Origin of God's Morality.

[bhsmte]

I can't help you with reading comprehension but there are classes you can take......

More related to lack of content, than comprehension.

 

[Root of Jesse]

There are those (who will remain anonymous ) is this thread that will use William Lane Craig's Kalamity argument (a "God" starts the "big bang") in support of their theology, while simultaneously requiring the subsequent formation of the Cosmos and Earth to happen via a series of "miracles" over a relatively short period of time, and there are Christians that uncritically accept the big bang cosmological model, and the billions of years required for the formation of the heavier elements, then our solar system, followed by the eventual cooling of our planet that permitted the process of life to begin some 3.8 billion years ago.

Hence my question.

The fact that the primary founder of the Big Bang theory was a scientist by profession and a priest by vocation says that he believed that God is the Prime Mover and initiated the Big Bang. Again, Catholicism doesn't subscribe to young earth creationism, though we do believe God could do it in His own way, in His own time. There are Bible verses which admit that God is outside of time, as we know it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I don't know hat you are lumping under Darwin's Theory. Actually, the proper term today is neo-Darwin, since modern genetics has gone beyond Darwin.

Whatever you believe Darwin's theory to be, I reject it, while accepting some form of evolution as being valid. I don't know that we have found the right formulae, yet.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I'll take that as a no.

I don't care how you take it. I don't knowingly lie about anything.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Actually, you asked who determines whether what we do is good or bad, thereby including in your question a premise that I do not accept.

There you go, skimming again...and avoiding answering the question. But even if you take that question literally (Who determines whether what we do is good or bad?), there are several answers...you could have said you do, the government does, or everyone knows what's good or bad. It's funny how you think, or is it just avoiding answering questions?
I was trying to find common ground, and you just obviously don't want common ground. Fine with me!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There you go, skimming again...and avoiding answering the question.

What skimming? That is what you asked.

But even if you take that question literally

How else am I supposed to take it? Figuratively?

there are several answers...you could have said you do, the government does, or everyone knows what's good or bad.

Why would I say that when that's not what I think? You want me to be dishonest for the sake of your question?

It's funny how you think, or is it just avoiding answering questions?
I was trying to find common ground, and you just obviously don't want common ground. Fine with me!

It's funny how you have the "complete Truth" on your side, and a rock-solid case, and yet when asked to present it, you do everything you can to weasel out of it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You'll need to support this claim, assuming you ever get around to presenting that case you claim to have.

Well, we have now established that you don't want to find common ground, so there's nothing to discuss.

I was thinking about this today, and thought that we have a misnomer going here. Just as you cannot prove a lot of things, yet accept them for some reason, you cannot prove God. But you can provide evidence. This is true in lots of things. Theory of evolution, theory of anthropomorphic global warming. The idea that while I'm waiting for something to happen, when I expect that thing to happen, I have evidence that it will happen, but not proof. For example, I'm waiting for my train to come to take me to the office. It happened yesterday, I believe it will happen today, too, but I have no proof. Everything in Creation is evidence of God. You can disbelieve it, or believe it, but it's evidence, nonetheless.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well, we have now established that you don't want to find common ground, so there's nothing to discuss.

I was thinking about this today, and thought that we have a misnomer going here. Just as you cannot prove a lot of things, yet accept them for some reason, you cannot prove God. But you can provide evidence. This is true in lots of things. Theory of evolution, theory of anthropomorphic global warming. The idea that while I'm waiting for something to happen, when I expect that thing to happen, I have evidence that it will happen, but not proof. For example, I'm waiting for my train to come to take me to the office. It happened yesterday, I believe it will happen today, too, but I have no proof. Everything in Creation is evidence of God. You can disbelieve it, or believe it, but it's evidence, nonetheless.

In what way is "everything in creation ... evidence of God"?

 

[Root of Jesse]

What skimming? That is what you asked.

I clarified the question, you ignored it. But again, you thought I was going to say that who I asked about is God, but you had a whole host of other answers you could have answered...

How else am I supposed to take it? Figuratively?

You could have asked for clarification, but didn't. You could have said "I don't think it's who, but what..." and then answered. You just don't want to come to common ground.

Why would I say that when that's not what I think? You want me to be dishonest for the sake of your question?

So then who DOES determine what's good and bad? Again, would you call it "Conscience"? You know, we also personify Wisdom as who...

It's funny how you have the "complete Truth" on your side, and a rock-solid case, and yet when asked to present it, you do everything you can to weasel out of it.

It's you who's the weasel. I've done everything I can to come to some commonality about Good and Bad, and you just don't want to do it. So stop complaining. But if you ever want to have a discussion about evidence of God, we should come to some common ground like definition of terms before we can have a reasonable discussion.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I clarified the question, you ignored it. But again, you thought I was going to say that who I asked about is God, but you had a whole host of other answers you could have answered...

But I don't think it is a who. I reject the premise of your question. What part of that do you not understand?

You could have asked for clarification, but didn't. You could have said "I don't think it's who, but what..." and then answered.

That's EXACTLY what I did:

Then you're asking the wrong question. It's not who determines whether what you do is good or bad, but what determines whether what you do is good or bad. And I've already answered that.

So then who DOES determine what's good and bad? Again, would you call it "Conscience"? You know, we also personify Wisdom as who...

For the last time, it's not who determines what is good or bad, but what. Either respond to what I actually think about ethics or don't bother responding at all.

It's you who's the weasel. I've done everything I can to come to some commonality about Good and Bad, and you just don't want to do it. So stop complaining. But if you ever want to have a discussion about evidence of God, we should come to some common ground like definition of terms before we can have a reasonable discussion.

How predictable. The guy with the "complete Truth" weasels out of presenting his case again.

 

[Root of Jesse]

In what way is "everything in creation ... evidence of God"?

I guess you don't believe the universe is designed?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I guess you don't believe the universe is designed?

No.

 

[Root of Jesse]

But I don't think it is a who. I reject the premise of your question. What part of that do you not understand?

That's EXACTLY what I did:


For the last time, it's not who determines what is good or bad, but what. Either respond to what I actually think about ethics or don't bother responding at all.

Answer your own question. If it's not who, then what determines what is good or bad? Or point me to the appropriate post where you answered.

How predictable. The guy with the "complete Truth" weasels out of presenting his case again.

Waiting for an answer is not weaseling out. You sure have time to reply to other posts, but never to answering the question asked.

 

[Root of Jesse]

No.

So, if you came upon an island and found S O S written in the sand on the beach, you would conclude that the wind or waves did it?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Answer your own question. If it's not who, then what determines what is good or bad? Or point me to the appropriate post where you answered.

Wellbeing.

Waiting for an answer is not weaseling out. You sure have time to reply to other posts, but never to answering the question asked.

It was already answered.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So, if you came upon an island and found S O S written in the sand on the beach, you would conclude that the wind or waves did it?

What is the "SOS" in the case of the universe?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Wellbeing.

It was already answered.

And who, or what, determines what "wellbeing" is?

 

[Root of Jesse]

What is the "SOS" in the case of the universe?

The question doesn't involve a universe, it involves an island with a beach where SOS is written on it. Would you say you believe the wind and waves caused that to happen, or was there some other cause? Random action or someone did it?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The question doesn't involve a universe, it involves an island with a beach where SOS is written on it. Would you say you believe the wind and waves caused that to happen, or was there some other cause? Random action or someone did it?

Given that I know what the message means, I would think it likely that someone had written it there, and presumably they were seeking help.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And who, or what, determines what "wellbeing" is?

I already addressed this. Were you not paying attention?

What do you mean? Suppose someone were to try to decapitate you. In considering whether such an action would further your wellbeing or not, it would seem strange to ask, "But who determines whether decapitation is harmful to my wellbeing? Who determines whether grievous bodily harm is against my wellbeing?"