E
e_c
Guest
Morality is a measure of accordance with the will of God. So, it is like asking how long a yard stick is… It makes no sense.
- Status
B
BornInMarch
Guest
A yard stick is 0.9144 meters or three feet. The yard stick is used to measure the feet, but the feet still apply to it.
In the same way, God is used to measure morality because he is at the very end of the “good” spectrum. Moving in the direction of “good” is to move in the direction of God, and moving in the direction of “bad” is to move further away from God.
However, in order to be a measuring landmark for morality, morality still has to apply to God. If God ever did something that was evil, then he would cease to be the Summum Bonum.
P
PRmerger
Guest
No, Born.
What is meant is that it’s like asking how much a yard stick is, when no one has defined what feet, inches, yards are.
You say it’s 3 feet because you’ve just accepted the common parlance about it.
B
Bradski
Guest
Pay attention, boys. He certainly didn’t say that. What he did say was this:
So if you manage to get to the point where someone is going to agree with you that something created the universe, then IT DOES NOT FOLLOW that that something has control over it. That is an assumption. And it is obviously assumed by the Christian making the argument because the argument isn’t formulated to find out how the universe came into existence. It is reverse engineered so that the only answer can be…God.
I have actually received an answer from a Christian when it was pointed out (accepting for the sake of the discussion) that if something made the universe it doesn’t hold that that something is omnipotent along the following lines: ‘Well, if it’s not omnipotent, then it can’t be God. So whatever you are describing is not God’. What the…?
Maybe someone can refute these points without doing the same. That is, please explain why they are not logically possibly without reference to God.
- Just as some people believe in a god outside of time, the potential for the universe to begin exists outside of time.
- If the universe was created, it was done by something that was not sentient.
- If the universe was created, an infinite number of them were created before this one.
- If the universe was created, it was done with no teleological aim.
- If the universe was created, whatever created it had no control over how it developed.
- If the universe was created, whatever created it had no idea how it was going to evolve.
- If the universe was created, whatever created it ceased to exist at the point of creation.
- If the universe was created, whatever created it did so for its own amusement.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes, luv, it does indeed.
The creator of the universe MUST, logically, common sensically, out of necessity, be omnipotent and omniscient.
P
PRmerger
Guest
What’s with the “what the…”
That’s exactly a correct statement. If what you’re describing as “God” isn’t omnipotent, then…
it’s not God.
What you’re describing is just a superhero, only more awesome. Or some other entity.
But if it ain’t omnipotent, it ain’t God that you’re talking about.
So like a number? A non-sentient, immaterial thing created the unvierse…hmmmm.
And a number created something…when?
In the entirety of your existence, Bradski, have you ever heard of an immaterial thing (such as a number) creating something? And creating it out of nothing, no less!
Perhaps 32? Are you thinking that maybe 32 once created a turnip out of a turnip seed?
(If you can provide evidence for this immaterial, non-sentient 32 creating something, I’ll take it! Even if it comes from a seed and not ex nihilo! I’ll convert to atheism that very minute!)
P
PRmerger
Guest
Are you sure you weren’t actually in dialogue with the atheist BC Johnson (and not this anonymous “Christian”
)?Because you seem to be paraphrasing him, regarding this impotent (or, apotent) “God”: “Such a God, if not dead, is the next thing to it. And a person who believes in such a ghost of a god is practically an atheist. To call such a thing a god would be to strain the meaning of the word.”
B
Bradski
Guest
I’m not describing God. The person using the argument is meant to be using it to see where it leads. But so many people, just like yourself, aren’t using it for that purpose. You have already decided it is was God and then use God as the reason to refute any suggestions to the contrary.
It you want to employ logic, then you have to refute each proposal on its own merit. I’ll repeat that: On Its Own Merit. It is nonsensical to refute them because they don’t agree with your conclusion.
PR: Let’s see where this takes us…the creator of the universe has to be omnipotent.
B: Well, I’m not sure that’s a valid statement.
PR: It is because God is omnipotent and He created the universe.
You’ve used the very conclusion that you want to reach to prove the proposals you are making in order to reach a conclusion. How about we try to find out who the best team in the NRL is.
B: Let’s see where this takes us…the best team in the NRL has to wear red, white and blue.
PR: Well, I’m not sure that’s a valid statement.
B: It is because the Roosters wear red white and blue and they are the best team in the NRL.
Your arguments are that bizarre.
S
Servant19
Guest
Not at all.
Is it not possible that an “agent” created by God may be the omnipotent and omniscient one.
Isn’t God in His essence incomprehensible? Indescribable?
.
E
e_c
Guest
The cause is always greater than the effect…
We still have not endeavored to name the three kinds of power…
O
oldcelt
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
Fair enough.
You’re describing, then, the entity that created the universe?
Errr…no. The creator of the universe has to be omnipotent because anything that creates something out of nothing has to be…very, very powerful. So unlimitingly powerful it can…create the universe.
Surely you see the logic here, yeah?
Yeah…well your mama’s arguments are bizarre, so…
P
PRmerger
Guest
And speaking of bizarre, let’s limn here all of the outre or illogical or double-standard proposals that I’ve seen by atheists:
-the multiverse can exist (despite there being not a shred of evidence for this, but, hey, I don’t need evidence, I’m just sayin’ maybe it’s possible…)
-the universe was created by a non-sentient entity (despite there being not a shred of evidence, EVER, for any non-sentient, immaterial entity creating something. Yeah. Like a number. 45 created the universe. That’s entirely possible)
-I am a science advocate! But when there’s something that’s inexplicable, hey, let’s just enjoy it, man. Why do we have to find an answer for everything, eh? (except that all scientists subscribe to this mantra: let’s look at this phenomenon and get out our tools and our theories and find out…the why, the how, the cause…)
-I think for myself! But, yeah, I am simply repeating what I heard another person say (namely: think for yourself!). And, yeah, when I write “I think for myself” I’m actually spelling and using syntax that isn’t my own, but rather that which I’ve received…
-I eschew faith! I will only believe if I have scientific data before me that I can examine to see if I should believe…but, yeah, I do fly in an aircraft without ever–not even once–checking the data to confirm that the pilot actually passed her pilot’s license exam…
-Science alone provides the answers. If it can’t be demonstrated empirically, then I reject it…but, no, I can’t demonstrate empirically that science alone provides the answers.
The Believer is amused, bemused and resigned to the illogic.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Oh, and here’s another:
Says the atheist:
-You believers just have a “God of the Gaps” mentality–you don’t know the answer, therefore, “God is the explanation”. That’s just bogus. What is inexplicable now, Science will figure it out one day.
(Yeah, it’s a “Science of the Gaps” mentality, but that’s ok for atheists to embrace because…well, because. Just because.)
I
IWantGod
Guest
Its not assumed (depending on what is actually being argued). It follows logically that whatever is the absolute antithesis of nothing (the source of being) is the existential cause of whatever occurs. But it is important to have a grasp of what is meant by “cause” when it comes to the ontology of things. It is not meant in a mechanistic sense or like a ball moving another ball. It is clear that things happen according to their nature. However, what ever does happen can only happen because its effect is being actualised and sustained in existence by that which is the absolute antithesis of nothingness because the absolute antithesis of nothingness is the very basis of reality itself, the basis of truth itself. and is therefore the giver of reality and truth itself. Hence, we move and have our being in God (whatever you think that is) and can do nothing at all without the existential power of God.
This is true power. Complete absolute control over the very existence of that which does not necessarily exist.
The first cause is omnipotent.
E
e_c
Guest
This is exactly how we “define” God in the Western canon of philosophy, at least in the Aristotelian and Thomistic traditions.
S
Solmyr
Guest
You cannot define God into existence. Even if you start with the assumption that the universe “requires” a creator, you can only get to a “first cause” - nothing else. The rest is just empty speculation.
It is interesting to observe that the God of “philosophers” has nothing to do with the God of the bible.
D
davidv
Guest
God’s existence does not depend on any definitions. He either exists, or does not. St. Thomas deduced the uncaused cause in his first way. This first cause happens to have a name, namely, God.
Really? Based on what?
E
e_c
Guest
Bingo.
I have the inclination to say that this semantic issue (which is much broader than this particular case) is settled in the Posterior Analytics… I might crack that open and steal a paragraph or two.
In the meantime, the three kinds of power are those of cause, presence, and essence…
- Status