I am having a dialogue in regard to the issue with Unitarianism:
I think (1) it’s somewhat the most promising route here provided but Neoplatonism probably isn’t correct:
pushingtheantithesis.blogspot.com/2021/08/islam-
Islam, Neoplatonism, and the Concept of an Absolute God (pushingtheantithesis.blogspot.com)
ProfGHDorr:
This may be the dumbest possible argument.
Dale Tuggy Destroys the Trinity-Love Argument – YouTube
TheSire:
As for the response, from my view, Tuggy view abandons the Aseity of God that I think it would be self-defeating to deny. I think this is pointed out in the article above. It would only mean that God is potentially non egoist loving. Hence, God becomes dependent on the world.
ProfGHDorr:
Tuggy may reject aseity, but this view doesn’t entail that. I would argue that yours does. You and Tuggy are both theistic personalists, and I think a lot of this confusion stems from this. None of God’s attributes *require* an object in order to be true.
By your logic, in order for God to be perfectly Creative/the Creator, creation must have always existed. Your argument presupposes a God who is not Immutable or Impassable.
TheSire:
I do think this creator issue is relevant but I think you still need to explain how God can have interpersonal love without changing. Because if you’re just using Tuggy then you’re just saying he’s potentially loves others and that becomes true at creation.
ProfGHDorr:
Everything about God is *always true*, and His love for creation exists even before the *temporal origination* of each created being. God did not gain a new love when He created humanity. He always loved them from before the foundation of the world.
Just as God did not become your creator when you were temporally brought into existence.
You are also presupposing that God acts in time rather than being atemporal. His acts are eternal, even if their effects are temporal. So there is no need for God to have eternallly been three persons who love each other, He has also eternally loved creation. God has no potens.
TheSire:
Well, you’re basically giving a different response than Tuggy. So, it seems like we’re abandoning the potentially loving defense and moving towards a case that divine timelessness. The issue is how God can possess interpersonal love sans creation.
ProfGHDorr:
God loves His creation before it is temporally manifested the same way He is its Creator even before it was temporally manifested.
TheSire:
The issue is obvious but you’re missing it. Suppose God never chose to create. Would he still possess interpersonal love?
ProfGHDorr:
You are presupposing a LOT with this question. I will answer it with another question: are the objects of God’s Knowledge eternal or emergent?
I have more to say, depending on the answer, but you are consistently presupposing a mutable, Deistic demiurge as “God.”
TheSire:
I think they’re eternal but I’m assuming you probably hold the distinction between natural and free knowledge. But you may deny such or hold a different view. I’ll let you explain
ProfGHDorr:
All of His creation, regardless of when it is temporally manifest, always existed as an object of His Knowledge. As God is completely immutable and timeless, there is no difference between His love for His creatures before or after they have been made manifest. God is perfect.
As to the silly question of “what if God chose never to create?” On the one hand, God is absolutely free. On the other hand, God does everything according to His perfect wisdom. Therefore, while God could hypothetically “choose not to create,” in reality, there is no such possibility, as the perfection of God’s nature and wisdom is such that there is no genuine possibility of His *not* manifesting His creative power and doing so in the most perfect way.
And I feel compelled to reiterate: as God is timeless and immutable, the notions of “before” and “after” only apply to creation, not to Him. He did not acquire the status of “creator” only after making His creative power. In truth, there is not really a “before” creation except
correction: before making His creative power manifest*
in an entirely figurative sense, as time only began with the existence of matter and motion.
TheSire:
Basically, you’re appealing to Necessitarianism to get around the point. That’s fine, it was only if your were committed to those ideas that the thought experiment could’ve worked. God being in love with his idea of creation isn’t the same as him being in love with creation.
Jimmy Stephens:
You seem to be missing the objection. The objection is not that God temporally loves on Unitarianism. It has nothing to do with time. The objection is that an attribute of God is *contingent* on creation. Being timelessly contingent is no better than temporal contingence.
ProfGHDorr:
It is not His being in love with the “idea” of his creation. It is His being in love with His creation. God does not change. There is no difference in God between loving His creation before or after they are made manifest. God is the Loving then, just as He is the Creator prior to the creation being made manifest.
I am not “appealing to necessaritarianism.” I am pointing out that you are presupposing the mutable and imperfect demiurge of modern Theistic Personalism and not the Perfect and Changeless God of Classical Theism.
His status as “Loving” is no more contingent on creation than His status as Creator is contingent on creation. By your logic, He would need to eternally create another God in order to be perfectly Creative, etc. You really seem incapable of understanding what “Immutable” means.
Jimmy Stephens:
Not much of a bullet there to bite. Yes, God’s Creatorhood is not part of the divine essence. It’s a status God takes on, one correlative to (read: contingent on) creation. No creation, no Creatorhood. Thanks for conceding the objection.
ProfGHDorr:
God’s status as Creator is not contingent on Creation.
God does not “take on” statuses. God is immutable.
Also, nothing is “part of God’s Essence.” God is absolutely simple.
TheSire:
I think we recognize that we have this idea of God independent of creation, but how independent of creation can God possess interpersonal love? You have only creation in order to add content to this notion of divine love.
Your position would entail that God needed to create because it is essential to who he is. This is a form of Necessitarianism that is not consistent with God being a se.
ProfGHDorr:
I think it’s pretty dirty that you ended the blog post with something you never actually said to me, hahaha. It is pretty easy to win a debate when you unilaterally decide to end the debate with something never said to your interlocutor.
https://twitter.com/ProfGHDorr/status/1653727396128858112
TheSire:
I sent the article to you, and you have the ability to read and respond to what has been said.
My argument isn’t that Necessitarianism is inherently contradictory to aseity. I was stating that your view led me to believe that God cannot possess aseity because being a creator is essential to God’s nature. God creates in order to be who he is and appeals to best of all possible worlds doesn’t alleviate that objection.
ProfGHDorr:
One of the odd things you seem to asserting is that some of God’s attributes are necessary and essential, and some are not. So, according to you, in order for God to be who He is, He is *required* to have “interpersonal love” (even if said love is for a person who is the same in Being), but for some completely arbitrary reason, His Essence does nor require Him to be the Creator. This is a presupposition that you need to justify before asserting.
TheSire:
These issues have been discussed elsewhere.
Divine Simplicity:
Absolute Divine Simplicity – The Council (spirited-tech.com)
Creator:
A Rejoinder to the Wretched Argument – The Council (spirited-tech.com)
Necessitarianism:
The Best of All Possible Worlds – The Council (spirited-tech.com)
The point here is that this has been discussed. I hold to John Frame’s view of divine simplicity. This is similar in some ways to Duns Scotus‘ view. I think God is the creator but not in virtue of his essence. If it was his nature to be creator, then he would need to create in order to be who he is. This would make him dependent on creation.
Unless you can be a creator without creating, but that is at best a runner without legs. It’s just an empty concept, to be a creator is just to have created.
ProfGHDorr:
Why is being a Lover necessitated by God’s Essence, but being Creator is not? If your objection is that eternally loving the creation is not “perfect love” because it requires an object that is other than God than by that same logic God is not perfectly Gracious or Merciful because there is no coherent way to say that Persons of the Trinity pardon each other’s sins and forgive each other without merit.
TheSire:
I agree, I wouldn’t say God has the quality of being merciful. Just like I wouldn’t say he has the quality of being a creator by nature. If he did, then he wouldn’t be a se because he would need to create. My view is God didn’t have to create the world. That is to say God isn’t dependent on the world. He is self-contained.
As addressed elsewhere:
Chris:
Your analogy concerning the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ doesn’t work. God’s graciousness is an attribute of the economic Trinity ─ i.e., the Trinity in redemptive history ─ and thus not essential in the same sense that His justice is.
Jimmy:
I agree, Muslim#2, that God cannot be forgiving to Himself. Forgiveness presupposes moral error. God certainly can be just with respect to His own moral exigencies. For example, it is just of the Father to elect punishment for those who sin against the Son. However, that does in a different sense presuppose creation. Mercy is more difficult because the term can be defined several ways, but like justice, can only occur in the context of creation.
Each of those are types of love, which does not require creation. God possesses love because God is the Triune communion.
Allah’s kindness, or his love, cannot exist without creation. This, because Allah has no one with whom kindness is shared. It is simply a place holder for an egg waiting to hatch in creation.
Unitarianism and God’s Loving Kindness – The Council (spirited-tech.com)
Recommended:
The Impossibility of Unitarianism: A Response to the Muslim Metaphysician – YouTube
The Council 