Author Topic: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited  (Read 789 times)

ClassicalLiberal.Theist

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
« on: February 08, 2020, 11:14:24 am »
The thomist is commited to the idea that God wills himself necessarily, and wills other things in willing himself. This essentially saves creation from existing necessarily in some strict sense; however, insofar as there is no counterfactual possibility in God, then things exist of necessity even if they are not strictly entailed by his being. Although, this might not be as bad as I may have first thought. Lets say that the big bang was the beginning of creation. So, God caused the big bang necessarily, but in a way that isn't entailed by his being. Given that indeterminacy is true and that conscious agents have freewill, then there is still an opprotunity for the "chips to fall where they may", so to speak, and in some weaker sense saving the usefulness or legitimacy of modality. We would then, however, be commited to the idea that there is no possible world in which the big bang is false, but also that there is a possible world where I didn't make this post.

This seems to me to be a very odd conclusion, but nonetheless I think it is probably correct. Thoughts?

p.s. Its pretty quiet around here, which sucks. I'll probably post more in the future with the hope of stemming more conversation.

Mackie Messer

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
« Reply #1 on: February 09, 2020, 05:40:54 pm »
Quote
p.s. Its pretty quiet around here, which sucks. I'll probably post more in the future with the hope of stemming more conversation.

Unfortunately, I think a lot of people lost steam after the vBulletin forum got hacked.

Ouros

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2020, 03:51:15 am »
Quote
Unfortunately, I think a lot of people lost steam after the vBulletin forum got hacked.

That, and I think that a lot of older members are busy (I remember that some had or are having changes in their lives.)

Re OP, I'm not sure I'm following your reasonning. It seems you outright beg the question by thinking that's there no counterfactual possibility in God. Even if there's not strictly internal contingency to God, surely the object of His will and knowing can change.

ClassicalLiberal.Theist

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
« Reply #3 on: February 10, 2020, 09:08:48 am »
If the object of Gods will can change, then there is internal contingency in God (more precisely, Gods existence would be derivative), for if God's will willed for something other than God, then whatever God wills determines his will and therefore isn't actus purus. In other words, Gods will would be in potency towards whatever he wills. Nevertheless, counterfactual possibility only exists in temporal settings. Unless you are willing to reject that God is eternal, then God wills the world necessarily even if it is only a weaker notion of necessity. I suppose you could say that God exists tomporally but has existed for an infinite amount of time, but then you're left with a neo-theistic conception of God which is undesirable.

Mackie Messer

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2020, 01:38:08 pm »
Quote from: Ouros
That, and I think that a lot of older members are busy (I remember that some had or are having changes in their lives.)

I'm almost certainly one of the people you're thinking of, but actually I think that a lot of us were only holding on because of inertia long before the forum was hacked or things came up in our lives.

I think this forum has long suffered from a crisis of identity. When we started it, Scott and I had in mind that it would be a sort of apologetics outpost where people from Feser's blog could come to ask questions without being harrassed by combox trolls. But, except for Scott and later Greg, none of the people doing the actual work of setting up or running the place (or paying for it) were Thomist or Catholic, so it lost this raison d'etre and became a sort of watery classical theism outpost. I also think that a lot of us got sick of answering and replying to the same people making the same arguments over and over and over without sign of give or growth on any side. But, anyway, a lot of us were more than happy to split once we were given a reason (whether it was the hack or other things in our lives). After we gave up on the apologetics outpost idea, I tried to make it into a sort of philosophical sand box for people of various classical theist positions—sort of like what Ed Feser thinks the world should be like—to debate on, but I got overwhelmed trying to handle all the advertising and technical administration (and life) myself.** The other issue I ran into (and I think that this is a problem with online outfits in general) is that everybody wanted to run their own site (everybody wants to "be the boss", so to speak), so unless the subject is reeealllllly popular none of those sites reach the critical mass of people needed to become thriving, self-sustaining communities. I tried to bring some of these smaller communities together (even offering the senior administrator position to someone else at one point) to reach that critical mass, but pride and avarice won out. I'm also just a bad person to be acting as spokesperson for a classical theist website—I lack the conviction in classical theism some of you guys have. (If only I could have gotten some of you, with your crusading fervor, to help out!) In any case, bottom line is that a lot more was going in to keeping the forum even at the point it was at than most people realized (I wasn't doing it for thanks, so never said anything), and that now it needs new blood and new energy to perform those tasks.

**The technical administrator quit for personal reasons like two weeks before the hack.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2020, 09:32:24 pm by Mackie Messer »

Mackie Messer

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2020, 01:44:30 pm »
CLT: The problem at the root of this problem is the accidental property objection: https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2017/04/divine-simplicity-is-god-identical-to-his-thoughts.html

If you want to go over some new ground (in your research, or reading, I mean), you can try weaving your way around the indeterminacy stuff by applying a theory of probability that allows for necessitarianism to it, but this is another old objection in new garb situation (which, I think, is no less an objection for being old).

RomanJoe

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
« Reply #6 on: February 10, 2020, 09:50:29 pm »
I absolutely adored the forum when I made an account years back on the original site. It helped cultivate in me a love for metaphysics and ethics that I still find myself enamored with during contemplative moments. So many questions I've had answered by this community. I truly am sad that it has fizzled out. I used to sift through the archives continuously, and would always refresh the page to see what new debates or questions are posted. Though I might not be active from time to time, I'll always stop in. I still glance over it weekly.

Ouros

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
« Reply #7 on: February 11, 2020, 06:14:05 am »
That's just a part of modern forums life cycle. Social medias drains people who could have used forums, here or not.  Nowadays, there's not enough people who are into it to keep the website alive. Not sure if you could have done anything about it, honnestly.

Mackie Messer

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
« Reply #8 on: February 11, 2020, 11:41:38 am »
I proposed moving to Facebook wayyy before anybody else had a similar outfit on Facebook, but others felt that it would stifle conservative commentors and lower the level of conversation too much (and, to be fair, Facebook posts do tend to be less substantial than forum posts).

But there are successful forums for obscure, niche topics (e.g. Thomas Ligotti's work). They just take a lot of work to get to that critical mass of members.

To be honest, I also think that the fact that we're a philosophy forum is part of the problem. Most people aren't actually that interested in philosophy, and even a lot of those who are are interested only derivatively (for defending their religion or some belief system or something, which, I suppose, is admirable in its own way). I've been involved with a few non-philosophical projects since September (I was invited on to the board of a language school just yesterday), and, I got to tell you, the difference in enthusiasm and energy is night and day. (Perhaps, for this reason, it would have been wise to try to root this forum's philosophy in a single religion more. There are still people who get worked up about religion. I think it was probably a mistake to both narrow the target audience and fail to do so in a way that channeled people's interest in something else, like a religion.)
« Last Edit: February 11, 2020, 01:01:36 pm by Mackie Messer »

Mackie Messer

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
« Reply #9 on: February 11, 2020, 11:49:07 am »
It goes without saying, that if anybody wants to help out with the administration of the forum we're happy to make you administrators. I have too many other things on the go to take an active role, but I'm happy to pass on the mantle.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2020, 12:02:46 pm by Mackie Messer »

Dominik

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
« Reply #10 on: February 12, 2020, 12:19:33 pm »
CLT,

MM (are you John West?) has given you a link which describes the probably biggest problem of DS, since it includes Divine free will and the knowledge of contingencies into this one objection. Unlike Vallicella, I have problems to just go the mysterian route (I assume that if you had somewhat confirmatory mystical experiences, then you are way more likely to accept it), but I also agree with Pruss that we wonīt solve the problem unless we will be able to witness the divine essence. Perhaps this two papers will be of interest:

Timothy OīConnor- Simplicity&Creation (https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1762&context=faithandphilosophy)
Alexander Pruss- On Two Problems of Divine Simplicity (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1q5JyWcfSM0txLWuRbLzG2aqN_qy5comm/view?usp=sharing)

Generally, since what God knows is identical to what God wills, Iīd ask if an externalist epistemology of belief would solve both problems at once, since it preserves contingency without accidents without requiring a model of divine free will (quite frankly, we donīt even have a coherent concept of Libertarian Free Will in us, although we experience it constantly, so humility is warranted).

I donīt claim that the problems are solved or even that they can be solved, but I claim that this objection is not a dead end for the defender and that there are ways to proceed to show that the contradictions are only apparent.

Dominik

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
« Reply #11 on: February 12, 2020, 12:24:41 pm »
The other alternative to which I have considerable sympathies, especially after working through the "Guide for the Perplexed", is just to go full on negative theology. I donīt think that this is a sacrifice.

Mackie Messer

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
« Reply #12 on: February 12, 2020, 12:50:56 pm »
Quote from: Dominik
Are you John West?

Fans of Die Dreigroschenoper will get the reference: .
« Last Edit: February 12, 2020, 02:42:23 pm by Mackie Messer »

Dominik

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
« Reply #13 on: February 13, 2020, 08:48:39 am »
Iīll take that as a yes. But thanks anyway for explaining the name.


Mackie Messer

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
« Reply #14 on: February 13, 2020, 10:53:58 am »
This is just an account I set up to keep an eye on things, though someone (I don't know who) forced the moderator status on me.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2020, 10:50:15 pm by Mackie Messer »

Dominik

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
« Reply #15 on: February 16, 2020, 11:38:16 am »
CLT,

your argument assumes that creation has to have happened, the big bang is in every possible world. Letīs drop for this argument the idea of counterfactuals in God, since that is concerned with contingent knowledge in God.

Here is an argument against the idea of creation following from God necessarily, which User Brandon has posted in the thread on Aquinas and the Necessity of Creation:

I'm guessing, though, that your implicit argument is something like

(1) 'God exists' is necessary
(2) In God, existence and will are identical.
(3) Therefore 'God wills' is necessary (from (1) and (2))
(4) Therefore 'God wills X' is necessary for any X you might choose. (from (2))

Which, if so, fails regardless of the account of identity; 'God wills' and 'God wills X' are not generally intersubstitutable descriptions -- the former is a description of God, and the latter is a description of God and X. From 'It is necessary that God wills' to 'It is necessary that God wills such-and-such' is an equivocation; intransitive and transitive 'wills' are not synonymous. To get from (3) to (4) you would have to assume that if it is necessary that God wills, what God wills is necessarily willed by Him. But this is the very point in dispute.


A similar point has been made by Tomaszewski on the idea of creation following necessarily, because God is identical to his will and he exists necessarily. īThe following argument is of the same structure, but shows the invalidity of said argument and why the modal collapse objection fails:

1) Necessarily, 8 > 7.
2) The # of planets in our solar system is 8.
3) Necessarily, the # of planets in our solar system is greater than 7.
 


So I donīt claim that we can understand how God could create freely, heck we donīt even really have an idea how it is that WE are free. But the argument leads to absurdities and hence we should accept that it is false. I also understand the idea of God creating nothing at all only insofar as there is not potential in God that creation fulfills.

ClassicalLiberal.Theist

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
« Reply #16 on: February 17, 2020, 04:42:41 pm »
“your argument assumes that creation has to have happened” The conclusion of my argument is that creation had to have happened; however, not due to some strict necessitation from Gods being, but rather because of the impossibility of counterfactuality in God’s decision making due to his being timeless.

I feel as if your objection is built on a misunderstanding of what I was trying to argue (which is probably no fault of yours, but of mine) so I will try to more clearly articulate my concern.

P1 Time is a necessary condition for counterfactual possibility
P2 God is timeless
P3 So, there is no counterfactual possibility in God
P4 If there is no counterfactual possibility in God, then God couldn't have chose to create a different possible world; i.e. the actual world necessarily exists
P5 There is no counterfactual possibility in God
C Therefore, God couldn't have chose to create a different possible world; i.e. the actual world necessarily exists

Mackie Messer

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
« Reply #17 on: February 18, 2020, 05:17:26 pm »
Absent further justification, reject P1.

Atno

  • Member
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
« Reply #18 on: February 20, 2020, 12:00:31 pm »
One rule of thumb to follow in philosophy is to always check out what Alexander Pruss has written on the subject.
Read Pruss's article on Divine Simplicity, and some of his work on modal collapse in his articles about leibnizian arguments, psr etc