Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ZooMom · 10-04-2004, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ten to the eleventh

I was responding to the way that you had been framing it, in the Platonic sense. To get into the free will debate is to frame God's goodness in another way, a way that does not demand that it is logically impossible for God to do wrong by the standards He created. To speak of God as you did, in the Platonic sense of the embodiment of Good, suggests that no bad whatever can ever come from God, like having a big box of M&M's and getting an apple out of it.

To recap: If "goodness" or "badness" is within our capacity to judge through reason, and God has established the objective measures by which we judge good or bad, then we must use those objective measures in judging an action of God. If "Obedience = good, disobedience = bad" and God does not abide by the rules given to us to obey, the ones by which we determine the goodness or badness of an action, then we should be able to judge that God has done wrong. When you ask if "God be in opposition to His own Will?" you presume that His will must coincide with the rules He gave us to obey. But, God is certainly "able" to violate the rules He has given us, correct? Nobody gave those rules to Him, did they? So why would it be impossible to rationally judge an action of His to be wrong, were He under the same rules that we are?

And as I said before:

I am not suggesting that we judge God, and someone even more powerful punishes Him; who would do the punishing? I am suggesting that God has the capacity to do wrong, and if we have the capacity to judge that what God has done is right, then we must have the capacity to judge that something, if anything, that God has done is wrong.

Logically, I see what you are saying. And it would certainly be applicable to anyone else. But! Any act of God's Will must be in accordance with God's Will (unless you are suggesting that God can be made to do something He doesn't WANT to do), and therefore cannot be in opposition to God's Will, and therefore cannot be disobedient, and therefore cannot be wrong.

I think I need a drink...

ten to the eleventh · 10-04-2004, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZooMom

Logically, I see what you are saying. And it would certainly be applicable to anyone else. But! Any act of God's Will must be in accordance with God's Will (unless you are suggesting that God can be made to do something He doesn't WANT to do), and therefore cannot be in opposition to God's Will, and therefore cannot be disobedient, and therefore cannot be wrong.

I think I need a drink...

Well, put simply, if God says, don't murder, and then later, murders, then, bam, God has done wrong by the rules He gave us. That it was His will to commit the murder doesn't mean He didn't break the rules of "objective morality" that He gave us, right? I mean, that's where you get into arguing that it was justified, or righteous killing, and it wasn't murder, and blah, blah, blah. But the point is, you can't begin the discussion until you concede that it is conceivable for God to violate the rules He gave us.

edit: As far as drinking, if you get a red wine that is kind of crappy (not foul, but crappy) you can make it quite drinkable with a little ginger ale!

ZooMom · 10-04-2004, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ten to the eleventh

Here's a tough one, then: Is beauty good?

Nothing has ever been truer than that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

No, beauty is not inherently good. Lucifer was supposedly the most beautiful angel, the most perfect, the brightest. And we know what happened to him. But goodness is very beautiful. The realization of the potential God gave us for goodness is the ultimate expression of beauty. That's why nature is so beautiful. It is exactly as God made it to be.

ZooMom · 10-04-2004, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ten to the eleventh

Well, put simply, if God says, don't murder, and then later, murders, then, bam, God has done wrong by the rules He gave us. That it was His will to commit the murder doesn't mean He didn't break the rules of "objective morality" that He gave us, right? I mean, that's where you get into arguing that it was justified, or righteous killing, and it wasn't murder, and blah, blah, blah. But the point is, you can't begin the discussion until you concede that it is conceivable for God to violate the rules He gave us.

Like I said, logically I see where you are coming from. And following that premise, yes it is conceivable. But! (There it is again.

) It is a premise that any Christian would consider flawed, so any conclusion reached from it must also be considered flawed. Are we at an impasse, yet? :Cheeky:

Quote:

edit: As far as drinking, if you get a red wine that is kind of crappy (not foul, but crappy) you can make it quite drinkable with a little ginger ale!

You know, I've tried that, but I used Sprite. And it always helps if it is really cold.

Gizmo · 10-04-2004, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZooMom

Logically, I see what you are saying. And it would certainly be applicable to anyone else. But! Any act of God's Will must be in accordance with God's Will (unless you are suggesting that God can be made to do something He doesn't WANT to do), and therefore cannot be in opposition to God's Will, and therefore cannot be disobedient, and therefore cannot be wrong.

I think I need a drink...

How a about a little game?

Seeing that we appear to have a little impasse here over the meaning and application of the word 'good' let's switch emphasis.

Can God be hurtful.

Can God be selfish.

Can God be untruthful.

According to your arguments - yes he can if he wnats to and if he wants to that's good. This I think highlights the problem. I regard these things as bad. Your argument asserts that they may not be.

Giz.

jdlongmire · 10-05-2004, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IAsimisI

You can keep rewording it however you want.

That is true.

jdlongmire · 10-05-2004, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ten to the eleventh

Well, put simply, if God says, don't murder, and then later, murders, then, bam, God has done wrong by the rules He gave us. That it was His will to commit the murder doesn't mean He didn't break the rules of "objective morality" that He gave us, right? I mean, that's where you get into arguing that it was justified, or righteous killing, and it wasn't murder, and blah, blah, blah. But the point is, you can't begin the discussion until you concede that it is conceivable for God to violate the rules He gave us.

sorry to butt in, but you have just described, in essence, what the government does for society...as long as you call anything that leads to the death of others murder.

also, in lesser terms what I do as an adult parent for my child. I tell my children that they may not drink alcohol. I drink alcohol.

Am I "violating" anything?

ZooMom · 10-05-2004, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gizmo

How a about a little game?

Seeing that we appear to have a little impasse here over the meaning and application of the word 'good' let's switch emphasis.

Hi, Gizmo.

Quote:

Can God be hurtful.

Can God be selfish.

Can God be untruthful.

According to your arguments - yes he can if he wnats to and if he wants to that's good. This I think highlights the problem. I regard these things as bad. Your argument asserts that they may not be.

Giz.

No, not exactly. My argument is that if 'wrong' is defined as disobedience or opposition to God's Will, based on the premise that God gave us the rules of right and wrong, then how can God be in opposition to His own Will. Now, if we are just speculating for the sole sake of argument, then yes, there are any number of hypothetical scenarios we can posit in which God could be 'wrong'. But that isn't reality.

Peace be with you!

Sandy

ten to the eleventh · 10-05-2004, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdlongmire

sorry to butt in, but you have just described, in essence, what the government does for society...as long as you call anything that leads to the death of others murder.

I didn't say that it would necessarily be murder. I was saying that to begin the debate over whether or not it was murder it must first be conceded that it is possible to rationally find that the (in your example) government had murdered.

Quote:

also, in lesser terms what I do as an adult parent for my child. I tell my children that they may not drink alcohol. I drink alcohol.

Am I "violating" anything?

It depends on how you stated the rule. If you tell your children that drinking is bad, period, then yes, if you drink, they can look and say ,"Daddy is doing something bad." If you only tell them that they are not allowed to drink, then no, you are not breaking the rule, because it does not apply to you.

But, for Daddy to be able to drink makes the rules relative, and not absolute. If Daddy has no rules to obey, or morality to follow, then his kids cannot rationally determine that he is good. He may tell them that he is, and they may believe him, having received their breakfast every morning, but he could be a part-time axe murderer for all they know.

Gizmo · 10-05-2004, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZooMom

My argument is that if 'wrong' is defined as disobedience or opposition to God's Will, based on the premise that God gave us the rules of right and wrong, then how can God be in opposition to His own Will.

And my argument and that of others here is that if 'wrong' is defined as diobedience or opposition to God's Will, based upon whatever premise you choose, then any discussion of God's morality is meaningless. But in this case, calling God good is also meaningless. To paraphrase the main man himself, he just IS.

Giz.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.