Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[anonymous person]

Given your position (DCT), our intuitions regarding perfection are meaningless as a guide. According to you, whatever God does, he is perfect by definition. I don't see how that precludes him from being able to lie.

If you want me to address this, please reformulate the propositions into a single question.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The above is an example of a counterfactual with an impossible antecedent. It is not possible that my beliefs would demand of me to relinquish up Jewish children over to the Nazis in order that they be subjected to their evil and egregious machinations.

Why would that not be possible? You already conceded that you would unquestioningly kill men, women, and children at the behest of some divine authority.

 

[anonymous person]

There is a more general question embedded in this: what makes one a good philosopher?

The term "good" in this context is largely a subjective matter. I would say that one who has a good command, knowledge, and understanding of his specific discipline with an ability to clearly elucidate his views is a good philosopher. You may disagree.

 

[juvenissun]

That makes no sense.

That reads like "married, so he is a bachelor".

To "fulfill justice" is to give due punishment.
Showing mercy is the exact opposite.

You witnesses that the Bible is really a wonderful Book.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The term "good" in this context is largely a subjective matter. I would say that one who has a good command, knowledge, and understanding of his specific discipline with an ability to clearly elucidate his views is a good philosopher. You may disagree.

I already outlined what I considered important to good philosophy. You ignored it.

 

[juvenissun]

Historical reasons. Albion did a reasonable job explaining that in post #96. Wikipedia can fill you in on a bit more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy


eudaimonia,

Mark

You mean wise people in recent academic history made a big mistake?

 

[KCfromNC]

If so, why does he get a degree called "Doctor of Philosophy"? Why not just "Doctor of Physics"?

Why can married people get bachelor degrees?

 

[KCfromNC]

You mean wise people in recent academic history made a big mistake?

No. You're making a mistake by not understanding that words can have different meanings in different contexts.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You witnesses that the Bible is really a wonderful Book.

If by "wonderful", you mean "self-contradicting" on this issue - I agree.

I also note that you haven't once even attempted at explaining why "mercy" in the case of your god is not "the suspension of justice"...

All you did was assert that and you keep repeating the assertion, as if you are making any kind of point. But you're not. You're just repeating your claim.

But what else is new, off course...

 

[DaisyDay]

I don't know if this has been asked before, but:
Since God's only begotten Son was mortal wouldn't He have died anyway even if He hadn't been crucified? And how much of a sacrifice was it since He was only dead for three days and then returned better than ever, eating fish and feeling no pain?

I think more than a few parents would sacrifice their only son if they knew for a certainty - as God knew - that their son would be resurrected as an immortal within 3 days.

 

[juvenissun]

No. You're making a mistake by not understanding that words can have different meanings in different contexts.

So, what does the "philosophy" mean in the "Ph." D. ?

 

[juvenissun]

If by "wonderful", you mean "self-contradicting" on this issue - I agree.

I also note that you haven't once even attempted at explaining why "mercy" in the case of your god is not "the suspension of justice"...

All you did was assert that and you keep repeating the assertion, as if you are making any kind of point. But you're not. You're just repeating your claim.

But what else is new, off course...

You are not trying to learn. So I saved my explanation. (of course.)

 

[quatona]

Why can married people get bachelor degrees?

It´s self-evident.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I am not that enthusiastic about this thread. Being allowed to ask one question and getting a frustratingly non-responsive answer without the opportunity to ask further...
I see, though, how that´s convenient for you. No matter how huge the inconsistencies in your views, they never can be exposed that way.

I'm sure he'd debate you on any religions topic though. He seems to be chomping at the bit to debate... everyone... on anything. He's in training to be the next William Lane Craig you know...

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are not trying to learn. So I saved my explanation. (of course.)

Nice cop-out.

Whenever you are ready to provide an actual explanation instead of an assertion, I'll be happy to read it and discuss it further.

 

[anonymous person]

Better to have under what criteria? I can imagine it better to have the ability to lie than not have the ability to lie - for example, if you want to protect Jewish children from the Gestapo, which you yourself mentioned.

To answer this I will direct you to a treatment of this issue in section 3.2 of the article linked below.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/anselm/#ConDivAtt

 

[Archaeopteryx]

To answer this I will direct you to a treatment of this issue in section 3.2 of the article linked below.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/anselm/#ConDivAtt

That's not very convincing. All he does is claim that lying is a weakness (in what sense?) and that God cannot be weak, so therefore, he cannot lie. But that would seem to be discordant with one of the foundational premises of Christianity, which is that God willingly became "weak" so that, through him, we could become strong (1).

 

[anonymous person]

You mean... it doesn't?

No that is not what I mean.

 

[HitchSlap]

No that is not what I mean.

So hard to tell, these days.

 

[bhsmte]

I am not that enthusiastic about this thread. Being allowed to ask one question and getting a frustratingly non-responsive answer without the opportunity to ask further...
I see, though, how that´s convenient for you. No matter how huge the inconsistencies in your views, they never can be exposed that way.

Kinda like how Willy Craig likes to control the debates he agrees to do and will refuse debates where he can't dictate the process.

If needing to address certain issues are dangerous to your personal beliefs, they should be avoided at all costs.