Subject:
|
Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:14:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
850 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
God is limited in other ways, too. God, as an omnibenevolent being, can
never take first-hand pleasure in killing an innocent human being.
|
Never say never, Dave! Isn’t pleasure simply a release of endorphines in our
little electro-stimulated brains? Couldn’t it all be broken down into
molecules-- couldn’t God experience that?
|
No, he can’t. Unless, that is, you accept that it is a good act to take
pleasure in killing an innocent human being. And if indeed you do accept that,
then you undermine all your previous arguments about the evils of fanatical
Islam.
| |
On the contrary! We accept the doctrine of fully human/fully divine; we
openly recognize that such a concept is beyond logic and reason. This is
what I have been trying to explain-- you can’t understand God through logic
or reason.
|
But that’s no different from saying Superman is stronger than the Hulk; all
you’re doing is proclaiming, and when you’re pushed on a point, you retreat
behind the shelter of professed faith.
| |
| |
But there are certain criteria to which God must adhere, by His very
nature. If He is infinite and incomprehensible, then you must accept that He
is capable of committing abject evil. If He is not so capable, then you
admit that He is limited. But if He is so capable, then you admit that he
is not omnibenevolent.
|
No offense Dave! but you really don’t know what you are talking about. You
are the blindman touching the elephant-- God simply defies human
understanding.
|
The statement “X defies logic” or “X is beyond human understanding” or “X cannot
be explained by language” is rhetorically equivalent to saying “I’ve decided to
declare X out-of-bounds, so neener-neener.” If you have any interest of
discussing this in the format of a debate, then I would ask you to refrain from
such leaps into witnessing. If you’d rather not confine your comments to
logical discourse, that’s fine, but I would then urge you not to pollute what
otherwise try to be logical exchanges.
| |
| |
Do you then, in principle, acknowledge that God could be evil in disguise?
I’m not asking if that’s what you believe, but do you accept that
possibility, given our human limitations that you’ve already acknowledged?
|
I don’t think so. What we know about God is what He has revealed to us, and
what He has revealed is that He is a loving God. I suppose it could be some
huge deception, but what would be the point of that?
|
Hold on a minute. You’ve been endledssly chanting that God is beyond our
understanding, but then when you’re forced to confront that same idea, you ask
what’s the point? Are you kidding?
You’ve also mentioned again and again that we can’t comprehend the infinite, but
when I point out to you that you are presuming to comprehend the infinite, you
ask what’s the point?
The point is that, given an infinite concept, it is impossible to draw
conclusions about the whole of that concept from anything less than an infinite
sampling of that concept. You are simply deciding to believe that God is good
because that is more aesthetically appealing to you. It would be more
intellectually honest of you to admit that, given the small (and fundamentally
untestable) sampling of God that you perceive yourself to have experienced, you
have no way to draw conclusions about the true nature of God.
| |
I think that the characterization of God being evil is anthropomorphizing--
God is Good, we are the evil ones (evil in the sense that we choose not to
do good-- that is, reject God).
|
Surely you recognize that statement as a double standard bordering on non
sequitur? Calling God “evil” is no more anthopomorphizing than calling God
“good.” You’ve simply decided to believe that one anthropomorphized quality
is admissible and the other is not. Your argument makes no sense.
| |
| |
Actually, the deeper problem is that this kind of discussion naturally leads
to logical inconstencies, through no fault of the debater. It’s at that
point that some people are inclined (or able) to make a leap of faith, while
others identify that point as a fatal flaw in the underlying premiss of God.
|
Exactly! God is logically impossible.
|
Well, that’s the end of the argument for me. It is not possible for a logically
impossible entity to exist.
I would go one step farther and assert that the belief in an admitted logical
impossibility is not much different from insanity.
| |
Now hear is my final criticism of
someone who uses only logic and reason to address the question of God-- it
is unfair and disingenuous. The question is: what if there IS a God that
is infinite beyond logic and reason? Is a person who seeks God through
science by definition eliminating the possibility that such a God could
exist? Must everything pass the scrutiny of Science in order for it to be
recognized? Is it possible for a scientist to believe in God and at the same
time be considered true to himself and his scientific principles? Or to be
genuinely honest to himself and his colleagues, must he be an atheist?
|
There’s no reason that an infinite God couldn’t make the proof of His existence
subject to empirical verification. He wouldn’t even violate the notion of free
will, since we still would be under no obligation to believe in Him as our God.
Satan, for instance, is probably pretty sure that God exists, yet still Satan
defied Him (assuming that they both exist, of course).
I would also submit that I have no respect for a God who values blind acceptance
of writ more than reasoned investigation of evidence. Such a God would be
intellectually and aesthetically offensive to me, and I have no desire to spend
eternity with Him.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
220 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
|
|
|
|
