Originally posted by Truthseeker
View Post
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
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
-
I'm not here anymore.
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostDepending on one's epistemology, there are various mechanisms for establishing premises. My take is that certain beliefs are held as axioms and are thus unassailable to a large degree.Consistency becomes the method for determining if a given axiom is reasonable, but even that can only be evaluated in relation to other axioms. The idea of a properly basic belief is a similar idea, so far as I can tell.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostI think that means it takes a great degree of finesse to get someone to change his beliefs.
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostConsistency with other beliefs?
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostAnyway, how about this: If a proposed or candidate premise appears to be more reasonable than another that has been adopted, it can replace that.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
This is nonsense. It is not ad hoc even scripture puts limits on God (i.e. God can not lie, not that He chooses not to lie, and I am the Lord God, I change not). God's nature certainly does constrain Him, or compels Him. And this idea of God's unchangeable nature is not limited to presuppositionalists.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
It's also not the case that he asserts end-relational theory without any substantiation. He has provided a line of reasoning in support of the claim.
You are free to disagree that desires come from limits, but if you wish to show him wrong, you need to do more than just say so.
No one has said anything about morality being created.
Anyway, the solution to this argument is to basically say that God's creative drives are an intrinsic part of his being, but the piece rightly points out that this is ad-hoc. However, if it was true that morality, and certain desires such as love, creativity, ect. were innate to all of mankind, the ad-hoc accusation completely falls apart.
As I said, neither position has been proven yet, however, since neither position has been proven, his argument will not convince anyone on the opposite side.Last edited by TimelessTheist; 05-17-2014, 08:16 PM.Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.
-Thomas Aquinas
I love to travel, But hate to arrive.
-Hernando Cortez
What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?
-Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor
Comment
-
Originally posted by TimelessTheist View PostHow did he substantiate end-relational theory, exactly?
Originally posted by TimelessTheist View PostI also do not grant that certain desires come from limit, but are innate to the being.Originally posted by TimelessTheist View PostActually, if he wants his argument to work, he has to prove that his line of reasoning is correct. The burden is on him.
Originally posted by TimelessTheist View PostI'm not sure what you're saying then.
Originally posted by TimelessTheist View PostAnyway, the solution to this argument is to basically say that God's creative drives are an intrinsic part of his being, but the piece rightly points out that this is ad-hoc. However, if it was true that morality, and certain desires such as love, creativity, ect. were innate to all of mankind, the ad-hoc accusation completely falls apart.
Originally posted by TimelessTheist View PostAs I said, neither position has been proven yet, however, since neither position has been proven, his argument will not convince anyone on the opposite side.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostIt 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'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostThe difference is that he suggests a being with unlimited metaphysical power could self-fulfill any and all innate desires.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostI'd actually say that the author needs to remove morality from the article altogether. The intent of the article was to show how an omnipotent being would be apathetic. One need never mention morality to do that. It reads to me as if the first few paragraphs are really the author getting to his point rather than being part of the point.
IOW, until he defines what he means by potentialities his argument is impossible to evaluate. And in the case that he uses potentiality in the traditional sense it's patently invalid.
Comment
-
The author talks about Superman becoming more apathetic than ordinary humans because he can do things that we can't. Yet in every comic book that he appears in, he appears to be busy enough. And always having to cope with a serious problem or more. And if he has love for people, like Christians are supposed to, I can conceive his doing stuff like helping to clean up Fukushima or the junk in the Pacific Ocean. Or rescuing the people of North Korea from its government. Increasing police brutality in the USA. Many problems for him to help with.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostHe also needs to define what he means by potentialities. I know of one type of potentiality, and traditionally it has been held that God does not contain any potentialities at all while the author on the contrary seem to think that God contains all potentialities within Himself. Based on the fact that he thinks that God also contains all actualities within Himself it would seem to me that his understanding of God contain one big glaring contradiction, unless he has some idiosyncratic definition of the word "potentiality".
IOW, until he defines what he means by potentialities his argument is impossible to evaluate. And in the case that he uses potentiality in the traditional sense it's patently invalid.
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostThe author talks about Superman becoming more apathetic than ordinary humans because he can do things that we can't. Yet in every comic book that he appears in, he appears to be busy enough. And always having to cope with a serious problem or more. And if he has love for people, like Christians are supposed to, I can conceive his doing stuff like helping to clean up Fukushima or the junk in the Pacific Ocean. Or rescuing the people of North Korea from its government. Increasing police brutality in the USA. Many problems for him to help with.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostGod is love, could it not be an innate characteristic of God's love to share said love?
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI consider 'God is love' to be too simplistic to reflect 'What is God?' Love would be an attribute of the nature of God and an attribute of Creation reflected in the nature of being human that evolved by natural processes. The different types of love are necessary for the survival of the family and community required to cooperate, and nurture and raise each generation.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI consider 'God is love' to be too simplistic to reflect 'What is God?' Love would be an attribute of the nature of God and an attribute of Creation reflected in the nature of being human that evolved by natural processes. The different types of love are necessary for the survival of the family and community required to cooperate, and nurture and raise each generation.Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
606 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
Comment