something achieving a defined purpose. But only God can be completely perfect in every way. So a perfect circle cannot be completely perfect like God can be completely perfect. I think this makes sense.

So Adam and Eve could be created 99.9999...% perfect, but not perfect like God is. And neither can we.

And from that tiny, tiny amount of imperfection, after maybe billions and billions of years (it doesn't say how long they were in the Garden), Adam and Eve experienced the 'Fall'. And we would have done so in the same position, because we have a tiny, necessary amount of imperfection as well. The Garden was a good situation but, ultimately, it can't work forever.

The only way around it is for God to insert Himself into reality as a created being, with our vulnerabilities, and overcome our 'necessary imperfection' - our ability to be tempted by evil - by being God as well as human.

The way it works for God as a created being is that, for instance, Jesus would never sin in any possible situation because He is God although He was tempted because He is human (Heb 4:15).

Then God-as-a-created being absorbed all the effects of our necessary imperfection - our sin - into Himself on the cross, as a result of which everyone can "be found in [Jesus], not having a righteousness of [their] own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ" (Phil 3:9).

That solves the problem created by our necessary imperfection, which is the way it always led to sin - it's not a problem if you have a goodness which is not your own, but which is Christ's.

Ultimately, God found a way to forever sidestep our necessary imperfection through the cross, in a way that wasn't available in the 'Eden setup', although the Eden setup was 'very good' (Gen 1:31).

Two kinds of infinite

Is there something infinite?
Do you need an infinite to 'start everything off'? Does there need to be an infinite at the foundation of reality?

If the answer to these questions is 'yes', then is there anything that we can conclude about the nature of this infinite? Can we conclude, for example, that it must be a God? Or can it be something like the universe?

Thinking about the infinite, I want to make the case that there are actually two kinds of infinite, that are very different, that could have started everything off. God would be one kind of infinite and an infinitely old multiverse would be an example of the other kind.

The two kinds can be illustrated by a thought experiment. Imagine a chair. Now imagine an infinite number of chairs.

You can't, of course, really imagine an infinite number of chairs. But the idea makes sense on some level.

Anyway, if you could really imagine it, then have you imagined an infinite? Of course, yes, you've imagined an infinite; an infinite number of chairs.

Now, have you imagined something completely infinite?

No. Because although there are an infinite number of chairs, chairs are finite objects.

So there you have a concept that is partly finite and partly infinite. That is, an infinite quantity of a finite thing; chairs.

Can you imagine something completely infinite in every way? Without any finite aspects, unlike with the infinite number of chairs?

Well, just like really imagining an infinite number of chairs, no, you can't. But the idea of a completely infinite thing makes sense.

A completely infinite object would have to contain everything that an infinite should contain, which is, well, 'everything'. But, the thing is, it can't contain everything in a way that splits the infinite into pieces. Then there wouldn't be one completely infinite thing, but two, or three, or an infinite number of infinites, and how can there be more than one of something that contains everything there is? So you can only have one 'completely infinite' infinite and that cannot have divisions and differences within itself. So it has to be an indivisible unity, or continuum. Paradoxically, this means it has to contain everything, somehow, in a way that doesn't allow for differences or divisions. Try to imagine that!

So a completely infinite object has to contain everything in a singular, indivisible continuum, one that doesn't have any distinctions and yet somehow contains everything anyway (so it isn't some content-less 'grey blob').

(Note: presumably, we ourselves don't need to BE the infinite as long as you make an exception: if something within the continuum is caused to manifest real, actual distinctions/differences, then it will stand 'apart' from the infinite while also existing inside it.)

So those, apparently, are the two kinds of infinite you can have.

Now, what, if anything, can we conclude from this?

If the universe, or multiverse, is infinitely old, then the world comes from the first kind of infinite discussed.

If God exists, then the world comes from the second kind of infinite discussed (and somehow the indivisible continuum is a person!)

Okay. Now, do we have any reason to prefer one of these infinites as an explanation of the world to the other?

There isn't any knockdown argument favouring one, as far as I know. But I do think it's a bit neater if the world comes from something completely infinite, i.e. the second kind, rather than something where the infinite and the finite are combined. Because if the universe/multiverse has finite aspects, like a finite number of dimensions, or a finite number of superstring membranes, or suchlike, which it must have, it isn't a 'completely infinite' infinite, and that isn't as, sort of, 'simple' as an idea.

Optical illusions, free will, and omniscience

Here is a link to a picture of the 'leaning tower illusion'. The two towers are really identical, but the brain expects that the second tower will lean more because of the way the brain processes perspective. Because of this expectation, we actually do see the second tower lean more.

It's arguable that we're making a similar kind of mistake when we think that free will is contradicted by God's foreknowledge of how we will choose - we're being misled by the tools we use to predict the future.

How do we predict the future? We can categorise any of our predictions into one of three categories:

1. Pure chance. We can't figure out a pattern. E.g. a coin flip.
2. Probability. You're trying to predict something that's somewhat chaotic but you can still see a pattern. E.g. what teams have the greatest chance of winning a championship.
3. Determinism. Because nothing else is possible. E.g. whether gravity will pull a rock to the ground.

These are the only three categories we know about when it comes to prediction.

For us to know the future with certainty means using category 3 thinking, which is determinism. The way it works is that you narrow down all possibilities so there's only one possibility left, and that's how you know.

So when we think about God predicting our choices we imagine God using category 3, and narrowing down (to one) all possibilities for how we will choose, because it's the only way of predicting something that we know. And it's true, such a thing would take away free will.

But why must God's foreknowledge use category 3? Couldn't God have some other way of knowing stuff, because He's an all powerful God? One that doesn't narrow possibilities down to one?

One idea of how God's foreknowledge isn't in category 3 is that when God predicts our choices He has an 'intuitive' understanding of how people will choose, that's right, but which is never explained 'intellectually'. So God may not know 'because of reason A, B, and C, Sally must go for a walk', only 'in this situation, Sally will go for a walk'. Because God doesn't account for Sally's choice any further, God can know that Sally might have acted differently, because God hasn't explained Sally's choice completely. This is an attempt at a 'non category 3' type of prediction.

So it's fair to say we could be tricked into thinking that God's foreknowledge takes away free will because of how we predict the future. But our techniques for knowing the future aren't necessarily God's techniques.

Another interesting thought on this is that the 3 categories don't apply to free will itself, assuming free will totally contradicts determinism. So it wouldn't be surprising if there's a fourth category of predicting, because (incompatibilist) free will requires another category (of something) to 'work'. This opens up the idea of a fourth category of predicting, as well.

How is God free if He cannot sin?

James 1:13: "When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone"

How can God have free will, and be all-powerful, if He cannot do evil?

I think the answer is that there are actually two kinds of 'cannot':

Cannot 1: 'I cannot throw a rock into space from my backyard'.
Cannot 2: 'I could never rob a bank and kill people. That's evil'.

Cannot 1 is physical impossibility, cannot 2 is the inability to be tempted by something - usually evil. When the Bible says God cannot do evil it's referring to 'cannot 2' rather than 'cannot 1':

Cannot 2 is fine for free will, otherwise no one could make a statement like the one above associated with 'cannot 2'.

So God is 'physically' able to do evil, it's just that He can never, ever find it worth doing. Evil is inaccessible to God because He can't be tempted to do it.

How so? I think it has something to do with the way God can never 'forget' the truth, or be tempted to forget the truth. When we do the wrong thing we often have a period where we 'umm' and 'ahh' about doing wrong in our mind, and then if we do the wrong thing we somehow 'forget' what we should do. We come up with an excuse that doesn't make sense to someone else. Because God is always truthful, He can't be tempted to do that. Hence God is never tempted to do evil.

Either a completely evil or a completely good God

People sometimes say there are four kinds of Gods that can exist when it comes to goodness. Either an evil God, an amoral Deist God (neither good nor bad), a 'usually nice' God, or a completely good God.

But I actually think there are only two options here: a completely evil God or a completely good God.

Consider this: an amoral Deist God, just like an amoral person, has no concept or awareness of good or evil. A Deist God started the universe off for unknown reasons, and doesn't interfere. It doesn't care whether people are happy or suffer.

An evil God actually delights in evil and inflicting pain on people.

But let's say that the amoral God found it useful to suddenly wipe out humanity, or to inflict pain on people. Then the amoral (Deist) God would do so, because It has no concept of good or evil - our suffering wouldn't be an issue to It.

So the difference between an evil God and an amoral Deist God seems to be this: an evil God has a selfish reason to inflict pain on humans, but a Deist God has no selfish reason to inflict pain on humans. In all other respects, the evil God and the Deist God are the same. Just like the evil God, the Deist God has no concept of (or concern for) good and evil, and always acts to fulfill whatever It determines Its interests to be.

This means that if we feel like believing in a God, we can't believe in a God who is neither good nor bad. A Deistic God who has no concept of good or evil is actually a purely evil God.

So, if there's a good God, then why does it have to be completely good? Can't a good God be a generally nice person but sometimes a 'jerk' to people?

There are two reasons why a good God is probably perfectly good.

The first reason is that to be good at all (in any way) you need to feel that treating people the way they'd like to be treated has SOME importance. So a 'usually nice' God feels treating people the way they'd like to be treated is important to some degree.

But why would a 'usually nice' God value treating people the way they'd like to be treated on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays only (so to speak)? If a God valued treating people right some of the time, then why wouldn't it be consistent? If being good has value then why not go all-out? A God (a superior being without our issues and hangups) should be able to handle that. I.e., 'If I'm going to value treating people the way they'd like to be treated I might as well do it with 100% consistency.'

A second reason is that a 'usually nice' God would have some arbitrary level of flawed goodness, and that isn't a very 'neat' view of things. It's sort of like the 'zero, one, infinity rule' in maths. For example, if you're deciding how many angels can dance on the head of a pin it makes sense to say either none can, one can, or all of them can at once, rather than '57 angels can dance on the head of a pin but if there were 58 then they would fall off'. So it makes sense to say a caring God is 100% caring rather than e.g. '80% caring'.

Getting the greatest commandment from the second greatest

Luke 10:26-7: Jesus replied, "What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?" The man answered, "'You must love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.' And, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

Almost no one would have a problem with the idea that you should 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' (the Golden Rule). The Bible's way of putting it is that you should love your neighbour as yourself. So the second commandment is pretty agreeable to almost everyone (although no one does it perfectly).

For a lot of people it's the greatest commandment that seems hard to understand. Why should God deserve a lot more love and devotion than a human being? Whereas for humans it's 'love like you love yourself' for God it's 'love with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind'.

I'd like to mention an argument for the Bible's view based on 'virtue ethics' (a school of thought in moral philosophy).

In Christian theology there's something different about the way God makes choices compared to everyone else. In Christian theology God not only does the right thing all the time, He also cannot be tempted to do something wrong. This situation cannot be recreated (for some reason) in God's creations.

James 1:13: "When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone"

Titus 1:2 "in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began"

Imagine you lived in a town where there was a person who had this quality. You could always get perfect advice from this person about what to do (from a moral point-of-view).

So there's some sense in the idea of referring our decisions to someone who cannot be tempted to think in an evil way. Whereas the moral advice we give to each other can always be harmed by selfish motives, God's wouldn't (assuming this situation is the case). So making it a rule to always check your decisions with an 'un-temptable' God has a certain logic, assuming you can actually know what this God is saying.

This 'setup' would help you follow the second greatest commandment, because it would protect you from making a moral mistake (for e.g. selfish reasons). It would act as a 'fail-safe' protection for people who can be tempted to do wrong. Doing this successfully would be a great way to honour the second greatest commandment.

And referring your decisions to an 'un-temptable' God sounds a lot like worshipping God if you did it all the time.

Do you need the concept of infinity to answer all 'Why' questions?

Why is there something rather than nothing? Why does anything, God, the multiverse, XYZ, etc, exist? It's hard to come up with a satisfying answer to this question.

The philosopher Immanuel Kant put it this way: "Human reason has this peculiar fate that in one species of its knowledge it is burdened by questions which, as prescribed by the very nature of reason itself, it is not able to ignore, but which, as transcending all its powers, it is also not able to answer."

In the atheist picture, reality is often taken as a 'brute fact' that we cannot really explain. In the religious picture, God is often taken as a 'brute eternal fact' that also does not need explanation.

Perhaps the ultimate answer to the 'Why' question lies in the idea of infinity. Maybe we cannot understand the answer, or cannot accept it, because of the finite nature of our reasoning.

The finite starts from '0' and works its way up to potential infinity, never reaching actual infinity any more than someone can think of the largest possible number. On the other hand, the infinite is unbounded, limitless - it starts from 'infinity' and ends with 'infinity' - it never changes and has always been infinite.

So in infinite reality you're starting position is the infinite rather than '0'. So you're starting position in infinite reality, in a sense, is that there is 'something'. Metaphorically speaking, this means that in infinite reality the 'default position' would be 'something has always existed' and 'there can be nothing' would be a puzzling thought. But in finite reality, we find the existence of something - like the universe - more puzzling than if there was 'nothing' at all. Why? Probably because we start counting from '0' and can easily imagine a complete absence of stuff, which is not something you find in the infinite.

Christians tend to believe that there is a 'real' infinite out there, outside our heads, and that it's a person - God (as well as whatever else it may be). This is meant to undercut the 'Why' question because the infinite (which in religion can be taken to be a person) is fundamentally different to the finite and it doesn't need an explanation in the same kind of way.

A visual argument on the nature of God and the infinite

The picture below is meant to visualise the difference between the infinite and the finite, and thus between God and creation.


Click on it to see it full size

This picture highlights one idea of what the 'finite' is: that the 'finite' is basically about differences/'distinctions' between things. Numbers keep increasing from an original point, let's say -1, 0, and 1. They do so forever. The original point could be thought of as the 'ability' to make distinctions/differences between things. If there are differences, then there can be a lot of numbers to represent those differences.

The same thing applies to finite objects like computers, tables, chairs etc. For example, a computer is made up of a number of parts and each part has a huge number of distinctions you could assign to it, e.g. small, light, electronic, and so on. The idea of a 'location' is essentially a finite concept, where you need to make a distinction between where you are and where you're not.

The infinite is surely different from what I've described above or it seems it would be finite. This picture visualises how the infinite might be different. If the finite is associated with distinctions, then maybe the infinite is associated with 'distinction-less' existence? Perhaps a finite world of distinctions can 'emerge' out of a distinction-less unity, as in the picture. This would imply (although it's hard to understand) an infinite unity that contains everything in a way that doesn't break up the unity into separate parts.

What could that infinite unity possibly be like? Without the finite, there is simply 'oneness', the eternal infinite that stretches from everlasting to everlasting. With no concept of time, place, cause, effect, before, after, and so on, as such are 'distinction concepts'. It is the ultimate 'I AM' - it 'just' exists, from eternity.

If there is such a 'distinction-less existence' underlying the finite, then an interesting conclusion arises. The fact that we are here would imply that this 'distinction-less infinite' is a mind. Otherwise, why would distinction-less existence ever give rise to existence with distinctions, if there was no mind involved anywhere? Because distinction-less existence is so totally unlike existence with distinctions, it makes no sense that it distinction-ful existence would emerge 'naturally' as a natural part of distinction-less existence.

Does this idea of the infinite fit with the Bible? It might. Suppose that the Christian God is this infinite, and that through being infinite God has all the qualities that the Bible gives Him in a way that finite reasoning cannot grasp. Suppose that in a way finite reasoning cannot understand, distinction-less existence has a mind, free will, love, and is a trinity of one person who is three persons. I think it's OK that we don't understand it, because finite reasoning seems very unlike whatever is going on in 'distinction-less existence'. This could be an interesting way of looking at God. But it's important to remember it's just speculation.

Would a creator of the universe imply a loving God? The 'motivation' argument

Assume there is a God who created the universe. Are there reasons to believe that 'It' is a loving God?

I think this is an interesting argument that may have potential. One could call it the 'motivation' argument.

The 'motivation' argument says that there aren't many motives that a God could have for creating the universe. There may be only one, because a lot of suggested motives are actually really implausible. This motive is that God is loving, and therefore belief in a creator God leads to belief in a loving God.

First of all, assume that if a God created the universe, then It would have a motivation for doing so.

Here is a list of possible motives that a 'God' might have for creating the universe:

1. Loving God: If God doesn't create then reality only contains one being who is happy - God. If God creates and makes billions of other beings happy, then there is a lot more happiness in reality overall. So out of love, God makes us so that beings other than God can be happy.
2. Amoral God: The universe is like a science project. God makes the universe to create and look at black holes, evolution, and other cool stuff. It watches and observes the universe, and species in the universe such as humanity like in an interesting scientific experiment.
3. Amoral God: God gets bored. God is hanging around in eternity and has nothing to do. So God creates the universe as something to do. It might whittle away some time.
4. Amoral God: God gets lonely, but Its not loving. Or at least, God is not very loving. Creating some other beings that go and do stuff would make God feel a bit less lonely and allow It to 'connect' with other sentient beings.
5. Evil God: God is actually malevolent. Creating sentient life, like humans, allows God to inflict pain and suffering. If God didn't make the world, then It couldn't inflict evil on us, and God couldn't be evil. So God made the universe to make us suffer.
6. Amoral God: Unknown motive. An amoral God could have a motive not on this list, because I didn't think of everything.

I'll go through them and hopefully eliminate all motives except 1 and 6. The conclusion will be that if we have to choose between 1 and 6 we should choose 1 because, I guess, it makes the most sense. This means that if a God did create the universe, then we should guess that He/She/It is a loving God, because it is hard to think of a motive for God to create the universe that isn't a loving motive.

Let's go through motives 2-5. Suppose an amoral/evil God created the universe.

How powerful and knowledgeable is this amoral/evil God? There are two possibilities:

1. An amoral/evil God who knows everything. An infinite God, probably.
2. A very powerful amoral/evil God, but not the most knowledgeable God that we can imagine.

If it's 2 then this doesn't seem like a very 'neat' view of reality. It means there's a God but He/She/It is not the greatest possible God, and it's a bit more appealing for some reason to talk about God in terms of absolutes, like the greatest possible. Also, it would mean that God isn't infinite as Its knowledge would be quite good but not quite the most you can get. But a God who created the universe would probably be a God who is so great that It 'grounds all of existence'. This implies an infinite God (link). So there are two problems with the second view.

So it seems that any God who created the universe would probably be God no. 1 rather than 2. An infinite God, probably.

Now, if the amoral/evil God is no. 1 (infinite) then I do think there is something hard to explain about this God making reality for a 'science project' type of reason. This God already knows everything that It could possibly discover by making the universe. There is nothing that the infinite amoral/evil God can possibly learn. So it makes no sense God would make the universe for that reason. This seem to rule out motivation 2.

What about motivation 3? God gets bored. But isn't it a strange view of the greatest possible being to say It gets bored? It seems that the greatest possible being shouldn't get bored, otherwise It has problems. An infinite God should have so many things going for It that It would not get bored. Motivation 3 implies the second type of God, and that idea of God has problems. This can rule out motivation 3.

Motivation 4: God gets lonely. If God creates because It gets lonely, then it seems God isn't perfect. God isn't complete and happy in Him/Her/Itself. So it seems this God lacks things, and thus It isn't the greatest possible God. So if God is lonely we're talking about no. 2 God rather than 1, which is a view with problems. This might rule out motivation 4.

Motivation 5: God is evil. But looking at the universe, I don't think you can say that God is evil, I think the most you could say is that He/She/It is indifferent. I can certainly think of a lot of ways in which there could be more evil in the world. Such as if God created a billion people every second and tortured them with indescribable pain forever (by the way, hell isn't an example of this because hell is just giving people who want to be separated from God the right to do that). This might rule out motivation 5.

So assuming that a creator God needs a motive to create the universe, and that the creator is infinite, then we are left with motivation 1 (a loving God) or 6 (unknown purpose). These assumptions, which I think are reasonable, lead us to believe in a loving God if we believe that a God created the universe.

Do humans have no right to make a reply back to God?

Rom 9:20: "But, O man, who are you, to make answer against God? May the thing which is made say to him who made it, Why did you make me so?"

James 1:13: "When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone"

My belief on this is that we can't really answer back to God BUT this is ONLY because God cannot be tempted by evil. If there's a God who can be tempted by evil then I think we have the right to answer back to them. But if there is really a God who cannot be tempted then if we believe this with our whole heart I think it's appropriate to decide never to answer back. And also, this applies only as long as we genuinely know what this God is really saying/wanting. That part is very important. So provided those two conditions are fulfilled, then yes.

Discussion on what it means to say an 'infinite God'

I had a discussion on a forum on the idea that infinity = existence without distinctions (as opposed to with distinctions) and whether that's the kind of person that God is. I thought I'd collect the points together in case people are interested in some depth in one promising account of what 'infinite God' means (link to discussion). A summary of the other person's point is in [brackets]. My opening arguments:

1. Take a plain of grass that's infinitely wide and infinitely long. With respect to horizontal location, you cannot find your place on it because it goes on forever in every direction. That distinction has been lost. Maybe the infinite involves the loss of every distinction in a similar way?
2. We can imagine numbers going up and up forever to infinity, but not reaching infinity. For there to be an absolute infinity there must be some kind of radical 'break' with the potentially infinite. But where can we find such a break? Perhaps from an 'existence without distinctions', which contains every possible number 'distinction-lessly'.
3. It explains the infinity + infinity = infinity intuition that we have (you can only get one infinite). If infinity is distinction-less, then you cannot separate a part of infinity from another part, or make another infinity, because there are no distinctions between anything.
4. This theory of infinity could explain how an apparently complicated God is really simple. If God personifies a world without any distinctions, then God must be the simplest thing possible. A leap of faith can let you believe that this entails a conscious, three-in-one God.
5. Explains why there can only be one God - Deu 6:4 (from points 3 and 4).

Thoughts?

1. Take a plain of grass that's infinitely wide and infinitely long. With respect to horizontal location, you cannot find your place on it because it goes on forever in every direction. That distinction has been lost. Maybe the infinite involves the loss of every distinction in a similar way?

[Someone posted: what about Cartesian coordinate systems (wikilink). They could solve this problem.]

I think I know what you mean. Let's say you put a wooden pole into the grass at some random location, then you could tell where you were by looking over your shoulder (let's say) at the pole in the ground. But isn't it interesting that you can only locate yourself because you've created distinctions in the plain of grass, i.e. you've made your area of interest/concern a finite area. If you don't put down the wooden pole (e.g.) then you're lost and there's no way of distinguishing your position from any other. So I would submit that in terms of showing that infinity takes away distinctions it still works as an example, although maybe a better one can be found.

[But you could distinguish where you are from the different blades of grass. And also, this example doesn't work because no plane (of grass or anything else) can be infinite.]

Instead of saying a plain of grass imagine that it's an empty, grey plane, like in a computer program. You can have horizontal locating coordinates if you mark your location in the plane, which is essentially creating a finite space within the infinity. But if you deal with the whole infinity then you've lost SOME information compared to a finite plane. You've lost the ability to say something like 'This plane is 5x5 metres' which you could do if the plane was finite. So on the basis of the fact you've lost information I think that the example does show infinity tends to take away distinctions.

Here's a graphic I made on this (below, click to enlarge):



[Explain the graphic.]

I guess the way God created distinctions out of distinction-less existence is something like placing a pole down in an grey plane that goes on forever in every direction. When you place the pole you've created a finite area within an infinity, and you can then do all the stuff included in human ideas (which are finite). So let's say there's this distinction-less reality, and suddenly God says 'Hey I'm going to allow for the concept of differences between stuff', and then suddenly God has a mathematical toolbox to make the laws of the universe based on finite numbers.

[So what's my argument?]

If there's a tree that's ∞ metres high, then you have a tree but no specific information about what height, because there is no such distinction. But if you have a tree with a finite height, then you have a tree and specific information about the height, which is a distinction. So by analogy, if you carry this process on as the core aspect of infinity, then infinity is distinction-less existence which distinction-lessly contains every possible distinction.

A 30 metre high X has more distinctions as a concept than an ∞ metre high X, because an ∞ metre high X 'holds off' putting a distinction like a specific height as yet (to use anthropomorphic language) for the sake of distinction-lessly containing every possible distinction in that concept.

2. We can imagine numbers going up and up forever to infinity, but not reaching infinity. For there to be an absolute infinity there must be some kind of radical 'break' with the potentially infinite. But where can we find such a break? Perhaps from an 'existence without distinctions', which contains every possible number 'distinction-lessly'.

[What's the difference between potential and actual infinity in this view? There is no difference in contemporary mathematics. Infinity means that you never stop counting.]

This is from the wiki on potential and actual infinity:

Aristotle also distinguished between actual and potential infinities. An actual infinity is something which is completed and definite and consists of infinitely many elements, and according to Aristotle, a paradoxical idea, both in theory and in nature. In respect to addition, a potentially infinite sequence or a series is potentially endless; being a potentially endless series means that one element can always be added to the series after another, and this process of adding elements is never exhausted.

[But ideas have advanced since Aristotle. Actual and potential infinities are now regarded as the same thing.]

3. It explains the infinity + infinity = infinity intuition that we have (you can only get one infinite). If infinity is distinction-less, then you cannot separate a part of infinity from another part, or make another infinity, because there are no distinctions between anything.

[Comment about Cantor's multiple infinities. Cantor the mathematician basically showed that there are an infinite number of infinities. Wikilink.]

Maybe there's appearance and there's a reality behind the appearance that we can't get at. Because of finite reasoning, the appearance will be of multiple infinities, no matter what. But behind the appearance there is a reality of only one distinction-less infinity. You've probably seen this approach elsewhere, it's a Kantian way of answering questions. This argument is circular in terms of establishing the infinity is distinction-less to someone else but internally it would make sense of the multiple infinity thing.

[How do you know this?]

I guess one argument that there's really only one infinity if mathematics shows otherwise, is that when you ask the average person (I remember this from a podcast) almost everyone has an opinion of infinity even though most of them wouldn't know many concepts from 'finite' mathematics. And intuitively we feel that there can't be more than one infinity. I think it's possible that the concept of infinity in our minds is an unconscious concept of distinction-less existence, which everyone has without needing to define it. But then again, if you look at infinity mathematically it appears as though there are lots.

One reason I like it is that a person who 'personifies' distinction-less existence - if that's possible - is truly eternal. That person could be seen as infinitely old - the first and the last. You can't ask where He/She/It came from. He/She/It simply is. That's an attractive concept for God it seems to me.

[But intuition is often wrong; like in the Monty Hall problem. It seems this theory is just speculation.]

The main problem with the idea seems to be that modern mathematics supports the idea of multiple infinities. To get around that, one needs to adopt a Kantian way out, but that is ultimately not going to be convincing to someone who doesn't agree initially.

I guess at the end of the day this is an interesting idea of infinity, that MIGHT be true, and it certainly works well with ideas about God, but in the end is simply not provable. Considering how hard it is to define actual infinity in a philosophical sense, this may not be so bad for the idea, since it is a hard thing to get one's head around, but it can go no further than interesting conjecture.

[Then that's all it can be.]

[Another point: also, the idea of God being distinction-less existence is like saying that God is a square circle. It's logically impossible.]

How so? If you're referring to the difference between distinction-less existence and the concept of a person/consciousness, in the sense that 'Why would such an existence be a godlike person' then that has a decent answer.

The way humans think is in terms of distinctions, so we work out 1+1=2 through distinctions, and the difference between smart and dumb is how many distinctions someone can order in the best way. But if you try to use that kind of distinction-ful reasoning to understand the distinction-less (excepting what I've said above because it's so general) then that's like putting a piece of paper through paper shredder and then trying to read the resulting mess. Distinction-ful reasoning has almost no power to understand the distinction-less, which is why we can't see that a) distinction-less existence is conscious, b) love, and c) a three-in-one God.

That's why we need to relate to God as a person rather than as an intellectual idea.

[I mean in the sense of distinction-less existence being logically impossible.]

Well, maybe I would define it in the sense that e.g. Cantor seemed to believe in an absolute infinite that was God, that 'transcended the transfinite numbers'. However, since I don't know the details I can't really say in what sense this was held as an idea of God/infinity. Cantor did say that the absolute infinite was a distinction-less unity (link). Even to Cantor it was kind of a mystical idea that resolved the paradoxes of infinity in God.

Unfortunately, the fact there appears to be multiple infinities does present an obstacle to this - maybe the Kantian way out works for that...

[Where does Cantor say this?]

It's not directly referred to but I think it's implied in the first one: "it is the single, completely individual unity in which everything is included, which includes the Absolute, incomprehensible to the human understanding."

Also I think we're talking about two different meanings of the word illogical.

2+2=5 is illogical because according to the rules of 'finite existence', 2+2 has to equal 4 by definition.

The absolute infinite is illogical according to the rules of finite existence as well. But this is the difference: the absolute infinite is not in finite space in any way. It's in infinite space. So such illogical aspects do not count against its truth and existence, as it's not in 'finite space', like they do with 2+2=5, which does exist in 'finite space'.

I think the same way about the trinity. If the trinity was in finite space then 3 persons = 1 person would count against its truth. But because it's in infinite space - in the infinite reality of God - then 3 persons = 1 person doesn't count against its truth because stuff might work differently there.

A discussion on free will and the infinite - how does the infinite possess free will?

[What's the difference between saying God is infinite and indefinite?]

From my perspective, I guess one could call distinction-less existence an 'actual indefinite' in that it loses all manner of distinctions/differentiations between and within anything, which is very indefinite. Not sure whether 'indefinite' implies anything more/different though.

I think free will could also go with the idea of the 'indefinite'. The indefinite world is not determined, so free will begins with God and then is granted to humans in a way that finite reasoning can't understand (because the finite by definition is precisely defined and can only act within its predetermined boundaries).

[But does this imply that God = everything and everything = God, if God is indefinite?]

I think God contains all possible distinctions in His being, but I would say that this 'containing' is done 'distinction-lessly', as opposed to God holding lots of individual items in His being. An analogy might be that a container full of chocolates is a 'distinction-ful' containing in that there are lots of individual chocolates in the container. But I think that when God (the distinction-less) contains everything, it's not like the lots of individual chocolates (e.g.). God somehow contains everything in a way that makes it contain 'distinction-lessly', while also having the potential to become separate.

Why would a perfect God create the universe?

Why would a God who is perfect, who lacks nothing, create humans?

It's true that God is completely happy in Himself, and there is nothing that can add to His happiness, including the creation of humans. But a reality where only God is perfectly happy has objectively less joy in it than a reality where God and billions of other beings are happy. So God created us purely so that we could be happy as well, as an act of kindness. But this act of kindness doesn't fill any lack in God's happiness, it's purely an act of kindness to creatures that haven't been made yet.

But then you could object that God doesn't do a very good job of making us happy...

The answer to this is that bearing the image of God is a great gift, but it needs to 'work' a certain way for that image-of-God to be happy. Much like if you make a car to run on petrol then you cannot give it fruit juice to run on. If we make choices that God wouldn't make in our position, namely, to sin, then our image of God doesn't 'work properly'. When the image of God is 'working' it's connected to God and feels the happiness of God. But when we sin, God is cut-off from the image of God (our soul) and that brings about suffering (Rom 5:12-14). So instead of being a wonderful gift, being a sinner makes bearing the image of God a terrible burden, because you must live life with your image of God cut-off from God and that means persistent suffering.

Is it impossible for God to be perfect?

Being a just and fair person is a good thing right? It's also good to be forgiving. Therefore a perfect person must express perfect justice and forgiveness, since those are both good traits to have. But surely someone who is completely just would demand justice at times when someone who is completely forgiving would forgive. Therefore, someone who is completely just and forgiving would be a self-contradictory mess. Therefore a perfect person is impossible, as this has no doubt proved, making a perfect God impossible, and therefore a perfect God cannot exist.

The above paragraph is not what I believe, by the way. The above argument has been argued at times to show that God is impossible. The reason why it's absurd is that clearly it makes sense to speak of someone as morally perfect. All they need are perfect intentions. But by placing 'justice' and 'forgiveness' into mental formulas what makes sense can be made to make no sense.

It just goes to show that our intuitions aren't very simple things that can be put e.g. into graphs and formulas. Our intuitions are very complex. So if someone tries to show that God doesn't exist using our intuitions then there's a huge danger that the intuition has been eliminated and in its place is a formula which doesn't quite capture it. I make the same general point in this article on God attribute contradiction arguments.

A doctorate could probably be written on exactly what's wrong with the above argument and the underlying principles it contradicts. We could spend a lifetime buried in philosophical books to show exactly how it's wrong. It just goes to show that we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss a concept if a formula contradicts it, if we have any reason to think that intuitively it can make sense (like the idea that there's a 'super mind' behind physical reality - i.e. God).

The relationship of God to creation

What is the relationship between God and creation, between the infinite and the finite? Sometimes a picture can be very helpful. The illustration below visualizes finite existence - which includes the universe - 'coming up out of' infinite reality. It also helps to show how infinity could be thought of as 'existence without distinctions' (rather than e.g. an infinite collection of things). Click to see full size:



You could say that infinity and finite existence are like a bookshelf that a book is resting on. Just like the book is completely supported by the bookshelf, so finite existence is supported by infinity. Existence with distinctions is completely dependent on existence without distinctions (see here for a look at this perspective and God).

This view also helps to explain how the universe is NOT God although 'In Him we live and move and have our being' (Acts 17:28) and 'In Him all things consist' (Col 1:17). Finite existence lives 'within' infinite reality (as the picture shows) but is not infinite reality. So panentheism (the idea that the universe is part of God) is wrong even though Acts 17:28 and Col 1:17 sort of make it sound like panentheism is right.

So the relationship between God and creation is the most dependent relationship that you could ever imagine. God not only sustains the universe (Matt 10:29), but also finite existence itself.

Picture illustrating this site's theology

This picture summarises this site's theology in one go. Click on it to view it normal size.



God is infinity. Literally. See an essay arguing for this view here.

From infinity comes consciousness (speculated on here) and love through the same process.

Humans are the finite mixed with the infinite.

An essay here is on the implications for this when it comes to figuring out free will, consciousness, the nature of God, the problem of evil, and so on.

Where skeptics often go wrong on the concept of God

It seems like one of the frequent divides between religious people of various faiths and atheists/agnostics is that religious people tend to have the idea that there are two 'levels' of reality, whereas atheists/agnostics only accept the idea of one 'level' of reality.

For the atheist/agnostic, there is only level of reality, which is the 'Universe/Multiverse' and everything in it can be understood if you're a) smart enough, and b) scientifically advanced enough.

Whereas for the religious person, there's two levels of reality: there's 'creator' and 'creation'.

Creator (infinite)
______
Created reality (finite)

Everything in created reality can be understood if you're smart enough and scientifically advanced enough, but the 'creator' level of reality is a completely different matter.

As a being in 'created reality' you simply can't understand 'creator' reality on an intellectual level. It can't be done. It's not a matter of needing more IQ points, or more scientific knowledge, the problem is that 'created reality' is on a lower 'level' of reality. People on the 'created' level of reality are intrinsically unable to understand the infinite intellectually (our name for the 'higher level' of reality).

Ergo, to relate to God you have do it on a person-to-person basis (based on the idea that our personalities are made in God's image) or use some kind of 'faith' to jump over your 'creaturely' limitations.

So why do religious people think this way? What is the theoretical justification for two 'levels' of reality, especially when everything seems to make sense on one 'level'?

On reflection, I think that the reason for the separation between creator and created comes from God being a distinction-less object. I think this is what the idea of an 'infinite' person must mean. See my argument for this view here and here (podcast).

This causes the creator/creation divide because our reasoning operates through distinctions. The difference between a really clever smart and an average person is that the clever person is capable of ordering and categorising numerous distinctions in a useful way at a much faster rate. E.g. a good philosopher thinks of many useful distinctions between various things, and orders and categorises them under various theories in an enlightening way.

That's why our reasoning just gets it hopelessly wrong about God: God is a distinction-less object. Yet we can't think except in distinctions. And it can never be any different, unless we abandon trying to figure God out as an intellectual concept and approach Him/Her/It through faith. This either requires some form of philosophising about God or a shot in the metaphysical dark via joining a spirituality that appeals to oneself.

I would add to the creator/created divide that human consciousness draws on, or make use of, the 'creator' level of reality in some mysterious way. So we shouldn't have to understand how the mental world works. People are not from the 'creator' level of reality, what I'm saying is that consciousness somehow makes 'use' of it. This could be how humans in 'created' reality can be made in the image of the 'creator'.

(Picture of this process below, click to enlarge).