Are you then admitting that the 'morality from deity' nonsense is just that, nonsense? You have stated in the past that you do subscribe to objective morality, this demands that god must have some form of understandable morality. If you'd like to claim every theistic religion as false, then yes, I'll agree with you that if there is some deity he may very well be so different as to have no concept of what it means to be human and therefore a morality separate from humanity. But this specifically precludes any religion that claims any form of command, suggestion, or even insight from a god. If a god can't understand the most basic form of a humans moral existence, it has no right to make demands on what we may or may not do in violation of morality.
On Mar 9, 5:51 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > Only the second and third are really worth considering. > > Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. > > This is not nesiarily logicaly consistant. > > Forgive me for getting Star Trechie on ya but I was watching a few > weeks back an episode of Voyger where Captian Janeway and the hologram > of Leonardo DeVinci are trapped on a planet, and the hologram is > having trouble understanding all the techy things that Janeway can do. > > She asks him to consider that if he was a Sparrow what would he know > of the fine arts of humanity. The reply was along the lines of even > if a great master spent years explaining it to me, the limits of my > mind still would not be able to comprehend. > > If we posit the existance of a creative God then the very first > consideration should be that such a being is greater than ourselves. > So to attribute the human label of malevolent to such a being is not > logicaly sound. > > Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh Evil? > > Evil comes from the acts of humanity. Can we call an earthquake evil? > > On 9 Mar, 05:48, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'm going to address a few issues when I can, life has taken most of > > my attention recently. I will post on the idiots idea of Pascal's > > wager and all of the silly ideas that it invokes, I simply don't have > > the time at the moment. > > Until then, I'd like you to chew on this quote. Devout theists > > proclaim this to be a defeated concept, without ever explaining when, > > where, or how it was defeated. Christians especially call foul, yet > > seem incapable of explaining the foul. An extreme case of irony > > happens more often than many of you might imagine; wherein a bible > > believer declares this to be an out of date writing by an ancient > > author, one that has no bearing on modern life!!!! hahahaha too funny > > and so sad... > > > Is God willing to prevent Evil, but not able? Then he is not > > omnipotent. > > Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. > > Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh Evil? > > Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God? > > - Epicurus- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
