S
Sparkythedog
Guest
Desirable is a subjective term. Desirable to whom? What are these qualities?
- Status
B
Beryllos
Guest
You (or your atheist conversation partner) have assumed that God, having no need, would also have no motive, and therefore would not create anything. I think this assumption is flawed. Is it not conceivable to you that your MGB could be capable of action?
S
SentinelofTruth
Guest
[QUOTESparkythedog]Desirable is a subjective term. Desirable to whom? What are these qualities?
A desireable quality is any quality which is objectively good.
A desireable quality is any quality which is objectively good.
W
wanstronian
Guest
It’s a bad argument and, I suspect, intended to be so. My guess is that its purpose is to show how flawed the ontological argument FOR God is… and it does a pretty good job of that.Was having a conversation with an atheist, and he proposed the following argument against God:
P1: If God exists (the MGB, maximally great being), then GodWorld is the unique BPW.
P2: If GodWorld is the unique BPW, then God would maintain GodWorld.
P3: GodWorld is false because the universe exists.
C: Therefore, God, as so defined, doesn’t exist
Basically, GodWorld is a world in which only God, the MGB, exists. If He were to create any non-God object, then that would be degrading the overall quality of the possible world by filling it with something with lesser properties, and so would be contradictory to the great-making properties of the MGB, as degrading something is a lesser-making property, as we can conceive of a being who would not degrade the overall quality. Therefore, He cannot exist.
Some responses would be great!
B
Back2Church
Guest
J
John_Q_Sinner
Guest
Christ who is fully God is also fully human. His humanity does not take away from His Divinity. Likewise, non-God objects do not take away from the existence of God’s BPW.Basically, GodWorld is a world in which only God, the MGB, exists. If He were to create any non-God object, then that would be degrading the overall quality of the possible world by filling it with something with lesser properties, and so would be contradictory to the great-making properties of the MGB, as degrading something is a lesser-making property, as we can conceive of a being who would not degrade the overall quality. Therefore, He cannot exist.
Some responses would be great!
The misunderstanding is thinking this is not the BPW simply because it is a mystery to us. A moral Being created a moral Universe. Not having beings which could participate in such a universe would not be the BPW.
S
Sparkythedog
Guest
Again, I don’t know what you mean by objectively good. God does many things, in the Bible, that I would consider pretty bad. He kills people, he allows for eternal torture, he demands blind obedience. Does this mean that the God of the Bible is not God because he certainly is not “objectively good”.
J
John_Q_Sinner
Guest
Would you consider the truth to be a bad thing if it resulted in a person getting hurt?
S
Sparkythedog
Guest
Example?
C
cpayne
Guest
Dear SoS: I think there is a problem with Premise 2. In what way is GodWorld (nontemporal, nonphysical) changed if a temporal and physical world also exists as an expression of the perfect and non-necessary love of God? I mean, in what way does the existence of our universe change God, if creation is non-necessary? It seems to me that it would change neither God nor GodWorld. Our universe would not exist in GodWorld, anyway. It’s like saying that the existence of three trees degrades the set of positive numbers because all three of the trees eventually die. The worlds don’t overlap, do they?
J
John_Q_Sinner
Guest
I don’t really need one since the question is a yes or no answer. You either believe truth can be bad or you don’t.
S
SentinelofTruth
Guest
Killing isn’t always a sin. There are some circumstances where it can be justified.
God doesn’t eternally torture anyone, he allows them to eternally torture themselves by choosing hell over Heaven.
God does not demand blind obedience. In fact, blind obedience is a sin.
S
Sparkythedog
Guest
Killing
In our society we justify the killing of another person when there is no other option available to us. But if I had God’s omnipotence, I would never need to kill anyone. I would always have a better option. In fact, if I had God’s power, I would set it up so that no one could ever kill or harm anyone else. Punching someone in the face would just make them happier.
Torture
If I’m a parent and I knowingly allow my child to drink bleach, would you say that I’m a bad parent? Suppose I warned them not to drink the bleach first but I left it in an accessible place anyways? I didn’t force the kid to drink bleach they did it to themselves.
Can you point to a place in your scriptures where it says that people torture themselves? I see some fire and brimstone, and worms that won’t die. But I don’t come across any self torture.
What is the point of eternal torture anyways? What does it accomplish?
Blind Obedience
Genesis 22
S
Sparkythedog
Guest
You said:
I don’t really understand what you mean, which is why I asked for an example. If you’re asking if telling the truth could be a bad thing if it hurts someone, then yes I would agree. For example, if the Nazis came to my door and asked if I was hiding someone (and I was), then telling the truth would be bad.
Is this what you mean?
And I said:
Then you said:
…and I’ll say:
I don’t really understand what you mean, which is why I asked for an example. If you’re asking if telling the truth could be a bad thing if it hurts someone, then yes I would agree. For example, if the Nazis came to my door and asked if I was hiding someone (and I was), then telling the truth would be bad.
Is this what you mean?
S
SentinelofTruth
Guest
There exists such a thing as suffering, and it’s for our own good. For more detail on this, see my first post in the thread “God’s will vs. free will”.
The torture I was talking about was the spiritual torture we could inflict on ourselves by going to hell.
(Acts 17:11): the Greeks of Beroea were more noble minded … for they received the message with great eagerness and carefully examined the Scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true.
S
Sparkythedog
Guest
I read your post but I still don’t understand. Why do you think we have no free will if we cannot hurt another person? I cannot jump over buildings or live at the bottom of the ocean or breath aluminum. If I can’t do those things does that mean I don’t have free will?
Oh ok. Then I’m not going to go to hell, I’ve decided to go somewhere else when I die. Maybe, I’ll just hang around on earth and see all the places I never got to go. It’s my choice right?
This is a non sequitur. How do you address the story about about Abraham being commanded to blindly follow God’s command? Are you saying that Abraham should have read Acts 17;11?
J
John_Q_Sinner
Guest
You’re close. I’m showing that something can still be objectively good even if it is harmful to us or our neighbor. In your example with the Nazi’s the fact that the truth can be harmful does not make the truth a bad thing, but rather it’s the abuse of this objectively good thing known as truth which could result in a bad thing; the death of the person you’re hiding. Obviously it would also be your duty to protect the truth from those who would abuse it or in Bible speak -“to not cast your pearls before swine”, and you not doing this could also result in bad thing. This does not mean we should lie, but that we should not fully disclose everything we know to those we know will abuse it.
Yet let’s go further and say the truth is sought by the person who wants to the abuse it, and let’s say the Nazis uncover the truth (despite your best efforst to protect it) and kill the people hiding in your house as well as yourself. Would these brutal actions which were the result of the abuse of truth, render the truth to be a bad thing even now that it has resulted in the deaths of those you’re hiding and yourself? The answer is…no.
S
Sparkythedog
Guest
I think I see where you’re coming from now. I have a feeling we might be implying the same thing but using different terms, though.
This is going to sound basic, but bear with me. I’m still confused on why you use the term “good” in “objectively good”. That there are people hiding in my attic is a fact. So that fact is necessarily true from all perspectives, which makes it objective. But the truth of that situation does not seem to be good in any way that I understand the meaning of that word. That truth seems neutral to me. It is neither good nor bad. It just is like the truth that there is a tree growing outside of my window. It’s the action of how one would use that truth that is good or bad, like killing the people in my attic or climbing the tree to break into my home.
So after all that, I guess my main question is, “What is your definition of the word good?”
S
SentinelofTruth
Guest
I don’t think we have no free will if we cannot hurt another person. That is not what I meant. The idea of suffering is so that we can grow in holiness.
Yes, it is your choice (though earth isn’t one of the choices). You choose your eternal destiny by your actions on earth.
Oh, I just realized you’re not catholic. I think the point of that story was Abraham’s failure. Sorry for not saying that in the last post.
J
John_Q_Sinner
Guest
Good: That which is not false.
- Status