Subject:
|
Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Nov 2001 06:43:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1273 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> > 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.
>
> And mine too, but I'll stand by the logical impossibility requirement. If
> you have any notion at all of the Christian God, then I'd say you have at
> least a few ideas about a being able to perform logical impossibilities,
I completely disagree. You're forcing a Christian God into something that it
doesn't need to be. Certainly there are *some* sects of Christianity that
would require it as you say, but again, they don't disprove the whole of
Christianity.
> such
> as being one entity and three entities (if you accept the doctrine of the
> Trinity) or a being that existed "before" time.
Well, I can explain if you'd like (at least how I think it would be
possible), but it's really not necessary on either count (see above).
--- Existing as 1 and as 3 ---
If you can define existance for me, go for it. I doubt you can. That's the
crux of the problem, I think. But here goes. Are you one being? Or are you
millions of beings, IE cells? Would you be you without one of them? Would
you be you with only half of them? But that's the easy explanation. The best
is when you comprehend time differently, see below.
--- Existing before time ---
The easy answer is that the question is faulty. For something to be "before"
time, one requires time to judge whether it's "before". But the complicated
answer is more fun. There's no such thing as time. It's a perception. It's
not even consistant for each person, molecule, or sub-atomic particle (see
Einstein). I dunno why, but I like to use the example of a huge beam of
wood. As you travel 'through' the wood (as a plane), you notice the rings
weave back and forth, you notice knots appear suddenly, grow, shrink, then
dissappear, etc. Similar with time. That's why it's the 4th dimention. Now
the funky part. It's curved. So you're not travelling straight (as in
Newtonian physics/math), but in an inconsistant path-- perhaps curved back
upon itself. Just like space is curved (perhaps you've heard this one, but
supposedly if you heave a rock in on direction around the universe in an
unwavering course, it'll wrap back around the other side. Anyway, I could go
on. The one thing that really screws you up is that it's curved with respect
to time :) Anyway, long story short, there is no "time before time" for
anything to exist outside of. It's just a different way to perceptualize the
universe. And of course we can go further with this with the
3-existing-as-one deal as well, but I'll stop.
> If either of these can be demonstrated to me, than I'll believe I've
> witnessed a miracle and will become the most ardent Christian apologist the
> world has ever known.
No you won't :) In fact, I remember being asked once on o-t.debate whether
there was any concievable event that I could witness which would prove to me
that God existed. Short answer was "no". While there would be some event
which would convince me He would be *likely* to exist, there's nothing that
would "prove" it...
> B: "Okay, explain again how he can be simultaneously
> three distinct beings and one being?"
> A: "Well, he's God; he's infinite and can do anything."
Supposing you picked a different example which I hadn't just tried to
explain, the answer wouldn't be that He can do *anything*, but that He can
perform the logically possible.
> > 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.
>
> But that's really not enough, is it? If he's simply beyond our ability to
> comprehend, then he's not necessarily infinite, so he's hardly the absolute
> being.
You just turned a conditional into a given-- Given that he's beyond our
comprehension doesn't imply that He's infinite, no, but for the same reason
of faith that one is willing to accept His existance, one is equally willing
to accept His infinance (sp?).
> Someone (I'll try and find out who; his name escapes me at the moment)
> once asserted that God is not only "greater than which nothing can be thought"
> but in fact is *greater* than that which greater than which nothing can be
> thought. So I'll say once again that anything that can commit a logical
> impossibility is greater than that which cannot, and it is thus more worthy of
> godhood. And, if such a being does not exist, then we're basically settling
> for the next best thing.
? I really don't understand why you are intent on God being necessarily
capable of performing the logically impossible. Why is such a necessity?
> I may also have been unclear. I would say categorically that a phenomenon
> that can be demonstrated empirically always trumps a phenomenon that cannot be
> demonstrated empirically, so it is invalid to equate one with the other in
> terms of existence external to man's invention. Further, if we have two
> explanations for a phenomenon--one of them empircal and one of them
> non-empirical--the empirical one is superior because it can be demonstrated
> and requires neither faith nor the appeal to supernatural processes.
I understand *exactly* what you're saying, I just don't see why it's
important; IE why it's some sort of disproof of Christianity. Is science
more trustworthy than Christianity? Sure! But only because Christianity
isn't as empirical. It's harder to judge our accuracy on morality than it is
on gravity, given. But should we disregard morality if it's not empirical?
Is it not useful? Is it non existant? But honestly, I think it *IS*
empirical. We just don't have any good or highly reliable means of studying it.
> Well, your example question suggests that you perceive God to be inseparable
> from morality, and for me that's the basic problem.
>
> Take a No-Doze, because here's where it gets particulary verbose...
> Here are three possibilities that present themselves to me, assuming that both
> God and morality exist (and please feel free to offer more possibilities, >since it's late as I write this):
> 1. God is subject to morality
> 2. God is not subject to morality
> 3. God is morality
>
> The benefit of 1 is that it allows us to posit an absolute morality separate
> from God and inherent in existence without appealing to any one being for >moral justification. The problem of 1 is that if God is subject to morality,
> then he is not greater than morality, and so his existence is not ultimate.
I think James S. is arguing #1. And I think a proper rebuttal would be that
God is only subject to morality as you are subject to mathematics. People
invented mathematics (disagree if you wish, but if you do I'll just posit my
own ficticious science and use that as an example in the stead of
mathematics, so tough!), yet are still subject to it. IE you can't suddenly
say "1+5=23" because that's not the system you invented. It's not math
unless 1+5=6. You can't *break* the laws of math and have it still be math,
even though you created it. You COULD (if you wanted) design a completely
*NEW* system, but it wouldn't be math.
> The benefit of 2 is that God remains superior to morality, so that nothing
> exists that is greater than God, thereby preserving his ultimate status. The
> problem of 2 is that, if God is not subject to morality, and since we judge
> good and evil in terms of morality, then we cannot judge God to be good, since
> he is above the mechanism that would allow us to judge him so.
Very true.
> The benefit of 3 is that it allows God to remain the ultimate being, and it
> also allows morality to be inherent in existence since exists more certainly
> than something that is omnipresent, such as God. The problem of 3 is that I
> don't think anyone really believes it, other than in a "God is Love" sense,
> which doesn't really bring us any closer to an answer.
So you're allowing #3 as a valid out? I don't understand your logical
objection to #3...
> We might also invoke
> Hume and point out that if we can get to morality without the need of a god,
> then it's preferable to do so, since we don't therefore have to posit the
> existence of any other being, much less an infinite being.
IIRC it was James B (Or was it John Neal? Or someone else? I forget) that
said that it is through our *connection* to God that we derive our
understanding of morality. I had my own problems with such an explanation,
but still, there's no logical problem with the belief as such. But it'd be
enough to defeat the above (been too long since I read Hume-- sounds more
Occam's Razor-ish)
> In any case, if we can't know his
> divine plan, or if we can't comprehend the infinite, then we absolutely can't
> judge him to be good, since we are by definition accepting an
> infinitessimally small sample of his character as adequate representation of
> his whole.
Point being that via faith (which is how Christians even believe in God's
existance) we are to have *faith* in the fact that He's good. We're not
expected to judge God, perhaps one reason being that we're unable to.
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
|
|
|
|
