Classical Theism?

Your references to God sound like a scholastic or rationalist/empiricist account of God. Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza for example all have a conception of an "all perfect being" incorporated into their treatises, whether it be the Meditations or the Monadology. Referencing God as an "all perfect being" in most cases involving these philosophers is used primarily to ground their metaphysical ontology for the universe and reality. Descartes for example posits in his first mediation that he may be deceived by a malign genius (evil god) because God is an "all perfect being" and to deceive would contradict Gods nature.

I have not heard of the argument you mention, about God not interfering with the world because it would mean he would come along side himself etc. You may want to elaborate on who exactly said that. But that seems to be one of the true paradoxes of the ages. There was an old thread in the logic section called "can god create a rock even he cannot lift?"

Aristotle I think has a very viable solution, though he wasn't attempting to solve this paradox. He posited that substance was primary in the universe. But he also said that there were three types of substance, two sensible and one unmoved. A very long analysis of the sensible substances revealed that motion was a key element in the question. God then comes in as the unmoved mover, the essential element of all substance. Now this unmoved mover is the interesting part. Motion has to have a first cause? we think of it in terms of cause and effect. All substance is in the universe, but motion is a key feature of it all. God as the unmoved mover is introduced as that first cause.

Now personally, I think the notion of God should stop there. If God becomes entangled in the most minute of instances in the universe, God sways motion beyond the first cause. If you consider God as an all perfect being, if God were to interfere in any way with the universe, that means that the conception of the universe and the first cause had its flaws, and God would not be an all perfect being. But that's if we account for Aristotle's thoughts exclusively.

Yes, according to that train of thought (which I always called Deism), miracles would be out of the question. In my opinion, such Deism has little to do with the tradition religious thinking, and more to do with western philosophy and atheism. In my opinion, it was Deism was really just a premature form of atheism, essentially taking any idea of an inolved and acting God out of the picture, and atheism simply takes it the final step and does away with God altogether.

Personally, I don't understand the argument against miracles, etc. If God wanted to create a world in which there would be thinking, acting, and responsible beings other than himself, I don't see anything contradictory in His interacting with them through the physical world that He made.

Hi doyousee?,

You do not offer a lot of information so I cannot be sure what you want to know exactly. I think, however, that the problem you are encountering is derived from a god-realisation in the Latin tradition or in the Greek tradition. I will not go too deep into the historical relevances of this. However a short explanation might shed some light on what I mean.

Christianity in the Greek tradtion ('linked' with plato in history by all sorts of political games) boils down to the fact that there is a 'God', which is all. 'God' has several attributes, of which we know extension and thought.

Christianity in the Latin tradition ('linked' with Aristotle in history by all sorts of political games) boils down to the fact that there is a 'God'; which sort of 'boils' over because of its abundance and that which boils over is no longer 'God', but physical reality. This is the tradition most of Europe has been dominated by for a very long time. Even pointing towards the Greek tradition made for burning.

Anyway, I think that you know 'God' in the Greek tradition and that what you are reading (the?sm) is, as I said the type of Christianity which has dominated most of Europe for a very long time and therefore seperates 'God' from 'not God'. In the Latin tradition it is so that 'not God' exists and that 'God' can directly act in 'not God' at a moment of choice. In the Greek tradition 'God' is everything; nature so going against that would be 'God' going against himself which would be none-sensical because is perfect and such.

Hope this helps.

P.S.
Unfortunately I cannot find good links to any solid information on the internet. If you want I think I can find something in my readers from school I think.

Without the benefit of knowing the source of the argument, it may be that traditionally some theists argue that the godhead is outside of time, and cannot have a past, present, or future. Thus, an immutable and omnipresent godhead cannot operate in time, and perhaps even know objects in time.

Good, honest question.

My advice would be to not try and rationalize elements whose basis lies in the human heart. Like many elements of theism, belief and adherence has so much more to do with emotion, outlook and inner need than logic, per say. As I believe theistic outlooks to be man-made and subject to a hundred trillion interpretations, it's no surprise that contradictions exist in extremis.

It comes down to faith, yes? Have thee faith? Of course such questions can only be answered for oneself; therefore, answer that question for yourself and you'll be well on your way to resolving such contradictions. Find a devout theist who can give you an answer and find a considered atheist and do likewise. Look, read, talk, debate, research, pray and think it through.

Hope this helps