Subject:
|
Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Dec 2000 18:25:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
777 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
>
> > As an aside, lots of creators (some creators of very enduring works) have
> > claimed they do not fully understand their creation. It doesn't make them
> > any less of a creator.
>
> True, but you're speaking as though a finite creator is the same as an
> infinite Creator. The work of any creditable author contains depth,
> allusion, and meaning that he didn't realize, much less intend, but that
> doesn't make the work any less powerful. Melville, for example, didn't
> realize that Moby Dick was allegorical until someone pointed it out to him.
> Authorship does not equal authority, and a creation is not limited only by
> the skill of the creator. However, when dealing with an infinite Creator,
> the issue is somewhat different, and we may arguably assume that He (It?)
> has full knowledge of Creation.
Hmm. I'm not particularly convinced that it is necessary, but I'll grant
the point, since it's a theological underpinning for most christian faiths.
> To respin the weary ontological argument, a Creator who does not have
> Absolute Knowledge of His Creation is not as perfect as a Creator who does
> have such knowledge. Further, early scholarly doctrine indentified God as
> "that which greater than nothing can be thought." Using this view, if Tom
> and I can conceive of a God able to know the future with certainty, then Tom
> and I have definitely thought of something greater than a God unable to know
> that future.
Hmm. There's not much I can say to that, because it's a pretty closed loop.
The phrase may be read differently in original context, but it paraphrases
as "God is greater than any (all) concept(s)". This is certainly a valid
way of looking at it (since without direct input from God, there is no
objective certainty), but it sure closes the door to discussion. It also
has (at the concept level you're using above) at least a couple serious flaws.
It doesn't allow the possibility of being wrong. I can conceive (I'm fairly
certain) of things that our framework of reality can't explain, or denies
catagorically. I am imperfect. By extension of these two premises, I can
presumably conceive of things that aren't.
It also (as shown here, anyway) fails the dogma test. I can conceive of a
God that is evil, biased & cruel. I can conceive of a God that is not
loving. Both of these directly contradict basic doctrines of faith (for
most christian beliefs) so we're right back to either a closed door of "my
understanding is imperfect" or I'm wrong, and the premise fails.
<cutting and pasting from above, to respond to a different aspect of it>
> To respin the weary ontological argument, a Creator who does not have
> Absolute Knowledge of His Creation is not as perfect as a Creator who does
> have such knowledge
Not quite. A Creator who *can not* have Absolute (...)such knowledge. What
about a Creator who could, and chooses not to?
Hmm. We're starting to veer heavily into the realms of "yeah, but". :/
> > Would you be willing to post your arguments in a little more depth? I'm
> > enjoying this discussion, but it's hard to respond to one-liners.
>
> I'm sorry to chime in out of turn, but Tom is making some points that have
> stuck in my consciousness for some time, so I wanted to get into it, too.
'Don't make no nevermind to me.' :) Many points of view are what open forums
are about.
James
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
298 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
|
|
|
|
