How to refute this argument? - Page 2

Marc Anthony · #16 Jul 15, '12, 9:30 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc Anthony

Actually, austenboston and Gorgias are right. As is Ludqig Von Mises.

Mises's problem is that he doesn't realize that theistic philosophers like St. Thomas Aquinas would cheerfully accept the premise!

Read article 1, "Whether there is will in God?" It addresses Von Mises's issue.

Gorgias is right. God does not "act". He is, technically speaking, PURE act. Instead, he wills.

Sorry, I forgot to put a link. By "article 1" I was referring to this section of the "Summa Theologica":

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1019.htm

Qoeleth · #17 Jul 15, '12, 10:41 pm

Well, in a sense it is true. God does not decide "I am not happy with things", and therefore, get up, and 'act' to change them.

God is being. The world is not being, but only 'becoming'. It is therefore the world which acts (in the sense of changes from one action to another, initiates an action, etc.). But it does so in relation to a teleology (which is being, i.e. God). Therefore, it appears as if God acts.

Yes the image of God 'acting', is an anthropomorphism. But, why not anthopomorphism? All our language about God is figurative and 'images'. Anthropomorphism seems like an effective image.

Leigh01 · #18 Jul 16, '12, 2:11 am

Philosophy can told its ans batter.i think so its not a difficult.

xzereus · #19 Jul 16, '12, 7:46 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarcusAndreas

Libertarian philosopher Ludwig von Mises argued that God does not act because only discontented beings act, and attributing action to God is an anthropomorphism. I know this is an absurd argument but I can't figure out how to refute it.

Although the question has been addressed, I'll address it again for fun. It's really not so absurd an argument. Let's not worry about the fact that Mises was not a christian--that does not make him automatically wrong! I think, perhaps, it's important to evaluate the inverse. This might help for understanding the concept

If a being were perfectly content, what need would it have to act? Any action by any being can be said to represent be an attempt at change. If the aforementioned content being is attempting to change anything, how can we claim he is truly content? Either he is intentionally attempting to dissatisfy himself--which in itself represents a discontentment with his own feelings of perfect content--and to interrupt his otherwise perfect situation, or he is not perfectly content in his current state.

The argument has been made that we can act while content with the purpose of greater happiness, yet this state is not without discontent. I can hold this contentment while at the same being discontent with the fact that abortion is illegal, for example. This discontentment would likely cause me to act against it.

As for the difference between acting/willing, I'll leave you to the very capable hands of Marc Anthony and austenbosten. Apologies if my explanation is unclear or lacking.

ProLepanto · #20 Jul 16, '12, 9:31 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorgias

In a manner of speaking, he's right. God doesn't act, per se. (Action implies prior inaction, and stimulus, and response, doesn't it? And that would imply change within the actor, wouldn't it?)

Instead, it's more accurate to say that God wills. His will is eternal and unchanging. Moreover, anything that we perceive of, within the confines of time & space, as being an 'action' of God, is instead, in fact, an example of God's eternal will being actualized in the framework of His creation.

So, would we say that God 'waited', and then 'acted' in 1 A.D., causing the incarnation of His Son? Nope. Rather, God willed the Incarnation eternally. We experienced the Incarnation, as time-and-space bound humans, as an event that occurred at that point in time.

Hope that helps...!

Spot on. The argument is refuted by rejecting the givens. If the premiss on which the assertion lies, is not shared, then the framework of the discussion in question should be rejected; never mind the conclusion.

Example: "Since all Catholics are actually pagan heathens, they all should burn in hell"

Now, if one was to focus on trying to rescue the reputation of the Catholic faith by trying explain why heathens shouldn't burn in hell, rather than Saying: "I reject the givens, Catholicism is not populated by heretics (

mostly)" then the defense would be unintelligible.

MarcusAndreas · #21 Jul 16, '12, 12:50 pm

I see where y'all are going with this. One of the key things that should be mentioned which I haven't is von Mises's definition of action, the problem is I'm not entirely sure what he means by it.

I think I might be getting way too bent out of shape by the man's argument, considering he was a theological, philosophical, historical, and economic (oh yes, I went there) illiterate.

sw85 · #22 Jul 16, '12, 12:54 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarcusAndreas

Libertarian philosopher Ludwig von Mises argued that God does not act because only discontented beings act, and attributing action to God is an anthropomorphism. I know this is an absurd argument but I can't figure out how to refute it.

Strictly speaking, this is true, but not for the right reasons. God does not "act" in the sense that we mean -- i.e., doing this and then doing that. This would imply that God is not entirely present to Himself.

God's action in the world is one single, continuous act of love, manifesting itself in different ways in different times and places. Actually, there cannot even be a distinction between God and his actions for Him to satisfy the demands of unlimited being: He must actually be that single, unlimited, continuous act of love.

Presumably von Mises (an idiot) meant this argument to support deism.

Ben F · #23 Jul 16, '12, 12:55 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorgias

In a manner of speaking, he's right. God doesn't act, per se. (Action implies prior inaction, and stimulus, and response, doesn't it? And that would imply change within the actor, wouldn't it?)

Instead, it's more accurate to say that God wills. His will is eternal and unchanging. Moreover, anything that we perceive of, within the confines of time & space, as being an 'action' of God, is instead, in fact, an example of God's eternal will being actualized in the framework of His creation.

So, would we say that God 'waited', and then 'acted' in 1 A.D., causing the incarnation of His Son? Nope. Rather, God willed the Incarnation eternally. We experienced the Incarnation, as time-and-space bound humans, as an event that occurred at that point in time.
Very good. God bless

Hope that helps...!

Marc Anthony · #24 Jul 16, '12, 2:32 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by sw85

Strictly speaking, this is true, but not for the right reasons. God does not "act" in the sense that we mean -- i.e., doing this and then doing that. This would imply that God is not entirely present to Himself.

God's action in the world is one single, continuous act of love, manifesting itself in different ways in different times and places. Actually, there cannot even be a distinction between God and his actions for Him to satisfy the demands of unlimited being: He must actually be that single, unlimited, continuous act of love.

Very well said!

jochoa · #25 Jul 17, '12, 7:30 am

The trouble with this argument is that it concludes that having a purpose for acting/willing means being discontent/dissatisfied.

Not only is this a pessimistic view of thinking, but given this line of thinking, one can never resolve the following paradox of faith: God is eternally perfectly content, yet God acts/wills creation, even purposes it.

austenbosten · #26 Jul 17, '12, 8:30 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by sw85

Strictly speaking, this is true, but not for the right reasons. God does not "act" in the sense that we mean -- i.e., doing this and then doing that. This would imply that God is not entirely present to Himself.

God's action in the world is one single, continuous act of love, manifesting itself in different ways in different times and places. Actually, there cannot even be a distinction between God and his actions for Him to satisfy the demands of unlimited being: He must actually be that single, unlimited, continuous act of love.

Presumably von Mises (an idiot) meant this argument to support deism.

How is Ludwig von Mises an idiot, if I might ask?

JohnAlexander · #27 Jul 17, '12, 8:31 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarcusAndreas

Libertarian philosopher Ludwig von Mises argued that God does not act because only discontented beings act, and attributing action to God is an anthropomorphism. I know this is an absurd argument but I can't figure out how to refute it.

What is the basis for asserting that only discontented beings act? I think his assertion is wrong. He does not give any proof for his assertion.

Love for example leads to action. When you love someone you want to show your love. You are not "discontented"

You can also get to much more complicated ideas. What exactly is meant by action? God is existence itself. God is action. In his Being, God acts. The assumption is that God is static and would only be moved to action to accomplish something in order to fix some state of affairs that he was unhappy about. But what if instead of being static, God's resting state is actually acting. The universe exists, and continues to exist because of God's action. He maintains the universe by doing it. The universe and everything in it is an on going action of God. The second God stops doing the universe, the universe disappears. But such a thing can not happen because time only exists in the universe. God does not exist in time, time exists in God.