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

Atheism And Moral Progress

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

  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    But those things are applied to interpersonal relationships and a god being eternal had no interpersonal relationships until, as is assumed, he created. What did he love, to whom was he charitable, generous, just, faithdful, or kind.
    As Carp rightly said morality is not about interpersonal relationships, it is about ought and ought not. It could be that God did not display His moral character until He created sentient beings, but that character was always there, and unchangeable.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    It sounds to me that you're entirely confused on what it means for God's nature to be identified with "the good." While your nature may do good and bad, it is not "the good," and "the bad." I suggest you read something like Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by J. P. Moreland, William Lane Craig. That may help you understand where you're tripping up, because it seems the more I attempt to work through it with you, the more confused you're getting. I may just suck at explaining these sorts of things.
    I have actually read Moreland, and watched many of Craig's debates. Yes God is the good - I fully agree. He has a particular kind of nature, but we also have a particular kind of nature. Both being objective - don't you agree?

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    It's typically argued by Christian philosophers that there is interpersonal play within the Christian conception of the eternal God, namely between the persons of the Godhead within the trinity.
    Might as well call them three distinct gods then, with distinct needs and disires etc. That's a very weird concept, the trinity.

    Leave a comment:


  • Adrift
    replied
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    But those things are applied to interpersonal relationships and a god being eternal had no interpersonal relationships until, as is assumed, he created. What did he love, to whom was he charitable, generous, just, faithdful, or kind.
    It's typically argued by Christian philosophers that there is interpersonal play within the Christian conception of the eternal God, namely between the persons of the Godhead within the trinity.

    Leave a comment:


  • Adrift
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Really Adrift I'm not following. I do believe that God's nature is immutably good. My nature is both good and bad - does that mean that my nature is objective?
    It sounds to me that you're entirely confused on what it means for God's nature to be identified with "the good." While your nature may do good and bad, it is not "the good," and "the bad." I suggest you read something like Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by J. P. Moreland, William Lane Craig. That may help you understand where you're tripping up, because it seems the more I attempt to work through it with you, the more confused you're getting. I may just suck at explaining these sorts of things.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
160 responses
505 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