DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
- Jan 26, 2014
- 16,757
- 8,531
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
That's not what he said at all. But I understand why you must do the effort to distract from his actual point.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Are you saying it's impossible for anyone to be 100% objective? How could you possibly know that? At best you assume it's impossible, but you can't actually know it's impossible because you'd have to be 100% objective to know that.
There would be no point in saying it's possible if I could demonstrate it.
If I could demonstrate it then it would be factual.
Possibilities do not need to be demonstrated in order to be possible. If they are demonstrated then they become facts.
How is the statement "It's possible for all things to be known" different from the statement "It's possible that all things are knowable"?
Lets say I am wrong and I admit that it is not possible to know all things that exist. How could I possibly know that it's not possible? Where's my proof that it's not possible? I have no proof, what would the proof even consist of? Did I personally experience the impossibility of knowing all things exist? How is that even coherent? Why would you consider what I'm saying to be true?
You see, it doesn't even make sense for me to claim to be wrong in this case.
One cannot form a belief unless they have something to accept as true
Yes, truth claims are evidence because they exist in reality and can be objectively analyzed by anyone, just like any other physical evidence.
...in which case calling him a "just God" is equivalent to saying that he is what he is and does what he does.
This brings us to the doctrine of the simplicity of God. “A human being cannot be his justice, though he can have his justice. For the same reason, a just human being is not understood as being his justice (existens iustitia), but as having his justice. By contrast, it is not properly said that the supreme nature has its justice, but is its justice. Hence when the supreme nature is called just, it is properly understood as being its justice, rather than as having its justice” (Anselm, Monologion).
It's hard to believe that this kind of hyperbole actually impressed anyone. I'm glad we've moved beyond this type of pious gobbledygook.This brings us to the doctrine of the simplicity of God. “A human being cannot be his justice, though he can have his justice. For the same reason, a just human being is not understood as being his justice (existens iustitia), but as having his justice. By contrast, it is not properly said that the supreme nature has its justice, but is its justice. Hence when the supreme nature is called just, it is properly understood as being its justice, rather than as having its justice” (Anselm, Monologion).
It was my understanding that theism - Christian theism, in particular - was not about justice, but belief.This brings us to the doctrine of the simplicity of God. “A human being cannot be his justice, though he can have his justice. For the same reason, a just human being is not understood as being his justice (existens iustitia), but as having his justice. By contrast, it is not properly said that the supreme nature has its justice, but is its justice. Hence when the supreme nature is called just, it is properly understood as being its justice, rather than as having its justice” (Anselm, Monologion).
It may bring you to it, but I don't see the relevance of bringing it up at all, at least in relation to my comment. Regarding that same point, I think FrumiousBandersnatch said it well:This brings us to the doctrine of the simplicity of God. “A human being cannot be his justice, though he can have his justice. For the same reason, a just human being is not understood as being his justice (existens iustitia), but as having his justice. By contrast, it is not properly said that the supreme nature has its justice, but is its justice. Hence when the supreme nature is called just, it is properly understood as being its justice, rather than as having its justice” (Anselm, Monologion).
If the standard you use to assess God's moral goodness is God, it's a meaningless assessment. To say 'God is good' only means 'God is himself' and 'God reveals what is good' only means 'God reveals whatever he reveals'. You can apply this to anyone or anything: e.g. Trump is morally good; what does it mean to be morally good? it means to have the moral character of Trump; but why does it mean this? because Trump is morally good...
So being morally good means God has the moral character of Himself, whatever that may be. This doesn't imply anything about God or his concern for our wellbeing, it just means God is Himself. His commands & actions could cause untold harm and suffering (as in the Bible) and still be good by definition. He could have hatred & contempt for all beings and still be 'good' by definition.
It seems to me that 'goodness' in the context 'God is the standard of goodness', is meaningless or redundant; God is the standard of Himself, whatever that is - effectively a meaningless tautology.
As I have done in the past, in just about every thread you started on such obfuscating crusades, I'm going to advice you to expand your vocabulary with 4 easy words:
I do not know.
Instead of always seeing the world in white and black and INSISTING on having an answer to EVERY question, perhaps try those 4 simple words in the future instead of just inventing answers for the sake of having them.
You know what might make sense?
Not making claims about things you are ignorant about and/or that are unknowable.
Do you agree that it's impossible to define something that's unknowable? If not, how would you go about defining something that's unknowable without knowing something about it?
You just defined Y as unknowable here:
but now you're saying you can't know if Y is unknowable here:
If you can't know, then how did you define it?
It may bring you to it, but I don't see the relevance of bringing it up at all, at least in relation to my comment. Regarding that same point, I think FrumiousBandersnatch said it well:
All we know of justice or goodness is what we find in our consciences. But we are dependent creatures. Our consciences themselves were given by God, and His law is written upon them. So when we make judgments, we can only use the tools that He Himself has provided. If the standard of justice is not in God, it is nowhere. When you reason all the way back to your ultimate standard—and no one else in this thread has done that—circularity or self-referencing may well be unavoidable. Cornelius Van Til argued that all reasoning is ultimately circular. And every logical argument is based on unproven assumptions, as no one disputed earlier in this thread. Everyone must then choose his circularity, so to speak. I will go with the self-evident God who is perfect in justice. Amoral chemical reactions in the brain in response to amoral stimuli do not provide a meaningful standard of justice, only an amoral feeling. Provine, Rosenberg, and Nietzsche, who as atheists worked out the implications of their atheism, would presumably agree.
All we know of justice or goodness is what we find in our consciences. But we are dependent creatures.
Our consciences themselves were given by God, and His law is written upon them.
So when we make judgments, we can only use the tools that He Himself has provided. If the standard of justice is not in God, it is nowhere.
When you reason all the way back to your ultimate standard—and no one else in this thread has done that—circularity or self-referencing may well be unavoidable.
Cornelius Van Til argued that all reasoning is ultimately circular.
And every logical argument is based on unproven assumptions, as no one disputed earlier in this thread. Everyone must then choose his circularity, so to speak. I will go with the self-evident God who is perfect in justice.
Amoral chemical reactions in the brain in response to amoral stimuli do not provide a meaningful standard of justice, only an amoral feeling.
Provine, Rosenberg, and Nietzsche, who as atheists worked out the implications of their atheism, would presumably agree.
This assertion is in need of support.All we know of justice or goodness is what we find in our consciences. But we are dependent creatures. Our consciences themselves were given by God, and His law is written upon them. So when we make judgments, we can only use the tools that He Himself has provided.
Who says? First, you haven't established that God is the standard, and you certainly haven't responded to the issues that raises (as discussed above). Second, wellbeing is not "nowhere," and we at least have some way of gleaning the effect our actions have on the wellbeing of others.If the standard of justice is not in God, it is nowhere.
Are you talking about the basic assumptions we all make with regard to logic? We need to assume the rules of logic if we are to be logical. We accept these rules simply because we must if we are to think logically; that is, to form logically coherent thoughts. And we need to be able to do that if we are to examine claims logically, including the claims of your religion.When you reason all the way back to your ultimate standard—and no one else in this thread has done that—circularity or self-referencing may well be unavoidable. Cornelius Van Til argued that all reasoning is ultimately circular. And every logical argument is based on unproven assumptions, as no one disputed earlier in this thread.
First, it's clearly not self-evident. If it were, then there would no need to ask you support your claims. Second, given what you have stated earlier, saying that God "is perfect in justice" would be akin to saying "God is perfect in himself." I raised this point earlier and referenced FrumiousBandersnatch's post on the same topic. You have yet to engage with this point.Everyone must then choose his circularity, so to speak. I will go with the self-evident God who is perfect in justice.
It's clear that you cherrypicked those atheists that you think agree with you. I don't know much about Provine and Rosenberg, but Nietzsche certainly does not agree with you. Nietzsche saw Christianity as giving rise to nihilism. How might Christianity lead one to nihilism?Amoral chemical reactions in the brain in response to amoral stimuli do not provide a meaningful standard of justice, only an amoral feeling. Provine, Rosenberg, and Nietzsche, who as atheists worked out the implications of their atheism, would presumably agree.
By convincing its adherents that life must be imbued with theological significance or else it is meaningless? By encouraging its adherents to view this life as a sloppy impromptu dress rehearsal for the next, which promises to be so beautiful that this world is ugly by comparison? By transforming moral statements into religious opinions, anchored to an unstable theological foundation on the verge of a devastating collapse?
It bears repeating:Provine, Rosenberg, and Nietzsche, who as atheists worked out the implications of their atheism, would presumably agree.
As noted earlier, you haven't shown that atheism leads to absurdity, nor have you shown that theism alleviates this purported absurdity. In short, your core claims remain unfounded.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?