Thanks for the response. I find it interesting that even if God showed Himself to you, there would still be things He would need to do in order for you to consider Him worthy of your worship and love. It sounds like you wouldn’t follow God unless He was exactly like yourself. Makes you wonder why God would show Himself to a person who wouldn’t accept anything as God but themselves.Sorry to sound vague, but my answer is “it depends”. If he would order me to go and kill the worshippers of some “false god”, then I would refuse. If he would order me to give all my possessions away to the poor, then I would comply. However, as I look at the world as it exists today, I would not feel inclined to worship God. If he could explain why this world is “optimal” (that is not even omnipotence could make it better) then I would reconsider. But the chance of that is slim to none.
They are, of course, capable of rejecting him.
I don’t think it is. The attributes associate with the word “God” have differed by religion, denomination, or even people within the same denomination from person to person. Many times in ways that are not compatible with each other (see ignostic). Even if you met the entity that was the “true” God that scenario doesn’t tell you which true God we are talking about, what his/her/its attributes are, or anything else.Thanks for the response. I find it interesting that even if God showed Himself to you, there would still be things He would need to do in order for you to consider Him worthy of your worship and love.
This was not what I proposed in my “what if”. The hypothetical was would serious accept the true God if He showed Himself to be such. The responce I receive from Serious - from what I can tell - was even if God showed Himself to be the true God; if Serious didn’t like the way in which the true God was or the way in which the true God did things then they would still reject said God.I don’t think it is. The attributes associate with the word “God” have differed by religion, denomination, or even people within the same denomination from person to person. Many times in ways that are not compatible with each other (see ignostic). Even if you met the entity that was the “true” God that scenario doesn’t tell you which true God we are talking about, what his/her/its attributes are, or anything else.
You are completely mistaken in your conclusion. I try to behave as I imagine The True God would behave. I have this “weird” idea that God should be decent, loving, helpful, kind, just, etc… There is nothing especially “me” about it. And I try to live up to those standards. Sometimes I fail, for sure, but I try.Thanks for the response. I find it interesting that even if God showed Himself to you, there would still be things He would need to do in order for you to consider Him worthy of your worship and love. It sounds like you wouldn’t follow God unless He was exactly like yourself. Makes you wonder why God would show Himself to a person who wouldn’t accept anything as God but themselves.
Serious: A married bachelor existsOnly by your definiton. Someone else may use a different definition, and then what? One can use the definition that only the devil allows you to do anything and everything without fear of repercussions, and that is the greatest possible pleasure and joy. This view is also logically coherent. And just because a view is logically consistent, it is not worth to consider, if it is totally unfounded.
Using an arbitrary set of axioms you can prove anything and everything in that axiomatic system. It does not have to do anything with reality.
Decent, loving, helpful, kind, just, etc… According to whom? Are you the source of knowledge and understanding when it comes to decency, love, kindness, helpfulness, and justice? If yes, then how are you not seeking a God that is made in your own image? If not, then why are you imposing on God a standard He must meet regarding these qualities you are neither a source nor an authority on? If God’s version of love or any of the other qualities differed from your own would you admit your error and conform to His, given God is the source of all truth, love, decency, kindness, justice, etc.?You are completely mistaken in your conclusion. I try to behave as I imagine The True God would behave. I have this “weird” idea that God should be decent, loving, helpful, kind, just, etc… There is nothing especially “me” about it. And I try to live up to those standards. Sometimes I fail, for sure, but I try.
What if God gave you the explanation and you knew it to be the truth but did not like it. Would you worship God? They say the truth hurts; so if it hurt your perception would you still accept it?If God would just manifest himself and (true to form) would refuse the explanation, then I would have to go with the available evidence, and decide that “this” God is totally unworthy of veneration or love.
Would you accept it if this mighty being was the source of all truth?After all I do not accept the “might makes right” type of “morality”.
Not all of the Christians believe the second one; Catholics for one only believe those who truly have been able to know God but have chosen to reject him are the ones who are in Hell. Your idea that there are souls in Hell who are there through no fault of their own is incompatible with the Catholic God.What could he do in this case?
Of these options the chrisitans believe that second one is what God chooses, which is the most cruel and unjust option. So why should I “worship” a vengeful, unjust, cruel God? Out of fear, maybe?
- Brainwash me, and make me love him. (Allegedly God would not do that)
- Punish me for going by the available evidence, either temporarily or forever.
- Or maybe snuff me out like a candle. (Allegedly God cannot do that)
This is getting tedious. If you think that someone cannot consider the devil “good”, because they devil’s goodness is a “married bachelor”, then there is no use of continuing. Keep on banging your head… You based your argument on a bunch of unsupported premises. I showed you that unsupported premises can be replaced wuth other unsupported ones, and the “truth” value does not change. Now you start mumbling about “married bachelors”. My patience is exhausted.Serious: A married bachelor exists
Danserr: By definition a bachelor is someone who is unmarried. Therefore the concept of a married bachelor is incoherent
Serious: Only by your definition. I define a bachelor as a grizzled old sailor with a peg leg and a talking parrot named John. Therefore, a married bachelor can exist.
Danserr: :banghead:
According to you, me and everyone else. These concepts are not so esoteric that they need special explanation. Such “questions” are not helpful. I answered your questions.Decent, loving, helpful, kind, just, etc… According to whom?
Well, it would depend - again. For example, God could tell that all the suffering were explicitly created by him, because he enjoys to see the suffering of people. It could be the truth, but it would not make me willing to “worship” God. We already went through this.What if God gave you the explanation and you knew it to be the truth but did not like it.
Not according to the cathecism, which explictly says that “lack of belief (atheism) is a mortal sin, if one heard the arguments, and still rejects them”. It does not matter if one honestly believes that the arguments are wrong. One is not allowed to use one’s best judgment (conscience) if it deviates from the church’s teachings.Not all of the Christians believe the second one; Catholics for one only believe those who truly have been able to know God but have chosen to reject him are the ones who are in Hell. Your idea that there are souls in Hell who are there through no fault of their own is incompatible with the Catholic God.
So you beleive an objective moral law exists? If not then do you believe in certain things to be morally right based on the opinon of the majority? If so why? If not, why not? If not then what did you mean by “me and according to everyone else”? Who is everyone else? If everyone else is all of us then why are we still arguing about what is moral and what isn’t if we all know what is moral?According to you, me and everyone else. These concepts are not so esoteric that they need special explanation.
Such questions are very helpful. If you believe an objective moral law exists -seperate from God- which gives the standard for the qualities you listed, and that this standard can help us determine whether or not such a God could truly be said to be a loving, decent, kind, helpful, and just, then I want to know about it. Where can I find it? How did you come across it?Such “questions” are not helpful. I answered your questions
What if God told you that suffering was the optimal way to ensure perfect loving humans? What if I told you that fire purifies gold, or the compressing coal would make a diamond? Are these imperfect means of affecting such changes? Is there a more perfect means of purifying gold or creating diamonds? Could it be you’re mistaken when you view suffering to be intrinsically evil?Well, it would depend - again. For example, God could tell that all the suffering were explicitly created by him, because he enjoys to see the suffering of people. It could be the truth, but it would not make me willing to “worship” God. We already went through this.
Could you provide the part of the catechim which states this. When I looked through the catechims under atheism I was unable to find the definition you provided.Not according to the cathecism, which explictly says that “lack of belief (atheism) is a mortal sin, if one heard the arguments, and still rejects them”. It does not matter if one honestly believes that the arguments are wrong. One is not allowed to use one’s best judgment (conscience) if it deviates from the church’s teachings.
Here are the definitions I use. If yours are different, there is no reason to continue.So you beleive an objective moral law exists?
Answered above.Such questions are very helpful. If you believe an objective moral law exists -seperate from God- which gives the standard for the qualities you listed, and that this standard can help us determine whether or not such a God could truly be said to be a loving, decent, kind, helpful, and just, then I want to know about it. Where can I find it? How did you come across it?
That is exactly what I was talking about before. If God could “prove” to me (not simply “tell” me) that the amount of pain, suffering and misery is the optimal way, then I would accept it. After all a proof is something that cannot be denied. Of course God would have an awful hard time to prove that even one less Jew being sent to gas chamber would have “spoiled” some “greater good”. Or that one extra rain (which would have prevented famine) would have prevented some other “greater good” to materialize. But he is welcome to try.What if God told you that suffering was the optimal way to ensure perfect loving humans? What if I told you that fire purifies gold, or the compressing coal would make a diamond? Are these imperfect means of affecting such changes? Is there a more perfect means of purifying gold or creating diamonds?
Since I never said that suffering is intrinsically evil, you are barking up the wrong tree. However I am saying that “unnecessary or gratuitous suffering” IS intrinsically evil.Could it be you’re mistaken when you view suffering to be intrinsically evil?
Not from the top of my head. But, rest assured, it is there. It was quoted to me. A quick search led to Veritatis Splendor:Could you provide the part of the catechim which states this. When I looked through the catechims under atheism I was unable to find the definition you provided.
Veritatis Splendor said:“With the whole tradition of the Church, we call mortal sin the act by which man freely and consciously rejects God, his law, the covenant of love that God offers, preferring to turn in on himself or to some created and finite reality, something contrary to the divine will (conversto ad creaturam). This can occur in a direct and formal way, in the sins of idolatry, apostasy and atheism; or in an equivalent way, as in every act of disobedience to God’s commandments in a grave matter”
If some of these rules (morals) persist across many societies and many times then how can they not be said to be both absolute and objective? Saying *“decency, love, caring, justice, etc…” *is very vague Serious, since what is considiered decent, loving, caring, just, etc… can mean different things to different people. So, the question still remains; God has to be decent, loving, caring, kind, just, etc…accroding to whom? Where is your source for these morals which have persisted across many societies and many times? If we are to go deeper into what love is according to this “source” of yours what would it say “love” is? And can your source prove it has the authority to set such a moral standard? Is the length of time and the amount of people who have accepted these things your “source” for true morality?Here are the definitions I use. If yours are different, there is no reason to continue.
Objective = existing apart from the subjective opinion of individuals. Yes, of course.
Absolute = unchanging across all times and cultures. No, absolutely not.
Morality = the set of written and unwritten rules in a specific society at a specific time, which describe the socially accepted human behavior.
Some of these rules persist across many societies and many times. Decency, loving, caring, etc… are examples of them.
Good to know.That is exactly what I was talking about before. If God could “prove” to me (not simply “tell” me) that the amount of pain, suffering and misery is the optimal way, then I would accept it.
By doing this aren’t you setting certain requirments God has to play by based on your perception of what you beleive to be right and wrong, good and bad? Have you ever thought that things are permitted not because they create a greater good but because they do not have the power to divert the greater good?Of course God would have an awful hard time to prove that even one less Jew being sent to gas chamber would have “spoiled” some “greater good”. Or that one extra rain (which would have prevented famine) would have prevented some other “greater good” to materialize. But he is welcome to try.
My apologies! Could you tell me what is unnecessary or gratuitous suffering or could you only give me what you believe to be unnecessary and gratuitous suffering?Since I never said that suffering is intrinsically evil, you are barking up the wrong tree. However I am saying that “unnecessary or gratuitous suffering” IS intrinsically evil.
I provided the link to the catechism ini my previous post, so you didn’t have to get it off the top of your head dear friend. Just to let you know the words atheism and* mortal sin *were nowhere found next to each other. In fact the word mortal sin wasn’t found anywhere in the entire article. Huh.Not from the top of my head. But, rest assured, it is there. It was quoted to me.
Still not seeing where it claims it is a mortal sin.A quick search led to Veritatis Splendor:
In the section you looked you could find at the end:
2140 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the first commandment.
Originally Posted by danserr View Post
Serious: A married bachelor exists
Danserr: By definition a bachelor is someone who is unmarried. Therefore the concept of a married bachelor is incoherent
Serious: Only by your definition. I define a bachelor as a grizzled old sailor with a peg leg and a talking parrot named John. Therefore, a married bachelor can exist.
Danserr: :banghead:
More specifically, your suggestion that following God could lead to eternal misery since God is not the source of all goodness is comparable to claiming the existence of a “married bachelor.” This is because God is by definition a being worthy of worship and if following a being resulted in eternal misery, the that being would not be worthy of worship and hence not be God. Your attempt to redefine God to avoid this would be just like trying to redefine the word bachelor so that you could claim that a married bachelor could exist.This is getting tedious. If you think that someone cannot consider the devil “good”, because they devil’s goodness is a “married bachelor”, then there is no use of continuing. Keep on banging your head… You based your argument on a bunch of unsupported premises. I showed you that unsupported premises can be replaced wuth other unsupported ones, and the “truth” value does not change. Now you start mumbling about “married bachelors”. My patience is exhausted.
Why do you ask the same question over and over again?If some of these rules (morals) persist across many societies and many times then how can they not be said to be both absolute and objective?
No, it does not.Saying *“decency, love, caring, justice, etc…” *is very vague Serious, since what is considiered decent, loving, caring, just, etc… can mean different things to different people.
Huh? What the heck are you talking about? Suffering can be logically necessary in some instances if it leads to some “greater good”, which cannot be achieved otherwise.By doing this aren’t you setting certain requirments God has to play by based on your perception of what you beleive to be right and wrong, good and bad? Have you ever thought that things are permitted not because they create a greater good but because they do not have the power to divert the greater good?
I already did.My apologies! Could you tell me what is unnecessary or gratuitous suffering or could you only give me what you believe to be unnecessary and gratuitous suffering?
Read it closer.I provided the link to the catechism ini my previous post, so you didn’t have to get it off the top of your head dear friend. Just to let you know the words atheism and* mortal sin *were nowhere found next to each other. In fact the word mortal sin wasn’t found anywhere in the entire article. Huh.
Boy, you are persistent, aren’t you? No, God is defined as being the creator of the universe. Even that is only your unsubstantiated contention and this ALLEGED act is not logically worthy of worship.This is because God is by definition a being worthy of worship and if following a being resulted in eternal misery, the that being would not be worthy of worship and hence not be God.
Some times you have to repeat the same thing. So what societies did you get your morals from and why those societies?Why do you ask the same question over and over again?
Absolute means across “ALL societies and ALL times” - which is not the same as “MANY societies and MANY times”. I am sure you are smart enough to see the difference. I am tired to be bogged down in repeating the same things.
Really? Some think abortion is an act of love, because the baby won’t have to grow up in an environment in where it isn’t wanted. Some think abortion is an act of mercy for rape victims so they won’t have to go through the trauma of seeing the child of their rapist. Some think abortion is pure evil and that the only true act of love would be to have the child. Love, decency, kindness, justice, and etc. do NOT mean the same thing to everyone.No, it does not.
So only when it comes to things you can’t comprehend, does suffering become unnecessary and gratuitous.Huh? What the heck are you talking about? Suffering can be logically necessary in some instances if it leads to some “greater good”, which cannot be achieved otherwise.
I did, and still can’t find where the Church has deemed atheism as an automatic mortal sin.Read it closer.
Not so. The ancient Romans worshipped many gods - among them Mars, Venus, Vulcan, Bacchus, the Lares and Penates (so-called ‘household gods’). None of the ones I’ve names was credited with creating the universe, yet all were accounted gods. Likewise Hindus with Rama, Ganesh, Krishna, Hanuman and so on, or the ancient Egyptians with Isis, Osiris Horus et al.Boy, you are persistent, aren’t you? No, God is defined as being the creator of the universe. Even that is only your unsubstantiated contention and this ALLEGED act is not logically worthy of worship.
You or God or anyone else are most welcome to explain why I am wrong. Stop the generalities get down to the details and be SPECIFIC. Show me what greater good was achieved by the Holocuast, and how would that greater good be thwarted if just one Jew would have been spared of the torture and the gas chamber. Show me what greater good came out from a thug who kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered a small girl. Show me how a random heart attack (induced by God) would have made the world much worse, if that kidnapping, rape, torture and murder never happened.So only when it comes to things you can’t comprehend, does suffering become unnecessary and gratuitous.
Trying to derail?Not so. The ancient Romans worshipped many gods - among them Mars, Venus, Vulcan, Bacchus, the Lares and Penates (so-called ‘household gods’). None of the ones I’ve names was credited with creating the universe, yet all were accounted gods. Likewise Hindus with Rama, Ganesh, Krishna, Hanuman and so on, or the ancient Egyptians with Isis, Osiris Horus et al.
Trying to point out that your definition of ‘god’ as ‘creator of the universe’ is totally wrong. You are the one who thought the definition was important enough to mention it, not me.Trying to derail?
I was under the impression that we talk about the “Christian God”.Trying to point out that your definition of ‘god’ as ‘creator of the universe’ is totally wrong. You are the one who thought the definition was important enough to mention it, not me.
Why do you think that being worshipped is dependent of being worthy of worship?So mind accurately telling us what DOES make a god a god if not the fact that they are worthy of worship?