A Philosophical Examination of the Concept of a Non-Maximally Great Deity
Introduction
The debate surrounding God's existence is one of the most enduring in human thought, a battleground of ideas teeming with various arguments and counterarguments. An unorthodox proposal that has been presented is the concept of a non-maximally great God, a deity beset with limitations. This, at first glance, addresses certain theological quandaries like the problem of evil. However, when scrutinizing this argument philosophically, it becomes clear that the concept of a "non-maximally great God" is unable to withstand it, and becomes conceptually incoherent. In this post, let's dive deeply into why.
A Flawed Attempt to Solve the Problem of Evil
Some proponents of a limited deity claim that such a being offers a more palatable answer to the perennial problem of evil and suffering. The idea is that a being restricted by limitations may lack the capacity or the inclination to eliminate all evil. However, this hypothetical solution presents new dilemmas.
What if this limited being has the power to "reset" the universe? Of course, as an inventor might if their invention proves fundamentally flawed, such a being could presumably start over with a clean slate to create a better design. If evil and suffering are not logically necessary but merely the result of poor implementation, why wouldn't a limited but well-intentioned deity simply try again?
So, if there were a limited deity, we would expect suffering to decrease as the deity continues resetting and modifying until it becomes negligible. So, why does suffering still pervade? The sustained existence of evil serves as an indictment against this notion, revealing it as a deficient explanation. Either this limited deity lacks the power to reset creation (calling into question whether they're truly divine at all), or they have the power but choose not to use it (raising serious moral questions about their nature).
The Timeline Skepticism Problem
The capability of a limited deity to "reset" creation introduces a far more troubling epistemic challenge than mere divine hiddenness—it raises deep questions about the very coherence of our temporal experience. This problem parallels the famous "Boltzmann brain" thought experiment in physics, where quantum fluctuations might more easily produce a single hallucinating brain than our entire ordered universe, forcing us to grapple with unsettling questions of probability and existence.
If we grant even the mere possibility of divine resets, we face an insurmountable skeptical dilemma. How can we know whether this present moment exists within the original timeline or is merely the 3,751,293th reset attempt? More troublingly, how can we verify that our memories of the previous moment belong to this timeline rather than being freshly created artifacts of the most recent reset? The limited deity hypothesis thus threatens not just our confidence in the distant past but in the immediate continuity of our experience.
This skeptical problem runs deeper than traditional philosophical skepticism about external reality. While Cartesian doubt questions whether we might be brains in vats or deceived by evil demons, at least it preserves the continuity of our conscious experience. The divine reset problem fractures even this basic assumption. Each moment could potentially be the first moment of a new timeline, complete with implanted memories of a past that never actually occurred.
The implications for moral action and meaning-making are severe. If any moment could be arbitrarily reset by a limited deity dissatisfied with its creation, what meaning can our moral choices have? Why work to improve the world if the timeline itself might be discarded? The limited deity hypothesis, in attempting to solve the problem of evil, thus potentially undermines the very possibility of meaningful moral action.
This creates a paradox more vicious than the original problem of evil: while evil and suffering might seem to question the likelihood of a maximally great God, . The limited deity hypothesis, in contrast, threatens to dissolve not just theological certainty but the very coherence of temporal existence and moral responsibility.
The Failure to Meet the Criteria of a 'Necessary Being'
Many classical proofs for God's existence, such as the Cosmological Argument, hinge on the concept of God as a 'necessary being'—one whose existence is requisite for the existence of everything else. However, a limited "god" reeks of contingency. In being contingent, such a god fails to serve as the metaphysical foundation for all that exists, undermining His status as a 'necessary being' according to classical theism.
The Unsustainability of Evolving 'Greatness'
A curious consequence of the idea of a non-maximally great God is the implication that such a deity might grow 'greater' over time. This begets numerous questions. At what rate does this "greatness" accrue? What about the rate of that rate, analogous to speed and its acceleration? These intricacies present an exponentially complex model that further distorts the idea of a limited, ever-changing "god."
The Contingent Maze of Complexity
Accepting, for argument's sake, a "god" whose greatness evolves introduces a labyrinth of contingencies. Not only would the rate of this change be contingent, but so would the multiple orders of rates of change—an infinite loop of contingent complexities. This cascading chain of dependencies is fundamentally incompatible with the notion of a 'necessary being,' casting further doubts on the conceptual viability of a limited God.
Furthermore, one may also consider the implications this would have for the approach by which this deity.
The Paradox of Limited Divine Hiddenness
The traditional divine hiddenness argument, famously articulated by J.L. Schellenberg, poses that the existence of reasonable non-belief counts against classical theism. If there exists a perfectly loving God, why would this deity remain hidden from creation, allowing genuine seekers to reasonably doubt its existence? This argument has been a significant challenge for classical theism, though various responses have been offered—from the necessity of epistemic distance for genuine free will to the idea that greater divine manifestation might overwhelm human agency.
However, when we turn this lens toward the concept of a limited deity, the hiddenness problem becomes not just challenging but devastating. A limited deity would share more characteristics with finite beings, including the natural tendencies and behavioral patterns we observe in all limited agents. Consider how limited beings with agency invariably:
Seek out others who share their values and goals
Attempt to correct misunderstandings about themselves when possible
Desire collaboration and connection
Intervene directly in situations they care about when within their power
This creates a paradox: while a maximally great God might have inscrutable reasons for maintaining divine hiddenness, a limited deity would likely exhibit more "human-like" patterns of interaction. Such a being would be more likely to manifest through multiple avatars, engage in direct communication, or establish clear channels of collaboration with other limited beings who share their values and objectives.
The complete absence of such direct intervention serves as a stronger argument against limited deity theories than against classical theism. Just as humans naturally form communities, organizations, and movements around shared purposes, a limited deity would likely seek to establish some form of direct, verifiable contact with other conscious beings who could assist in their purposes or simply provide companionship in their limitations.
The profound silence we observe in response to genuine seeking becomes, paradoxically, more problematic for limited deity theories than for classical theism. For the maximally great God of classical theism, more specifically the Christian God through His Son Jesus Christ, we can easily address the problem of evil by simply pointing out that they have transcendent reasons for hiddenness that surpass human understanding. However, a limited deity's complete hiddenness appears to contradict the very nature of limited agency as we observe it in all other contexts.
Final Thoughts
The allure of a non-maximally great "god" may initially seem like an ingenious way to sidestep age-old theological and philosophical problems. However, upon closer inspection, this idea engenders more questions than it answers. From its inability to satisfactorily address the problem of evil to its inherent conflict with the notion of a 'necessary being,' the concept of a limited God unravels under the weight of its own complexities.
In contrast, the problem of evil is soundly refuted by many arguments that stem from the nature of a maximally great God. We can easily posit that God allows evil to happen in order to preserve free will, to show us the reality of human nature, and . As a Christian, I believe .
Implications For How We Approach Our Lives
The philosophical untenability of even a limited deity as a foundation for existence carries profound implications beyond pure theology. If a being of tremendous (though limited) power cannot serve as a metaphysically necessary foundation for reality, this forces us to confront uncomfortable questions about our own attempts to find ultimate meaning and foundation within even more limited beings—ourselves.
If even such a limited being is be subject to such limitations and be unviable to the universe, this gets me thinking—what about us? How should we view our own perception of reality and our ability to chart the course of our own lives? What is the limit of our capabilities in decision-making? If not even a limited deity can be sustainable, can we really build our own lives upon ourselves, or whatever we so determine, as ultimate sources of meaning and fulfillment? If even this limited deity cannot fully understand the most fundamental truths of life and reality, we cannot on our own.
Note: This post is based on ideas and thoughts that I had, and the blog post was written in both directly and with ChatGPT.
Comments