Since one of the most accepted defining characteristics of God, whether existent or not, is that he is omniscient, the question;
…seriously pegs the scale of arrogance.
Okay, so God knows everything (Either this is at odds with your previous definition of “God,” or you have a very different understanding of what constitutes reality than most. I wasn’t aware that reality could know itself.
). This means he can tell me how the universe is. His omniscience, however, doesn’t make his opinion of how the universe should be any better than my own. It’s God’s desires against mine, and all you have on your side is favoritism. 
The *telos *(end) of all the virtues is the same: happiness. Depriving oneself of enjoyment (or leisure) would be a lack in temperance, which would tend away from happiness. Focusing one’s entire life on enjoyment would destroy the capacity for enjoyment altogether, over time – another lack in temperance.
The standard: simply that you believe in Jesus Christ crucified and risen. If you believe, then He will provide you the ability to live up to His standards, and more. (People have tried this, and it actually works).
It’s like a parent who always leaves the door open for his delinquent child to come back, but of course the child cannot return without humbling himself.
What do you mean?
Whether P is true depends on one’s standard of evidence (how probable something has to be before it is considered true). I would say it is, yes.
Technically, I would say that ethics fall under (b).
It’s good that you recognize that. You’re one of the few.
I fail to see how my criticism of intuition as evidence could apply to other kinds of evidence. Could you elaborate?But all these latter questions could be used by someone claiming that the world was flat. They could apply as a criticism of any argument, however true.
Why should anyone believe that? Oh wait…I’m sure you have preconceptions about what God will ask of you and what he won’t ask, so your loyalty isn’t as pure as it looks.One word: eschatology. No believer ever lacks reason to obey.
Definitions of “best”:
As for (1), what is excellent (and what is most excellent) seems to be a matter of opinion, though I could pull up a definition of “excellent” if you wish.
I’ll check it out when I have the time.
If Reality cannot know itself, who possibly could???Okay, so God knows everything (Either this is at odds with your previous definition of “God,” or you have a very different understanding of what constitutes reality than most. I wasn’t aware that reality could know itself.
NO ONE can tell you ANY thing unless you listen and comprehend, even God as such would be a logical contradiction.
Hahahaha… Gyyaahd…His omniscience, however, doesn’t make his opinion of how the universe should be any better than my own. It’s God’s desires against mine, and all you have on your side is favoritism.
I’m not so sure. Do you think that all pleasures result in this “numbing” effect? To put it simply, I think it’s apparent to both of us that some things just don’t get old. The key is finding the most efficient way to concentrate on those inexhaustible things without depriving others of the same opportunity.
…and if I don’t, I’ll burn in Hell. Don’t worry, I know you don’t hold any antagonism toward me, I just think your otherwise comforting remark has a nasty flip-side to it that you, among others, intentionally leave out.The standard: simply that you believe in Jesus Christ crucified and risen. If you believe, then He will provide you the ability to live up to His standards, and more. (People have tried this, and it actually works).
Wouldn’t the truly caring parent call the police before the child gets hurt? I’m don’t think the inaction in this situation can be justified, much less in God’s.
I’m comparing “life or death” to “Heaven or Hell.” The doctor gives you two choices: become dependent on him for the antidote or die without him. This is much like God’s own ultimatum: depend on him for your future happiness or be damned without him (which is to say, “suffer severely”).
The doctor didn’t create you and the universe that you live in that you are already entirely 100% dependent upon.I’m comparing “life or death” to “Heaven or Hell.” The doctor gives you two choices: become dependent on him for the antidote or die without him. This is much like God’s own ultimatum: depend on him for your future happiness or be damned without him (which is to say, “suffer severely”).
Why not allow everyone to be saved by default? Would that be too easy?
Well that certainly explains a lot.
That’s alright. Take your time.
By the way, don’t get yourself all up in arms about the “wise fool” comment above. I just seemed to recall that you are in 10th grade, and the etymology of “sophomore” is oh-so-irresistible. (Look it up, if you don’t know it already). I won’t say if I find the designation apropos, although I will say that I was more -*mor *than sopho- when I was your age.
Something they seldom teach that might come in handy to know is that the distinction between the mature and the immature is whether the person is really addressing true need, or merely trying to handle authoritative credit and blame.
He’s both. Anything that causes goodness is, by definition, a moral agent.
But, for Kant, considering oneself an end is a *rational *consideration. Animals act with consideration for their pleasures and pains (at best), and pleasures and pains are distinct (for Kant) from their welfare. In other words, it is a different thing to consider a) yourself, a conglomeration of experiences, and b) your self, a being in time who has absolute worth.
I said that the question was lacking in humility, not arrogant. The fact is that we all say such things to/about God sometimes; it just takes some chutzpah to such a thing aloud. As James said, if God knows everything and God is good, God knows what is best for you – and you would be best to agree with Him.So it’s a sign of arrogance to ask a question? It looks like the Catholics are showing their true colors today.
A matter of semantics. If opinion is synonymous with belief, then I agree that God has opinions. But, in my mind, opinion has powerful connotations in the history of philosophy (look up the word doxa) which go far beyond the boundaries of belief.
Tgdsq (sp?) proposed that the objectivity of morality should be posited axiomatically.
“Sally is justified in believing her husband has gone to work” is not a prediction. Hence the words “is justified”.
(b) was: “they are (among other things) reactions to perceptions, which is trivially true.” But notice “among other things”. They are also perceptions of the objective nature of the world.
The questions you asked: “Wouldn’t you say that others who propose different standards aren’t sensing the ideal world? Are they the deluded ones who aren’t seeing reality as it is, or is it you who is deluded?”
Of *course *you can question whether I’m sensing the nature of reality or I am just imagining it! But that does not amount to an argument that the nature of reality does not include ethical realities.You’re right that I have preconceptions – just like you have preconceptions about what your mother will ask of you. God may not fit into my preconceptions of Him, and that is where I will experience challenges, even crises. The key here, though, is that my relation to God is a relationship. It is my choice to obey him, just as it was my choice to obey my mother and father, when I was a boy. But I have powerfully convincing reasons to think that He knows better than I do.
And everyone has things they won’t do, even if their mother tells them to. This is not an argument that proves that the mother (or God) will tell them to cross that line. Being told to cross that line would be an empirical experience, that would change their idea of God. Whether the relationship would withstand such a challenge is an interesting question. I will agree, at least, that many Christians prefer their own limited idea of God (internal) to the overwhelming reality of God (external).
What is the best explanation for our perceived planetary motions? Is it that the planets all revolve around the earth? Of course not. There is, objectively, a best explanation, one that excels all others. If there is not, then all science is vanity.
Every human pleasure gets old when overused. It gives you less and less each time you go to the well, unless you moderate it.
I make no such claim. I live in hope that all humanity will humble themselves before God, and that God will receive us all into His presence eternally. It will be a painful process for some. But, at the same time, I know the terrible reality of my own sin, and I am wary lest I prefer anything else to God. Because I know less than God, and (if I betray Him) hell could be a reality for me.
Not if pain is the only thing that will humble him, and bring him home. Parenting is not protecting your children from their own mistakes – that is codependency.
Why not invite thieves and murderers into your beautiful home?
Well, if God is goodness, then saying that God causes goodness is trivial. Most of the time, when we speak of moral agents, we are referring to entities that are subjected to an ethical standard of some sort, not ethical standards in themselves. You see, in order for you to say, “God is good,” you would have to apply the ethical standard (God) to God. In effect, you’re using the principle of goodness to determine its own goodness. That’s like using a mathematical property to prove itself. You might as well say “God’s goodness is axiomatic.” If you can admit that, then that’s great. We can both admit that our ethical systems rely on axioms and that we can’t simply use reason alone to reach ethical conclusions.
This is exactly the kind of ambiguity I was talking about. How do we determine “welfare?” Or, if you prefer, how do you think Kant would determine what state counts as ‘well-being’ and which states do not? Again, this seems subjective to the core…
And here I thought arrogance was considered the negation (or, in some frameworks, the opposite) of humility.
But I don’t believe that God is good. That is, I don’t believe the character expressed by your theology would satisfy my conception of a “good person.”
I already do (and have).
I’m sorry, Officer. I didn’t mean nuthin’ by it. Honest Ize didn’t.
And I disagree. We don’t posit the existence of any other objects as axiomatic. That honor is reserved for our senses (we assume that our senses are relaying accurate information of the contents of the external world). If you trust your senses, the objects follow, no axioms required (other than the trust in senses). Why should morality be any different?
My bad. I thought you said, “Sally is justified in believing her husband will arrive at work.” Still, this statement is not prescriptive. It doesn’t suggest what should be done, and we could determine its truth value (eventually). It’s still an assertion of what is done, not what should be done.
Of course. Most people don’t feel that theft is wrong until they become familiar with the idea by being subjected to it, i. e., by having a possession of theirs stolen. Similarly, most people don’t think much of life until a relative or someone they are close to passes away (which usually occurs at an early age). Notice, however, that this information would not form an ethic without the emotional response. “My mother has died” is not to say, “My mother should not have died.” The emotions must be present.
In your common sense! If your rights were violated you would complain bitterly. The rejection of rights is an intellectual conceit which does not correspond to the reality of daily life. They are not an idle luxury but a necessity of existence in society. Amorality leads to anarchy…
But these people are making claims about the actual world, something everyone who has their senses intact can detect. You’re positing a mysterious “intuition” that allows us to begin with certain knowledge about the “ideal” world. But since everyone has a different conception of this ideal world, we have good reason to doubt the reliability of this intuition. How do we tell if your intuitive capacity is functioning properly? We can tell if someone’s color-blind, because most of us see the same colors (and we have sciences dedicated to the topic). How do we tell if someone’s “moral-blind,” if you will? Couldn’t they claim that you’re blind to their morals?The questions you asked: “Wouldn’t you say that others who propose different standards aren’t sensing the ideal world? Are they the deluded ones who aren’t seeing reality as it is, or is it you who is deluded?”
These could apply to people saying the earth is flat, or people who deny the law of gravity.
There are differences: I don’t declare my mom to be infallible, nor do I give her a god-like role in my life. I take her to be exactly what she is. If she requests that I do something absurd, I’ll object.
It’s good that you recognize that serving God is your choice, and not the default position of all humans. I guess we just have different tastes in leaders, then. Personally, I wouldn’t put someone on such a pedestal that I would consider their authority above my own reasoning. After all, was it not my reasoning that elected them to lead me in the first place?
Would you share these reasons?
That’s not the point I was trying to make. I’m just saying that, ultimately, each person regards their opinion as being above those of others. It’s contradictory to consider God above your reasoning whenever that same reasoning led you to follow God in the first place! Either your opinion is miserably fallible, or it is not. And if you think it is, then you must concede that that opinion is also miserably fallible, and so on. See, without trusting your ability to reason, you can’t even determine that you’re unreasonable!
Even obedient sheep have to trust their own judgments (what few they have, anyway).You’re comparing apples and oranges. In this case, excellence can be measured.
Hmm…I suspect that you’re narrowing the meaning of “pleasure” here. Does the satisfaction of, say, going to Church ever get old? Does the satisfaction caused by being proud of one’s children decline over time?
Is God so petty that he would take offense at these inevitable betrayals?
But God could humble people without inflicting or allowing pain. If he is what you say, he only needs to show himself to accomplish this feat. I would be converted instantaneously. And the best part is that the classic Christian objection of “this would violate our free will” doesn’t work here. So why does he not reveal himself to me so that I can form an opinion of him, instead of just listening to the hearsay of his followers?Not if pain is the only thing that will humble him, and bring him home. Parenting is not protecting your children from their own mistakes – that is codependency.
Is God unable to prevent thievery and murder in his home? If the criminals can’t misbehave, then God doesn’t have to worry about them trashing the place or disturbing other guests. He can pacify and please them without even trying, so this excuse doesn’t impress me. Omnipotence leads to the greatest moral obligations of all. I mean, if a human had such power, you would expect him to put it to good use, would you not? You would probably chastise him for any slacking as well. So why not hold God to the same standard?
Hobbes considered the state to be God. In Hobbes’ view it is the state that grants rights to its citizens and can revoke rights. No so in Grotius’ view. He was a natural rights and natural law theorist.