On Feb 26, 4:33 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/27/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The thing that is different in this realm of true morality is that the
> > Creator is a person that we can get to know (not totally, but in a
> > process of growth just like any relationship), so that we aren't just
> > cranking out IF/THEN inferences like a machine, but the Holy Spirit
> > (analogous to All Soul in Bruno/Plotinus term) affirms with our spirit
> > that a certain response or initiative in the current situation is in
> > accord with the Creator's personal character.  Thus, there is only so
> > much convincing that one can do in a forum like this.  The rest
> > requires actually being shown God's love in a tangible way by another
> > person.  Then it is still up to each of us to decide how we respond.
>
> OK, but if we skip the question of how we know that God wants us to act in a
> particular (moral) way, as well as the question of why we should listen to
> him, we still have the Euthyphro dilemma, as raised by 
> Brent:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
> ...
>
> > I insist that I am not going down the ontological argument path.  If
> > you want to categorize my argument from meaning, perhaps it is closest
> > to Kant's argument from morality.  In a scientific system, perhaps
> > this is branded as "wishful thinking", but I am also insisting that
> > science's basis (anything's basis actually), such as fundamentality,
> > generality, beauty, "introspection" is also mystical wishful thinking,
> > and naturality is circular, and reproducibility is circular in that
> > its pragmatism begs the question of meaning (IF you want to do this,
> > THEN reproducible experiments have shown that you "should" do such and
> > such).
>
> But you're seeking to break out of this circularity by introducing God, who
> doesn't need a creator, designer, source of meaning or morality, containing
> these qualities in himself necessarily rather than contingently. If you're
> happy to say that God breaks the circularity, why include this extra layer
> of complication instead of stopping at the universe?
>
> Stathis Papaioannou

Because the universe doesn't break the circularity (and a plenitude of
universes doesn't either for that matter).

By the way, I'm not using the moral argument as a proof of the
existence of God in the sense of a conclusion inside a closed system
of logic.  I'm arguing that the personal God of love is the only
possible truly sufficient source for real morality and ultimate
meaning.  And if multiverses truly don't give us that, then to heck
with multiverses.  I think I've made my point.

Lastly, on Euthyphro, look at the last reference at the end of the
Wikipedia article on the Euthyphro dilemma, especially the last
section on "whim".  The circular logic of Euthyphro is a problem only
with self-referencing terms in a closed system of logic.  This is the
problem with the assumption of the uniformity of natural causes in a
closed system.  God's love transcends all closed systems.

Tom

through the dark dry barren sky
pierced a warm red wet rain
can you not see this next new life spring flowing from him
  -- "Song of Longinus"


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to