Atheism And Moral Progress

[JimL]

His own nature, i.e, God can't be other than He is.

So, god is not omnipotent? Btw, think about what your're saying. "determined by his own nature." That makes no sense. Determined by his own nature can mean only one thing with respect to god, i.e. that he is determined by himself, which is a contradiction in itself.

[seer]

So, god is not omnipotent? Btw, think about what your're saying. "determined by his own nature." That makes no sense. Determined by his own nature can mean only one thing with respect to god, i.e. that he is determined by himself, which is a contradiction in itself.

And I don't use the term omnipotent because it can be misunderstood, God is supremely powerful. And it is not a contradiction to say that God is one thing and not another. What determined your nature? The universe? But what determined that?

[JimL]

And I don't use the term omnipotent because it can be misunderstood, God is supremely powerful. And it is not a contradiction to say that God is one thing and not another. What determined your nature? The universe? But what determined that?

The universe is neutral, it isn't a mind, it doesn't act, doesn't make choices, you can't define it as good or evil, just or unjust. The contradiction is to say that god is determined by himself, which is as much as to say that god is determined by his own free will, which again, is a statement that doesn't comply with logic.

[seer]

The universe is neutral, it isn't a mind, it doesn't act, doesn't make choices, you can't define it as good or evil, just or unjust. The contradiction is to say that god is determined by himself, which is as much as to say that god is determined by his own free will, which again, is a statement that doesn't comply with logic.

Jim you are not making sense, it is not illogical to say that God is determined by his nature, or that He is partially determined but not wholly determined. And I didn't say he was determined by His free will.

[JimL]

Jim you are not making sense, it is not illogical to say that God is determined by his nature, or that He is partially determined but not wholly determined. And I didn't say he was determined by His free will.

Does god have free will, or is he determined, seer? You can't have it both ways. Pick one! If you are going to argue that he is free to do this but that he isn't free to do that, then you are just creating the image of god that satifies you.

[carpedm9587]

This doesn't make sense,

You say "this doesn't make sense" a lot. You do realize, I hope, that your inability to understand something does not mean it doesn't make sense, right?

where is this even hinted at in the definitions of authority?

Your words, Seer: authority is about "power, right, and ability to enforce." (the first and last are basically the same thing)

Again this idea of consent is a qualification you have added.

No - it is about the source of "right to govern" It is the very foundation of our democracy - the core concept espoused by the founding fathers. The "right" to govern must come from somewhere. Our FFs believed (as I do) that it arises from the governed.

But if you have citizens who don't buy into your social contract (let's say criminals) does the government have a right to punish law breakers even when they don't consent to the law or government rule?

In a government that is not based on "rule by consent of the governed," (e.g., dictatorships, monarchies, oligarchies, etc.) the government has no authority to rule. In a government that IS based on "rule by the consent of the governed," the primary means of expressing consent is accepting citizenship. That is the core of our citizenship oath. So you cannot "be a citizen" and "not consent." If you don't consent, renounce your citizenship and go live elsewhere.

[Adrift]

And I don't use the term omnipotent because it can be misunderstood, God is supremely powerful. And it is not a contradiction to say that God is one thing and not another. What determined your nature? The universe? But what determined that?

You can use the term omnipotent and allow for that to be defined as being able to do all that is logically possible to do.

[seer]

Does god have free will, or is he determined, seer? You can't have it both ways. Pick one! If you are going to argue that he is free to do this but that he isn't free to do that, then you are just creating the image of god that satifies you.

Actually I can. I have freedom in some ways will but other parts of my nature are determined. It is not a contradiction to say that God by nature can not lie or be untrustworthy (for instance) but that He is free to create what He wants or how He wants.

[seer]

You can use the term omnipotent and allow for that to be defined as being able to do all that is logically possible to do.

Right, but like with Carp we still just end up going down the rabbit hole.

[carpedm9587]

You can use the term omnipotent and allow for that to be defined as being able to do all that is logically possible to do.

Except that Seer's position is that the laws of logic arise from gods "nature," so this would reduce to "omnipotent is defined as 'god being able to do all that god is able to do.' "

Hopefully, we can all see how absolutely true (if this hypothetical god exists), and completely useless, THAT statement is.

[carpedm9587]

Right, but like with Carp we still just end up going down the rabbit hole.

Because the statement does not say anything - in your worldview. It's a tautology.

[seer]

Your words, Seer: authority is about "power, right, and ability to enforce."

No - it is about the source of "right to govern" It is the very foundation of our democracy - the core concept espoused by the founding fathers. The "right" to govern must come from somewhere. Our FFs believed (as I do) that it arises from the governed.

Again Carp, you are importing consent into the definition. An earthly King has the right to rule whether you give you consent or not.

In a government that is not based on "rule by consent of the governed," (e.g., dictatorships, monarchies, oligarchies, etc.) the government has no authority to rule.

That is just silly Carp, who says they don't have the right to rule? It would come down to your opinion against a King or Dictator - and in your relative world neither opinion is objectively more correct than the other.

In a government that IS based on "rule by the consent of the governed," the primary means of expressing consent is accepting citizenship. That is the core of our citizenship oath. So you cannot "be a citizen" and "not consent." If you don't consent, renounce your citizenship and go live elsewhere.

That was not the question, does the government have the right to punish criminals who don't agree with the social contract by break the laws of the land?

[seer]

Because the statement does not say anything - in your worldview. It's a tautology.

What exactly is a tautology since I say that God is supremely powerful?

[carpedm9587]

Again Carp, you are importing consent into the definition. An earthly King has the right to rule whether you give you consent or not.

No. And the FF's didn't agree with you either.

That is just silly Carp, who says they don't have the right to rule?

Me. The FF's. Many people who believe a government should be "of the people, for the people, and by the people."

It would come down to your opinion against a King or Dictator - and in your relative world neither opinion is objectively more correct than the other.

Yes it would - and since we are talking about who has the "right" to "rule" me, I think I'll go with my opinion. But if you want to grant the right to determine who will rule you to someone other than yourself, knock yourself out. It's no skin off my nose.

That was not the question, does the government have the right to punish criminals who don't agree with the social contract by break the laws of the land?

Of course it answers the question, Seer. If they are citizens, yes. Citizenship is their consent to be governed. If they live within or otherwise freely enter the boundary of territory determined to be governed by the appointed body, yes. Willingly entering a country governed by such a body constitutes consent. That is why our laws also apply to immigrants and visitors - even the undocumented ones.

[carpedm9587]

What exactly is a tautology since I say that God is supremely powerful?

See my response to Adrift.