Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Apathetic God Paradox-Refuted

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    . . . Scripture says that God is love, . . .
    It is metaphor. Just as the Scripture says, "God is light." Metaphor.
    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Yes shuny, I'm sure you do think it is to simplistic but thankfully we have Scripture to set us straight. And yes when Scripture says that God is love, or God is just, or merciful or righteous, it is speaking of His attributes. And in keeping with the objection in the OP these attributes are inherent to His nature, not merely attributes He decides to exercise as if He could decide otherwise.
      I agree with Jedidiah's explanation of the problem with your initial statement being too simplistic,, and does not reflect scripture as a whole.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        It is metaphor. Just as the Scripture says, "God is light." Metaphor.
        Good analogy, Baha'i translates a follower of 'light.'
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Good analogy, Baha'i translates a follower of 'light.'
          Brings to mind the teaching, "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."
          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
            It seems to me that the author needs to define "morality" in a way that is independent of the argument. For one thing, someone could say that every being has his own system of morals or ethics. Even Hitler could be said to have his.
            I believe the words moral and morality are adequately defined in the English language [independent of the argument], for understanding how he uses them.

            Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/



            1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, a. some other group, such as a religion, or
            b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or

            2.normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

            © Copyright Original Source



            The reality is from the whole history of humanity is that individual behavior good or bad does not represent morality of the greater societies and groups from which morality is the standard..

            As far as the justification of the very human nature of morality, the best evidence is simply the science of human and higher mammal behavior as it evolved to meet the needs of intelligent species. Simple forms of morality in higher mammals like other primates and sea mammals demonstrate the evolution of morals based on the need of the species to survive.

            His argument concerning the problems of Divine source of morality is more the presentation of what he sees as the contradictions of such a view, and not a proof.

            In my view the claims of the nebulous, vague and undefined claims of a Divine 'Objective Morality' as the standard of human morality is a terribly weak argument based on similar problems as presented in the essay.
            Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-30-2014, 07:54 AM.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
              http://www.strongatheism.net/library...c_god_paradox/

              This argument seems completely sound, at first. However, if put under scrutiny, one will realize that the entire argument falls flat, due to being based on an unproven premise:

              "We do things because we think we should do them – because they are moral. So to expand the question, why do we need morality? We have values because we need to pursue specific goals in order to further our life. We need morality because we are faced with choices and we have to manage our resources – be they money, time, social relationships, whatever."

              The author asserts that things such as morality, the desire to be creative, the desire for love, and the such, are completely the results of external stimuli, such as time/resource managment, social conditioning, and limits or lack of limits. What he fails to do is actually prove this premise, which he essentially whitewashes as true be default.

              Indeed, under the theistic worldview, things such as moral values, love, creativity, ect. are not things that are affected by any sort of external stimuli, such as the limits, or lack of limits, or potentiality, or lack of potentiality, and such, but are innate, inward parts of being itself.

              So, unless he can prove his materialistic viewpoint of morality and desires that validates the starting premise, his argument seems to be, for all intents and purposes, refuted.
              What evidence do you have that there is a credible non-materialistic viewpoint of morality, or indeed the existence of a non-material world of any kind? Morals are grounded in the material world. They are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation in every case and are a consequence of natural selection. They are naturally built into us, because those morals were beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • #37
                . . .materialistic viewpoint of morality . . .
                Good being what ever builds, preserves and gives. Evil being the negation of good.
                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  What evidence do you have that there is a credible non-materialistic viewpoint of morality, or indeed the existence of a non-material world of any kind? Morals are grounded in the material world. They are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation in every case and are a consequence of natural selection. They are naturally built into us, because those morals were beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals.
                  You or someone else can derive a moral system from material facts of the universe. But an infinity of moral systems can be created. The problem then is, which system is the best?

                  Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  They are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation in every case and are a consequence of natural selection.
                  But self preservation and procreation themselves are part of many moral systems.
                  They are naturally built into us, because those morals were beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals.
                  Or because God created Adam and Eve as images of God and created in them consciences.

                  Of course you reject that alternative because you reject the Bible as unproven. Well, very few things can be proven like theorems in mathematics. Maybe you need to realize we necessarily have to use probabilistic reasoning to make way in our lives.
                  The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                  [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                    You or someone else can derive a moral system from material facts of the universe. But an infinity of moral systems can be created. The problem then is, which system is the best?
                    Not really because we have evolved as social animals with specific characteristics to enable social cohesion. We are instinctively predisposed towards altruism; cooperation and an awareness of the social rules of the group and it's these qualities that form the basis of our morality. Thus our moral system is circumscribed by our biological inheritance - although our intelligence has enabled us, unlike our simian cousins, to extrapolate moral codes from purely tribal morality to, ultimately,develop a potential global moral system.

                    But self preservation and procreation themselves are part of many moral systems. Or because God created Adam and Eve as images of God and created in them consciences.
                    There is no reason to think that "consciences" did not arise naturally.

                    Of course you reject that alternative because you reject the Bible as unproven. Well, very few things can be proven like theorems in mathematics. Maybe you need to realize we necessarily have to use probabilistic reasoning to make way in our lives.
                    Adam and Eve is a failed hypothesis. Not only is it not proven to be true, it is shown beyond any reasonable doubt to be wrong. The evidence is overwhelming that we evolved very gradually over vast periods of time as a population, i.e. a collection of interbreeding organisms, which itself originally evolved from a common ancestor millions of years ago. Therefore, we cannot be descendants of a literal Adam and Eve as portrayed in the bible.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment

                    Related Threads

                    Collapse

                    Topics Statistics Last Post
                    Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                    160 responses
                    507 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post JimL
                    by JimL
                     
                    Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                    88 responses
                    354 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post shunyadragon  
                    Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                    21 responses
                    133 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post shunyadragon  
                    Working...
                    X