Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Outrider on August 03, 2015, 01:17:59 PM
-
Offshoot from another discussion: for the background, please see topic 10374 (around message 500) although it's not directly related to this issue.
Yes, why is it good? DT said it's because it's rooted in god - defined in relation to god's purpose, but you should be able to show that it's good without invoking god because you try and use the existence of OM to conclude god, not the other way around.
More to the point, if it's dependent upon a god it's not objective, it's a subjective morality: if the god changes, the morality which is subject to that god also changes.
O.
What if God doesn't change?
Rather depends. If a god chooses not to change then it's still dependent upon that change.
If the god is not capable of change then: a) it's questionable if it's actually a god, given limits to its capacity (a different argument, I appreciate).
Why, if his nature is perfect, would it not being able to change from perfect be seen a problem? and b) that doesn't change the morality's dependence upon the god.
I wasn't claiming otherwise.
Essentially, the point I'm making is that if a god cannot change, that inability represents a limitation on its capacity, which undermines the idea of a god that is 'omnipotent'.
The suggestion that god might already be perfect, and therefore not open to improvement isn't quite the same thing: he could have the capacity for change and not be exercising it, that's a different issue.
O.
-
Surely this could just be covered under the same sort of idea of omnipotence not being about creating logical impossibilities? If something that is perfect is unchanging then by definition the ability to change is not part of perfection? I think the raw problem is that the concept of unchanging makes no logical sense. It is a time based concept but in time it is by definition impossible.
-
Offshoot from another discussion: for the background, please see topic 10374 (around message 500) although it's not directly related to this issue.
Could you provide the English language thread title - not just the topic number - please, Out.
-
Offshoot from another discussion: for the background, please see topic 10374 (around message 500) although it's not directly related to this issue.
Could you provide the English language thread title - not just the topic number - please, Out.
Sorry, Hope, it's "Objective morality is independent of opinion....or is it?"
O.
-
Sorry, Hope, it's "Objective morality is independent of opinion....or is it?"
O.
Thanks. I'll look it up.
-
Surely this could just be covered under the same sort of idea of omnipotence not being about creating logical impossibilities? If something that is perfect is unchanging then by definition the ability to change is not part of perfection? I think the raw problem is that the concept of unchanging makes no logical sense. It is a time based concept but in time it is by definition impossible.
I don't see how - perfection might be unchanging, but the definition of god I'm 'challenging' is the omnipotent one. You might consider omnipotence to be part of perfection, which just makes the idea of perfection another one that ultimately is fundamentally beyond our understanding and therefore, ultimately, meaningless - all the apatheists would cheer if they could be bothered.
O.
-
I don't see how - perfection might be unchanging, but the definition of god I'm 'challenging' is the omnipotent one. You might consider omnipotence to be part of perfection, which just makes the idea of perfection another one that ultimately is fundamentally beyond our understanding and therefore, ultimately, meaningless - all the apatheists would cheer if they could be bothered.
O.
I don't think it works to take one prong of these claims - looking at omnirpotence, you have it constrained within the idea that asking to make a four sided triangle does not affect the ability to do anything that is possible. If god is perefcet then I would argue that it is a logical restriction on the omnipotence and that is change is impossible for perfection then it is impossible for a perfect omnipotent being.
I think as per the original thread all of this makes no sense, if you create these sort of attributes.
-
I don't think it works to take one prong of these claims - looking at omnirpotence, you have it constrained within the idea that asking to make a four sided triangle does not affect the ability to do anything that is possible. If god is perefcet then I would argue that it is a logical restriction on the omnipotence and that is change is impossible for perfection then it is impossible for a perfect omnipotent being.
Except that a god being perfect in itself does not mean its incapable of change - it could be capable but not exercise that capacity, that's a perfectly viable notion. It's the idea that you can have an omnipotent god (perfect or otherwise), whilst at the same have an objective morality.
O.
-
Except that a god being perfect in itself does not mean its incapable of change - it could be capable but not exercise that capacity, that's a perfectly viable notion. It's the idea that you can have an omnipotent god (perfect or otherwise), whilst at the same have an objective morality.
O.
It's not about being incapable of change , it is that perfection is a state where any change would be a nonsense. It's just like a four sided triangle - it does not mean that a god would not be omniscient just because it could not create such a triangle
-
Offshoot from another discussion: for the background, please see topic 10374 (around message 500) although it's not directly related to this issue.
Yes, why is it good? DT said it's because it's rooted in god - defined in relation to god's purpose, but you should be able to show that it's good without invoking god because you try and use the existence of OM to conclude god, not the other way around.
More to the point, if it's dependent upon a god it's not objective, it's a subjective morality: if the god changes, the morality which is subject to that god also changes.
O.
What if God doesn't change?
Rather depends. If a god chooses not to change then it's still dependent upon that change.
If the god is not capable of change then: a) it's questionable if it's actually a god, given limits to its capacity (a different argument, I appreciate).
Why, if his nature is perfect, would it not being able to change from perfect be seen a problem? and b) that doesn't change the morality's dependence upon the god.
I wasn't claiming otherwise.
Essentially, the point I'm making is that if a god cannot change, that inability represents a limitation on its capacity, which undermines the idea of a god that is 'omnipotent'.
The suggestion that god might already be perfect, and therefore not open to improvement isn't quite the same thing: he could have the capacity for change and not be exercising it, that's a different issue.
O.
It probably depends upon how you define 'omnipotent' and 'perfection'. To me, omnipotence would contain the potential to change or not change and a god with that attribute might consider the ability to change to be part of perfection, rather than being constrained to a static condition of changelessness.
-
Dear Outrider,
You are going about this in the wrong way, first you must join a monastery, preferably of eastern persuasion, Hindu or Sikh although I could be wrong, then you fast and meditate for a month, then and only then, when you are out of brain due to starvation and thirst then you can ask, what is God.
Apparently even then you may not get an answer, give it a try, let me know how you get on. ;)
Gonnagle.
-
then you fast and meditate for a month, then and only then, when you are out of brain due to starvation and thirst then you can ask, what is God.
...or, waiting to get served on a Saturday lunchtime at Waxy O'Connor's produces the same results I believe?!
-
Dear Seb,
You search for truth Saturday Lunchtime!! Confucius say, better to wait till Saturday evening after lager kicks in.
Gonnagle.