NP at all. I talk a lot of rubbish. Some people find it funny, some find it annoying and some find it confusing, so I'll keep my serious pants on for the rest of this thread. I should, since it's a serious topic, and not in the Jokes area. Apologies again for any confusion.
No problem, rock on.
Yeah, I know. You'd mentioned about the Bible having 750000 words, but I could care less, and to be honest, I don't think it matters to you either. You judge it on it's wisdom and truth, I expect. No biggie, was just a throwaway line really.
Well, it is not quite throw away ready. Length can't make a book right but it can make a book well understood. If I have a 100 word pamphlet on Christ I will understand what the authors intended to say much less than a 10,000 word book on him. It depends on what your evaluating as to whether length matters.
I suspect we'll talk past each other on this, but what you often argue for sounds like Deism to me. Not to say it doesn't also fit Christianity, but I would never bother to argue against Deism. Perhaps there is a God? I certainly can't prove there isn't. The difference, is in how we view that God (regardless of the religious trappings). I would view him as very powerful and intelligent, if I imagined such a being. But I am unsure how we can make the leap that this God is ultimate truth or ultimate moral authority. A poor analogy, but hopefully enough to illustrate my point...when I was a school teacher, I was the most powerful person in my classroom (by most measures). I also determined how the class would run, what rules would be put in place, what rewards and punishments. I strove hard to get my kids to behave in as altruistic and moral a manner as possible, and feel like this was a strength of mine (I was given a lot of kids from bad home situations because I could provide a safe, consistent environment for them). However, whilst I would go so far as to describe myself as moral, and the rules I put in place as just, they were obviously not perfect.
1. Unless it becomes very relevant what I argue for is a generic theism, not deism. Deism assumes an impersonal God while theism assumes a personal one. If pressed I go into full blown protestant mode but if not I keep it generic.
2. I would bother with deism either. It is as meaningless as pantheism.
3. I understood what your saying but not why. There are many arguments that grant God ultimate authority over morality but I would think the lack of any arguments that render him less would make it obvious. God is primary to everything, everything else is derivative. I can't see how that can result in anything except sovereignty and supremacy in all categories.
4. You said you as a teacher were the most powerful entity in an environment. That is a good hierarchy point to make. All entities have increasing higher authorities, keep tracking backwards and they all are under God. Another analogy is that all natural entities lack an explanation for them selves of their own causes. If you keep explaining things by previous things you again wind up smacking into a necessary uncaused first cause which everything derives it's existence from. God is the ultimate in every category. He is the highest possible cause of nature, moral source and final arbiter, judge, jury, moral locus, No matter what quality we discuss they have their ultimate roots in him.
So I suspect our difference is that you imagine God as perfect, therefore his morals are necessarily perfect, whilst perfection doesn't make sense to me. It's unachievable. Meh, I have no interest in trying to change your mind on that, but do you think that is the difference in our view on this, ultimately?
1. The word I use for his morals are objectively right. No matter who disagrees what God demands is right, and we would all ultimately be wrong and held accountable to him for moral correctness as defined in his nature. I really do not even like this, but divine command theory is so inescapable I had to adopt it.
2. Perfection is unachievable in a human context. It is an inherent necessity to the concept of the biblical God. We constantly find things that are true even though we cannot grasp how they can be.
3. I think the difference between us is primarily that you do not understand the concept of the biblical God and what it necessarily results in. I am not arguing for a being that I can show you or that I have measured. I am arguing for a being that has certain properties inherent to it and what those properties result in. Maybe that concept is not true, but if that concept of God given in the bible is true then what follows are certainties. It takes years of almost obsessive study to learn what the results must necessarily be and why and I am just weird enough to have spent a lot of time doing so.
Cause and effect relationships is something I have read about. I wouldn't say 'at length', but more than a smattering. How recent are your readings in this area? It's far to say cause and effect, and the importance of this to many scientific viewpoints is something that is fast moving.
Divine Command Theory I am unfamiliar with, so I'll take a peek around Google. If you have any good, accessible sources, let me know.
I have studied cause and effect quite thoroughly for decades. I find it fascinating. Good sources for divine command theory would be William Craig, for cause and effect Aquinas or a professor of pure math at Princeton named Lennox. If you get those two down a whole new arena of knowledge will be open to you. BTW the issues of cause and effect have not changed at al for thousands of years, the quantum added a little new knowledge to them but nothing fundamental. Let me give you a few fundamental principles everything else is based upon.
1. The cause must be sufficient for the effect.
2. The nature of the effect absolutely identifies the characteristics of the cause.
3. Infinite regression of causation is impossible, all causal chains must eventually end in an uncaused first cause.
4. All entities have an explanation of themselves either within themselves or external to themselves.
5. No natural entity or system of any size contains it's own explanation.
Those tools can build thousands of certainties.
Interesting. I don't think I am guilty of False Optimality, to be honest, although I've heard that argument more commonly applied to the design flaws apparent in nature than in this context. Is the intent of the Bible to allow those who approach it honestly, humbly, and invest sufficient time and study into it to lead a life as per the tenets of God? I am not about to suggest I have done these things, but there are Christians with varying views on many key concepts of Christianity. I have trouble reconciling this, unless you subscribe to the view that intent is important, but specifics are not. Example, example...*thinks*...would a honest, humble God-fearing (for wont of a better term) Trinitarian be saved, but an honest, humble God-fearing Monophysate not?
Let me explain what I mean by a false optimality. A very common example of this is those who say a goof God would not allow the level of suffering we see in the world. The fault with this argument is that where ever they draw the line of how much suffering is too much given God is arbitrary. If you follow the logic of the argument to it's actual conclusion it would mean if God created anything less perfect than redundant copies of himself he can't exist. Well that is obviously absurd.
Without rehashing everything, some quick points on this.
1. I would say that without God there is no objective morality. I am less convinced than you that God = objective morality (even assuming existence)
Correct, and it would come down to what concept of God we are talking about. The biblical God if he exists would have produced moral duties and values.
2. With God, our opinion shifts from our own arguments to text interpretation. I think the Bible was written by men, so we shift from our own arguments to interpretation of arguments made 2000 years ago in a foreign language, which seems a poor way to determine anything to me. However, I agree, opinion is the best we can do without God. Opinion doesn't need to be selfish, ill-informed or immoral by neccessity (although I am talking about subjective morality...worth considering that there are different opinions on what 'subjective morality' means...my opinion would doubtless not be the same as yours.
I don't think it so poor but let me bypass that argument. No matter how poor you rate it, having an actual fact of the matter (no matter how hard to agree upon) is better than arguing without a truth of the matter possible.
3. Naturalism, and (in particular) evolution are horrendous methods for determining morality. I would fight right alongside you on that.
I am relieved.
You state these things with blanket certainty, which always worries me. There are specific moral issues of which the Bible does not mention. Even the most honest follower is left with a choice of applying their own morality, at best guided by the 'vibe' of Jesus' message, or trying to extrapolate or interpret individual passages from the Bible in order to determine their moral position. Ultimately, every person on earth is left with determining their morality, hence the difference between Christians in many areas. For me, this is a recurring thought : Even assuming God has objective moral truth at his fingertips, it cannot be extrapolated that humans do. Oh, and your point about the Bible being not designed to run a state is well made, and important to remember. Cheers.
In a sea of grey there are something's that are black and white. My claims are usually of the form "given X then necessary Y". People mistakenly think I am assuming X. I'm not, but if X does exist then Y necessarily follows.
It's binding on me because God can kick my arse? If God is willing to judge me by my actions, rather than my faith, then I am satisfied.
Judgment is an artifact of action, being bound is an artifact of truth and sovereignty.
A universal law with a omnipotent enforcer can bind us to laws regardless of our acceptance of them. Yeah, makes sense. And I agree we are not 6 billion little fiefdoms, nor would I see that as desirable.
That is divine command theory in part.
Not sure about a couple of the specifics, but in general this all makes sense to me. You elevate the Bible above where I would, but that's kinda self-evident to both of us. I'm more interested in understanding your position, and therefore have no questions on this.
Very well. BTW my position is not a new one. These ideas go back as far as history does.
