God is POWER, Thus Spoke Calvinuthra

[Received]

No I am not, you are. So for the third time of asking, from whence cometh the higher morality, against which God's actions can be judged either right or wrong.

I don't answer questions that assume I made a claim I didn't make. You made the claim that there is a higher standard outside of God.

 

[bhsmte]

It does to some degree. We can never know whether our intuition is constructed entirely from our previous experiences, current schemas, and other things, or whether there's something objective leaking through our intuition. I think that if you look at, say, fear as a psychological mechanism, this is a very reliable (although far from foolproof) indicator of something dangerous around the corner which often works without conscious awareness ("I feel like I don't trust this person but I don't quite know why...").

I can go along with that.

 

[Received]

I can go along with that.

Course you can, 'cause you're reasonable.

Intuition is far too understudied in psychology and far too undervalued in general. Daniel Kahneman has a great book on fast thinking (intuition) and slow thinking (reasoning) that does a fantastic job (from what I've read) of distinguishing these thinking types. I contend, though, that instead of being separate thinking types, that they're really overlapping at all times, given that our ability to think slowly and rationally presupposes intuitively ascertained things on which we build our rational thinking. Like reason itself as a valid method of getting to truth.

Once you believe this (assuming it's true, of course), theism has a lot more appeal than the typical incorrect antithesis of reason and faith. Rather, reason itself presupposes a type of secular faith, and if you're willing to have this type of faith and arationally hold that reason is valid in getting at truth, why not do the same with personal religious experiences?

 

[lesliedellow]

Some people not reacting against Calvinism just means that those people think it has support.

It does if you can read. It wasn't only Calvin who thought so. So did Luther and Thomas Aquinas.

 

[Received]

It does if you can read. It wasn't only Calvin who thought so. So did Luther and Thomas Aquinas.

Aquinas?

 

[lesliedellow]

I don't answer questions that assume I made a claim I didn't make. You made the claim that there is a higher standard outside of God.

In other words you have no answer.

 

[lesliedellow]

Aquinas?

Yes Aquinas.

 

[Received]

In other words you have no answer.

There is no answer for fallacies, correct.

 

[Received]

Yes Aquinas.

Yes Aquinas where?

 

[lesliedellow]

There is no answer for fallacies, correct.

God's actions can be right or wrong, correct?

Then please tell me where the standard comes from against which God's actions can be judged as right or wrong.

 

[lesliedellow]

Yes Aquinas where?

In the Summa Theologica. There are some technical differences between Aquinas and Calvin, but nothing which is likely to give an Arminian any encouragement.

 

[Received]

God's actions can be right or wrong, correct?

Then please tell me where the standard comes from against which God's actions can be judged as right or wrong.

Okay, thanks. You're presupposing God has a standard outside itself. IOW, it's a false dichotomy to think that God's behavior determines the standard (which actually wouldn't be a standard at all, because if God is like Hitler, then anyone who becomes like Hitler isn't good) or that there is a standard outside of God (which implies it was created by someone other than God). The third way is both/and. Goodness is understood in the Aristotelean sense as being the end point or maturity point of things, and God's goodness is his behaving in a way that lines up with this.

 

[Received]

In the Summa Theologica. There are some technical differences between Aquinas and Calvin, but nothing which is likely to give an Arminian any encouragement.

I dunno. ST is a massive tome, of course, but Aquinas is more on the Catholic side against protestantism, which is historically Calvinistic. (I know Augustine is considered Calvinistic, but he's an exception.)

 

[lesliedellow]

I dunno. ST is a massive tome, of course, but Aquinas is more on the Catholic side against protestantism, which is historically Calvinistic. (I know Augustine is considered Calvinistic, but he's an exception.)

Aquinas is Catholicism's answer to Calvin (and Luther).

Molina is Catholicism's answer to Arminius.

 

[Received]

Aquinas is Catholicism's answer to Calvin (and Luther).

Molina is Catholicism's answer to Arminius.

Which would make you think that Aquinas wasn't Calvinist, then.

 

[lesliedellow]

Okay, thanks. You're presupposing God has a standard outside itself. IOW, it's a false dichotomy to think that God's behavior determines the standard (which actually wouldn't be a standard at all, because if God is like Hitler, then anyone who becomes like Hitler isn't good) or that there is a standard outside of God (which implies it was created by someone other than God). The third way is both/and. Goodness is understood in the Aristotelean sense as being the end point or maturity point of things, and God's goodness is his behaving in a way that lines up with this.

Quote:

"The alternative, which prevents all this, is to say as the verse does: that God does good, that in a sense goodness is something 'outside' God "

And no, you can't wriggle out of it by putting quotation marks around "outside". Either it is something outside of God, in which case please tell me what that something is, or it isn't outside of God, in which case you have lost the argument.

Since you don't want to answer the question, it seems to me that you have lost the argument anyway.

 

[lesliedellow]

Which would make you think that Aquinas wasn't Calvinist, then.

"Answer to" there means "equivalent," or near enough equivalent.

 

[Received]

Quote:

"The alternative, which prevents all this, is to say as the verse does: that God does good, that in a sense goodness is something 'outside' God "

And no, you can't wriggle out of it by putting quotation marks around "outside".

I totally just did, or else I wouldn't have used quotes. Quotes indicate not to take something literally, usually for the sake of saving time.

Either it is something outside of God, in which case please tell me what that something is, or it isn't outside of God, in which case you have lost the argument.

False dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since you don't want to answer the question, it seems to me that you have lost the argument anyway.

I answered it here.

 

[lesliedellow]

I answered it here.

No you flaming well did not. You are being downright dishonest, and frankly, I have had enough of it.

And google "excluded middle".

 

[Received]

No you flaming well did not. You are being downright dishonest, and frankly, I have had enough of it.

And google "excluded middle".

Please don't accuse me of dishonesty when the criteria you're using to make that accusation would be quickly dismissed by you if it were directed at you.

I spoke of the third way, and you haven't made a response to it, much less even brought it up.