Subject:
|
Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:48:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1296 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
>
> > > I can conceive of such a being in at least abstract terms, such as "that
> > > being which is not bound by our definition of logical impossibility."
> >
> > So in other words, you're changing your definition of impossible. You are
> > restricting impossible to mean "impossible within my frame of reference".
>
> What I was attempting to do was provide a conception of a being that can
> perform what throughout this debate has been considered a logical
> impossibility. I don't see how offering one criterion without excluding
> others is a restriction on impossibility.
We're arguing semantics, I think, over the meaning of "impossible". I am
suggesting that if there are absolute limits, they limit everything
(including God). You are stating that if there are are absolute limits, God
can't exist. That doesn't make sense to me.
> > > A: "God is infinite and can do anything."
> > > B: "Can he create a rock he can't lift?"
> > > A: "No, but that doesn't count."
>
> > You're giving the wrong answer from A. The correct answer is "if it can be
> > done, yes. It seems paradoxical to me, but I have a finite frame of reference."
>
> But that's an escape clause for any conceivable question to which you
> don't currently have an answer, and so is the same as having no answer at all.
Yes, you're quite correct. I have never claimed to have the answer. If all
you are trying to establish here is that God can't be proven then why didn't
you just say that at the start? I consider the unprovability(?) of God
axiomatic. (ditto the "perfect" morality)
> > > If he's simply beyond our ability to comprehend, then he's not necessarily
> > > infinite, so he's hardly the absolute being.
> >
> > Not necessarily, but that doesn't also mean he isn't, does it? You're
> > making a leap that isn't logically present. From the premise (God is beyond
> > our ability to comprehend), you conclude God is limited. That's the logical
> > equivalent of:
> >
> > I am 5 feet tall.
> > You are taller than I am.
> > Therefore, you are 6 feet tall.
>
> But you're saying:
>
> I am 5 feet tall.
> God is taller than I am.
> Therefore, God may be infinitely tall.
>
> Sure he can, in that case, but if we can't extrapolate a precise answer
> from an unknown, we certainly can't extrapolate infinity from that same
> unknown. And "may be" isn't any more helpful, either, when we're speaking
> about absolutes.
>
> From the premise "God is beyond our ability to comprehend," I conclude
> that we cannot therefore declare him to be absolute or infinite.
Yup, you're right. Difference being that I'm not the guy attempting to draw
conclusions here. I'm saying "may be" while you are saying "is".
> > I would say that the empirical one is not necessarily superior,
> > but is merely more empirical. You are comparing apples and oranges, I think.
>
> I am comparing apples that we can verify and oranges that we cannot. As a
> system of understanding, explanation, and prediction, I maintain that
> empirically demonstrable phenomena are greatly preferable to those that are
> not empirically demonstrable.
Ok, that's a preference. You are still being circular though, by using the
empirical method as a yardstick to judge methods. (cf "oranges that we
cannot") That is equivalent to saying the empirical method is less
prefereable to religious belief because it doesn't rely on a core of mystery.
> If God could be empirically demonstrated, wouldn't that be better then the
> current situation, in which he cannot? Surely more people would be "saved,"
> and that would seem to me a fine means of determining superiority of method.
Ok. When you're in charge of the universe, you set up God as empirically
verifiable, and we'll run a comparison study. Until then, the only answer
can be "unknown", and you know that.
> > > 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.
> >
> > Probably true, but I would cynically answer that I don't think humanity (as
> > an aggregate, not necessarily as individuals) has pushed social evolution to
> > a point where a moral code can easily be seperated from a higher authority
> > conceptually.
>
> Maybe not, but even with the supposed moral absolute of Christianity, few
> people indeed lead a perfectly moral life. Pragmatically speaking, is an
> unachievable but perfect morality any better than an achievable but
> incomplete morality?
Nice trap question. No thanks.
thanks,
James
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
