Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RonPrice

Apologetics Anyone?

Recommended Posts

That's if you assume there are three possible outcomes (good, evil, neutral). I would argue there are an infinite number of possible outcomes on a spectrum from perfectly good to perfectly evil, and therefore the possibility of god being perfectly good is lim(x->infinity)1/x = 0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm siding with Retired here. It's not his job to explain his reasons why God isn't real the burden of proof is on theists to prove their God exists. The reason is because even if i spot you a deity the probability of there being an omnipresent, omniscient, perfectly good God is the same as there being an omnipresent, omniscient, perfectly evil God as well as a omnipresent, omniscient, indifferent God.

 

Meaning there's only a 33% that you are correct, 66% chance that you are wrong. Non-theists shouldn't have to prove the non-existence of God, the default position should be one of skepticism.

 

That's if you assume there are three possible outcomes (good, evil, neutral). I would argue there are an infinite number of possible outcomes on a spectrum from perfectly good to perfectly evil, and therefore the possibility of god being perfectly good is lim(x->infinity)1/x = 0.

 

Wrong on both counts. There is no objective morality without God, which means that morality is defined by God, not the inverse. Making being Godly good, and being ungodly bad. There aren't infinitely varying degrees because that presupposes that God adheres to a moral framework, which he doesn't. He created the moral framework = the moral framework adheres to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not getting into the "nature of divine morality" debate, it's dumb. But just to follow your argument to the logical conclusion here, doesn't that imply that God's plan for the universe cannot be fixed by external standards of morality, because no such standards exist? So in what sense can God be called "omnibenevolent"? And what other criteria might an omnipotent and omniscient deity use to construct a plan for the world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong on both counts. There is no objective morality without God, which means that morality is defined by God, not the inverse. Making being Godly good, and being ungodly bad. There aren't infinitely varying degrees because that presupposes that God adheres to a moral framework, which he doesn't. He created the moral framework = the moral framework adheres to him.

 

object morals bad judge.

 

also, you have a god shaped whole in your head

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about genocide? What purposes does that serve?
Not entirely sure, but I do know this. Unfortunately, comprehending how a being that exists outside of time & is infinite is pretty difficult--its a journey for sure. It would be like a 5 year old comprehending 100% what goes on in the head of a 45 year old (although the divide in knowledge and perspective is even greater).

 

Unfortunately, evil is the flip side of freedom. If you want us to all be robots without freedom....If thats your choice for the human race....I guess thats how you would create the universe. Alternatively, without choice there isn't relationship, love, community, joy, or any other virtue.

 

That is the real price of human freedom.

 

also, you have a god shaped whole in your head
1) Irrelevant. If we had a gravity shaped hole in our head it wouldn't deny the existence of gravity.

2) A true freudian should say that the Oedipal complex is one of the reasons atheists deny God and others at times reject him. (in addition many famous atheists and agnostics had father issues: Camus, Satre, B. Russel, F. Nietszche, etc.)

 

Evolutionary double bind: either evolution can't account for human altruism (extreme acts of love or sacrifice) or it says altruism is favored by evolution.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument that choice is morally important is question-begging because it presumes any benevolent god would prefer freedom to all other human virtues. If the mind of god is unknowable to the point where it is unfathomable why they would create the would as it currently is, you're exercising bad faith when you then appeal to an external value to claim that that is the basis of god's inscrutable value judgment. Either we can know the mind of god, in which case I can present arguments that this is not the best of all possible worlds (and you haven't solved the problem of evil), or we can't, in which case you can't appeal to god's value judgment about "freedom" (and you haven't solved the problem of evil).

 

Love your line, by the way, retired. "God-shaped whole," eh.

 

Evolutionary double bind: either evolution can't account for human altruism (extreme acts of love or sacrifice) or it says altruism is favored by evolution.

So... altruism is favored by evolution? (I literally brought this up in the fourth post in the thread, I'm more than comfortable with this conclusion) So, in some cases, is social parasitism.

Edited by Screech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaron,

 

I don't know what the problem with making inferences about God is. I think there are ways to make more sophisticated or more complex inferences--suggesting that the opportunity for choice and freedom goes back to the garden. (BTW, I framed it as a humble even-if argument if you re-read it)

 

God gave Jonah a choice. God gave Abraham a choice. God gave Moses a choice. God gave Noah a choice. People had the choice to become Christians and this continues today.

 

The issue of social paratism gets back to choice. Also, I happen to think the good in the world outweighs the bad--but if I'm not correct--I would say that human choice is at play. We are meant for greatness...but we choose ego and power and hollow Hollywood materialism.

 

I just read John Polkinghorne last week about how faith provides a deeper understanding of reality:

“Moving away from science, there are further indications of the veiled pressence of God if we are prepared to look for them. We have moral knowledge that assures us that love is better than hate, truth is better than lie. Where does this come from? The religious person can understand our ethical intuitions to be intimations of God’s good and perfect will. Similarly our aesthetic experience of encounter with deep beauty can be understood a sharing in the Creation’s joy in creation. There is widespread human testimony to a meeting with a dimension of reality that can only be described as an encounter with the sacred.” (p.14)

 

I think a someone similar point is made by NT Wright in Simply Christian:

“Made for spirituality, we wallow in introspection. Made for joy, we settle for pleasure. Made for justice, we clamor for vengence. Made for relationship, we insist on our own way. Made for beauty, we are satisfied with sentiment. But new creation has already begun. The sun has begun to rise. Christians are called to leave behind, in the tomb of Jesus Christ, all that belongs to the brokenness and incompleteness or the present world. It is time, in the power of the Spirit, to take up our proper role, our fully human role, as agents, heralds, and stewards on the new day that is dawning. That, quite simply, is what it means to be Christian: to follow Jesus Christ into the new world, God’s new world, which he has thrown open before us.”

NT Wright, Simply Christian

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... altruism is favored by evolution? (I literally brought this up in the fourth post in the thread, I'm more than comfortable with this conclusion) So, in some cases, is social parasitism.

 

yeah, ken miller says this.

(1:19:05)

 

Ken Miller, author of Finding Darwin's God & professor of biology at Brown

 

Question: What is the source of morality?

 

Miller: [That is] a good question. I think one way to look at it is sort of the simplistic theistic way which is 'morality is a series of commands given us by the Almighty.' So you've got the ten commandments, and you have a bazillion commandments which are in Leviticus and other books in the Bible about not mixing fabrics and keeping kosher tables, and that sort of stuff. In that sense -- and that's what I call the simplistic sense -- morality is a series of arbitrary commands from the Almighty that we are supposed to obey. But I take a different view and I think most serious philosophers take a different view.

 

CS Lewis in his book Mere Christianity argued for the existence of God on the basis of what he called a 'universal moral law.' And, the insight that CS Lewis had is that all people everywhere in all cultures share a common sense of morality. No matter what culture you grew up in people have a sense that stealing is wrong, that assault is wrong, that rape is wrong, that murder is wrong. Now these things happen in all these societies but there's no place you can visit and someone says, "Hey, I'm very proud of our town. I want to show you our number one murderer or our number one rapist," or something along those lines. So where do we get that sense? Now what Lewis argued from this notion of a universal moral sense is that it had to be there, had to be in us, because God put it there. That's a compelling argument but I don't find it to be persuasive. And the reason for that is I think there are perfectly good evolutionary arguments for why evolution could put the moral sense in our species to enable us to hang together as a society and be successful as a species.

 

But having said that I do think -- and this is actually one of the reasons why I find theism attractive -- I do think that good and evil are real, that they are not just social constructions, that they are just not artifacts of evolution. I think evolution has enabled us to develop a kind of moral reasoning by which we can almost as an inner sense say 'this is wrong, and this is right' in the same way that we sort of invent mathematics to fit things in nature. So I don't know if that's an answer to the question of where does morality come from. But I think the first principle of morality is basically to regard all other human beings as being equally --and, again this is the theistic answer-- equally made in the image and likeness of God and therefore due as much respect and consideration as you are. I think that is one of the reasons for selfless acts of the type that we were talking about before is that first principle. So for me, morality does not come from a series of arbitrary commands, it comes from what I would regard as a God given respect for fellow human beings.

Edited by The Gender Bender
transcript

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was not that you can't make inferences about God's motives but that if you do, you can't prevent me from doing so (say, by making a rhetorical move that God's motives are inscrutable). So you can't solve the problem of evil: like why would God allow evil that humans didn't cause to exist? Or if freedom is going to cause so much suffering, why give us free will?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you trade your freedom to be a robot?

 

Assuming we understand the value calculation & that seems to be the value calculation which was made.

 

I think our idea of suffering comes from an ants eye view vs. a universe eye view. Or we (sometimes) have a view of suffering which is hyper- now focused. We don't apply this to all our value calculations, but unfortunately many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong on both counts. There is no objective morality without God, which means that morality is defined by God, not the inverse. Making being Godly good, and being ungodly bad. There aren't infinitely varying degrees because that presupposes that God adheres to a moral framework, which he doesn't. He created the moral framework = the moral framework adheres to him.

 

You're making assertions without warrants: WHY is it that skepticism shouldn't be the starting point of discussion? We have this thing in debate called presumption for exactly those purposes.

 

You can see "he created the moral framework", but to win this argument you need to win that "he" exists. AND that he has ALL of the characteristics that your human mind applies to him. AND that he actually created it all manually without relying on evolutionary mechanisms. AND that God is good. AND that objective morality exists.

 

EDIT: Problem for religious people I've always wondered about:

If in the beginning there was ONLY God (as described in Genesis 1:1), and out of nothing God created light, AND it was Good, why and how do we know it was Good? If there was only God, don't we need some standard of Evil to determine what Good is? Good isn't some sort of magnetic monopole that exists without its double. So.... is God also Evil?

Edited by X Spike
Is God Evil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why do you see a difference between human freedom and biological determinism?

 

I don't think he is arguing against biological determinism so much as demonstrating that free will -- with all the accompanying suffering -- is preferable to the alternative (being the puppets of God.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would you trade your freedom to be a robot?

 

Assuming we understand the value calculation & that seems to be the value calculation which was made.

 

I think our idea of suffering comes from an ants eye view vs. a universe eye view. Or we (sometimes) have a view of suffering which is hyper- now focused. We don't apply this to all our value calculations, but unfortunately many.

 

Justin Beiber: When asked if he believed in terminating pregnancies in cases of rape, the pop star responded, "Well, I think that’s really sad, but everything happens for a reason."

 

Deep thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justin Beiber: When asked if he believed in terminating pregnancies in cases of rape, the pop star responded, "Well, I think that’s really sad, but everything happens for a reason."

 

Deep thought.

 

really? really?? we are using justin beiber to prove a point? respect your opponent, retired. :rolleyes:

Edited by The Gender Bender
needs more attitude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how to prove the existence of God in the same way that I don't know how to prove the existence of the external world.

 

The external world can only be proven true based on the assumption that your senses are true, and your senses can only be proven true if you experience them. In the same way, I think God needs to be experienced in order to be "proven" true.

 

It's not entirely intellectually satisfying, but I find it more satisfying than other explanations which depend upon complicated thermodynamics and such.

 

What about genocide? What purposes does that serve?

First, from the eternal perspective, "death" isn't death because it's not an actual ending. Genocide is a matter of relationships under this paradigm, and choice is a core part of any real relationship. Love isn't love unless you can choose not to love, which is why God lets us do as we wish.

 

Love > Hate. That justifies allowing free will, and thus justifies allowing genocide.

 

EDIT: Problem for religious people I've always wondered about:

If in the beginning there was ONLY God (as described in Genesis 1:1), and out of nothing God created light, AND it was Good, why and how do we know it was Good? If there was only God, don't we need some standard of Evil to determine what Good is? Good isn't some sort of magnetic monopole that exists without its double. So.... is God also Evil?

I don't understand why the existence of Evil is necessary in order for Good to exist, could you explain this?

 

I've always thought that God has some Nietzschean beliefs. Before God created everything, there was nothing. There's no reason that God should have created anything, except that he willed it. God created value by separating the light from the dark, by allowing part of the universe to escape his control and by allowing us to shape our lives as we see fit. He encourages certain outcomes over others because he made that choice initially. But, from our perspective it's still "good" to do what God says is "good", because that is key to fulfillment.

Edited by Chaos
God's not evil
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're making assertions without warrants: WHY is it that skepticism shouldn't be the starting point of discussion? We have this thing in debate called presumption for exactly those purposes.

 

You can see "he created the moral framework", but to win this argument you need to win that "he" exists. AND that he has ALL of the characteristics that your human mind applies to him. AND that he actually created it all manually without relying on evolutionary mechanisms. AND that God is good. AND that objective morality exists.

 

EDIT: Problem for religious people I've always wondered about:

If in the beginning there was ONLY God (as described in Genesis 1:1), and out of nothing God created light, AND it was Good, why and how do we know it was Good? If there was only God, don't we need some standard of Evil to determine what Good is? Good isn't some sort of magnetic monopole that exists without its double. So.... is God also Evil?

 

For the question of "Is there God?" One of the most familiar of a series of arguments from Thomas Aquinas is the Argument from Efficient Causes

source

1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.

2. Nothing exists prior to itself.

3. Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.

4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.

5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.

6. The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.

7. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

 

The more difficult question is how do we know the character of God? I would think most Christians appeal to the authority of the Bible & the example of Jesus Christ therein. There are philosophical perspectives like aforementioned argument presented by CS Lewis in Mere Christianity that the innate recognition of 'good' across cultures & time indicates it must have been placed within us. Or, in the case of Ken Miller a perspective of good as contrast to evil that cannot be explained as "social constructions or artifacts of evolution." (eg. genocide.) For some there is an introspective, spiritual element: "God just is & God is good and these are confirmed by a series of events that cannot be dismissed as coincidence." And, so on. There's also some good commentary on this subject in Talmudic thought but I'd have to dig it up.

 

I don't think anyone in this forum contests the theory of evolution.

 

In terms of evil & its relation to God. One thing that was brought to my attention is that God knows good and evil. (Genesis 3:22) Apparently, knowledge in the Hebrew in this context isn't "awareness" but something more intimate - as in, a man knows his wife. For what that information is worth.

 

A personal aside regarding the driving motivation of your questions:

I know this is a debate forum and I highly value logic in discussion. However, if my brushes with anthropology have taught me anything it is this: the predominant way we glean knowledge from this world, the way we construct & perceive knowledge is but one of many. It would be hubristic if we were to believe there is only one method to understand the world and ourselves; it would be greatly to our disadvantage if we only valued that which is in the realm of & acknowledged by our sciences. I do not think the foundation of the issues we are discussing can be proven. But that does not mean there is no value in understanding. So if we can get that out of the way...

Edited by The Gender Bender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Retired,

 

Great question! The short answer is yes. The goodness of the Grimm fairy tales both speaks to & points to the goodness of God.

 

Six main difference between the two would forms of literature:

1) the confirmation between the two books--the prophesies confirmed in the Old Testament (something like a 100--the probability of which is close to zero)

2) the geneaologies at the beginning of Matthew

3) the first person accounts in the Gospels (1) the authenticity which which these stories is told is impressive (Peter, Thomas, and Judas all come to mind--even Paul is incredibly honest and authentic) 2) relative similarity, but not so much that they were carbon copies 3) this is further grounded by the historically & geographically grounded claims they made)

4) the historical record which confirms Jesus' life and death as historical fact. (the work of Gary Habermas is quite impressive on this point. His Q & A page covers a host of issues as well)

5) science based considerations. (we will put miracles on the backburner & I know I haven't provided a warrant here)

6) the ethics of the New Testament stack up better against most other forms of literature. (particularly on the issue of forgiveness and grace and confession)

 

Is the bible mytho-poetic or at least are sections mythopoetic? I think I would be hard pressed to say that it wasn't. The above however point to reasons how the differ from our interpretations of mythopoetic literature.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Less pandering more science please

 

Where in the fox did matter originate from if it isn't divinely inspired? The only alternative is ex-nihilo which absolutely defies logic

 

If I knew I was arguing with ex-nihilo I probably wouldn't have even started. But now that we have, let's get busy!

 

What is the origin of the universe if not divinely inspired? I mean, if we are talking science here, it'd be naive to not raise the implied questions of thermodynamics.

 

That quickly raises the question - where did matter come from? (yes I will answer your question about the origin of God, keep reading)

 

We know matter could not have always been because the second law of thermodynamics (and our own eyes) tell us entropy decreases.

 

That means, matter is subject to time (a dimension)

 

But then we must investigate, what is time? We can think of time as a timeline, a beginning and end. Therefore, matter was created in a beginning, and it has an end.

 

What does this tell us about the nature of God? Well, M-law, string theory etc. tell us we have a fuckload of dimensions in our universe that we don't even know about. It's akin to a 2d object trying to contemplate a third dimension. It's IMPOSSIBLE to understand.

 

If God created the universe, God created time. Therefore in the creation of the universe God created beginning and end. This confirms the statement "I am alpha and omega, the beginning and the end" - Simply put, God has always existed.

 

So let's begin with a simple question that academia likes to dance around!

 

Where did matter come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand why the existence of Evil is necessary in order for Good to exist, could you explain this?

 

Well, there's no such thing as objective "good." You couldn't describe something as being good without being able to compare it to something that's less-good. It's a basic binary: if you only have one thing in a vacuum, it isn't good or evil because there's no interaction with other things, it just is.

 

tl;dr - Good can't exist without casting a shadow.

 

I've always thought that God has some Nietzschean beliefs. Before God created everything, there was nothing. There's no reason that God should have created anything, except that he willed it. God created value by separating the light from the dark, by allowing part of the universe to escape his control and by allowing us to shape our lives as we see fit. He encourages certain outcomes over others because he made that choice initially. But, from our perspective it's still "good" to do what God says is "good", because that is key to fulfillment.

 

I'm not sure I understand the connection to Nietzsche. The "will" of God surely has a connection to Will to Power, but not in the same ways that Nietzsche describes self-actualization by the subject, nor does his separation of value from valueless reflect a Nietzschean understanding of aesthetics (rather the opposite actually.)

This fulfillment argument is circular: you say it's key to fulfill you only because you assume an ontological lens in which God is both true and singularly the source of all Good. Were you to challenge those assumptions fulfillment wouldn't follow. It's a self-serving form of fulfillment that you give yourself only through submission to "God".

 

For the question of "Is there God?" One of the most familiar of a series of arguments from Thomas Aquinas is the Argument from Efficient Causes

 

These Aquinas arguments are exactly what you describe below: another perspective on the same problem. Science calls it a Prime Motivator, Aquinas calls it the primary efficient cause, some call it God. My problem is not with this argument for the existence of God/a prime motivator, but rather the way in which that "God" is characterized and utilized by institutions like the Church. It's things like the Christian characterization of God that I have a problem with.

 

The more difficult question is how do we know the character of God? I would think most Christians appeal to the authority of the Bible & the example of Jesus Christ therein. There are philosophical perspectives like aforementioned argument presented by CS Lewis in Mere Christianity that the innate recognition of 'good' across cultures & time indicates it must have been placed within us. Or, in the case of Ken Miller a perspective of good as contrast to evil that cannot be explained as "social constructions or artifacts of evolution." (eg. genocide.) For some there is an introspective, spiritual element: "God just is & God is good and these are confirmed by a series of events that cannot be dismissed as coincidence." And, so on. There's also some good commentary on this subject in Talmudic thought but I'd have to dig it up.

 

You're right here, lots of different interpretations exist. It's sort of impossible to know God's "character" in the way described by Incredible Hulk that a 2-d object can't understand 3+ dimensions. But it's definitely not provable. My problem stems from the attempt to outwardly colonize and define the world by people who impose faith as law in the political sphere.

 

In terms of evil & its relation to God. One thing that was brought to my attention is that God knows good and evil. (Genesis 3:22) Apparently, knowledge in the Hebrew in this context isn't "awareness" but something more intimate - as in, a man knows his wife. For what that information is worth.

 

I'd never thought of this perspective before... interesting. :)

 

A personal aside regarding the driving motivation of your questions:

I know this is a debate forum and I highly value logic in discussion. However, if my brushes with anthropology have taught me anything it is this: the predominant way we glean knowledge from this world, the way we construct & perceive knowledge is but one of many. It would be hubristic if we were to believe there is only one method to understand the world and ourselves; it would be greatly to our disadvantage if we only valued that which is in the realm of & acknowledged by our sciences. I do not think the foundation of the issues we are discussing can be proven. But that does not mean there is no value in understanding. So if we can get that out of the way...

 

On the above: Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong on both counts. There is no objective morality without God, which means that morality is defined by God, not the inverse. Making being Godly good, and being ungodly bad. There aren't infinitely varying degrees because that presupposes that God adheres to a moral framework, which he doesn't. He created the moral framework = the moral framework adheres to him.

Don't worry, I Kant see why there'd be a problem with this claim.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're right here, lots of different interpretations exist. It's sort of impossible to know God's "character" in the way described by Incredible Hulk that a 2-d object can't understand 3+ dimensions. But it's definitely not provable. My problem stems from the attempt to outwardly colonize and define the world by people who impose faith as law in the political sphere.
Fair enough. While we don't have a GPS location for God definitionally. I think the New Testament. In the same way people who followed the Oregon Trail might not have known they were going to end up in Portland or some other city....they followed a trail which points in the right direction. We have something like 25+ characters plus Jesus as models of character as well as the words Jesus spoke & other directional guide points that point toward him. For me this seems to suggest 85 to 90% of whats evil (ie what to avoid) and 85 to 90% of whats good (obviously those numbers are absolutely rough). And I'm willing to rest on my relationship with God--and rely on faith, grace, and forgiveness for the rest as I mature toward a better relationship with Him and those around me.

 

As an aside: I don't know if the Oregon trail metaphor or someone using a compass in a forest or some flying a Cessna.

 

*Obviously I'm not criticizing, just trying to unpack and flesh out what you are talking about--or what we are collectively talking about.

 

When thinking about this statement:

Don't worry, I Kant see why there'd be a problem with this claim.

 

Or this one:

It's a self-serving form of fulfillment that you give yourself only through submission to "God".

which seems to parallel it (unless I misunderstood)....I think the following:While it would be nice to have a more traditional line of reasoning to support this--this should be sufficient.

 

If we define God as X--he can't be anything other than X. For instance, if we define a human thinking being, he/she can't be a rock.

 

As an aside or caveat: It is the case that in the attempt to define God--I think we're left in many cases with the problem in the allegory of the Cave. The I am. The alpha omega. The beginning and the end. Those are notions that we can't wrap our mind around fully. This is the reason people, including philosophers and theologians wrestle with these questions.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, there's no such thing as objective "good." You couldn't describe something as being good without being able to compare it to something that's less-good. It's a basic binary: if you only have one thing in a vacuum, it isn't good or evil because there's no interaction with other things, it just is.

 

tl;dr - Good can't exist without casting a shadow.

To me this just seems like proof that choice is necessary to Goodness.

 

I think the existence of the concept of Evil is the only thing that's mandated by the existence of Good, not Evil itself. The concept of Evil could arise outside of the existence of Evil just like the concept of Lack can exist although there is no such thing.

 

I'm not sure I understand the connection to Nietzsche. The "will" of God surely has a connection to Will to Power, but not in the same ways that Nietzsche describes self-actualization by the subject, nor does his separation of value from valueless reflect a Nietzschean understanding of aesthetics (rather the opposite actually.)

The link into Nietzsche is wrong then, sure. Nietzsche was basically the only person I could think of who advocates creating our own values, which is probably proof that my experience with philosophy is pretty small.

 

This fulfillment argument is circular: you say it's key to fulfill you only because you assume an ontological lens in which God is both true and singularly the source of all Good. Were you to challenge those assumptions fulfillment wouldn't follow. It's a self-serving form of fulfillment that you give yourself only through submission to "God".

You asked if God is good, so I assumed that God was real so I could answer your question. That seems fair.

 

I think that God's motive for Creation was to create a source of value. Since without God, there would be no value and no creation, to look to external standards to determine the morality of God is not possible.

 

We could hypothetically look to ourselves to determine value, and decide not to care what God thinks, but it's impossible to give a reason that we should do that. It's also not possible because we're all wired to like and dislike certain things - that's why no culture thinks that rape is good.

Edited by Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I remember someone saying that we couldn't attempt to define God--or else they had the right to define God in anyway or define his intentions in anyway.

 

This is a great quote from CS Lewis which answers that question (even beyond the even-if claim I made earlier):

 

“We are in no position to draw up maps of God’s psychology, and prescribe limits to His interests. We would not do so even for a man whom we knew to be greater than ourselves. The doctrines that God is love and that he delights in men, are positive doctrines, not limiting doctrines.”

(CS Lewis, God in the Dock, p.43).

 

Beyond our inability to articulate God to the Nth degree by 1) his nature 2) our lack of his perspective (this is like the Elephant analogy to some extent)--some definitions try to limit him (box him in if you will). In some ways there are parallels to humans. We can't be objects--but as long as we don't let negative context, instinct, or habit over-define our lives our future is still unwritten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×