Hare_Geist
2007-06-15, 11:29
I remember that when I was young, I was taught two statements as Christian doctrine that, to me, seem to contradict one another: (A) that hell is the absence of God; and (b) that God is everywhere. So if I am not mistaken, the logical argument below shows that it necessarily cannot be both but must be one or the other.
(1) hell is absence of God
(2) if God is everywhere, then hell cannot exist
(3) God is everywhere
(4) therefore, hell does not exist
I was also told that because God is the perfect being, everything he does and says is perfect and therefore his moral propositions are absolute, but God being the perfect being does not entail absolute morality nor perfect actions (which includes saying things, for to say something is to act).
Being perfect equals being faultless, the best, the unsurpassed. To be objectively perfect, however, the perfect thing must be objectively measurable. Knowing all equals knowing everything, including what is the case, what is not the case, what can be the case and what cannot be the case. This means knowing all equals knowing the most, this means it is unsurpassable, objectively measurable and perfect. Being able to do everything possible equals being all-powerful and is unsurpassable, therefore that is objectively measurable and perfect too; although it must be stressed that being all-powerful does not entail being able to do anything, like, for example, breaking logic.
However, for reasons I shall state in a moment, morality is not commensurable and if this is the case, then perfect actions are not commensurable and God can do things that appear to us and him as mistakes (such as the creation of man and the flood). Before I go on to show ethics to be incommensurable, I must address something I am sure people are questioning: the statement that God makes mistakes. To be ‘imperfect’ is to make ‘mistakes’. However, one must remember we’re talking of things that are objectively measurable, therefore if ethics and actions are incommensurable, then it will only subjectively appear to be a mistake to whoever views it as a mistake, based on their emotions and preferences.
Now, knowing all does not entail knowing what is objectively good if such a thing as absolute morality is impossible (and I’m going to argue that it is impossible), although it does equal knowing what is best if you want consequence Y to happen or consequence X to happen. Being able to do the most does not entail being able to do any thing, such as defy logic and create contradictions. It also does not entail always doing the ‘morally best thing’ if the ‘morally best thing’ is subjective. Also, being able to do the most does not entail doing perfect actions if perfect actions do not exist.
Here is the reason morals and actions cannot be objectively perfect: because if God created everything, then it would result in circular logic. In Plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates poses the question: “is the pious loved by the Gods because it is pious or is it pious because it is loved by the Gods?” In Islam, Muslims generally believe it is good because God says so and therefore believe in divine command theory, whilst in ancient Greek, the Greeks believed the good was already there and therefore the Gods didn’t create it. Christians generally try to have it both ways, which results in a logical circle: “it’s good because I say so and I say so because it’s good” or “p implies q, q implies p, suppose p, therefore q, therefore p”.
If, then, God does not have the ability to break logic (and remember that being unsurpassable in power does not equal being able to do any thing), then it is one or the other. You can argue, using Genesis, that he did not create the good by statements such as ‘“God saw that it was good”(Genesis 1:10)’. But this obviously implies, then, that God did not in fact create everything. Therefore, God can no longer be a ‘god of the gaps’ and a prime mover that created everything, which I don’t think would go too well with Christians who, if they cannot accept this, would have to accept divine command theory. Divine command theory, however, is an appeal to authority and is therefore a logical fallacy, plus it entails having to accept that God is possibly lying to you (but then again, so does the opposite, since we cannot know for sure what absolute morality is and would have to just be taking God’s word for it, when it could oddly be morally absolute for him to lie and send all to hell).
Also, morality existing independently of God would raise the same problem for Christians as it does for atheists: how is morality possible independent of a living being's subjective state of mind? You know this is the case, considering Christians generally ask atheists: "but without God, where do you get your morals from?"
Of course there is a way out of this: arguing that God can in fact do any thing, and therefore that God can defy the rules of logic. But this entails the same problems: God could be a perfect being, and evil, and he could be screwing everyone over. Therefore, once again, we end up with the only thing that I can think of that would make such religions possible: strict fideism. Of course, this entails believing in non-falsifiable, non-verifiable statements unquestionably, possibly causing all kinds of ‘atrocities’ and fucking up your critical thinking skills, but when has that ever bothered the religious?
I also was told that abortion was wrong, but surely, using Christian doctrine I was taught combined with utilitarianism, infant genocide can be justified?
(1) there exists two places called heaven and hell
(2) heaven is preferable to hell
(3) you either go to heaven or hell, but cannot go to both
(4) if and only if the accountable accept Jesus as saviour and lord of their life, will they go to heaven
(5) you are an accountable if and only if you are above the age of x and are of sound mind
(6) the unaccountable go to heaven by default
(7) if a Christian asks for Jesus to forgive them, then Jesus will forgive them
(8) if an unaccountable becomes an accountable, then the chances of them going to hell instead of heaven necessarily increases
(9) therefore, to increase utility, it is best if Christians kill all children and abort all foetuses, in so doing, sending them to heaven and keeping them from risk of hell, and then asking Jesus for forgiveness.
Of course, this argument supposes hell exists and can be refuted by my argument for the non-existence of hell. But then, surely, the only possibility when one dies is heaven, and therefore all of this suffering on earth can easily be cut short… of course, you can say God can do any thing, but I’ve not seen any arguments for this and so it would have to rely upon strict fideism, but then again my arguments suppose he cannot break the rules of logic, but they only do that to draw all the logical conclusions and therefore would have to be accepted if he cannot break the rules of logic. Also, doesn’t the Bible reject fideism by saying one can and must prove God’s existence?
Anyways, I just figured that these three ideas I’d been kicking around would make for some good arguments.
(1) hell is absence of God
(2) if God is everywhere, then hell cannot exist
(3) God is everywhere
(4) therefore, hell does not exist
I was also told that because God is the perfect being, everything he does and says is perfect and therefore his moral propositions are absolute, but God being the perfect being does not entail absolute morality nor perfect actions (which includes saying things, for to say something is to act).
Being perfect equals being faultless, the best, the unsurpassed. To be objectively perfect, however, the perfect thing must be objectively measurable. Knowing all equals knowing everything, including what is the case, what is not the case, what can be the case and what cannot be the case. This means knowing all equals knowing the most, this means it is unsurpassable, objectively measurable and perfect. Being able to do everything possible equals being all-powerful and is unsurpassable, therefore that is objectively measurable and perfect too; although it must be stressed that being all-powerful does not entail being able to do anything, like, for example, breaking logic.
However, for reasons I shall state in a moment, morality is not commensurable and if this is the case, then perfect actions are not commensurable and God can do things that appear to us and him as mistakes (such as the creation of man and the flood). Before I go on to show ethics to be incommensurable, I must address something I am sure people are questioning: the statement that God makes mistakes. To be ‘imperfect’ is to make ‘mistakes’. However, one must remember we’re talking of things that are objectively measurable, therefore if ethics and actions are incommensurable, then it will only subjectively appear to be a mistake to whoever views it as a mistake, based on their emotions and preferences.
Now, knowing all does not entail knowing what is objectively good if such a thing as absolute morality is impossible (and I’m going to argue that it is impossible), although it does equal knowing what is best if you want consequence Y to happen or consequence X to happen. Being able to do the most does not entail being able to do any thing, such as defy logic and create contradictions. It also does not entail always doing the ‘morally best thing’ if the ‘morally best thing’ is subjective. Also, being able to do the most does not entail doing perfect actions if perfect actions do not exist.
Here is the reason morals and actions cannot be objectively perfect: because if God created everything, then it would result in circular logic. In Plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates poses the question: “is the pious loved by the Gods because it is pious or is it pious because it is loved by the Gods?” In Islam, Muslims generally believe it is good because God says so and therefore believe in divine command theory, whilst in ancient Greek, the Greeks believed the good was already there and therefore the Gods didn’t create it. Christians generally try to have it both ways, which results in a logical circle: “it’s good because I say so and I say so because it’s good” or “p implies q, q implies p, suppose p, therefore q, therefore p”.
If, then, God does not have the ability to break logic (and remember that being unsurpassable in power does not equal being able to do any thing), then it is one or the other. You can argue, using Genesis, that he did not create the good by statements such as ‘“God saw that it was good”(Genesis 1:10)’. But this obviously implies, then, that God did not in fact create everything. Therefore, God can no longer be a ‘god of the gaps’ and a prime mover that created everything, which I don’t think would go too well with Christians who, if they cannot accept this, would have to accept divine command theory. Divine command theory, however, is an appeal to authority and is therefore a logical fallacy, plus it entails having to accept that God is possibly lying to you (but then again, so does the opposite, since we cannot know for sure what absolute morality is and would have to just be taking God’s word for it, when it could oddly be morally absolute for him to lie and send all to hell).
Also, morality existing independently of God would raise the same problem for Christians as it does for atheists: how is morality possible independent of a living being's subjective state of mind? You know this is the case, considering Christians generally ask atheists: "but without God, where do you get your morals from?"
Of course there is a way out of this: arguing that God can in fact do any thing, and therefore that God can defy the rules of logic. But this entails the same problems: God could be a perfect being, and evil, and he could be screwing everyone over. Therefore, once again, we end up with the only thing that I can think of that would make such religions possible: strict fideism. Of course, this entails believing in non-falsifiable, non-verifiable statements unquestionably, possibly causing all kinds of ‘atrocities’ and fucking up your critical thinking skills, but when has that ever bothered the religious?
I also was told that abortion was wrong, but surely, using Christian doctrine I was taught combined with utilitarianism, infant genocide can be justified?
(1) there exists two places called heaven and hell
(2) heaven is preferable to hell
(3) you either go to heaven or hell, but cannot go to both
(4) if and only if the accountable accept Jesus as saviour and lord of their life, will they go to heaven
(5) you are an accountable if and only if you are above the age of x and are of sound mind
(6) the unaccountable go to heaven by default
(7) if a Christian asks for Jesus to forgive them, then Jesus will forgive them
(8) if an unaccountable becomes an accountable, then the chances of them going to hell instead of heaven necessarily increases
(9) therefore, to increase utility, it is best if Christians kill all children and abort all foetuses, in so doing, sending them to heaven and keeping them from risk of hell, and then asking Jesus for forgiveness.
Of course, this argument supposes hell exists and can be refuted by my argument for the non-existence of hell. But then, surely, the only possibility when one dies is heaven, and therefore all of this suffering on earth can easily be cut short… of course, you can say God can do any thing, but I’ve not seen any arguments for this and so it would have to rely upon strict fideism, but then again my arguments suppose he cannot break the rules of logic, but they only do that to draw all the logical conclusions and therefore would have to be accepted if he cannot break the rules of logic. Also, doesn’t the Bible reject fideism by saying one can and must prove God’s existence?
Anyways, I just figured that these three ideas I’d been kicking around would make for some good arguments.