The question of why is incoherent though. Why always refers to an external reason for something, a cause of its existence. But God is by definition Uncaused, and there can be no external reason for His existence.Yet though, does he know why he is? If he has a conscious mind, if He Is He Who Is... — Beebert
The question is self-refuting (incoherent) because in asking the question you presuppose that the uncaused thing has a cause, and therefore it is not uncaused.But what is the cause for something uncaused? — Beebert
The fallacy there is that two different aspects of reality cannot be defined in terms of each other, but must rather be defined in-themselves. The experience of evil, is different than the experience of good. So defining evil in relation to good is just as false as defining good in relation to evil. It would mean to reify it. — Agustino
What's the problem with this? God is God, He's not a human being. I find this highly incoherent, trying to judge God by the very Law (which you call morality and is written in everyone's heart) that God Himself has created :s Human beings, and those under the Law can be judged by the Law, but God? That's silly - it is blasphemy, treating God as one of your fellow creatures that you can judge. God is His own justification, He is above good and evil. How could anything God does be evil, ie against the Law, when God is the Creator of the Law and supreme over it? God ordered Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Can you imagine being Abraham, and approaching Mount Moriah, knowing that you have to pull that knife and thrust it into your son's neck?! That seems horrifying to us, and it is. It is completely against the moral law that is written in our hearts. But God is above the Law. That is why Abraham was right to have faith in God, believing both that he will kill Isaac, and that Isaac will live - even though it was absurd. For nothing is impossible for God. — Agustino
No it wouldn't. This is precisely the difference between creature and Creator. I have no right to destroy God's creation, for it is God's, not mine. But God has a right to destroy all of creation if He so desires, for it is His. I don't understand why so many people insist that God must be an anthropomorphism of the human :s Why make out of God a creature like us? — Agustino
As for why I admire God, it is precisely because He is transcendent, and thus beyond Good and Evil — Agustino
He has created such beautiful things as the stars in the heavens, the galaxies, each of the animals, the angels, the demons — Agustino
And behold Job is protesting because he is suffering. So what? Who is he to have expectations of God and demand that life be as he wants it to be? Is he greater than God to judge God? It is God's right as His Creator to allow anything to happen to him. Job has no right to demand something out of God. How can God owe any man anything?! — Agustino
You are right. It is.It seems contradictory to say that something is defined "in-itself" and that it has no independent existence. You say good and evil have no existence apart form the "Law". This is not to define good and evil "in-themselves" but rather in terms of the "Law". To attempt to define them "in-themselves' would seem to constitute the kind of "subversive reification" you referred to earlier. — Janus
I don't know what experience he had.And how did Abraham know it was the voice of God telling him to murder his son? — Thorongil
Why not? God is His own standard. How can God be judged by the Law?Your claim that God is beyond good and evil doesn't excuse him from commanding the latter. — Thorongil
Well I'm tempted to say I would have done the same, but then I don't know exactly what experience Abraham had when God commanded him to do so...If I were Abraham, I would dismiss the voice as that of a demon. — Thorongil
How can God break the Law? :s If God is His own standard, whatsoever He does is right.There is a rank absurdity in the idea that God endows human beings with the natural law and expects them to follow it, but who then proceeds to break it himself and berate humans for not understanding why he has done so. What the hell does he expect is going to happen? — Thorongil
From your perspective (full of will). I remember in Schopenhauer's 3rd book of the first volume of WWR he describes the denial of the will that is sometimes achieved by a painting of a natural disaster, or of a vast empty desert symbolising death.And, apparently, very many ugly and repugnant things. — Thorongil
It's the glory of transcendence, of freedom, of infinity - of that which transcends this reality in all ways, but which nevertheless incarnated and came down amongst us to lift us unto Him.What's so admirable about that? — Thorongil
I don't have much time now, but I basically disagree with this and agree with the Church Fathers.What is meant by a natural or moral law from God? Look at the nature... We know the Church Fathers(most of them) were pathetically wrong in claiming that there was no death before the fall, that the earth is 5000-6000 years old, that before the fall the lion was friend with the sheep etc. Nature is cruel, period. At least if one has a "christian moral conscience". Nature is indifferent, wasteful, just as much destructive as creative, murderous, etc. Christians says this is because of the fall, which we know is a big fat lie. That is, Christian theologians have(knowingly or unknowingly) wanted to blame the whole cosmic tragedy on mankind. A wolf killing a sheep? Man's fault. A shark eating a fish? Man's fault. A snake eating a mouse? Man's fault... So does God wants us to go against this "morally beautiful" nature he created? We nature as a work of art and sure, it might be said to be beautiful. But moral? ... Nature itself is then beyond good and evil. So we shall be anti-nature... But it is obvious: The Fathers in their fantasies claimed that there was no animal death before Adam ate the apple... Aha! No cell-death either then? What about the apple then? We know for sure that this view is wrong. Death and destruction has been a part of life since life began, long before human beings were evolved, so at least the majority of the Church Fathers were extremely wrong here. Plenty of christian theologians talk as if man is the corrupter of nature, in that he makes wolfs, tigers and bears into murderers, and not only this: Man is also collectively guilty for hanging a man who lived 2000 years ago on the cross! We are all born as murderers and destroyers of nature! And life is a good thing? Marriage is supported? To willingly avoid having children in marriage is a sin? — Beebert
That's an interpretation of it, not the actual text. The actual text never says that, ALTHOUGH, it is true that the TTC does say that:The marks of human experience are value judgments
and planned action. The marks of the Dao are freedom from judgment and
spontaneity — Beebert
§36A truly good man is not aware of his goodness,
And is therefore good.
A foolish man tries to be good,
And is therefore not good.
A truly good man does nothing,
Yet nothing is left undone.
A foolish man is always doing,
Yet much remains to be done
When a truly kind man does something, he leaves nothing undone.
When a just man does something, he leaves a great deal to be done.
When a disciplinarian does something and no one responds,
He rolls up his sleeves in an attempt to enforce order
Therefore when Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is kindness.
When kindness is lost, there is justice.
When justice is lost, there is ritual.
Now ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion.
Knowledge of the future is only a flowery trapping of the Tao.
It is the beginning of folly.
The Fathers in their fantasies claimed that there was no animal death before Adam ate the apple — Beebert
Death and destruction has been a part of life since life began, long before human beings were evolved, so at least the majority of the Church Fathers were extremely wrong here. Plenty of christian theologians talk as if man is the corrupter of nature, in that he makes wolves, tigers and bears into murderers, and not only this: Man is also collectively guilty for hanging a man who lived 2000 years ago on the cross! We are all born as murderers and destroyers of nature! And life is a good thing? Marriage is supported? To willingly avoid having children in marriage is a sin? — Beebert
Why not? God is His own standard. How can God be judged by the Law? — Agustino
Believer: [...] Is it not supremely arrogant to assume you know more than God? Are you so rarely wrong in your words and deeds that you are confident of not being wrong or simply ignorant in the present case?
Non-believer: That may be so, but then I am only exercising the fallible organs God gave me. The cause of a cause is the cause of its effect.
How can God break the Law? :s If God is His own standard, whatsoever He does is right. — Agustino
From your perspective — Agustino
I remember in Schopenhauer's 3rd book of the first volume of WWR he describes the denial of the will that is sometimes achieved by a painting of a natural disaster, or of a vast empty desert symbolising death. — Agustino
It's the glory of transcendence, of freedom, of infinity - of that which transcends this reality in all ways, but which nevertheless incarnated and came down amongst us to lift us unto Him.
What's so admirable about a God one holds in his pocket, who is just another element inside one's head rather than exceeding one's head? — Agustino
You're wrong here. I do not reject the Law, all I do is diminish its sphere of application to creation, not Creator. Good isn't evil and evil isn't good - but those concepts can only be applied to creation (including nature), not to God. You are committing a category error when you apply them to God.There's that voluntarism rearing its ugly, morally repugnant head again. I would direct you to the following verse:
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Isaiah 5:20. — Thorongil
And was corrupted by the Fall :PRight, which is the one he gave me. — Thorongil
The relevance of that is that when the effects of sin disappear in the denial of the will, then you see the world aright.Not sure the relevance of this. — Thorongil
How quaint that I disagree the most with that man ;)I had no idea I was speaking to this man: — Thorongil
>:O But quite the contrary, I always took his side when it came to Calvin.Now I know why Beebert has been so exasperated. — Thorongil
Yes, you are a creature, so that is true.Because he gave us the law and, more importantly, expects us to follow it. — Thorongil
Your child belongs to God first and foremost, and only then does he or she belong to you. Your reasoning of course fails because you and your child are both creatures under one and the same God, and are therefore on an equal footing. The child can absolutely question you, but you cannot question God. The gap between creature and Creator is of the essence. The relationship parent-child is only analogical with the relationship of man or woman with God. It is fallacious to apply the same kind of reasoning to both of them.Imagine if I had a child and told him that it was good to eat vegetables and that he must eat vegetables or else I will punish him, but I then refuse to eat vegetables myself and rebuke the child for questioning why I refuse to do so. — Thorongil
Yeah, that may be true, if it was possible for God to break his Law in the first place.That wouldn't endear the child to me, just as God breaking his own moral law doesn't endear him to us. — Thorongil
As corrupted by the Fall*Non-believer: That may be so, but then I am only exercising the fallible organs God gave me. The cause of a cause is the cause of its effect.
If evil is the absence of good and evil exists, then God cannot be omnipresent, because God is good. S — Agustino
We could surely deny that evil really exists, but that would be equally problematic. — Agustino
And the bible (especially the old testament and definitely Paul in his letters) certainly seems to suggest that God IS a kind of universal ruler or potentate, the CEO of the Universe — Beebert
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.