ZooMom

Yes, but it isn't a judgement based on intellect alone. It's both will and faith, not either/or.


My apologies. I truly am speaking my own thoughts and feelings.

ten to the eleventh

No need to apologize. I am just seeking some clarity, that's all.

So, there is some kind of cooperative judgement here? Part reason, part faith? How do you differentiate that from wanting to believe something for emotional reasons, and subsequently rationalizing that belief by selective observation? And if part of you, your reason, can determine God's goodness, couldn't that same part detect His badness? Or, is it that the emotional part first determines the goodness as absolute, and reason simply follows suit?

jdlongmire

I suppose there may be a rational argument for it...

I'm not sure - I am not God, nor do I presume to think on His plane.

I would suppose a rational argument could be that the consequences of denying/defying Him and His eternal holiness now would merit atemporal consequences, since that seems to be the ultimate fate/state of reality.

jdlongmire

...couldn't that same part detect the resolution of 22/7?

if it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist...

ten to the eleventh

If you would read the thread from which I split this one, you would see wherein I proposed an ethical principle, followed by a corresponding ethical rule. From these premises, particular actions of anyone could be viewed as right or wrong. If the premises are accepted as axiomatic, then the judgment that follows is rational. "Conscious recognition" would be to look at something, and say, "that is right/wrong," without any formal parameter. That does not mean that such judgment must be found incorrect, but it's correctness can be determined by rational analysis.

You have stated that any action of God is entirely beyond rational analysis. I would suggest, therefore, that you must refrain from the claim that you have judged God to be good. You are left with the claim that you "feel" that God is good.

ZooMom

Yes.

I don't know. I don't do that. I don't buy into anything based on pure emotion, which may be why I am Catholic and not a charismatic fundamentalist. (No offense to charismatic fundamentalists) And if I believed in selective observation, IOW avoided that which contradicts or repudiates my beliefs, I wouldn't be here on this board.


Ok, I think I'm struggling with your terminology here. Faith (to me) does not = emotion. It is not based on emotion or depend on emotion. Both faith and reason assure me that God is good. 'Badness' does not come from God, but from man.


I have to go now, but I will be back tomorrow.


Peace be with you!

Sandy

Crucifiction

It might help a bit if God provided one shred of irrefutable evidence for his existance. To date, he has not.

jdlongmire

...would kinda invalidate the whole "gift of faith" part, then, yes?

Gizmo

My apologies for a tardy response - something came up and then it was bed time!

Others have stated that this is an artificial consequence and I agree. If God is the one that determines the consequence, then it is by definition a threat. If I said to anybody do this or I will do something unpleasant and it is my actions that will cause the unpleasantness then it is a threat.

But if you like, we can consider it as a consequence, defined, and implemented by God - this works just as well in arguing against your analogy of the father giving bad tasting medicine to the child. Your analogy suggests that God is good because he gives you medicine so that you might not catch lets say small pox. My counter analogy suggest its more like he gives you the medicine so that he might not deliberately infect you with small pox.

Still doen't sound like much a dad to me.

Giz.

Gizmo

Your arguments are invalid because your presupposition is that God does exist and this presupposition causes you to deify God, since that is the only frame of reference you allow yourself.

The arguement is just as silly when I say it as when you do!

There is nothing wrong with presenting a hypothesis and then exploring it. However, for me, this is not what is happening. For me the existence of God was due to my upbringing the default conclusion, the non-existence of God is a conclusion that I have then reached through evaluating the evidence, not a premise or presupposition. Are you saying that I am not allowed to do this? So much for free will.

Giz.