Response 1: The Ceiling Problem
Speaking to Objection 3 in the paper:
I can imagine a being that knows the future. This being has greater power than a being that does not know the future. But I can also imagine knowledge of the future turning out to be impossible, say, because the future is open.
I can imagine a being that knows the future. This being has greater power than a being that does not know the future. But I can also imagine knowledge of the future turning out to be impossible, say, because the future is open.
Let's say knowledge of the future turns out to be impossible. So a being with future knowledge is an impossible being. Impossible properties cannot be great-making properties. So the perfect being, because of its perfection, not in spite of it, lacks knowledge of the future. And yet, I can imagine, at least in a surface-level sense of imagination, a being with the power to know the future. And so lacking knowledge of the future appears to be a limit, but this "limit" turns out to be a perfection.
But doesn't this open the door for similar cases? What could appear initially to be a limit in love, power, goodness, etc., could turn out to be a perfection. Any initially apparent great-making property could turn out to be an impossible property, and therefore not great-making after all. So the perfect being could be, in a sense, indifferent, unloving, ignorant, weak, etc., with these limits being pseudo-limits like the pseudo-limit of lacking future knowledge (or the pseudo-limit of being unable to create a liftable-unliftable stone).
But doesn't this open the door for similar cases? What could appear initially to be a limit in love, power, goodness, etc., could turn out to be a perfection. Any initially apparent great-making property could turn out to be an impossible property, and therefore not great-making after all. So the perfect being could be, in a sense, indifferent, unloving, ignorant, weak, etc., with these limits being pseudo-limits like the pseudo-limit of lacking future knowledge (or the pseudo-limit of being unable to create a liftable-unliftable stone).
The perfect foundation of the universe could turn out to be gravely disappointing. We might call this a Low Ceiling Perfect Being (LCPB): A being with maximal possible great-making properties, but it turns out that the ceiling on those maximal possible great-making properties is much lower compared to what we can imagine, at least in a surface-level sense of imagination.
How can we tell limits apart from pseudo-limits? If I'm wrong about future knowledge being a great-making possible power, then how am I to trust my beliefs about what counts as a great-making possible power?
Here's a funny way to put it: Why would the perfect foundation be perfect in a way that makes me happy? Why couldn't it be perfect in a way that makes me miserable? Put another way, couldn't the perfect foundation be perfect in a way that does not conform to my personal ideal of a perfect being? Couldn't perfection turn out to be something disappointing?
Objection: Why is the ceiling there and not lower or higher? Sure, because the degree of each power is at the ceiling, the powers are maximal and non-arbitrary. But have all I've done is transfer the arbitrariness from the degrees to the ceilings?
Response: Even for a perfect being, there are ceilings for great-making properties. Why are those ceilings where they are? Because those ceilings are necessary. So both positions are in the same boat: explaining the ceilings by necessity.
Rebuttal: The ceilings are where they are for a perfect being because we cannot imagine a greater degree of power that the perfect being cannot possess.
Response: But we can: We can imagine a being with the power to know the future. But there could be an explanation for why knowledge of the future turns out to be impossible. Upon understanding this explanation, perhaps the idea of future knowledge would evaporate from our imagination. But even if it's true that the idea of future knowledge evaporates from our imagination upon understanding the impossibility of future knowledge, the fact remains that we experienced ourselves imagining a being with future knowledge, even if only in a surface-level sense of imagination. Lacking future knowledge still appeared to be a limit when it wasn't. For all I know, similar explanations lie waiting to evaporate from my imagination other initially apparent great-making properties. Maybe my idea of perfect love is impossible, and so a perfectly loving being turns out to be far less loving compared to what I can initially imagine.
Maybe my idea of love is not great-making at all, because in order to be loving (in the sense I understand) you must be a creature like us (maternal / paternal, thus part of an evolutionary process, thus dependent, etc.), and so a perfect being turns out to be not loving at all.
Response 2: The Begetting Problem
Wouldn't a perfect being only beget perfection? And since there can only be one perfect being, a perfect being would beget nothing.
A Low Ceiling Perfect Being addresses this problem: Because a LCPB has pseudo-limits, it's no surprise that it would produce things that are, per our preferences / imagination, imperfect. In other words, the LCPB is already imperfect per our preferences / imagination, so it's no surprise that an imperfect (per our preferences / imagination) foundation would produce imperfections (per our preferences / imagination).
So there is a distinction between preference-imperfection and something like metaphysical imperfection or limit-based imperfection. Something can be unlimited (perfect, in one sense) and yet against our preferences (imperfect, in another sense).
Response 3: The Distinguishability Problem
Some of the comments on the YouTube video reminded me: Back in December 2024 I emailed a professor of mine this problem, because he worked on the ontological argument for his dissertation:
1) To be something is to be distinguishable from other things.
2) But to be distinguishable there must be features of that thing that make it distinguishable.
3) But those features are boundaries, and boundaries are limits.
4) So to be something is to be limited.
5) So there is nothing unlimited.
2) But to be distinguishable there must be features of that thing that make it distinguishable.
3) But those features are boundaries, and boundaries are limits.
4) So to be something is to be limited.
5) So there is nothing unlimited.
That professor never replied, so I'll take a stab at it myself:
God is limited to great making properties, but within those great making properties God is unlimited. So there are two different kinds of limits: limits of properties and limits of degree. God is limited in properties (possessing all and only the great-making properties), but not limited in degree (possessing all and only the great-making properties to the greatest possible degree).
Perfection entails pseudo-limits: A perfect being is limited to all and only great-making properties. This limit is explained by perfection, which makes it a special limit. Limits explained by perfection are aspects of perfection, and thus are pseudo-limits.
No comments:
Post a Comment