T
tonyrey
Guest
Do you mean God has no choice in the matter? Are the laws of the universe co-eternal with the Creator?
- Status
R
RGCheek
Guest
As I understand it, God the Father makes no choices as Creator. As He is outside the flow of time, He cant make any decisions, AIUI. His will is constant and unchanging. He acts when conditions are met, and the criteria for those conditions have been set eternally. His Son, Jesus is like an interface between Him and His Creation, though that is merely my opinion.
I don’t think these laws for each universe are eternal and co-existent since no individual universe is eternal, but God may have been creating universes for all eternity, and thus manifesting His laws as laws for that universe with each creation. I suspect this is true since Jesus, the Logos, is eternal and as He seems to be within the flow of time in our universe, it only makes sense that He would have had this facet of who He is for all eternity. Since Jesus is equally part of the Godhead with the Creator/ the Father it makes sense to me that he has been a redeemer for various intelligent races for all eternity (just my crank opinion).
I hope that makes sense; I haven’t had any caffeine yet.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Only if you believe, ironically, in an absolute moral relativism.
Catholicism believes in a, er, relative moral relativism. Some things are relative. Some things are absolute.
That’s what makes Catholicism so cool. It’s typically a both/and. Not an either/or.
G
glendab
Guest
Tom dear, you forgetting to answer the question from several others: What do you think the definition of the evil in the verse is? We are waiting…
Glenda
Glenda
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
There seems to be some confusion here.
Not every situation is the same. The situation does not cause moral relativism at all.
Every situation requires an objectively right response.
For example, the plane and the building scenario, requires one objective response … to save 2,000 people rather than lose 2060 lives. Since the sixty lives are lost anyway if the plane crashes into the building, it is not as if you are killing the 60 passengers for personal gain, or vengeance, or out of sheer craziness. You are objectively (not relatively) seeking to save 2,000 lives on the principle that when confronted with two** inevitable** evils, it is right to choose the lesser evil.
This is not moral relativism.
It’s always (objectively) right to save 2,000 lives of innocent people. You can’t really say it’s sometimes right and sometimes wrong to save the lies of 2,000 people, especially when you know the lives of the sixty are lost anyway if the plane crashes into the building.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I don’t see it.
Merely because moral judgements on some issues can be widely divergent does not make morality itself relative.
That would be like saying intelligence (or reality or truth) is relative because every individual has a different measure of it or takes a different view of what is or is not true from that of his neighbor. That does not mean intelligence is “relative.” It does mean “intelligence” is not equally possessed.
Likewise, the existence of divergent ethical views does not entail morality is relative. It does mean each individual’s moral compass is to some degree more or less finely tuned than everyone else’s. It is the divergence in “tuning” that explains the divergence in moral opinions on some matters. These are mostly exceptions, however, meant to highlight the divergent states of tuning through thought experiments.
There are many issues that are so cut and dry that a moral “moron” would see it the same as a moral “genius.” If morality were truly relative, it wouldn’t even make a difference if everyone saw things exactly the same because there would be no correct view anytime anywhere. Any view would be as valid as any other - meaning no view has any validity. It wouldn’t matter which view anyone took because there would be no right one and no right and wrong at all. That is what moral relativism entails, after all.
Merely arguing over details does not logically entail that relativism is true. It is actually irrelevant. Consensus or lack of it does not establish the truth. In fact, there could be wide agreement about all moral matters in a corrupt society or among a cohort of dysfunctional moral agents and just because everyone was wrong that would not turn objective morality into relative morality. They would simply be equally wrong and equally morally dysfunctional.
You can’t get an ought from an is. Even if the state of affairs IS that everyone believes morality is relative does not mean morality OUGHT to be relative.
To argue that objective morality does not exist merely because there is wide disagreement on some issues is simply false. In fact, it might be moral failures on the part of negligent moral individuals who have not properly formed or calibrated their moral compasses that makes the divergence itself a morally culpable state of affairs.
If the fall of man is true then we would expect some general debility in this area, AND there is. Ergo, the “fall” scenario has supporting evidence in the out of whack states of morality and foggy moral sensibilities prevalent among human beings. We don’t want morality to exist because we are moral failures who prefer to live without moral demands. We are all moral drunks in varying states of inebriation seeing the world through a haze, addicted to immorality because, on our own, we are moral failures and don’t want to be reminded that we are. Sounds quite in keeping with a Catholic world view.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
No. For moral relativism not to exist there would have to exist a body of uniquely “moral” acts or behaviours with one, or possibly even several possible correct answers. Those “moral” conditions would not need to apply universally to every choice or act, only to uniquely “moral” choices or acts.
It could be true that some problems in the human condition are not moral problems at all - they may be practical problems or aesthetic problems, etc. and these would be allowed a divergence of possible solutions.
For relativism to be true, i.e., that no true moral perspective exists, that requires that no real moral problems exist AT ALL. That there are NO uniquely “moral” issues with no uniquely “moral” solutions to which all moral agents are obligated.
It may actually be true that some moral problems allow several solutions and moral agents are obligated to choose one of several possible answers. That is still NOT relativism.
When I ponder whether to wear brown socks instead of blue, I am not engaging in a moral dilemma. It doesn’t “really” matter which colour I wear so the issue is not important from a moral perspective.
For moral relativism to be true it would reduce all dilemmas to the level of choosing socks. For moral relativism to be true, It wouldn’t “really” matter which way you chose even in what are ostensibly “moral” issues because relativism insists that morality is simply a matter of personal preference, like choosing socks.
For moral relativism to be true “absolutely” there would be nothing like “moral” repercussions. There would be no morally “good” or “bad” acts or decisions, merely what you prefer and what I prefer. There would be no ground, if morality were, indeed, preferential or relative, for saying one preference is “right” and another “wrong.”
Relativism is not merely incoherent, it is insane. Only someone out of touch with reality would claim murder and rape are merely distasteful and carry nothing like objective moral condemnation. Clearly rape and murder are objectively morally wrong and merely because there exist some, or even many, immoral or amoral individuals, who deny that these acts are “wrong” in a properly moral sense, does not make their position a valid “moral” one.
Moral agents can become immoral or amoral, but that “fact” does not make their abdication of morality legitimate no matter how much they insist that it is. Moral agents are bound by moral constraints. Moral agency cannot be unilaterally cast off because it is embedded in our very nature as rational moral beings. Our decisions and acts matter morally and we are keenly aware of that fact. Denial does not make morality evaporate.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
The fundamental moral axiom of the natural law is do good and avoid evil.
Given our fallen state, it is on rare occasions impossible to avoid evil consequences following good intentions, as Aquinas so ably put in in his doctrine of the double effect.
A secondary moral axiom is that when confronted with two necessary evils, it is better to choose the lesser evil. This is a hard saying, since we are taught that the end does not justify the means. But in the case of the building and the plane crashing into it, we know that it is good to save 2,000 innocent lives rather than to stand by and twiddle our thumbs while 2060 innocent lives perish.
On the other hand, the hijackers of the plane perceive that their good is to do evil. In their case it is clearly a matter of saying the ends justifies the means when it is absolutely not necessary that the end (conversion of the infidel Christians/Jews, Secularists, etc.) be achieved by beating them to death. Rather, conversion can be accomplished by the peaceful means of missionary work, and that is a level playing field for all concerned. The best religion in the end will triumph because it offers the best message of redemption from our fallen state.
Evil violence in the end always turns upon itself and devours its own tail.
That end is helped along when brave people will shove that tail down the serpent’s throat.
Or else we can always stand by and twiddle out thumbs.
P
PRmerger
Guest
God could do this, I suppose, but that would prevent a multitude of goods that we have because of our ability to choose evil.
To wit: our ability to be virtuous would be greatly diminished, and probably even nonexistent. No one can be virtuous if one cannot choose (and experience the results) of evil.
No one can love if he cannot choose to NOT love.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
**Originally Posted by Tomdstone
Would it have been possible for man to have been created with limited free will, so that man would love and obey God, but not harm others.**
What is “limited free will”? Either you have free will or you don’t.
Would it have been possible for man to have been created with limited free will, so that man would love and obey God, but not harm others.**
What is “limited free will”? Either you have free will or you don’t.
G
grannymh
Guest
Absolutely, it is rational to believe that God exists. Since the dawn of human history, rational humans have recognized that the super-natural or spiritual does, in fact, exist. in some manner. This is evinced in the ancient myths, the various roles of shamans, the fascinating Greek and Roman gods, and the intruder Baal.
Catholics, being rational creatures, refer to Genesis 1:1 which is professed in the Creed said during Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
As long as one accepts human nature as rational per se, then it is easy to recognize that the sense of the super-natural or spiritual is inherent in human nature. That being the case, it is rational for humans to believe that God exists.
Catholics, being rational creatures, refer to Genesis 1:1 which is professed in the Creed said during Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
As long as one accepts human nature as rational per se, then it is easy to recognize that the sense of the super-natural or spiritual is inherent in human nature. That being the case, it is rational for humans to believe that God exists.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
I believe it is rational to believe God exists, not just because of the unanimity of peoples through all the ages that deities exist, but because human reason naturally looks for a cause of everything. This search begins with the search for individual causes, as when a sculptor sculpts a statue, or a man fathers children. Every single thing has a cause. From this observation that every individual thing has a cause, the human mind naturally seeks to find a cause of the world itself. The cause of the world must be something greater than the world, and thus we find Deity of one kind or another. I think the human mind is not only wired to draw this conclusion, but the human heart is wired to see a relationship with the Cause of all things. Human reason through the ages has often failed to fasten itself on the essence of God, but it has persisted in finding the existence of God that only a few doubt, and those few doubt with no really good reason.
M
Mystical_Seeker
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
There seems to be some confusion here.
Not every situation is the same. The situation does not cause moral relativism at all.
Every situation requires an objectively right response.
For example, the plane and the building scenario, requires one objective response … to save 2,000 people rather than lose 2060 lives. Since the sixty lives are lost anyway if the plane crashes into the building, it is not as if you are killing the 60 passengers for personal gain, or vengeance, or out of sheer craziness. You are objectively (not relatively) seeking to save 2,000 lives on the principle that when confronted with two** inevitable** evils, it is right to choose the lesser evil.
This is not moral relativism.
It’s always (objectively) right to save 2,000 lives of innocent people. You can’t really say it’s sometimes right and sometimes wrong to save the lies of 2,000 people, especially when you know the lives of the sixty are lost anyway if the plane crashes into the building.
The fact that people disagree doesn’t mean one belief is as reasonable as another. Otherwise why bother to try to be reasonable? Let’s all go:egyptian: crazy, shall we?
T
tonyrey
Guest
If the Creator can’t make any decisions He is less powerful than His creatures - which is absurd.
I agree with you for two reasons:- To restrict the existence of intelligent beings in this immense universe to one tiny planet seems unrealistic. They may well be rare but non-existent is extreme.
- To restrict the redemption of intelligent beings in this immense universe to one tiny planet seems equally unbalanced.
9
987mk
Guest
It is irrational to believe in God, but we are often irrational animals.
I say it is irrational, as of course there is no proof that the God of Abraham exists, just as there is no proof that the various Gods of Hinduism exist…yet people still persist in their belief, despite a lack of tangible evidence.
I do not look down upon those who believe in God(s), but I do admit that when I come across someone who is highly educated, yet they still believe in God, I find it rather puzzling.
I say it is irrational, as of course there is no proof that the God of Abraham exists, just as there is no proof that the various Gods of Hinduism exist…yet people still persist in their belief, despite a lack of tangible evidence.
I do not look down upon those who believe in God(s), but I do admit that when I come across someone who is highly educated, yet they still believe in God, I find it rather puzzling.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
There is also no proof that no God exists. So why isn’t that as irrational as believing in a God that you have strong reasons to believe in?
What is your own strongest reason for believing in no God?
9
987mk
Guest
The burden of proof does not rest with me to prove your God isn’t real. The burden of proof rests only with you to prove your God is real.
If I claim that there is an elephant in my pantry, but one only I can see. You do not have to spend even a second disproving my claim, rather I would be the one tasked with proving my claim correct.
So it is with God.
There is no credible evidence that big foot exists, so in the absence of evidence, I choose not to believe big foot is real.
There is no credible evidence that God exists, so in the absence of evidence, I choose not to believe God is real.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Tangible evidence? As in God clubbing you between the eyes, smacking you on the cheek and saying, “Open your eyes, Man! I am here!”
Since God hasn’t done that, then I guess you are correct, there is no tangible evidence.
You can go back to sleep now.
Perhaps those highly educated (Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Newton, Copernicus, Pascal, Faraday, Babbage, Lewis, Chesterton, Godel, Heisenberg, LeMaitre, Planck, Eddington, et al) when they come across some uneducated person who does not believe in God do not look down on them, either. Perhaps, they, too, find it rather puzzling. C’est la vie. Non?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Correct, there is no credible evidence that “god” - defined as some Bigfoot or elephant-in-the-pantry-like being - exists. That is why no Catholic who has any clear sense of the God s/he believes in would disagree with your statement.
God has never been conceived or portrayed as “a being” - somewhat like Bigfoot or the elephant in your pantry, who exists somewhere in the universe and leaves tangible signs of his existence or of having lived in the area - at any time, anywhere in orthodox Catholic teaching.
“So it is with God” is simply a mischaracterization of the whole question.
No, it is not “so” with God. Far from it, in fact.
- Status