Subject:
|
Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 15 Nov 2001 22:47:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1153 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?
>
> A few posts back I put forth "God is that being greater than which nothing
> can be thought" as a rhetorical assumption. It's not my personal belief,
> but, in my attempt to understand the Christian source of morality, it seemed
> an okay starting point. Now, I realize that the Ontological Argument is
> flawed as a means of proving the existence of God, but once one assumes His
> existence, 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).
You're saying (in essence) that if God exists, that existence must by
definition be without limits. If that's what you're getting at, then I
think you need to take a look at how you are using impossible.
Impossible, by my understanding, is "something that can't be done". If you
can conceive of a being that can do something that can't be done, I'm
impressed - but I don't think you can, by definition. If a being (God or
otherwise) can do something, then that something isn't impossible. "doing
the impossible" is a null statement, and logically contradicts itself.
Now, if you mean you can conceive of something that is impossible *as you
understand how things work* that's in many regards very different. It's
easy to concieve of something that is greater than my understanding.
In my opinion, the (mostly synonimous) "God is that which there is nothing
greater than"(1) and "with God all things are possible" and "God is
omni-(whatever)" are all attempts to convey the concept or belief that God
is greater than human understanding.
Can God create a rock He cannot lift (and can He then lift that rock)? You
seem to require that the answer be yes, or God's existence is invalidated.
I would say that the answer is "I don't know, but if it can be done at all,
then God can do it."
> > > 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'm not sure what you mean here. Taken at face value, you are stating that
because morality does not submit empirical study, it has no value. Maybe
I'm just not following the thread back far enough?
> > But again, is there a logical problem with the belief that morality is
> > fixed "ulitmately"? Certainly you've argued against relative morality-- would
> > you argue for it here? I'm not sure I understand the point of the
> > objection...
>
> I'm still arguing in an effort to understand the Christian viewpoint. I
> don't hold Christians (or anyone else) accountable for my view of morality,
> but I don't understand how a Christian reconciles his view morality with God • [...]
> in terms of how each applies or relates to the other.
I think you're making this a lot more complicated than it needs to be, or
you are perhaps arguing to the absurd. How are you seeing a Christian's
morality as irreconcilable with God? I really must confess that I don't get
this last bit at all. Could you maybe provide some more depth to this?
Your comment seems nonsensical to me, in the same sort of way that "how does
the flavor of food relate to it's taste" seems absurd.
thanks,
James
1:...and a sentence ending in a preposition is something up with which I
will not put. ;)
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
