Since humanity has already done enough through the millennia to erase God from the moral picture, I thought it might be interesting to place the shoe on the other foot, so to speak, and conceptually erase humanity from God's moral picture (which in essence gives us God as He may have been before imputing to Him any concept of 'Creation').
So, if we entertain this moral 'thought project,' we might find some interesting questions coming to our minds. One path of inquiry that comes to my mind is that I wonder what need God has for morality if---alone as the Ground of Being (as Tillich might say), outside of, and without, time, and not in any way, shape, or form contesting His existential Ground, or competing with any other force---He has no lesser beings to commune with or to instruct. The question then might be articulated as:
Without Human Existence, Does God Need to Be Good?
...and where does this question take us philosophically?
2PhiloVoid
When God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and predestined the world, and our lives before he created the earth, what's the whole point of righteousness, damnation, and redemption or condemnation roads on our part, when it is all pre-planned by God before we come to exist in the life that is judged by his rules? Set into place over a plan he's designed before we were born with us in mind as individuals living our unique lives according to plan.
Does this question imply that god has to be good with humans in the picture?
The OP seems to imply the answer is yes.....I'm just not sure why we're assuming that to begin with.
At what standards do we use to verify that god is good?
Does an act of creation imply goodness? Does the creation of actual lesser beings imply some goodness? Maybe, maybe not.
so basically what your asking is if a tree falls in the woods and there is noone to hear it does it still make a noise ?
maybe it makes a sound that only it can hear
1) God (whatever that is), and 2) the Good (whatever that is, too).
Hi Super Animator,
What standards? Excellent question, really; and I'm not just saying that! What standards, indeed!
I'm leaving your question open for discussion, since I'm attempting to keep this thread on the Axiological Plane, so to speak, and within the paramaters of philosophy proper. This way we're not stepping over into theology proper (even though there is some toe-tipping overlap, obviously). By keeping this thread philosophically abstract, we might begin to see some of our underlying thought structures emerge (and problems and limits we have with those same structures).
What standards do you think should be used to verify that god is good? Can you do that without implicating human existence within the basic explanation?
Thank you for asking,
2PhiloVoid
He might think that it was bad that he didn't try to save a kitty with a broken leg instead of finishing it off and eating it. I would seriously doubt he'd hang onto these moral opinions though since he has no one to justify his actions to.
humans judge good and bad individually based on feelings for the most part , compassion and sympathy and empathy that we learn naturally throughout our lives as humans determines what we call good or bad . regardless of the justifications or judgements of others we would still have human feelings so good and bad would always exist as long as we exist . In other words the vast majority of people , those who have compassion and sympathy and empathy , would always feel bad if we didnt try to save a kitty with a broken leg based on our own internal judgement about the kitty and the situation and our feelings about that .
Hey Philovoid,What standards? Excellent question, really; and I'm not just saying that! What standards, indeed!
I'm leaving your question open for discussion, since I'm attempting to keep this thread on the Axiological Plane, so to speak, and within the paramaters of philosophy proper. This way we're not stepping over into theology proper (even though there is some toe-tipping overlap, obviously). By keeping this thread philosophically abstract, we might begin to see some of our underlying thought structures emerge (and problems and limits we have with those same structures).
God has none of those things to base a set of moral values on. That leaves god with the inherent aspects of his being...internal factors...with which to base morality on. Obviously, no one knows enough about god to say for certain what these internal factors are...but we can give a pretty good guess at what they aren't. He doesn't die, eat, or have sex....so the basic urges of survival, hunger, and sex aren't going to drive his morality in any direction. Without some sort of biological structure...I can't imagine how god would have feelings either. I'm sure that a lot of believers will disagree with me on that...and I'm also sure they won't be able to explain how god gets emotions.
there is no sin without the concept of something to be usurped.Since humanity has already done enough through the millennia to erase God from the moral picture, I thought it might be interesting to place the shoe on the other foot, so to speak, and conceptually erase humanity from God's moral picture (which in essence gives us God as He may have been before imputing to Him any concept of 'Creation').
So, if we entertain this moral 'thought project,' we might find some interesting questions coming to our minds. One path of inquiry that comes to my mind is that I wonder what need God has for morality if---alone as the Ground of Being (as Tillich might say), outside of, and without, time, and not in any way, shape, or form contesting His existential Ground, or competing with any other force---He has no lesser beings to commune with or to instruct. The question then might be articulated as:
Without Human Existence, Does God Need to Be Good?
...and where does this question take us philosophically?
2PhiloVoid
humans have come up with the idea of a God existing, and this "invention" served a purpose (or several purposes), fulfilled needs and/or answered existential questions. You can´t have a god concept without having a (even if only rudimentary) theology (an idea what this God is, how this God is, what are God´s traits and properties).
Without theology, God wouldn´t even be worth a thought. It would be an empty concept - i.e. no concept at all. God concepts are created by and depend on there being a theology.
Not sure what this has to do with anything I said, sorry.having myself experienced the reality of God outside religion i can tell you that God does exist outside the construct of man made religion . yes humans have created religion as well as all other organizations on the earth involving God or not involving God but humans have not created God . God is not a concept created by humans , but for those people who do not have proof that God exists there is still a human need to have a God concept or at least a human curiosity about who we are and why we exist.
so basically what your asking is if a tree falls in the woods and there is noone to hear it does it still make a noise ?
maybe it makes a sound that only it can hear
Well, I didn´t speak of religion. I spoke of the necessity of theology being involved once we start talking about "God".having myself experienced the reality of God outside religion i can tell you that God does exist outside the construct of man made religion .
Not sure what this has to do with anything I said, sorry.
Btw. what was your idea in cutting off the "No matter whether and which God exists..." from the beginning of the paragraph you quoted?
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1431698694306-1'); });