Subject:
|
Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:52:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1326 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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.
In that case we must be careful, or else we're once again presented with a
receding target:
A. How about this criterion?
B. Well, that's not the *real* Christian God.
A. Okay, how about this criterion?
B. Well, that's not the *real* Christian God, either.
Again, the bible allows for numerous logical impossibilities, such as an
infinitely merciful being who can permit infinite, eternal suffering to
occur-- with no chance of redemption--as a result of a finite transgression.
> --- 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.
Well, do you want me to define my existence as it pertains to me, or my
existence as it pertains to you? I can demonstrate my existence to myself
beyond any reasonable doubt, and, face-to-face, I could probably demonstrate
my existence reasonably well to you, too.
As a working (though admittedly not infallible) definition, how about
this: "I" am the unique sum of unique experiences, and the unique interplay
of those experiences, such that what is called "I" is distinct from any
other sum of experiences able to be called "I."
> 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.
I'm afraid that analogy fails because any comparision between an infinite
God and any finite entity is invalid. However, I would still be "me"
without a cell, but that cell would not still be "me." Coincidentally, I
have a coworker who has recently undergone gastric bypass surgery; her
starting weight was 380 pounds, and her target weight is 180, so she (let's
call her Ellen) will in fact have shed more than half her mass. She will
still be "Ellen," however, while the 200 pounds she'll have shed will not.
She will not be 47% Ellen, any more than at her full weight she was 211% Ellen.
> --- 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".
I admit that completely; however, I've heard it said many times by many
different Christians (who, of course, do not represent *all* Christian
thought) that God has always existed, the universe has not always existed,
therfore God existed before the universe.
> 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.
Alas, I don't accept the doctrine of the Trinity as a quantumized Divine
Three-Card Monty; there's no reason why any infinite being would have to (or
why he would reasonably choose to) play this now-you-see-us-now-you-don't
trick on his faithful. And, before anyone suggests it, "His ways are
mysterious" isn't an adequate answer, either.
> > 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 :)
Okay, maybe not. 8^)
> 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...
I expect you mean that there's nothing that could "prove" his existence to
you in just the same way that the guy sitting next to you can't "prove" his
existence to you. If you mean "prove" with 100% accurate, infallible
certainty, then you might be right, but I think such a feat would be well
within the abilities of an infinite being. And, if he can't prove it to
you, then I can imagine a more infinite being who can...
> > > 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?).
Infinitude? (or is that just when you have an infinite amount of attitude?)
But in any case, that's not what James is saying; he's referring to
"belief that God is greater than human understanding." That sounds like a
hedged bet to me--is God infinite or not: yes or no? Many things are
"greater than human understanding" either temporarily or permanently, such
as what's going on at the center of a singularity, the precise velocity and
position of an electron, and why Jennifer Lopez is considered talented.
It's not enough for God the Infinite to be thrown in a box with other things
beyond our ability to comprehend.
> ? I really don't understand why you are intent on God being necessarily
> capable of performing the logically impossible. Why is such a necessity?
Because (assuming the "greater than which nothing can be thought"
notion), I can conceive, even in principle, a being that *can* commit the
logically impossible, so God *must* be greater than that. Further, it's not
necessary for me to come up with any more than one notion of an entity
greater than God; if God is infinite, then our conception of him is no more
complete with one trillion attributed characteristics than it is with only one.
> 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?
Certainly we shouldn't discard it, but I maintain my assertion that it's
not as conclusively useful as something that can be demonstrated
empirically, like gravity. That's one of the reasons why, for instance,
C.S. Lewis is incorrect when he equates Moral Law with the Law of Gravity
("Mere Christianty" pg18, Touchstone edition, printed 1996).
> But honestly, I think it *IS* empirical. We just don't have any good or
> highly reliable means of studying it.
I'm not sure I understand how that's not a contradiction. If it's
empirical, then we can observe it, and if we can observe it, then we can
study it. Or am I misreading you?
> > 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
> 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 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.
I see what you're saying, but how can an infinite (ie limitless) being be
bound by his own creation? It's not like he's a guy building a cage to
enclose himself.
> 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)
It's Occam's Razor, but Hume was borrowing it. In an open debate among
faithful and non-faithful, then faith is absolutely not enough to defeat the
above, and that's the whole point.
> 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.
Okay, now we're getting somewhere, and I think you've stated it exactly
for a whole bunch of believers. However, if the infinitude of the Christian
God can be demonstrated to be false, then that faith is poorly placed.
Dave!
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
