God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-10-2012, 12:50 PM
 
RE: God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
God is not bound by morality any more than you are bound by morality in a dream you are having. Babies, bugs, adults, Hitler, Ghandi, Mohammed, Jesus, my late dacshund--it's all the same to God. He creates a drawing in his mind and crumples it up at will.
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Egor's post
05-10-2012, 12:59 PM
RE: God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
(05-10-2012 12:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And that would be fine, if they did not 100% of the time put the lie to it in their own personal lives, by proving over and over again, that they, at some level do not really believe what they assert they believe.

I think this video sums up Mr. Ball's comment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMaK6k4oZ...ature=plcp

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aseptic Skeptic's post
05-10-2012, 01:09 PM (This post was last modified: 05-10-2012 07:45 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
Before one "names" a god, or discuss what it does or does not do, one must come up with a coherent definition of what "god" means, which is the position of Ignosticism :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
I have yet to see one, which does not limit the "o" s, (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresent), and is coherent. The very concept of "existence" requires certain properties of his universe, which theists assume, then Special Plead away. A being which does not change is either dead, or a rock, (and even the rock is changing).

As far as I can tell, Ed (Egor)'s definition of god, is synonymous with "reality", except he adds a universal super-consciousness to it. I don't see any evidence or need for the "consciousness" part.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2012, 01:43 PM
RE: God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
(05-10-2012 01:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Before one "names" a god, or discuss what it does or does not do, one must come up with a coherent definition of what "god" means, which is the position of Ignosticism :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
I have yet to see one, which does not limit the "o" s, (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresent), and is coherent. The very concept of "existence" requires certain properties of his universe, which theists assume, or Special Plead away. A being which does not change is either dead, or a rock, (and even the rock is changing).

As far as I can tell, Ed (Egor)'s definition of god, is synonymous with "reality", except he adds a universal super-consciousness to it. I don't see any evidence or need for the "consciousness" part.

I would be willing to say that God is limited in our realm under the parameters, logic, rationality that He created for us. Meaning that God acts under the limitations of our limited perception and understanding when His actions are directed towards humanity.

However, when He deals with His own actions that aren't strictly limited to earthly and human perception, I think no logic, rationale, or understanding that we have or know applies to Him. His infinite nature is truly infinite because He isn't limited but only by His own infinite nature and not parameters that He established.

God is the three O's; however, He operates under created parameters when dealing with us.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
05-10-2012, 01:57 PM
RE: God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
(05-10-2012 01:43 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  I would be willing to say that God is limited in our realm under the parameters, logic, rationality that He created for us. Meaning that God acts under the limitations of our limited perception and understanding when His actions are directed towards humanity.

I would propose that simply means you can't or won't define god, which proves my point about Ignosticism.
If he created the systems of Logic, he must have had a reason, and then why doesn't he operate under them. The only way to get him into the Logic system, is to Special Plead him out of it.

(05-10-2012 01:43 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  However, when He deals with His own actions that aren't strictly limited to earthly and human perception, I think no logic, rationale, or understanding that we have or know applies to Him. His infinite nature is truly infinite because He isn't limited but only by His own infinite nature and not parameters that He established.

You're just proving there is no coherent, consistent definition of what "god" means.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
05-10-2012, 02:03 PM
RE: God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
(05-10-2012 01:57 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You're just proving there is no coherent, consistent definition of what "god" means.

When dealing with something infinite while being finite could we even pretend to define God?

Edit: On a side note, I think we can only define God using the information and evidence that He provided us as well as our own rational and logic. We can only operate inside our own parameters, so we can only have very limited knowledge as to the definition of God.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2012, 02:10 PM
RE: God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
(05-10-2012 02:03 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Edit: On a side note, I think we can only define God using the information and evidence that He provided us as well as our own rational and logic.
What evidence are you talking about, the Bible? Consider

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2012, 02:15 PM
RE: God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
(05-10-2012 02:10 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(05-10-2012 02:03 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Edit: On a side note, I think we can only define God using the information and evidence that He provided us as well as our own rational and logic.
What evidence are you talking about, the Bible? Consider

When referring to Christianity, yes.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2012, 02:55 PM (This post was last modified: 05-10-2012 03:09 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
(05-10-2012 02:03 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  When dealing with something infinite while being finite could we even pretend to define God?

I don't understand that. It's like saying something is 1 and -1.
1 + -1 = 0.
It can't have the properties of both. It means it's "nothing", OR the words have no meaning.
Why say it's either ? Why say anything about it ? Why not just say it's "0" ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2012, 02:59 PM
God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
Talking about an imaginary spirit is dumb.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: