ZooMom

Well, I don't know that it would be meaningless. I've had fun. :angel:

Gizmo

The reason it is meaningless is because you are creating a circular argument. Your initial assumption that God is good will necessarily lead to the conclusion that God is good. In fact your argument is not just one circle, it's several placed one over the other:

God is good. Why?

Because it says so in the bible. Why is the bible correct?

Because God says it is. Why is what God says good?

Because he says so in the bible. But why is what he says correct?

Because God can't lie. Why can't God lie?

Because he is good.....etc.

The only argument that you have given that is not circular (to the best of my memory) is that you feel it is right. If, however, you accept that feelings can accurately define good then you have effectively concluded that goodness is subjective. If it is subjective, then it cannot be objective which contradicts your initial assumption that God is the (objective) source of goodness.

So unless you admit that God can in fact defy logic, you have actually defeated your own argument. If of course you admit that God can defy logic, then there is no reason why he cannot act contrary to his own will!

I appreciate that you stated up front that this might be frustrating, but ...wow! That's not just illogical captain, it's crazy! :Cheeky:

Giz.

ZooMom

Well, I certainly understand how you could see it that way. And it probably does apply to many Christians. But I do not base my knowledge of God solely on the Bible. As a Catholic, I adhere to the entire Deposit of Faith, not only the written parts. Which is why Protestants don't like us either. And I believe I said that up front as well, although I could be mistaken. I rely on my intellect and my faith to determine God's goodness, and I am personally satisfied that He is. It isn't that I don't think that God can defy logic, but that I think that God is beyond logic. He is not us. He is incomprehensible to us, and even the Doctrine of the Trinity is cannot completely encompass the reality of God. That is why so many articles of the faith are called Mysteries. We can glimpse them, we can see the results of them, but we cannot encompass their reality. They are just too big....too...something. A Mystery.


Peace be with you.

Sandy

Gizmo

My own catholic days are long behind me now, so you'll have to excuse me if I err. But it appears to me that the authority behind the entire Deposit of Faith is either man (subective) or God (objective) in which case just substitute 'Deposit of Faith' for 'Bible' in my previous argument.

Interestingly you are happy with an a-logical God (beyond logic) but will not accept an a-moral God (beyond morals) as you maintain that God is good.

You also accept a God that is incomprehensible to us and then proceed to explain your understanding of him. God may be beyond logic but this suggests that you are too!

This is more fun all the time isn't it?

Giz.

ZooMom

Hmm. Well, since I believe that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit working through the Magesterium...I get God and man cooperating. What do I substitute in that case?

Not a-logical. Well, perhaps...I need to think about that one. But amoral is definitely wrong, as I don't think an amoral entity would be interested in establishing morals for His followers. After all, if He was amoral, why would He care?

Please know that when I say 'my understanding' of God, it is with full awareness that that understanding is limited and imperfect. I would never presume to know the fullness of God. :angel: And I rather think that I am not beyond logic, but oblivious to it. :Cheeky: Though I am trying.


It works for me. :wave:


Peace be with you!

Sandy

Gizmo

If this is what you get then it's subjective. If you add asbjective influence to an objective fact, you get a subjective answer.

But I don't think this is what you get. I think you get God and God (Holy Spirit) manifested through man. Which is of course objective. Unless of course the Holy Spirit is fallible?

Think hard.

I have heard several Christians (and you may be one of them) state something along the lines of God has established morales so that man might be part of his grand plan. If the plan is what is important, then the morals are a means to an end and do not require a moral cause.

But you do claim to have a good idea about bits of him such as his morality.

To help you on your way... :thumbs: Logic & Fallacies

Some of the examples you might find a little atheistic in nature but I'm sure you'll work around that.

Giz.

ZooMom

Not in the least. why don't we go with that then?





No, I don't believe that. Not that a moral code is merely a means to an end. What would be the point? Perhaps the morality, goodness, of man is pleasing to God because it is a reflection of His own nature, whereas immorality is displeasing to God because it is against His nature.



Well, I have an opinion, at least. And I have yet to find evidence to the contrary.



Thanks! Always happy to learn. :wave:

Peace be with you!

Sandy

Gizmo

Then we are right back at your circular argument that God is good 'cos he says so. And that what he says is right 'cos he says that too! :banghead:

I dunno, I'd hate to questions the motives of the main man! :devil3:

If immorality is displeasing to god, why would he allow it? If the answer is something to do with free will or the choice of man, then has his desire for this superceded his desire for morality making that the end for which morality was established?

Giz.

ZooMom

Yes, I know the feeling.



I can't quite work through that right now. I think I'm getting a migraine. For real. I will be back as soon as I can look at the screen without holding on to one eye.


Peace be with you!

Sandy

LP675

Lol, caught with your pants down. Heheeheh . I would have missed it if you didn’t edit it.