The God of Chaos

[John_Savage]

I was trying to explain how a natural law flows logically from a created, ordered, purposeful universe. My friend then said this:

If there is a god, can you explain how it is logical that there is a moral order? It would be important for you to also demonstrate that this is the only logical possibility.

The only reason you think this is because you worship the Christian god. If you worshiped a god of chaos you’d be making a different argument. Basically, you’re taking a position based on faith and not logic and reason. But i would like to see the underlying argument anyway.

By the way the responses to the first mover argument are still insufficient. Try again.

Kind of different. I thought you guys might think it fun.

 

[Pugsly]

I was trying to explain how a natural law flows logically from a created, ordered, purposeful universe. My friend then said this:

Kind of different. I thought you guys might think it fun.

This is one of those thread topics best suited for skilled Catholic apologists…but may I put in one idea edge-wise…the prima-facia evidence of great power allowing frail weakness to co-exist…points to a benevolent power–mercy. In short, the fact that we exist in this world is a sign of great mercy on it’s face.

 

[JerryZ]

I was trying to explain how a natural law flows logically from a created, ordered, purposeful universe. My friend then said this:

Kind of different. I thought you guys might think it fun.

Interesting when you mentioned “God of Chaos” I was reminded of one of the properties of the universe we live in called “enthropy”
Indeed the natural order if for complex to degenerate to simpler this is one of the laws of physics and yet here we are obnoxiously complex organism with more brain capacity than necessary, talk about wasted brain power. Where that came from?
So this universe has produced negative enthopy results since it aggregated complex from simpler.
And of course all this was just random throw of the dice!
Any one wants to buy a seaside resort in Arizona?

 

[Anthony_V]

I was trying to explain how a natural law flows logically from a created, ordered, purposeful universe. My friend then said this:

Kind of different. I thought you guys might think it fun.

God is constant because he is the pure act of to-be; the ground of being; being-in-itself. That is not taken by faith in the sense that your friend is insisting, but by logic. Logic, in its basic form, is merely consistency that can be detected intelligibly in retrospect. God is that consistency in and of itself. Therefore, it would seem God is not only logical, but the source of logic, reason, and, as St. John said, the Logos.

God is, by virtue of being uncreated, eternally “first”, and necessary as being-in-itself, the axis and origin to which all created things are oriented. Disorientation from communicating that act of being (for our Trinitarian God, the act of being**-in-love**) is called evil. The moral order does not exist as something apart from God, per se. Rather, it is a nominal term used to depict our orientation or disorientation toward God insofar as we are in his image and likeness (telos).

Love, for the record, is “to will the good of another”, as St. Thomas Aquinas puts it. The moral law, as it concerns us, is to love God. That is, to will the good of God, which is to will the will of God. This entails an odd sort of active submission.

 

[bzkoss236]

“If there is a god, can you explain how it is logical that there is a moral order? It would be important for you to also demonstrate that this is the only logical possibility.”

I don’t entirely understand this question. But if he’s asking how can morality exist because of God, then this is my answer.

Without God, there can be no absolute morality. Subjective morality can exist, because people have their own opinions, but they are just that… opinions. Subjective morality is not something to base laws on, especially if you believe there to be things that are objectively immoral. Terms like right and wrong typically imply an absolute, just as when something is true or false. In any given circumstance, there can only be a right or a wrong, true or a false. Either something happened, or didn’t happen. So, it is illogical to call something such as rape wrong if there is subjective immorality, because for the one committing the rape, he may see it as okay and a good thing to do.

There are documentaries on pedophiles who believe they are providing a good service to both the child and the parents and that their attraction to children is no different than a homosexual being attracted to the same gender. But everyone else thinks rape and pedophilia to be wrong and immoral. The question then becomes, is it absolutely immoral to rape someone or to sexually abuse children, or is it only subjectively immoral and is considered wrong because the majority say it is wrong? If you believe that it is subjectively immoral, then you have to admit that in a different culture it would be considered okay to do such things, and that even if you visited this different culture, you would have to be okay with it too, because that is their culture and you do not have the right to change it. However, if you find it absolutely immoral, then you are admitting that there is a moral standard above the human opinion, and therefore, admit that this absolute morality has to come from somewhere. And then you go on to admit that morality cannot come from a lifeless object, because it does not think, nor does it care, thereby admitting that it must be a living and thinking being, even if not in our understanding of what a being might be. This living and thinking being is God. If this is the case as well, then you have to ask yourself about what other absolute morals are there that are not subject to opinion of the masses?

So, the an answer to if their is or isn’t a God depends on your view of morality. Is there only subjective, or also absolute?

There is also an explanation of there being only one God instead of many given absolute morality.

 

[Pugsly]

“If there is a god, can you explain how it is logical that there is a moral order? It would be important for you to also demonstrate that this is the only logical possibility.”

I don’t entirely understand this question. But if he’s asking how can morality exist because of God, then this is my answer.

Without God, there can be no absolute morality. Subjective morality can exist, because people have their own opinions, but they are just that… opinions. Subjective morality is not something to base laws on, especially if you believe there to be things that are objectively immoral. Terms like right and wrong typically imply an absolute, just as when something is true or false. In any given circumstance, there can only be a right or a wrong, true or a false. Either something happened, or didn’t happen. So, it is illogical to call something such as rape wrong if there is subjective immorality, because for the one committing the rape, he may see it as okay and a good thing to do.

There are documentaries on pedophiles who believe they are providing a good service to both the child and the parents and that their attraction to children is no different than a homosexual being attracted to the same gender. But everyone else thinks rape and pedophilia to be wrong and immoral. The question then becomes, is it absolutely immoral to rape someone or to sexually abuse children, or is it only subjectively immoral and is considered wrong because the majority say it is wrong? If you believe that it is subjectively immoral, then you have to admit that in a different culture it would be considered okay to do such things, and that even if you visited this different culture, you would have to be okay with it too, because that is their culture and you do not have the right to change it. However, if you find it absolutely immoral, then you are admitting that there is a moral standard above the human opinion, and therefore, admit that this absolute morality has to come from somewhere. And then you go on to admit that morality cannot come from a lifeless object, because it does not think, nor does it care, thereby admitting that it must be a living and thinking being, even if not in our understanding of what a being might be. This living and thinking being is God. If this is the case as well, then you have to ask yourself about what other absolute morals are there that are not subject to opinion of the masses?

So, the an answer to if their is or isn’t a God depends on your view of morality. Is there only subjective, or also absolute?

There is also an explanation of there being only one God instead of many given absolute morality.

This is a well thought out…good presentation of morality hinged on absolute truth hinged on the existence of God.

 

[empther]

Simply stated,

God created the universe for a purpose. The purpose is that human persons be united with him for eternity. But this requires a moral order.

Don’t expect your friend to accept that.
He say Aquinas’ first mover argument is still insufficient “Try again”

There’s no use talking to somebody like that.

 

[John_Savage]

I think his point is that the existence of God doesn’t necessarily lead to a moral order. Another possibility, according to him, is that God created the universe, but designed it with no moral order or that He created a chaotic universe.

 

[jbeck43]

I was trying to explain how a natural law flows logically from a created, ordered, purposeful universe. My friend then said this:

Kind of different. I thought you guys might think it fun.

The question presupposes a rational universe in order for him to pose the question.* However the question isn’t valid.* It’s like asking if you didn’t read English would you understand this question?** Because you read English, the supposition is invalid.* And because he already understands the potency of a rational argument, then by his own standard, the universe is not irrational, and a reasonable God must therefore exist.

And why not a grand mover?* Since we’re all rational here, simply saying that it’s a non-starter isn’t reasonable either.* So what’s a good reason against Thomistic philosophy?

 

[Anthony_V]

The question presupposes a rational universe in order for him to pose the question.* However the question isn’t valid.* It’s like asking if you didn’t read English would you understand this question?** Because you read English, the supposition is invalid.* And because he already understands the potency of a rational argument, then by his own standard, the universe is not irrational, and a reasonable God must therefore exist.

And why not a grand mover?* Since we’re all rational here, simply saying that it’s a non-starter isn’t reasonable either.* So what’s a good reason against Thomistic philosophy?

I think he’s trying to rationalize a priori, not a posteriori. What is the logical mechanism that apparently causes the universe, and thus our conception of God, to require some sort of logical consistency? Why can I think about thinking about what I am thinking?

But I could be wrong.

 

[jbeck43]

I think he’s trying to rationalize a priori, not a posteriori. What is the logical mechanism that apparently causes the universe, and thus our conception of God, to require some sort of logical consistency? Why can I think about thinking about what I am thinking?

But I could be wrong.