Subject:
|
Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 15 Nov 2001 22:09:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1119 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > > Sort of, but I'm not sure that I agree with it. Why should an infinite
> > > being be constrained by our notions of impossibility, even if those notions
> > > seem absolute to us?
> >
> > I dunno. What makes you so sure that he shouldn't be? Is it a logical fallacy
> > to say that he shouldn't be? Is there a flaw with such a belief that makes it
> > invalid?
>
> I'm not sure I can understand any definition of Him that allows
> something greater to be imagined. Ignoring for a moment the question of
> evil, it seems to me that a being that can do something is greater than a
> being that cannot do something. I can imagine, at least conceptually, a
> being that can accomplish the impossible, and, since I can think of it, God
> must be greater than that (accepting the earlier assumption).
Very Descartian of you :) I think the only rebuttal I can say is "Why must it
be that way?" I guess I just don't see a problem with a God for whom certain
things are impossible, such as the absurdity of changing 4+3=9, while leaving
the rest of mathematics alone, and having such a change be absolute. Can I
fathom the possibility? Sure. Is it plausible? No. Is it plausible for God?
Doesn't have to be...
> > > I would argue that [morality] describes something that can't be
> > > as readily demonstrated to be external to man.
> >
> > Demonstrated, no. At least not within our abilities.
>
> Unfortunately, that's the god-of-the-gaps argument restated; we can't
> posit something unverifiable and then use it as an escape clause as needed.
> If we can't verify it, then it's not really useful in empirical thought.
I don't think we were arguing it's *use* *within* empirical thought, but using
empirical thought upon it. The problem with morality is that there does in fact
seem to be a set of consistant morals between humans. And the thought for
almost all humans is that "If only I could make X understand, X would know that
action Y is moral/immoral". And, interestingly enough, morality has progressed,
like it or not, and our understanding has changed. The most impressive part of
that change being that it hasn't really ever backtracked...
> but I don't understand how a Christian reconciles his view morality with God
> and His goodness (the latter of which I recognize you and I aren't
> discussing) in terms of how each applies or relates to the other.
I think James' viewpoint is that humans' knowledge of morality improves over
time, with respect to an "ultimate" morality, as we build up experience and
knowledge. Meanwhile, God, while having greater possibility for experience and
knowledge (and being infinite to some degree) understands this same
"ultimate" morality perfectly. However, it seems more and more that one's moral
standing (against the "ultimate" yardstick) isn't important to God, so much as
other matters; one being a person's adherence to their OWN understanding of the
"ultimate" morality. Hence, everyone is judged against their own yardstick, but
each person's yardstick resembles to some extent, the "ultimate" yardstick. As
to why such an ultimate yardstick even matters anymore, I dunno. Let's hope
James responds :)
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
117 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
