Our Moral God
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
Derf
Well-known member
Right, that's what I said.
Which I didn't say, and therefore I don't understand why you are arguing against it to me.
So, how does He confirm something He didn't witness and is not available for Him to ever know again (events that happened in the past)? He CAN'T do it by going down to Sodom. There's no security camera system down there for Him to view. All He can do at this point (on His way down to Sodom) is to see if they do it again when a similar situation arises. Thus, the angels are going to spend the night in the public square to see if the men of Sodom are as evil as reported.
A future act cannot confirm a past act. If a man robs a bank today, that does not mean he was the one that robbed the same bank last week. He might have, but you can't tell it was him because of the second robbery. So God cannot confirm a sin (or a multitude of sins) that occurred in the past by seeing if they sin in the future. The most you can get from that is that the same kind of thing might happen again, and if so, then it helps confirm that the previous reports might be true.
Yes, but in what way did it never enter His mind? If you say that it never entered His mind that ANYONE could do such a thing, then you're arguing against yourself in a previous post. If you say it never entered His mind that the Israelites could do such a thing, you're arguing against Leviticus, where He considered whether they would and told them not to.
I'll do so. In the garden of Eden, there was one, single evil thing that the new couple could do or not do--eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That was the most evil thing in the world, at the time. Did God even think that they would try to eat of it? Of course He did, because He told them not to, and then He told them the penalty for doing so. Now, if God never imagined they would eat of the tree, why would He tell them not to, and why would He tell them the penalty for doing so? There was obviously no need--at least as far as God is concerned, because He isn't imagining that a sin in that arena is possible (kind of reviewing the idea about "doing otherwise"...if God can't imagining them "doing otherwise", then there's no reason to tell them NOT to do otherwise). This sin, eating of that tree, is more grievous than the sin in Jer 19:4-5, because the one in Jer 19 proceeded from that sin in the Garden, after sin (starting with that sin in the Garden) had entered the world by "one man", Adam.
But that's not what "entered my mind" means, unless you add the words "for you to do". And that's what I'm arguing the passage means...that it never entered God's mind to tell the Israelites to do that kind of thing.
It was immoral before He told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, too, yet "it entered God's mind" to tell Abraham TO sacrifice His child, though not to Baal.
I appreciate that you are recognizing a problem with that.
Notice how your wording (bolding added) is now in line with what I was saying. That's all I'm looking for. Without that, the point is lost, based on the Leviticus passage. With that, the point is rock-solid.
Commanding such a thing? That is indeed intuitively obvious. That they would do such a thing without a command from Him? Not intuitively obvious. Because pagans, as you said yourself, had already thought of doing it, and the Israelites had already shown a propensity for doing what the pagans did. So God, in His infinite wisdom, had thought that they might do that thing, and had commanded them not to (in Leviticus). Thus, because God thought they might do that sin, it had already "entered His mind". He thought about it in some way. Not to command them to do it, but to command them NOT to do it. And since it had entered into His mind to command them NOT to do it, the passage in Jeremiah, in order to be truthful, has to include the caveat (at least implicitly, but as I'll show, it was explicit) that what had never entered God's mind was to tell them to sacrifice their children.
Here's the passage.
[Jer 19:4 KJV] Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents;
[Jer 19:5 KJV] They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire [for] burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake [it] (#1), neither came [it] (#2) into my mind:
You can see that the commanding of the sin of sacrificing their children to Baal is mentioned, and then it says, "neither came it into my mind". So what did not come into His mind? to "command or speak it". What is the #1 "it"? to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings. What is the #2 "it"? commanding them to do the first "it". Because it mentions the commanding of the first "it" , and because He had already considered whether they might do such a thing (Lev), "commanding it #1" must be what never came into His mind, explicitly.
You've now reverted back to your original argument, that God had to think of the act itself, rather of commanding them to do the act. I hope you can see how those two things are different.
Keep in mind that I think there might be some sins that God never thought of, because humans have contorted the faculties God gave us into creatively being evil. But this particular one is not one of those, explicitly.
Last edited:
Forensic science is a valid way of determining what happened in the past.
God can know what is in the heart of a man. He knows man's thoughts.
These two things completely destroy your claims here.
Two or three witnesses shall establish a matter.
To add a potentially relevant third thing: God can be wherever He wants to be.
Someone who has the tendency to do certain wrong things is more likely to have done that thing than someone who does not have the tendency to do it.
Someone who has done that wrong thing will usually act and/or think in a manner of someone who is guilty (guilty conscience), because that's part of how God designed man.
God is capable of a much more thorough investigation of something than men are.
Derf
Well-known member
Yes, to a degree.
Yes, but not necessarily what a man will do, as per Abraham's almost sacrifice of Isaac.
Only if you reject some of the evidences for open theism.
Two, and even three, witnesses can lie, as per much of what is going on in the J6 trials, the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot, the Jeffrey Epstein suicide, the clot shot push, etc.
Yes, and He can see whatever He wants to see, I get it. But what do you think is in those books that are pulled out on judgement day?
Revelation 20:12 KJV — And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Who's writing the books? And why wouldnt God have access to them prior to judgment day, like maybe before judgment day of a city?
No argument on that from me. But there's a possibility of repentance.
Yes, but He's also interested in something else--repentance, as per the same prophet Jeremiah, which is the standard by which He judges finally. He is not willing that any should perish...
2 Peter 3:9 KJV — The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Last edited:
I suppose from a certain perspective that a concept's necessary conditions could be considered part of that things definition but only by implication and your insistence on making them explicit it is making this discussion almost impossible because you refuse to acknowledge the distinction between the will and love as if the two things have an identical definition and are perfect synonyms. Love is a willful act, yes but so is murder. The way you are reacting to my insisting that love is an act of the will is the equivalent of insisting that because the color red is a form of light that all light is the color red.
Yes, but that doesn't mean the the will and love are synonyms! "The ability to do otherwise." is the definition of what it means to have a will, not the definition of what it means to love. To love is to exercise that will in a manner that is in someone's best interest.
If I make a financial decision based on a coin flip and it turns out to be the best financial decision I could have ever made, do you suppose that the coin landing on heads was an act of love?
If anyone where to say, "Yes" to that question, they'd be stupid. You aren't stupid and so I'm going to just as you to tell me why it wouldn't have been an example of the coin showing me a selfless act of love.
You have?
I know you've made the claim. Perhaps I missed the argument. Could you put the argument in a nutshell for me because that would be interesting.
No we don't, Lon.
I mean, if you get super analytical and parse ever word, I suppose that necessary conditions are presupposed but there is no need nor even any attempt to articulate every conceptual presupposition that is inherent in every term when someone offers a definition of that term. Dictionaries would be impossible to publish!
Take the following example....
RED /rĕd/
noun
- The hue of the long-wave end of the visible spectrum, evoked in the human observer by radiant energy with wavelengths of approximately 630 to 750 nanometers; any of a group of colors that may vary in lightness and saturation and whose hue resembles that of blood; one of the additive or light primaries; one of the psychological primary hues.
Imagine having to explicitly state every implied concept in that definition. You'd write paragraphs about the word "The", never mind the terms "hue", "long-wave", "visible", "spectrum", "evoked", "human", "nanometers", etc, etc, etc.
Definitions are used to explain the concept communicated by a particular term and to differentiate one term from other similar terms (i.e. "right" handed vs. morally "right" vs. political "right" vs. "write" a book vs. religious "rite", etc.). So long as that goal is accomplished, there is no need to mention all the necessary conditions implied by the use of the term.
Well look, I understand that these discussions get rather complex and lengthy and there isn't the time nor the inclination for every point to be responded to. I get that and it doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me is when I make a very short post with only one major point or maybe two at the most and then you go on as if I had not said it or even as if I had stated the opposite!
I stated emphatically that "to do otherwise" is not how I define love but that is the definition of the will and the next post you made was to say that I included "to do otherwise" in my definition of love! It makes me mad just sitting here typing that sentence! I mean if we can't communicate on such a simple level then what are we doing here?
I believe you.
Do you believe that having a commitment to another's highest good has any moral value if the person didn't choose to have such a commitment?
Doesn't the term "commitment" presuppose an ongoing series of choices?
There can be no doubt. All moral actions are willful actions. There is no such thing as accidental morality nor can morality be forced.
Ayn Rand, a brilliant atheist, got it right when she said....
“Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice—and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man—by choice; he has to hold his life as a value—by choice; he has to learn to sustain it—by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues—by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.”
"Morality pertains only to the sphere of man’s free will—only to those actions which are open to his choice."
"A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality."
Rand speaks of sin in that last quote but the reasoning follows just as well on the other side of the coin. To hold, as man's virtue, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality, and to be more specific, to credit a man's commitment to another's best interest as virtuous love when he cannot have committed himself otherwise or not at all, is a mockery of both virtue and love.I'm happy to continue, if you are.
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
Good afternoon Clete and thread,
An invitation to simply clip what you want to respond to. I clipped about half and still the only two people who are going to read you and I, are you and I and I don't know about me! It will be about a 3-4 minute read, but there are a bunch of 'outs' offered against rabbit trails, mostly asking "could you sum up the thread in a short paragraph?"
Yes, by identity principle. Simply stated, a thing is what it is (even if it cannot be countered/contradicted).
Love is equal to 'committed' in that both are states of being.
My proof (one you asked for with another to follow regarding love without 'to do otherwise'): Adam and Eve loved in the Garden prior to any knowledge of 'to do otherwise' because the tree itself contained the knowledge of it.
They didn't and couldn't have knowledge of 'to do otherwise' 'until.'
Then 2) because we 'can' conceive of a commitment without distraction. A dedication is reflexively understood without an need to consider the lack of value in not being committed. I posit that I can decide 'to do one thing' without an impetus to do another.
Example of the proof: I choose vanilla every time. There is never a need for 'chocolate' to grasp vanilla as a concept. Why? Because it is how I was made. There is no need to 'chocolate mess it up.' The choice does nothing because I've no inclination to choose b. Did chocolate make a choice for me? Yes. Is chocolate necessary? (no) Only in the sense that another is 'interfering' with my choice. I prefer vanilla. There is no meaning in 'to do otherwise' and it is completely superfluous and problematic in the law of middle. Given a lack of 'vanilla' I can choose something else, but it will logically follow my preference down the line. The deviation 'chocolate' is unnecessary because 'vanilla' by itself is self-identified as preferable (chocolate described as 'the exact opposite' not in flavor, but in choice here). Vanilla has no need of a backboard for it to exist or my choosing it. A child will resist another flavor until usually made to 'try it.' Similarly, Adam and Eve were led by the serpent who was most crafty and subtle.
Hence, in the same way we grasp what vanilla is, without chocolate in contrast, we can also grasp what love and commitment are, without bringing up the opposite. By example, you can only know what vanilla is, by smelling and eating it, not in fact, by 'not eating it.'
The Freewill paradigm is that one must be able 'not to love' in order to love, and it isn't what I think they are getting at. I believe they have been and continue to be sloppy on definitions (an assertion that I have but the above and previous conversations to bolster, as I can be completely wrong, it just looks 'right' at this point in my assessment).
I think I'm following (please have patience with me): Moral is intent, thus the action is identified by intent as moral. On this, I've long wrestled with a need to protect (and thank you more than I can express, again, in this short sentence). We have to do an evil, to a greater moral good. It isn't the doing of the evil (harmful act), but the reason behind it. I think for it to be seen as moral, I have to have acted with moral intent. That said, if you force another to do good, it may not be 'their' morality, but wouldn't it be considered yours as the one forcing? Wasn't it the intent of the Law to do just that? I.E. train a child in the way they should go and when they are old, they will not depart.
A clock can feed my cat mechanically, but when I do it, it is because of a loving and moral value. That said, I don't see 'ability to do otherwise' as the meaningful but rather what you are talking about is the value of doing a thing, not its counterpoint or lack thereof, which at present, is how I see 'ability to do otherwise' as unnecessary for meaning or even concept of love and commitment.
Rationality is not the equivalence of choice, but the state of acting in a consistent manner, by intent. Does 'intent' equal 'choice?' Rather isn't 'intent' impetus and determination? Choice to me, is that law of middle that proposes a thing not alike (love, morality, rationality) with a third thing irrelevant 'choice.' Entertain with me for a moment her 'other by choice' "a suicidal animal." To me, an oxymoron: "Don't be a suicidal animal!" You can almost hear with me "Was it even a choice? I wasn't aware it was even on the table! By what manner of magic is this even possible??? Are there animals that just go offing themselves? Is that the way of the dodo? Which animal are you speaking of, I know it not?"
Then comes the line you intend I see I estimate:
I think this a crux point: If I can conceive of love, without 'ability to do otherwise' then either my definition is limited or the other's is convoluted unnecessarily. And here is where the frustration likely comes and may be unnecessary: I have in my mind a necessity to understand terms being used in thread BUT my need to limitation is likely the very thing that is maddening with one trying to broaden the scope. I'm just trying to see what the rest of you are seeing: "an ability to do otherwise" as necessary for my grasp of the thread topic and morality, because my entrance into these often starts with 'what are the definitions?' As such, it may no longer serve, other than specifically you serving me, on the segue (have naught or little to do with the thread premise). I came in trying to understand the premise of the thread. In a nutshell? Thanks -Lon
When talking about morality, most often it carries a connotation of 'collective value' for 'what is right.'
Because Ayn is finally an individual, she is talking about making choices, but that isn't morality she is talking about, it is 'embracing' morality as her own she is talking about. You and she thinks that 'is' the definition of morality but it is why I'd not thought of God as 'moral' previously. It carries an idea of a vote, and the ideals of a people group. For Ayn, she came to find out that in communism, morality was the will of the people, and how it abused individuals that weren't on page, that she had to rework what was actually moral. Because she was an atheist, she never did come to appreciate that morality isn't just a group-think of what is mutually beneficial, but is more directly tied to the goodness of God.
Therefore
*If you ignore everything but this, what I believe is very important to posterity of your thread:
Morality isn't defined by choices (I don't believe at this venture and by posit), but by what is good. Choice is simply the verb, the result of morality hence 'a moral decision.' You use moral to define decision. We would seldom use 'decision' to define morality because morality isn't decision, it is the impetus behind 'decision.'
Bradley D asked a rather good question on your opening thread about logic/reason.
So, at this point, I'm simply trying to grasp what has been a bit up in the air and difficult to follow.
One is how logic ties in with morality, and Two whether choice as 'ability to do otherwise' is necessary to grasp your points on morality in the first place. Perhaps most of the rest of us have been on a wild-tangent and haven't really, to date, picked up all you are throwing down.
The 2 questions and my assertion that 'choice' convolutes rather (in my mind) helps, may be of no value but if it gets us off the huge rabbit or alleviates any frustration, take two and call me in the morning.
An invitation to simply clip what you want to respond to. I clipped about half and still the only two people who are going to read you and I, are you and I and I don't know about me! It will be about a 3-4 minute read, but there are a bunch of 'outs' offered against rabbit trails, mostly asking "could you sum up the thread in a short paragraph?"
Yes, by identity principle. Simply stated, a thing is what it is (even if it cannot be countered/contradicted).
Love is equal to 'committed' in that both are states of being.
My proof (one you asked for with another to follow regarding love without 'to do otherwise'): Adam and Eve loved in the Garden prior to any knowledge of 'to do otherwise' because the tree itself contained the knowledge of it.
They didn't and couldn't have knowledge of 'to do otherwise' 'until.'
Yes, 'to do' not 'do otherwise,' implicit in the need of definition (these two proofs you asked for): 1)supra, because the tree indicates 'to do otherwise' and not before and the proof being Adam and Eve loved without 'to do otherwise.' It is only after the Fall they have this 'do otherwise' and it cannot be seen as a 'good' thing because it contains evil in the package. In that sense, today, as fallen creatures, we have this dichotomy, but as a result of the Fall.
Then 2) because we 'can' conceive of a commitment without distraction. A dedication is reflexively understood without an need to consider the lack of value in not being committed. I posit that I can decide 'to do one thing' without an impetus to do another.
Example of the proof: I choose vanilla every time. There is never a need for 'chocolate' to grasp vanilla as a concept. Why? Because it is how I was made. There is no need to 'chocolate mess it up.' The choice does nothing because I've no inclination to choose b. Did chocolate make a choice for me? Yes. Is chocolate necessary? (no) Only in the sense that another is 'interfering' with my choice. I prefer vanilla. There is no meaning in 'to do otherwise' and it is completely superfluous and problematic in the law of middle. Given a lack of 'vanilla' I can choose something else, but it will logically follow my preference down the line. The deviation 'chocolate' is unnecessary because 'vanilla' by itself is self-identified as preferable (chocolate described as 'the exact opposite' not in flavor, but in choice here). Vanilla has no need of a backboard for it to exist or my choosing it. A child will resist another flavor until usually made to 'try it.' Similarly, Adam and Eve were led by the serpent who was most crafty and subtle.
Hence, in the same way we grasp what vanilla is, without chocolate in contrast, we can also grasp what love and commitment are, without bringing up the opposite. By example, you can only know what vanilla is, by smelling and eating it, not in fact, by 'not eating it.'
The Freewill paradigm is that one must be able 'not to love' in order to love, and it isn't what I think they are getting at. I believe they have been and continue to be sloppy on definitions (an assertion that I have but the above and previous conversations to bolster, as I can be completely wrong, it just looks 'right' at this point in my assessment).
I think I'm following (please have patience with me): Moral is intent, thus the action is identified by intent as moral. On this, I've long wrestled with a need to protect (and thank you more than I can express, again, in this short sentence). We have to do an evil, to a greater moral good. It isn't the doing of the evil (harmful act), but the reason behind it. I think for it to be seen as moral, I have to have acted with moral intent. That said, if you force another to do good, it may not be 'their' morality, but wouldn't it be considered yours as the one forcing? Wasn't it the intent of the Law to do just that? I.E. train a child in the way they should go and when they are old, they will not depart.A clock can feed my cat mechanically, but when I do it, it is because of a loving and moral value. That said, I don't see 'ability to do otherwise' as the meaningful but rather what you are talking about is the value of doing a thing, not its counterpoint or lack thereof, which at present, is how I see 'ability to do otherwise' as unnecessary for meaning or even concept of love and commitment.
I'm uncertain I'm on page with her, though have read a bit of her as you've mentioned her in passing a few times. She's a brilliant writer, has an incredibly descriptive prose, but she doesn't, on point, prove what she is saying here.
Rationality is not the equivalence of choice, but the state of acting in a consistent manner, by intent. Does 'intent' equal 'choice?' Rather isn't 'intent' impetus and determination? Choice to me, is that law of middle that proposes a thing not alike (love, morality, rationality) with a third thing irrelevant 'choice.' Entertain with me for a moment her 'other by choice' "a suicidal animal." To me, an oxymoron: "Don't be a suicidal animal!" You can almost hear with me "Was it even a choice? I wasn't aware it was even on the table! By what manner of magic is this even possible??? Are there animals that just go offing themselves? Is that the way of the dodo? Which animal are you speaking of, I know it not?"
Her next line: "Man has to be man by choice." "Uhm, Ayn dear Ayn..." "He(she) has to hold his(her) life as a value." "Or??"
Then comes the line you intend I see I estimate:
Ayn (I've discovered) was brought up under Communism and she is an advocate against it in every sense that it stripped her of her identity. It seems to be (from my brief reading of her to date) the impetus for most of her writing. She is ever talking about her independence and individualism because of the damage the communists had foisted upon her, and as such, morality for them was 'what is good for for all of us' and she contrast that such isn't morality (because it wasn't, just what those in control of the communists believed). The State morality was 'what is good for the fatherland and all of us' and they had no choice but the brainwashing and propaganda. She thereof had to discover as she says 'by choice' but I don't think it is choice she means here. She is rather talking about her need as a liberated Westerner to come to own values, not being brain-washed, but having to do so with new-found freedoms. She has to adopt them as her own, by her volition, but this is rather 'adopting' morality, than morality itself by identification.
I think this a crux point: If I can conceive of love, without 'ability to do otherwise' then either my definition is limited or the other's is convoluted unnecessarily. And here is where the frustration likely comes and may be unnecessary: I have in my mind a necessity to understand terms being used in thread BUT my need to limitation is likely the very thing that is maddening with one trying to broaden the scope. I'm just trying to see what the rest of you are seeing: "an ability to do otherwise" as necessary for my grasp of the thread topic and morality, because my entrance into these often starts with 'what are the definitions?' As such, it may no longer serve, other than specifically you serving me, on the segue (have naught or little to do with the thread premise). I came in trying to understand the premise of the thread. In a nutshell? Thanks -Lon
When talking about morality, most often it carries a connotation of 'collective value' for 'what is right.'
Because Ayn is finally an individual, she is talking about making choices, but that isn't morality she is talking about, it is 'embracing' morality as her own she is talking about. You and she thinks that 'is' the definition of morality but it is why I'd not thought of God as 'moral' previously. It carries an idea of a vote, and the ideals of a people group. For Ayn, she came to find out that in communism, morality was the will of the people, and how it abused individuals that weren't on page, that she had to rework what was actually moral. Because she was an atheist, she never did come to appreciate that morality isn't just a group-think of what is mutually beneficial, but is more directly tied to the goodness of God.
Therefore
*If you ignore everything but this, what I believe is very important to posterity of your thread:
Morality isn't defined by choices (I don't believe at this venture and by posit), but by what is good. Choice is simply the verb, the result of morality hence 'a moral decision.' You use moral to define decision. We would seldom use 'decision' to define morality because morality isn't decision, it is the impetus behind 'decision.'
Bradley D asked a rather good question on your opening thread about logic/reason.
and
I think he read:
I believe he took it as a proof set. It was harder to follow the 'moral' thread through the first post so I believe I see why he asked the two questions.
So, at this point, I'm simply trying to grasp what has been a bit up in the air and difficult to follow.
One is how logic ties in with morality, and Two whether choice as 'ability to do otherwise' is necessary to grasp your points on morality in the first place. Perhaps most of the rest of us have been on a wild-tangent and haven't really, to date, picked up all you are throwing down.
The 2 questions and my assertion that 'choice' convolutes rather (in my mind) helps, may be of no value but if it gets us off the huge rabbit or alleviates any frustration, take two and call me in the morning.
Ayn's 'sin' as an atheist and orphan of the State was anything against communist ideals. She is saying here, in context, that "I can't sin against the state if I don't know what the state expects! It is not a sin!" in effect, if I'm reading her correctly and grasp the full of her plight. She wrote a lot about the ills of communism, brainwashing, and group think, and it affects how I grasp her use of terms differently than you and I would, as free Westerners.
Could I posit that is is 'awareness' rather?
Thanks, as time allows. Be blessed today. I have endeavored, however profitable or lacking, to further your thoughts in thread and have done quite a bit of reading in the attempt and to serve. It may not at all, but such was my lovingly rendered effort and prompt (without doing otherwise on purpose).I'm happy to continue, if you are.
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
Wait as second.
Which claim (or did I miss it)? I wholly appreciate two Open Theists talking about what has also troubled me, on logical points. I've similar questions so appreciate the dialogue
Well, of course, he is 'going down to see' so I'd think that He 'can.' There is an importance for the rest of us, as you and other Open Theists wrestle over the details because we see other things as answers readily, like 'these were angels as emissaries, they may not know what is going on so it doesn't have to mean anything about God's omniscience or lack thereof' (not putting in the mix, just saying having an in-house discussion is nothing like an OV/traditional discussion about the topic!! and why I'd asked for it).
Not sure if this was all for my benefit in asking for inhouse discussion, but if at all applicable, thanks JR and Derf.
The identity principle is the foundation of all knowledge. What is, is. A is A. It's more than a principle it is a law of reason. ALL intelligible communication has it as a core presupposition. It has two corollaries which together make up the three laws of reason...
1. The law of identity: Reality is real. What is, is. A is A
2. The law of excluded middle: A truth claim cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way.
3. The law of contradiction: Two truth claims that contradict cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way.
Love without choice is, BY DEFINITION, amoral. Amoral love is a contradiction and is therefore self-evidently false.
Lon, by this reasoning, Adam and Eve were amoral prior to sinning! We know that's wrong because God Himself stated that everything, including Adam and Eve were created "very good".
Where do you read that it was the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil that gave Adam and Eve the ability to do otherwise?
Nowhere! That's where! On the contrary, it was God who gave them the ability to do otherwise!
This is just so incredibly obviously false that I can hardly believe you typed it! Adam had all kinds of ability to do or to do otherwise before eating of that Tree! Two obvious examples come immediately to mind...
God gave authority to Adam to name the animals. Thus, he had the ability and the freedom to name them anything he wanted.
God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge at which point they both then had an option to either obey or not. By your theory, they would have had no ability to NOT eat of the tree because, according to you, they had no ability to do otherwise until AFTER they ate it!
How does that make any sense whatsoever?
You're contradicting yourself!
Where is the choice is there is only "to do" and not a "to do otherwise"? If there is no alternative, there is no choice!
If this is so then they could not have done otherwise than to eat of the Tree because that decision was made prior to their eating of it. Thus eating of the Tree was an amoral act.
Is this what you actually believe?
You're wrong, at least in regards to any moral action. There can be no such thing as an accidental moral act - by definition!
Category error. Your personal preference for a particular flavor is not a moral action.
Further, just because you always pick vanilla does not mean that you cannot choose otherwise. So long as alternatives exist, you do choose.
Also, stop calling it a proof. It isn't a proof. It's an argument - not the same thing.
First of all, saying it doesn't make it so.
Secondly, even if this followed, which it doesn't, it would render love an amoral issue.
That's because vanilla is a flavor. Likewise, you can't know what light is without opening your eyes. You can't understand truth without thinking.
You choose to eat, you choose to open your eyes, your choose to think.
NO!
Morality is NOT intent! The stupid left-wing Socialists and Fascists have good intentions! Idiotic parents who refuse to discipline their children do not intend to turn them into anti-social criminals. Intent has NOTHING to do with it. Morality is not subjective in this manner.
NOPE!
You NEVER EVER NEVER have to do evil that good may come of it. PERIOD!
No, Lon. Your intentions have nothing to do with it.'
At least not in the way you mean it here.
Exactly, the moral credit (or culpability) belongs to the one who forced it.
Your clock can do no such thing. You can feed your cat using a mechanical clock but that clock can't do anything that someone's mind didn't cause it to do and even then so long as it is has power (i.e. a battery or a spring or other some such power source).
It does not need to be a thing's opposite.
I've never seen anyone overthink something so hard before.
It isn't complicated. In order to choose there must be more than one option from which to choose. That's it! It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.
She didn't make an argument but simply made self-evidently true observations. Regardless, you will not refute one single syllable of it, no matter how hard you try.
As apposed to not doing so, right?
I mean, contradict yourself much?
This made no sense to me at all.
Don't be a sexist. The masculine pronoun is how you correctly state a non-gender specific statement in the English language.Her next line: "Man has to be man by choice." "Uhm, Ayn dear Ayn..." "He(she) has to hold his(her) life as a value." "Or??"
Lon, do yourself a favor and stay in your own lane on this issue. You couldn't be more wrong if Satan himself had put these words into your mouth and if there is one person who has PROVEN it, it's Ayn Rand. In short, individuals exist, the state does not except by the fiat of whomever happens to be in power. Your rights as an individual emanate from the fact that you are alive, your "rights" under the state are assigned to you arbitrarily by those (i.e. the INDIVIDUALS) who happen to be in power.
Not even you can conceive of love without the ability to do otherwise. It is a contradiction and does not - cannot - exist.
I just cannot fathom were the difficulty is.
I suppose that you are seated as you read this. Let's suppose that the seat you're in just vanished. Would you be responsible for having dropped to the floor?
Why not?
Not if the people having the discussion know what they are talking about!
Do you really believe that morality is a matter of popular opinion? I can tell you that you didn't learn that from the scriptures!
She never believed that morality was a group-think of what is mutually beneficial.
Her basis of morality was the life of a rational being. That's the closest any atheist could come to what the bible teaches and remain an atheist.
This is a tautology, Lon!
The last word there, the word "good" has "morally" implied. In other words, you may as well have said...
"Morality isn't defined by choices (I don't believe at this venture and by posit), but by what is moral."
Morality isn't defined by morality, that's meaningless.
False!
Without an alternative, no choice has been made and thus no morality can be assigned. Your cat feeding clock does not choose to feed your cat, it simply follows an inexorable line of cause and effect with no forks in the road from which to choose.
Logic and reason is just the conforming of your mind to the limitations of reality. There can be no meaning to anything, no communication, no relationship, no nothing that pertains to the issues of right and wrong if reason doesn't work or if you permit your mind to accept the contradictory as truth.
Further, God is Logic! In the same sense that God is Love, so also God is Kindness, Gentleness and Self-control. God is Joy itself, God is not merely the God of peace, He is Peace! By the same token and by the scripture's explicit declaration, God is Reason.
She was not discussing politics in those quotes, Lon. She was making an argument against the doctrine of Original Sin, not Communism. And her argument works, by the way! If the doctrine of Original Sin (as traditionally taught and understood - primarily by Catholicism) is true, God is unjust - by definition!
NO! You cannot! If one cannot do otherwise, no matter how well he treats another, that treatment is amoral and therefore not love. You might desire to say that your clock loves you because it faithfully tells you the time but, as I am fond of reminding people, saying it doesn't make it so.
I suggest not reading about Ayn Rand unless you read it from the Objectivist website. It would be better if you just read her own words. Go get the audio book version of Atlas Shrugged and listen through it. (If you decide to do that be sure to get the older version with Christopher Hurt doing the reading.) Not that doing so is needed for this discussion but only that most everyone despised the woman and they almost universally cast her statements in most negative possible light and/or flagrantly mischaracterize what she said.
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
Well and good, but none of that includes a need for a choice, which is the point (I'll come back to it, but this is all I have left for time tonight). We are rather discussing if "a different and more specifically 'opposing' decision/choice' is necessary 'for choice." We are getting into cloudy, and I believe this 'uncloudies' the water:
Do I need choice? My greatest inclination makes 'decision/choice' rather unnecessary if you bring me a bowl of vanilla ice cream, I'll eat it (trying to keep 'choice' simple for grasp and ease of discussion), and if you bring me a bowl of chocolate, I won't eat it.
It 'seems' that the choice is already made and certainly 'otherwise' looks off the table to me.
Morality needs a shared definition. Love is simply identity without the contrast, it is being dedicated to another's highest good. Again, I believe you are arguing the 'expression' (dedication/action) of love, not love itself by will and choice. It may well be you agree and we've knocked one point off our list in agreement.
Do I need choice? My greatest inclination makes 'decision/choice' rather unnecessary if you bring me a bowl of vanilla ice cream, I'll eat it (trying to keep 'choice' simple for grasp and ease of discussion), and if you bring me a bowl of chocolate, I won't eat it.
It 'seems' that the choice is already made and certainly 'otherwise' looks off the table to me.
Morality needs a shared definition. Love is simply identity without the contrast, it is being dedicated to another's highest good. Again, I believe you are arguing the 'expression' (dedication/action) of love, not love itself by will and choice. It may well be you agree and we've knocked one point off our list in agreement.
Are you really sitting there trying to convince me that you'd have no power, no ability, no way at all of refusing a bowl of vanilla ice cream, that it's utterly outside your decision making ability and that you will eat that bowl of ice cream, without any doubt whatsoever and without any chance at all that you could possibly do otherwise?
Is that REALLY what you want me to believe?
Isn't it actually true that you'll only eat it if you choose to do so?
There is simply no way that's true and if it is, then it bares no resemblance at all to love because it would be an amoral act, no different than when you clock reads 1:00pm or when a robotic arm at the Ford Motor Company welds two pieces of steal together. It's a mindless act that is outside the purview of choice and therefore outside the purview of morality.
No, it is CHOOSING to be dedicated to another's highest good.
No, there is exactly zero chance that I agree with you.
Morality presupposes choice.
Choice presupposes alternatives.
Therefore, morality presupposes alternatives.
Love is a moral concept.
Therefore, love presupposes alternative.
All of that stands on its own based solely on the definitions of the terms used. You can repeat your rejection of it as many time as you like but you've yet to make a single syllable of an argument to support that rejection. That's because, it seems to me, that your rejection isn't based on reason but on some sort of emotional consideration. Whether that's the case or not, the only way you're ever going to make any progress in an attempt to refute the logic of that argument is to start redefining the terms used in it.
Lastly, I get being short on time and that previous post was quite long but there were some points in my last post that should not be glossed over and so I would like a direct response from you on the following four points....
God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge at which point they both then had an option to either obey or not. By your theory, they would have had no ability to NOT eat of the tree because, according to you, they had no ability to do otherwise until AFTER they ate it!
How does that make any sense whatsoever?
If this is so then they could not have done otherwise than to eat of the Tree because that decision was made prior to their eating of it. Thus eating of the Tree was an amoral act.
Is this what you actually believe?
I just cannot fathom were the difficulty is.
I suppose that you are seated as you read this. Let's suppose then that the seat you're in just vanished. Would you be responsible for having dropped to the floor?
Why not?
This is a tautology, Lon!
The last word there, the word "good" has "morally" implied. In other words, you may as well have said...
"Morality isn't defined by choices (I don't believe at this venture and by posit), but by what is moral."
Morality isn't defined by morality, that's meaningless.
False!
Without an alternative, no choice has been made and thus no morality can be assigned. Your cat feeding clock does not choose to feed your cat, it simply follows an inexorable line of cause and effect with no forks in the road from which to choose.
Derf
Well-known member
Yes, this is probably tangent to the main point of the thread.
@JudgeRightly
I read this today:
Micah 1:2-6 KJV — Hear, all ye people; hearken, O earth, and all that therein is: and let the Lord GOD be witness against you, the Lord from his holy temple. For, behold, ***the LORD cometh forth out of his place, and will come down,*** and tread upon the high places of the earth. And the mountains shall be molten under him, and the valleys shall be cleft, as wax before the fire, and as the waters that are poured down a steep place. For the transgression of Jacob is all this, and for the sins of the house of Israel. What is the transgression of Jacob? is it not Samaria? and what are the high places of Judah? are they not Jerusalem? Therefore I will make Samaria as an heap of the field, and as plantings of a vineyard: and I will pour down the stones thereof into the valley, and I will discover the foundations thereof.
The passage is speaking of judgment. The Lord is not coming down to see what's going on, but coming to judge. That's what Abraham seemed to understand about the Lord going to Sodom, that it was for judgment, not just to check things out. So he pleaded for the city to save Lot from destruction. But the Lord hadn't said He was going to destroy Sodom yet.
About logic in the opening post....Ray Comfort in his street interviews argues the same point without mentioning John 1. He asks if they really believe that nothing created everything. It's complete stupidity or a pathological liar to say yes, that nothing created everything. I think it's absolutely appropriate to not say "Word" and say "Logic".
This is from the first page. I think Frank Turek is wrong. He implies they are. He says that murder is wrong because God said is wrong. I cannot get on board with that idea.
Frank Turek otherwise does a great job in most of the presentations that I see where he is talking to young people.
"Word" is flatly an incorrect English translation of "Logos"- period.
The only reason anyone thinks otherwise is because they've grown comfortable with the way the famous passage sounds. It's like the mangy, three legged, blind dog that has stuck around long enough for people to grow comfortable with it.
The problem is that the text explicitly states otherwise and the translation of the passage is a good one, by the way. It absolutely says....
"I will go down now and see"..."and if not, I will know".
I know of no translation that renders it differently.
There certainly is nothing in the text to indicate that it is what would be a quite unusual figure of speech, where the passage means the opposite of what it actually says.
Derf
Well-known member
Right. He had to see something. It wasn't something that happened in the past. It could only be to see something that might or might not happen in the future. What happened in the future, with respect to God's conversation with Abraham? The episode with the angels in Sodom. God didn't gain any past knowledge about previous sins, only confirmation that they were as evil as reports said they were. He was judging their present state (repentant or not), to know whether to judge them (bring judgment) by fire.
I couldn't follow this except for the last two sentences but even God gaining confirmation of their current state is enough to explode absolute omniscience and omnipresence.
Derf
Well-known member
I agree, at least in part.
I am very hesitant to say that God doesn't even know a lot of stuff about the past and present. If there are evil acts He doesn't want to pay attention to, that suggests that there are victims, possibly innocent or children, of those actions that are being hurt without His knowledge. How would He know, unless He at least checks out what's going on? How can He work all things together for good for those little ones, the like which make up the kingdom of heaven? To suggest He turns a blind eye toward children sounds heinous to me, rather than moral.
So my point was to suggest a way to read the text that allows for past and present omniscience--those things which are necessary to understand in order to guide the future as He sees fit (like bringing judgment on mankind with the flood at the right time).
Nineveh is a prime example. Assuming Jonah's words were true (which we both believe they were), God had already planned for judgment, but was allowing for repentance.
Here's the first command to Jonah:
[Jon 1:2 KJV] Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before me.
And the second, after the fish episode:
[Jon 3:2 KJV] Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.
God knew that they were wicked, but He wanted Jonah to preach to them first. Why? Because of the many little children that were there:
[Jon 4:11 KJV] And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and [also] much cattle?
So, it had "come up before" God that they were wicked, similar to Sodom. But God had already counted the number of children in the city?
Back to Sodom...Abraham pleaded with God not to destroy the city if there were as few as 10 righteous people there. Did God already know there were fewer than 10? I don't know, but if He had already counted the children of Nineveh, why not the righteous (and children) in Sodom, which was probably a much smaller city than Nineveh. Here was God's answer to Abraham's pleading:
[Gen 18:26...32b KJV] And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes....
And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.
I think you made the statement earlier (or someone did) that God doesn't know anything about the past that He doesn't want to know, especially evil acts. But all of judgment relies on the knowledge of the judge about the evil acts of the past. A less-than-perfect judge would have to rely on his witnesses to provide true facts about the crimes/sins, but God is not a less-than-perfect judge. He even has angels that are less than perfect, and subject to falling...and lying (John 8:44). Humans are known for their propensity to lie (Num 23:19). Who else is trustworthy to provide God testimony about evil human activities, if He doesn't witness it Himself?
So, as I pointed out before, if there is a record of all the evil acts that every person ever did, especially of the unrighteous, who wrote that record? How does God know it's a true record?
Back to Sodom again...
God already knew they were wicked, because they had committed evil acts "before the Lord".
[Gen 13:13 KJV] But the men of Sodom [were] wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.
So why does God then seek other testimony about their sins later on?
[Gen 18:20 KJV] And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
I think it is similar to the murder of Abel, where God said:
[Gen 4:10 KJV] And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
The cry wasn't necessarily from people, but from Abel's "blood" that was spilled on the ground. Do you think the blood was actually making noise God could hear? I don't know, but I expect it is merely a euphemism, and the same could be true about the cry from Sodom.
Well, this doesn't seem to follow to me. Not everything that happens is worked by God for the good of anyone, except perhaps in a very broad, long term, big picture sense. I mean, babies are murdered every 30 seconds in this country alone. I can't see any evidence of God working gang activity for the good of anyone much less their seemingly constant victims. God doesn't seem to be working things out for the benefit of the citizens of North Korea under their lunatic ruler.
In short, good people have terrible things happen to them all the time and so how would that fact be easier to deal with with if God knows everything there is to know whether He wants to know it or not?
Further, it's important to not take these ideas too far. No matter the state of God's knowledge, He under no circumstance would be hobbled in His ability to judge rightly. God is still God and has power and resources that I'm sure we cannot even begin to fathom. There's no doubt that God either knows or is able to find out everything He would ever need to know for any purpose.
You should avoid doing such things as much as possible, especially when dealing with doctrines that we know have pagan origins such as the Omni-doctrines. Interpreting a passage to preserve God's righteous character is one thing because if God isn't righteous then biblical doctrine is a moot subject but doing so to preserve most any other sort of doctrine is called eisegesis and is a mistake.
I don't deny that there were children there but that isn't the reason God wanted them preached to. God expected them to repent in response to Jonah's message. Even Jonah expected it which he didn't want to happen and why he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the preaching!
Whether He knew or not isn't the point. The point is that Abraham talked with God in a manner that is completely incompatible with there being any notion in his head about God being omniscient in the way that Christians normally believe. God, in the mind of Abraham could be negotiated with and His mind could be changed.
As for what it says about God's knowledge, what would have been the point of God choose not to simply tell Abraham, "Look, I'm God okay? I'm telling you right now, there aren't even ten people in that horrible city!"?
Further, you keep bringing up children. There are millions and millions of children who are murdered all over the world every year. How does your understanding of God's knowledge apply to that modern situation?
Well, first of all God can definitely tell when someone is lying and so this argument wouldn't hold water in any case but that's almost beside the point. As I was saying before, God is not a mere human and would not need to rely on third party testimony. The guilty know that they are guilty and God can know what they know. You can't keep a secret from God and there is no right to remain silent before God.
Further, there may be any number of possible means by which God could be made aware of anything He needs to know that we are completely ignorant of. The may be, just to name one possible example, some means by which the events of history are being recorded. That's speculation, obviously, but the point is that there isn't any need for God to be a first person witness to every vile act that springs from the dark hearts of evil men.
This an unanswerable question. Are you suggesting that God would be incapable of devising such a method of reliable record keeping. For all we know, our own minds might be where such things are recorded.
Well, again, we don't know, right? Perhaps there is some aspect to the natural world that we have no idea about. One way or another, God has some means, perhaps multiple means, to find out whatever it is he needs to know.