Mirdaths Logic.

[Mirdath]

What is the basis for assuming this, though?

It’s not an assumption, it’s a definition. The existence of that which is neither tangible nor otherwise perceptible cannot be said to be meaningful when all we have are our perceptions.

The word “on” is meaningful so long as it is part of a truth-bearing proposition. Even in a world without cats and mats, the proposition, “the cat is on the mat”, is meaningful, since it is either true or false.

In a world without cats and mats, your proposition is meaningless because nobody knows what a cat or a mat is. That aside, the preposition certainly has meaning and utility, but it does not possess independent existence. Even one-word imperative commands like ‘IN’ depend on assumed subjects and objects: you’re looking at the dog and pointing at the door. The word ‘in’ depends on the assumed delinquent dog and the assumed place the owner wants the dog to be: it’s a shortened, linguistically convenient version of ‘you get in there’.

This brings us back to conceptual relativity. The fact that some ascribe one level of greenness to an object is irrelevent to the object’s corresponding wavelength. Imagine both of us are at opposite ends of a garden and we’re looking at the same flower. I see a purple flower and you see a white one. Our conceptual relativity does not determine what the corresponding wavelength is that the flower is instantiating. There may be a light above the garden that tints some flowers a purple color if you are standing at a certain angle.

But we are not speaking of a case in which outside influences affect various peoples’ perceptions. You’ve added the variable of the light affecting A’s vision but not B’s, while that’s not what we were talking about at all.

 

[elwoodpd]

Do you believe this statement: If God exists, then He is capable of giving you whatever you need to believe in His existence?

 

[Mirdath]

Do you believe this statement: If God exists, then He is capable of giving you whatever you need to believe in His existence?

Certainly. We are, after all, talking about an omnipotent being.

 

[elwoodpd]

Certainly. We are, after all, talking about an omnipotent being.

In that case do you believe in praying to God to, if He really does exist, to give you what you need to believe in him?

 

[Dranu]

Mirdath:

I would like you use an argument from reason rather than trying authoritarian ones from doctrine since we both don’t agree on doctrine, and probably won’t even agree what is doctrine in the Catholic sense.

(snip)

Hehe, quoting St. Aquinas will deffinately get me thinking and secodn guessing myself like crazy, but only doctrinal proof that my position is inconsistent with the Church or reason will get me to falter on my position.

Both of course, otherwise I would not have stated it (I hope). My position might change, but doctrine is only a language I understand at the moment (since we both don’t agree on doctrine, and probably won’t even agree what is doctrine in the Catholic sense), it won’t convince you. So I would like to speak with simple reason for the sake of the dialogue, even if the other might convince me (though even just for me, I think it might be hard for us to communicate clearly in the language of doctrine).

Granted, the greatest X may not be the greatest conceivable X (after all, it is possible to conceive of a perfect human, which specimen has yet to walk the earth). But since we’re dealing with a limited number of parts, one may easily conceive of an X possessing these parts in perfection according to its nature.

So since you grant ‘X may not be the greatest conceivable,’ is it clear St. Anselm’s argument is sound then, or do you have another objection? Note: Since the part of according to its existence (in reality) is already outside the conceptual.

I can think of no better option. True, belief in God in a general sense does not necessarily preclude enlightened self-interest, but if that belief includes the idea that God is a moral arbiter (ie, Christianity), it very well could.

Ahh now I think we are getting at the real reason for your disagreement with accepting God. With this moral arbiter question, how so?

No. Belief in the divine is not justifiable through ordinary sensory perception, which is how we perceive the world around us. As to the ‘divine’ comment, you stated that God ‘solidifies reason as a first principle’.

God solidifies it by making it sound by being Truth, not by being the tool He gave us. Sure the world around us is seen through the help of the senses, but the essence of reality/existence/truth/etc. is not seen with the senses, but with reason.

How many times are you going to repeat this? God may, as the Thomists suppose, be infinitely simple (that itself could be seen as a contradiction in terms), but that in no way makes his existence more reasonable. The world around me I can perceive through my senses, which are my only interface between my reason and what (seems to be) reality; God, I cannot. Therefore I am unable to accept God’s existence as real, because it is not demonstrated through the only ways I am able to sense reality – whether those perceptions reflect ‘true’ reality or not does not matter. It is what I can perceive, so it is what I must work with. This is my first, only, and final answer. If you cannot take it and work toward a new line of inquiry instead of repeating the same thing, I suggest you abandon it.

Perhaps it is too strong then? Or perhaps I did not phrase it well enough? Why the sudden turn in hostility, or am I misreading you? At anyrate I will not repeat it as written.

Mirdath you said:
*“Therefore I am unable to accept God’s existence as real, because it is not demonstrated through the only ways I am able to sense reality – whether those perceptions reflect ‘true’ reality” * Yet those perceptions are merely thoughts before we can say they interact with reality, so here is the question: With what do you say that the 5 physical senses are the only way ‘I am able to sense reality?’ How do you classify them from other thoughts?

Furthermore, if you have no idea with them alone that they reflect reality, then why make the leap of faith that they say anything about it? If you do make the leap, with what do you measure?

I will act as if they are generally accurate because I have no reason to think otherwise.

You do have reason since you can conceive it is possible that it is all a dream, that you are only mind, or that you are really a madman who thinks it is real. So why not assume God as well? Can we agree that reason is not the reason?

 

[Mirdath]

In that case do you believe in praying to God to, if He really does exist, to give you what you need to believe in him?

I tried that for over a year. By now, I figure I’ll keep on living and leave that up to him.

Dranu:

So since you grant ‘X may not be the greatest conceivable,’ is it clear St. Anselm’s argument is sound then, or do you have another objection? Note: Since the part of according to its existence (in reality) is already outside the conceptual.

No, it is not sound: as I said, it is still possible for one to conceive of a greatest X even though the greatest known X may be lackluster in comparison.

Ahh now I think we are getting at the real reason for your disagreement with accepting God. With this moral arbiter question, how so?

No, moral authority is not my reason for disbelief. I would be more than willing to shut up and obey if I believed in and worshiped a deity, and indeed I led a pretty ascetic lifestyle for a long while after leaving the Church. I’m not a heathen because I want to get my rocks off whenever I want (although I have to admit that can be a nice side benefit).

Christianity precludes a rule of enlightened self-interest because it favors a morality of fiat, a ‘natural moral law’ it holds to be just as much a part of the workings of the universe as the laws of gravity. Much as I admire the general absolutism of the Christian ethic (although it has its holes, for instance the idea that a lie may be moral if one ‘reserves’ the statement), I find it altogether too simplistic, too open to individual reinterpretation and misuse, and far, far too anthropocentric. Why should I believe the universe was created with moral laws in place for a few petty little creatures on a petty little planet spiraling through the void?

Perhaps it is too strong then? Or perhaps I did not phrase it well enough? Why the sudden turn in hostility, or am I misreading you? At anyrate I will not repeat it as written.

I apologize if I seemed hostile – it was not my intent. I do not think there is much to be gained from this avenue since neither of us seems to have had much success with it.

With what do you say that the 5 physical senses are the only way ‘I am able to sense reality?’ How do you classify them from other thoughts?

Reason, of course, acting upon the lack of (name removed by moderator)ut from anything other than my senses.

Furthermore, if you have no idea with them alone that they reflect reality, then why make the leap of faith that they say anything about it? If you do make the leap, with what do you measure?

Because if I do not act as if things are as they seem, I really might as well be a brain in a jar: useless.

You do have reason since you can conceive it is possible that it is all a dream, that you are only mind, or that you are really a madman who thinks it is real. So why not assume God as well? Can we agree that reason is not the reason?

Because I have no reason to assume God. I have reason to assume my senses are operational, because I perceive; and those senses do not tell me ‘God exists’. You, apparently, have a ‘sense of God’, or are more willing than I to suspend your reason in favor of hope.

 

[elwoodpd]

I tried that (added) praying to God for what I need to believe in him] for over a year. By now, I figure I’ll keep on living and leave that up to him.

Rest assured, if there is a God, and you truly want to believe in him, he will indeed give you all that you need to do so (whether now or in the long run, according to His perfect Will)

(In this case it would be more a matter of “God finding you” than you finding God, wouldn’t it?)

You are in my prayers.

 

[elwoodpd]

Why should I believe the universe was created with moral laws in place for a few petty little creatures on a petty little planet spiraling through the void?

The Christian view:

The reason is that God loves perfectly, and while perfect, and thus not *needing * anything or anyone else, decided to create (necessarily) inferior (but nevertheless beautiful, made in his image) creatures and to care for them and make them happy in perfect love.
He would want them to do good, of course, because he himself does good perfectly.

Also, although these creatures are necessarily inferior to God, they are not “petty” simply because God, being perfect, does not create “petty” things.

What is your objection to this explanation?

 

[Goth_Catholic]

Mirdath, why am I not surprised it has to come to this?

I can’t belive this thread has lived for 6 pages already. Mirdath is about the last person I’d ever try and convert (although I think I once offered to find a gothic priest in order to get you to attend mass ).

I do confess, I secretly belive Mirdath will at least die catholic, but as far as this thread goes…well, this is why i stick to dealing with protestants

 

[Mirdath]

Rest assured, if there is a God, and you truly want to believe in him, he will indeed give you all that you need to do so (whether now or in the long run, according to His perfect Will)

I don’t think it’s exactly a question of what I want. If God exists and God wants worshipers, he can take make one of me anytime he likes. If he wants me to choose freely to worship him, he can at least have the decency to show up and ask. I’d give it serious consideration, although I have serious issues with the idea of God as presented by most of his followers.

You are in my prayers.

Thank you I’ll take what favors I get, and wish you well in return.

The reason is that God loves perfectly, and while perfect, and thus not needing anything or anyone else, decided to create (necessarily) inferior (but nevertheless beautiful, made in his image) creatures and to care for them and make them happy in perfect love.
He would want them to do good, of course, because he himself does good perfectly.

Also, although these creatures are necessarily inferior to God, they are not “petty” simply because God, being perfect, does not create “petty” things.

What is your objection to this explanation?

There isn’t just one:

First, we are petty. Look at the stars sometime at night, and remember that even the smallest of them is larger than the entire mass of all humans who have ever lived put together. Even if God made us, he also made a lot more and greater than we are. Sure, he would have made lesser things too – and can many of them not be described as petty? Pebbles that stick in your shoe? Mosquitoes?

Second, why assume God is even necessarily interested in us, we ‘lilies of the field’?

Third, the idea that God ‘does good perfectly’ doesn’t measure up well to the Old Testament, since this is the ‘Christian explanation’; it would seem at a best case to be chock full of examples of ‘do as I say, not as I do (or as I told you to do that one time)’. I find the idea of a morally ambiguous or even an outright malevolent deity more reasonable than that of an all-good and all-powerful one. Particularly the former, since is not God greater than his creations, good and evil among them?

Fourth, even if God notices us, there is no reason to believe from that that an afterlife exists or even that he expects anything of us, beyond perhaps ‘contemplating the spectacle with appropriate emotions’, to quote a Creator-figure from one of my favorite books, Cabell’s Jurgen.

Fifth, if God wants us to do good freely, why legislate it? Why make it an integral part of the universe, akin to gravity? The idea that Good is a law infringes upon free choice. If we are to do good of our own will, inevitable consequences to doing it or not doing it make such acts of will less a free choice and more a calculated transaction.

And sixth and finally, there is simply no evidence to establish the existence of a natural moral law.

 

[Mirdath]

Mirdath, why am I not surprised it has to come to this?

I can’t belive this thread has lived for 6 pages already. Mirdath is about the last person I’d ever try and convert (although I think I once offered to find a gothic priest in order to get you to attend mass ).

It’s been a pretty great six pages too (edit: seven! )! Or at least I’m having fun

We’ll probably end up going to mass with visiting family next weekend, so uh, wish granted, I guess?

 

[Goth_Catholic]

It’s been a pretty great six pages too (edit: seven! )! Or at least I’m having fun
I thought you were
We’ll probably end up going to mass with visiting family next weekend, so uh, wish granted, I guess?

lol have fun

 

[brother_dan_mac]

I have been following this discussion for a while now, and have so far been contented to remain merely thus. However, I find it difficult now to simply let it play out without justifying the time I have spent observing by inserting my own thoughts.

I have found that the greatest reassurances for the existance of God: moreover my relationship with Him, has been the sheer number of coincidences that have arisen over the course of my lifetime between my petitioning of Him and the asked event actually happening, sometimes almost immediately: and between something that has been said or done that was specific and repeated by disincluded parties. These have sometimes been so exraordinary as to preclude coincidence.

On the subject of coincidence, it would be a far more sretch for someone to believe, it would seem, in all the “coincidences” that would have to have existed for all of the known phisical universe with it’s rules of physics, the complexity of even our earthly co-dependant eco system and the cycling of the elements thatmake up our world, or even the fact that some of this matter even has life [whatever THAT is], without th existance of at LEAST a supreme design. And if there IS such a design, then WHO’S DESIGN IS IT?!

For Mirdath, and anyone else who is ernestly searching, I believe that if you want God to show Himself, you already have the ability to concieve the idea of a supreme deity: all you have to do is ask Him to show you in a way that only you will know that He exists, and it WILL come to you when you least expect it, for that is the way He operates with all of us!

One last thought: It has been my observance that [especialy through the thoughts and opinions expressed in this thread] human logic is at best imperfect, and therefore, given the vast variables in personal experience, the task of relating such complex and pragmatic ideas to one another is an enormous undrtaking, albeit of ultimate use to one another, and one we can sustain, if our goal is of the common welfare. It has been said that “to those without faith, no explanation is possible- and to those with faith no explanation is neccesary”. While this seems to be overtly simplex, it no less underlies the essence of the discussion.

I look forward to see how this thread plays out, and I pray for all of you, and welcome any comments or replies from anyone.

 

[Mirdath]

I have found that the greatest reassurances for the existance of God: moreover my relationship with Him, has been the sheer number of coincidences that have arisen over the course of my lifetime between my petitioning of Him and the asked event actually happening, sometimes almost immediately: and between something that has been said or done that was specific and repeated by disincluded parties. These have sometimes been so exraordinary as to preclude coincidence.

All I can really say is ‘lucky you!’ I wish I had a big red phone on a hotline to a God who enjoyed answering prayers the nice way! If seeming to have your petitions granted inspires faith in you, wonderful, but please be aware that it isn’t remotely convincing to anyone else.

On the subject of coincidence, it would be a far more sretch for someone to believe, it would seem, in all the “coincidences” that would have to have existed for all of the known phisical universe with it’s rules of physics, the complexity of even our earthly co-dependant eco system and the cycling of the elements thatmake up our world, or even the fact that some of this matter even has life [whatever THAT is], without th existance of at LEAST a supreme design. And if there IS such a design, then WHO’S DESIGN IS IT?!

Since RobNY doesn’t seem to be looking, I’m just going to let William of Occam do the work for me. The world, complex as it is, is a system of many variables (a vast number of which neither of us can claim to know anything about); to speak of a creator-deity adds one more where the need for yet another has not been demonstrated. So it is not at all a greater stretch; in fact, it is far less of one.

For Mirdath, and anyone else who is ernestly searching, I believe that if you want God to show Himself, you already have the ability to concieve the idea of a supreme deity: all you have to do is ask Him to show you in a way that only you will know that He exists, and it WILL come to you when you least expect it, for that is the way He operates with all of us!

Well… we’ll see.

 

[elwoodpd]

I don’t think it’s exactly a question of what I want. If God exists and God wants worshipers, he can take make one of me anytime he likes. If he wants me to choose freely to worship him, he can at least have the decency to show up and ask. I’d give it serious consideration, although I have serious issues with the idea of God as presented by most of his followers.

Thank you I’ll take what favors I get, and wish you well in return.

There isn’t just one:

First, we are petty. Look at the stars sometime at night, and remember that even the smallest of them is larger than the entire mass of all humans who have ever lived put together. Even if God made us, he also made a lot more and greater than we are. Sure, he would have made lesser things too – and can many of them not be described as petty? Pebbles that stick in your shoe? Mosquitoes?

Second, why assume God is even necessarily interested in us, we ‘lilies of the field’?

Third, the idea that God ‘does good perfectly’ doesn’t measure up well to the Old Testament, since this is the ‘Christian explanation’; it would seem at a best case to be chock full of examples of ‘do as I say, not as I do (or as I told you to do that one time)’. I find the idea of a morally ambiguous or even an outright malevolent deity more reasonable than that of an all-good and all-powerful one. Particularly the former, since is not God greater than his creations, good and evil among them?

Fourth, even if God notices us, there is no reason to believe from that that an afterlife exists or even that he expects anything of us, beyond perhaps ‘contemplating the spectacle with appropriate emotions’, to quote a Creator-figure from one of my favorite books, Cabell’s Jurgen.

Fifth, if God wants us to do good freely, why legislate it? Why make it an integral part of the universe, akin to gravity? The idea that Good is a law infringes upon free choice. If we are to do good of our own will, inevitable consequences to doing it or not doing it make such acts of will less a free choice and more a calculated transaction.

And sixth and finally, there is simply no evidence to establish the existence of a natural moral law.

Wow, I love your response!
You state your points very lucidly and logically.

I shall (try to) address these points one at a time.

“First, we are petty. Look at the stars sometime at night, and remember that even the smallest of them is larger than the entire mass of all humans who have ever lived put together. Even if God made us, he also made a lot more and greater than we are. Sure, he would have made lesser things too – and can many of them not be described as petty? Pebbles that stick in your shoe? Mosquitoes?”

First major point:

1. You have yet to give any argument that proves that a perfect God is capable of creating something “petty.”
2. You have not given any argument that we are capable of judging what is petty or not.
3. Based on your comparison of the stars with the human race, you seem to be judging importance based on size. Remember that just because something is small (even minute), it does not mean that it is petty. Do you really think that an enormous glowing mass is more important and less “petty” than a human who can think about himself and the world, make choices, do calculus, and create the atomic bomb? Just because it is physically larger?
4. If we cannot see the usefulness of something, it does not necessarily mean that it is petty. For example, tonsils. For years, doctors were removing these seemingly “useless” (and, I suppose, “petty”) tonsils. Now of course, science universally acknowledges their usefulness and purpose.

Second major point on this topic:

1. God being omnipotent, how much effort do you think it requires for him to create the universe and everything in it and take care of it?
   He can do it in the blink of an eye.
2. If sometimes we take as much trouble for things that we care almost nothing about, (take stepping over an ant-hill, for example) than why is God not capable of creating the universe and everything in it and taking care of it?

“Third, the idea that God ‘does good perfectly’ doesn’t measure up well to the Old Testament, since this is the ‘Christian explanation’; it would seem at a best case to be chock full of examples of ‘do as I say, not as I do (or as I told you to do that one time)’. I find the idea of a morally ambiguous or even an outright malevolent deity more reasonable than that of an all-good and all-powerful one. Particularly the former, since is not God greater than his creations, good and evil among them?”

Just one quick point about this for right now

1. Which is superior, good or evil?
2. If good is superior to evil, why would not a perfect, supreme God do good only, and never evil?

 

[geekborj]

Is there any being in existence who is, say, true cod and true man? Not to my knowledge. An exception to this general rule of ‘one thing, one nature’ – and what an exception, at that! – doesn’t make sense.

What about light? Isn’t it both a particle and a wave in nature? I think it depends on the perspective. A coin has two faces, but still one and the same coin – as human, Jesus is THE perfect human, as divine, He IS God.

Being so proud of the human Logic is principally the reason of our separation from our Creator. I would never dismiss something just because I don’t it understand yet.

 

[punkforchrist]

It’s not an assumption, it’s a definition. The existence of that which is neither tangible nor otherwise perceptible cannot be said to be meaningful when all we have are our perceptions.

This strikes me as question-begging. In fact, the verification principle that you’re appealing to has been rejected by the vast majority of contemporary epistemologists. The reason why is because the verification principle cannot itself be empirically verified, so it falls under its own standard.

In a world without cats and mats, your proposition is meaningless because nobody knows what a cat or a mat is.

But the fact that some don’t know of these things doesn’t suggest that they are meaningless. Even non-existent things, like unicorns, are meaningful. There is nothing incoherent in the idea of one.

That aside, the preposition certainly has meaning and utility, but it does not possess independent existence. Even one-word imperative commands like ‘IN’ depend on assumed subjects and objects: you’re looking at the dog and pointing at the door. The word ‘in’ depends on the assumed delinquent dog and the assumed place the owner wants the dog to be: it’s a shortened, linguistically convenient version of ‘you get in there’.

I don’t see anything above that I would disagree with.

But we are not speaking of a case in which outside influences affect various peoples’ perceptions. You’ve added the variable of the light affecting A’s vision but not B’s, while that’s not what we were talking about at all.

Your original point was that some people see more “greenness” in an object than others do, which is conceptual (or more accurately, perceptual) relativity. My response was that the differences in perception do not affect what a thing inherently is. If a purple flower has a wavelength of about 400 nm, then it is 400 nm regardless of perceptual conflicts.

 

[Dranu]

No, it is not sound: as I said, it is still possible for one to conceive of a greatest X even though the greatest known X may be lackluster in comparison.

That would be: ‘that X than which none greater X could be possible existing in this material reality’ (given we accept the premise of limited universe) not ‘that X than which none greater X could be conceived.’ Of course the previous would not work in the argument, because the concept wouldn’t necessarily have to exist in reality when plugged in.

Granting: ‘the greatest X may not be the greatest conceivable X’ is all the argument needs. At least for that premise.

No, moral authority is not my reason for disbelief. I would be more than willing to shut up and obey if I believed in and worshiped a deity, and indeed I led a pretty ascetic lifestyle for a long while after leaving the Church. I’m not a heathen because I want to get my rocks off whenever I want (although I have to admit that can be a nice side benefit).

Christianity precludes a rule of enlightened self-interest because it favors a morality of fiat, a ‘natural moral law’ it holds to be just as much a part of the workings of the universe as the laws of gravity. Much as I admire the general absolutism of the Christian ethic (although it has its holes, for instance the idea that a lie may be moral if one ‘reserves’ the statement), I find it altogether too simplistic, too open to individual reinterpretation and misuse, and far, far too anthropocentric. Why should I believe the universe was created with moral laws in place for a few petty little creatures on a petty little planet spiraling through the void?

I’d be inclined to ask why not? Not to ask you to prove a negative, just along the same lines as I have been asking.

1.) What are we petty in relation to?
2.) (For you) Would one human life be worth blowing up a planet if the planet was void of life?

I apologize if I seemed hostile – it was not my intent. I do not think there is much to be gained from this avenue since neither of us seems to have had much success with it.

No need for apology, this is the internet after all , its easy to read whatever you want into what someone types, and thus the fault would be at my end.

Reason, of course, acting upon the lack of (name removed by moderator)ut from anything other than my senses.

So reason is primary in determining reality? I was hoping we would agree on that. Now there are other thoughts that you have in your head that seem detached from the 5 senses, yet they are thoughts none the less like mathematics, God, shapes in pure form, mythical things, etc. (agreed?) So, if reason is primary, what is the reasoning for choosing the thoughts that seem to correspond with the senses and excluding the other thoughts as reality?

I am also going to add this: It is possible we create the thought of the mythical beasts ourselves, or we might receive them in story telling which means they came from somewhere else (as you see, which you astutely pointed out earlier, I am going very Cartesian here). Receiving them though is a form of perception (and yes here from the 5 senses), but a greater form of perception is the understanding of the idea. So understanding is the greatest form of perception. It is seeing ideas with the mind’s eye. God (at least as an idea, which perception of senses are too) can be perceived with our greatest sensory device, the 6th sense (and no not in the sci-fi meaning), the mind’s eye, reason. Likewise, we only come to make sense of the 5 senses through the mind’s eye as well. This likens them to the same as the other ideas, meaning we must apply the same scrutiny to all of them to be consistent, unless reason shows us otherwise.

Because if I do not act as if things are as they seem, I really might as well be a brain in a jar: useless.

For me that is the best response yet, but with what standard do you measure utility? Is it enlightened self-interest? If so, how, since it seems you could have that as a brain in a jar?

It also seems to presuppose a life without God as the meaning. That is where the assumption seems to have now passed. And the material world and veracity of the senses now seem to have been **defined as necessary **(but why?). What is that great solid standard that you are measuring utility with here?

Because I have no reason to assume God. I have reason to assume my senses are operational, because I perceive; and those senses do not tell me ‘God exists’. You, apparently, have a ‘sense of God’, or are more willing than I to suspend your reason in favor of hope.

True the 5 don’t (at least for the average person), but as I have shown, we still perceive God as an idea, why exclude the perception of the idea of God but include the perception of the ideas that seem to come from the 5 senses?

 

[elwoodpd]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirdath
“Is there any being in existence who is, say, true cod and true man? Not to my knowledge. An exception to this general rule of ‘one thing, one nature’ – and what an exception, at that! – doesn’t make sense.”

No Mirdath, I don’t believe that God is a fish.

All joking aside, while God is not a man as such, can not God (being omnipotent) become a man if he chooses?

 

[Mirdath]

Wow, I love your response!
You state your points very lucidly and logically.

Thanks

1. You have yet to give any argument that proves that a perfect God is capable of creating something “petty.”

Obviously he would be, because as a perfect God he is all-powerful, is he not? Who are we to diminish his glory by saying ‘nope, can’t do that, God’?

1. You have not given any argument that we are capable of judging what is petty or not.

Pettiness is a human concept, so I would say we are. You might even agree based on a reading of Genesis 2:19-20, in which Adam judges and names all created beings.

1. Based on your comparison of the stars with the human race, you seem to be judging importance based on size. Remember that just because something is small (even minute), it does not mean that it is petty. Do you really think that an enormous glowing mass is more important and less “petty” than a human who can think about himself and the world, make choices, do calculus, and create the atomic bomb? Just because it is physically larger?

A star is a hydrogen bomb, constantly exploding and feeding back on itself for billions of years. What are Hiroshima and Nagasaki next to that?

Now, true, size isn’t everything (and a good thing that, otherwise there’d be no argument at all!), and truth be told, we are pretty neat. But there is no reason at all to assume that we are the acme of Creation, the culmination of every event that has ever occurred.

1. If we cannot see the usefulness of something, it does not necessarily mean that it is petty. For example, tonsils. For years, doctors were removing these seemingly “useless” (and, I suppose, “petty”) tonsils. Now of course, science universally acknowledges their usefulness and purpose.

True.

1. God being omnipotent, how much effort do you think it requires for him to create the universe and everything in it and take care of it?
   He can do it in the blink of an eye.

1. If sometimes we take as much trouble for things that we care almost nothing about, (take stepping over an ant-hill, for example) than why is God not capable of creating the universe and everything in it and taking care of it?

Of course he would be; but ability does not indicate desire.

1. Which is superior, good or evil?

I place them on equal footing, and not a very high one at that (I do not hold with . Obviously I’d much rather do and be done the former, but that does not make it greater, only more preferable.

I think Aquinas does make some good (hah!) points with the ‘privation of good’ idea, but I find good to be so insubstantial that its shadow is just as real and just as ‘great’.

1. If good is superior to evil, why would not a perfect, supreme God do good only, and never evil?

That’s the problem with the Old Testament: good is held to be greater, but God doesn’t do good only.

geekborj:

What about light? Isn’t it both a particle and a wave in nature?

Been there.

Being so proud of the human Logic is principally the reason of our separation from our Creator. I would never dismiss something just because I don’t it understand yet.

Uh, wasn’t it established in the first post that I do not believe because I hold that Reason isn’t up to the task? I do not dismiss it, that’s why I’m a self-described agnostic.