Subject:
|
Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Nov 2001 05:23:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
919 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
>
> > God by no means has created morality. By no means does Absolute Ultimate
> > Goodness (whatever that may be) receive its definition by God. God could no
> > sooner make objectively evil good than he could create a square circle.
> > God may do all things that can be done, but he may not do the absurd.
>
> Hmm. One of the long-standing concepts of God is
> "greater-than-which-nothing-can-be-thought." That is, of course, a
> formulation of the ontological argument and is therefore insufficient to
> prove His existence, but let's assume it (those of us who don't already
> believe it). Having said that, a being that can do the absurd is greater
> than a being that cannot, so I would think God *can* do the logically
> impossible; in fact, if He's the ultimate being, he *must* be able to do the
> logically impossible. Actually, for my interest, the accomplishment of the
> logically impossible is a pretty good definition of a miracle.
Any of us can construct nonsensical statements. How big is yellow? A
square circle. 2+2=5. Whatever. How can any being *do* the logically
impossible? That which our imaginations may conceive cannot be the standard
which a Greater Being must meet in order to be called Omnipotent. The
absurd simply cannot be done, and to posit a being able to do the absurd is
simply to posit a being that cannot exist, and nothing more. We have not
found a greater god; instead, it seems, we have found nothing at all. We
risk depriving our language from all content if we force ourselves to deal
in matters of actual absurdities. Again, God may do all things that can be
done. The absurd is merely the absurd, and by recognizing this, we have not
one-uped God and somehow created a defeater for his existence.
> I'm not sure I understood your notion of the source of morality, except
> that you state that God didn't create it, and that confuses me. Didn't He
> create everything? And is He or isn't He subject to it? If He is, then
> we're back to something greater than God. If He's not, then we're back to
> how do we know He's good?
My worldview is thus: God did not create himself. He is indeed subject to
principles of morality insofar as Ultimate Truth and Beauty absolutely forms
the essence of his being, and thus, were he not what he is, then he would be
an absurdity and would not, a priori, exist. God could no more be anything
other than absolutely Good than he could create the square circle. I have
made a philosophical, ethical, and religious commitment of mind and heart to
being a theologian of hope. Frankly, I know that I'm in a tight
philosophical spot here, but I cannot see that Morality has any objective
content without being absolutely immutable, and, if god could manipulate the
essence of good and bad such that, for example, putting babies on spikes had
even the remotest possibility of ever in time and space becoming anything
less than gratuitous evil, then we would do well to curse the universe, for
we serve a cruel tyrant. I cannot reconcile a hopeful view regarding the
nature of the universe with a nebulous concept of right and wrong. The
stakes are too high, at least for me. If in the end I must claim mystery, I
will not do so on philosophical grounds that allows for a devilish view of
the divine.
> > > Whether God created morality or not, is He subject to it? That is, if He
> > > is not subject to morality, I am unable to imagine how one can conclude that
> > > He is good, except by faith.
I hate to neglect the rest of your questions, but, to be quite honest, I'm
running out of steam this evening. I'll jump back into the fray in the
morning. (I also still owe you and DaveE a reply in this thread.)
> >
> > Oh, he absolutely is.
>
> Well, okay. But why? And how do we know? I don't mean in a
> Euthyphro-ish way, but where does He stand in relation to morality? And on
> what basis to we judge?
>
> > > I was 10), but I've noticed your quotes by [Lewis] on several occasions.
> >
> > Yes, I've been much influenced by Saint Jack.
>
> His writing is tremendously accessible and is a good starting point for
> those seeking to articulate their beliefs, but I think he sometimes relies
> too much on questionable analogies and false dichotomies. But at least he's
> readable!
>
> Dave!
The genius of Clives Staples was probably not in that he was an originator
of philosophical and theological ideas, but that he was a masterful
communicator of them. My personal view of immortal bliss is an eternity
spent in a smoky pub with Saint Jack and J.R.R. Tolkien.
james
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
