I guess we're at an impasse. And that I shouldn't have used the word navel, since it's sending you in a direction of assuming self indulgence on the part of my deity.

Possibly not, but I find it telling that you did so. What else is there for such a deity to regard?

The difference between loving and giving love is -- well, giving. That's been my whole point. The whole being suffused with warmth and affection for anything that might or might not ever exist? I'm good with.

Right. So, what meaning are we supposed to attach to such a being being all-loving? What difference is there between it and an all-selfish being? Indeed, if all there is is self, "the whole being suffused with warmth and affection" is a pretty picture, but your 'for' (and it's telling that the language here is predicated on a non-solipsistic existence) has nothing to relate to but itself.

See, all I've got from your picture is that such a being might turn out to be all-loving, were it ever in a situation where such a term gains meaning, but for the moment I can't say it's loving, selfish, or fnargle. There's nothing to explain what distinguishes these terms compared to anything else.

I don't know, and I guess I won't because you won't explain.

Um. Already did. You said you disagree, but without a reason that's coherent, I don't know what to say to it. Say we were discussing geometry, and I made a point, but you said that square circles were a counterexample. Do I have anything to say before I know what you mean by that?

In summation: I do not feel you need an object to be loving, and I don't believe that there's anything inherently loving in creating an object.

Why do you think it needs to be inherent? I would have thought that you have to argue that it can't be loving to make your point here. If it is conceivable for creation to loving, then an ALAPG would create in that fashion instead of any non-loving alternative.

But you don't seem to understand I can separate loving from giving, and I have no idea how you expect me to convince you, if you refuse to believe me.

It's not a question of belief, it's a question of coherence. I believe you believe it. But I also think the concepts you're using to conceive of it are themselves given meaning by a non-solipsistic existence, and thus there's a contradiction in using them to argue for a love in a solipsistic state of affairs.

I disagree. God has to be an entity existing outside of the universe otherwise he can't create it. If God is all-powerful and there is at least one entity known to be able to exist outside of the/a universe, then he must be able to create another one.

I think you're getting hung up on the notion of the universe being akin to this universe. You can see, by the root language, that a universe was originally conceived to be singular. It's only after we could investigate the universe's properties, and could define it in such terms, that the concept of a multiverse or an alternate universe had much place outside speculative fiction.

I'm here using 'universe' as 'that which has been created by the hypothetical deity. The term isn't important to the argument. The concept behind it is more relevant.

I would say again this is assuming time outside the universe when time is a component of the universe. How can God start off the Universe and let events happen as they will if there is no concept of time outside the universe?

I would say the reverse. God can do so because the notion of 'let events happen as they will' is itself a notion that assumes a framework of time passing. It has meaning inside the universe, as time passes in the Universe. Outside of time, it's not false, it's meaningless. Thus, the only thing relevant to whether such a statement is true is what happens within the universe.

Let's add a bit of construction. God considers creating a Universe. He knows the starting conditions he intends to create. This universe will contain free will, and as a result (this may be a controversial inference, but let's suppose), God does not know for sure how things will go. But the instant he creates the universe, all moments in time within that universe are apparent to him. Does this mean he knows what we will do before we do it? No. 'Before' is also a time-dependent concept. That a being outside of time knows all moments in time simultaneously isn't describable by it. (Where God to reveal said knowledge within time, that might be a different matter. Or not. I'm capricious like that.)

Of course, our whole notion of God as an agent is coloured by our experience of agency, which is time-dependent. So I'm not sure much of what I'm saying about such a god is that coherent here. Hopefully I've kept focus on what his situation isn't, but I know the language I've been using to describe his actions necessarily assumes time passing.

Having just seen the preview for The Brothers Grimm, I can only wonder that nobody ever suspected Matt Damon would make such an excellent hobbit.

thanks for all the kind words about the nephew. i think i'm gonna print out everyone's comments here and in my lj and give them to him. he needs some good in his life.

my aunt is doing alright. my mom and i just got back from visiting her. her face is still supremely swollen and she doesn't really look like herself. they had to cut some of her hair because it was so charred. her arms and hands aren't really burned at all. just one place on her left arm. the left side of her face is the worst.

she's going quite a while without needing the pain meds, but she's still coughing quite a bit. it sounds really painful. so keep sending that ~ma in her direction, please.

In summation: I do not feel you need an object to be loving, and I don't believe that there's anything inherently loving in creating an object.

Why do you think it needs to be inherent? I would have thought that you have to argue that it can't be loving to make your point here.

Huh. Isn't your argument, though, that a loving god would necessarily create the universe. Hence, creating the universe is a loving thing to do. That seems to fit "inherent" to me.

If creation is not inherently good, is the act something less than perfectly loving?

If it is conceivable for creation to loving, then an ALAPG would create in that fashion instead of any non-loving alternative.

But what about loving alternatives? Why does non-creation = non-loving? Or does it?

Huh. Isn't your argument, though, that a loving god would necessarily create the universe. Hence, creating the universe is a loving thing to do. That seems to fit "inherent" to me.

No, that it would necessarily create a universe. If there is no conceivable way to create a universe as an act of love, then obviously an ALAPG wouldn't do so. I find that to be a very ambitious position to argue. Not that anyone's done so, but it's required for this particular objection to have legs.

Whether this universe provides evidence for the existence of such a God is relevant to the second conditional probability, i.e. the probability of an ALAPG given the universe. What I've done is posit that the first conditional probability, the probability of a universe given Swinburne's (well, Christianity's) ALAPG, is 1. It may just be me who thinks the amount of opposition to such a notion is remarkable, but then my mother always said I shared with my grandfather the ability to think I was right and the rest of the world was wrong.

But what about loving alternatives? Why does non-creation = non-loving? Or does it?

You're stepping outside the conditional of that sentence, i.e. given that an ALAPG is creating, it will do so in a loving fashion. Taking your sentence on its own, my response is pretty much all my previous posts.

continued -ma for your aunt, tiggy. I hope that they're just sending her home because of worries of hospital infections. I've often heard that the hospital is the worst place for people who might be at high risk for infection. I hope the swelling goes down soon and the scarring is minimal.

mom said the doctors told...whoever that they were just keeping her there because they were concerned about her lungs. they weren't overly concerned with the burns. when her lungs cleared they decided to release her. she doesn't even have a follow-up appointment until september 1st. it's just so bizarre to me that they aren't more worried about the burns and her recovery from them.

tiggy, I hope your aunt will be ok.

it's just so bizarre to me that they aren't more worried about the burns and her recovery from them.

Hopefully, that's an indication that they're not as serious as they may look (and burns look scary).