What I learned from Kirk Cameron (Page 7): Lavender Room: Slowtwitch Forums

Bike Shops Coaches Fitters Race Calendar Running Stores Store Stack & Reach Training Log Triathlon Clubs We Noticed
		MAIN INDEX	RULES & LEGEND	LOG IN

Slowtwitch Forums: Lavender Room:
What I learned from Kirk Cameron

1 ... 4 5 6 7 8

View All

Eppur si muove

Mar 16, 12 5:25

Post #151 of 185 (653 views)

Re: What I learned from Kirk Cameron [TriFloyd] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Your viewpoint differs not only from my own, but also from Guru's unless he's changed his mind from earlier in the thread (when he acknowledged that good/evil made sense only with regard to free-will choices). Therefore some of the things I've said about his position might not apply to yours.

So, I would agree that by definition God's actions are always good.

So far as I can tell, you haven't provided a definition of "good," but I'm guessing it would be along the lines of "willed by God." I don't think that definition sheds any light on why God ought to act as he does and why man ought to act as God wills, in terms of some deeper relationship between the nature/existence of the acting being in each case and its actions. That's exactly the problem I address in my own approach to the concept "good."

It seems to me that you're only using the term "good" when there's available a choice of "evil". If so, then I would suggest 2 things: 1) you are going to quickly run into a problem for having a source of what is actually "good" from which to have "evil" be introduced as moving away from "good" (i.e., "evil" = "non-good"; and 2) without a source, your definition for "good" [and its correlary "evil"] is going to be very subjective from person to person or people group to people group or sovereign nation to sovereign nation, etc.

Not at all. I identified the source and explained why that is the objectively correct source here. The chief difference is that the source I identified is something that is actually available to empirical experience and evaluation, while your source is a three-letter word with no clear referent.

Gurudriver10

Mar 16, 12 6:11

Post #152 of 185 (645 views)

Re: What I learned from Kirk Cameron [Eppur si muove] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Eppur si muove wrote:

It seems to me that you're only using the term "good" when there's available a choice of "evil". If so, then I would suggest 2 things: 1) you are going to quickly run into a problem for having a source of what is actually "good" from which to have "evil" be introduced as moving away from "good" (i.e., "evil" = "non-good"; and 2) without a source, your definition for "good" [and its correlary "evil"] is going to be very subjective from person to person or people group to people group or sovereign nation to sovereign nation, etc.

Not at all. I identified the source and explained why that is the objectively correct source here. The chief difference is that the source I identified is something that is actually available to empirical experience and evaluation, while your source is a three-letter word with no clear referent.

Eppur, I don't see anything in your link that makes it the "objectively correct source." How so? What you propose merely changes with man's whim, public opinion, majority vote, or brute force. What is the objective standard?

Gurudriver10

Mar 16, 12 6:16

Post #153 of 185 (641 views)

Re: What I learned from Kirk Cameron [Eppur si muove] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Eppur si muove wrote:

Agreed.

Okay, then you accept Premise 1 as well, just as I thought. Since you indicated in your previous post that you still adhere to Premises 2 and Premises 3 as well, we're right back where we were before you offered your "re-phrasing." You accept all the premises that were typed into the logic calculator, and a being that is consistent with those premises cannot possibly exist.

I would say the revealed character of God shows no evil and that it must not be a possibility for Him.

If that were the case, then evil would be impossible for him, which means that he wouldn't really be making a choice between good and evil. But back in post #75, you agreed that "the concepts 'good' and 'evil' apply only in the context of free will, that is, in situations where one has a choice between a good action and an evil one." According to what you just said, God doesn't really have a choice between good and evil. If that's the case, then "good" and "evil" don't apply to God's actions at all, which is precisely the alternative I suggested at the beginning of this discussion (#62), although you objected to the idea then.

Your premise #2 is still not quite what I believe to be revealed about God. There is a difference between "not willing evil" and "always loving and doing good". And #3 is dubious unless God's nature fundamentally changes. #3 is not very likely since God has revealed Himself to be "unchanging" and "eternal". Another aspect I might add is trying to define God on man's terms. I would try to define God on His terms He has said about Himself. I would also suggest defining man on what God has said about man; however, you would have to believe in God to do so.

FTDA

Mar 16, 12 6:31

Post #154 of 185 (633 views)

Re: What I learned from Kirk Cameron [Gurudriver10] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

WARNING

Cherry Picked Biblical verse Ahead

Who is he that can speak, and it happens, when the Lord command it not?37
Out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not both evil and good?38
Lamentations 3:37-38

Quote:

It always amazes me how many times this God orders the killing of innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said �Thou shall not kill�. For example, God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21). God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). He orders another attack and the killing of �all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses� (Joshua 6). In Judges 21, He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife! Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody! In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church! In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.

http://www.evilbible.com/

Personally this site and quote gives the bible to much credit as it is obvious it is not an historical text. It is also obvious the literary techniques used do not paint a pretty picture of the biblical god.
------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus fish and Darwin fish leading school of smaller Jesus fish: FTDA's minivan.

Loving all religions...day 6.

(This post was edited by FTDA on Mar 16, 12 6:33)

Gurudriver10

Mar 16, 12 6:42

Post #155 of 185 (625 views)

Re: What I learned from Kirk Cameron [FTDA] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Yep, and God is the Judge, knowing the hearts of all men and women. Think of this, if there was no Fall, God would've had no need for judgment on man. Since all of us are judged worthy of spiritual death, God is free to take us all out. We put ourselves in the position of deserving His wrath by defying His will.

But look at God's dealing with Balaam in the OT. Or look at Jesus' words and actions. In the OT, it's "eye for an eye" but with Jesus there is redemption, forgiveness, and no condemnation. But Jesus does warn that when he comes back, there will be a Judgment. So, same God in the OT and NT. He doesn't change.

FTDA

Mar 16, 12 6:52

Post #156 of 185 (618 views)

Re: What I learned from Kirk Cameron [Gurudriver10] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

And you wipe it all away through a simple semantic argument on the definition of "god".

Epic fail, whatever god chooses is good based solely on a definition that good is all good. A silly tautology at best. If his plan is to send you to hell for a tiny misrepresentation of his truth you would have no option but to thank him for his wrath. Just a little funny.
------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus fish and Darwin fish leading school of smaller Jesus fish: FTDA's minivan.

Loving all religions...day 6.

(This post was edited by FTDA on Mar 16, 12 6:53)

Eppur si muove

Mar 16, 12 7:05

Post #157 of 185 (613 views)

Re: What I learned from Kirk Cameron [Gurudriver10] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Eppur, I don't see anything in your link that makes it the "objectively correct source." How so?

I showed how the concept of "good" identified an objective aspect of reality, the recognition of which is necessary to cognition of that reality, and also how that definition of the term was consistent with widespread usage of "good" and other value-terms. (I had already justified my use of those criteria in threads leading up to that one.)

What you propose merely changes with man's whim, public opinion, majority vote, or brute force.

If you imagine that, then obviously you have forgotten the definition of "good" from that post. To summarize briefly: Certain entities, including living entities, exist because they serve some function, and value-terms like "good" are applicable specifically to such entities. "Good" was therefore defined as "pertaining to an entity that successfully serves the function that explains its existence, or to the actions or goals that it pursues in the process of successfully serving that function." Only in the case of man, however, is the pursuit of the "good" a matter of free will, so that that pursuit takes on ethical import.

That linkage between what is regarded as "good" and the functional cause of a human being's life and well-being, I further showed, was present regardless of whether one believes that the latter derives from God's will, or from the power of the state, or from society, or (as I do) from his or her own productive actions. Obviously, people have different opinions about that, but not all of those opinions can be factually true. There must be some objective reason why human beings actually live and prosper, or fail to do so. That implies that the defining standard for the "good" is absolutely not, contrary to your contention, dependent on "whim, public opinion, majority vote, or brute force." None of the latter things determine the nature of reality.

BTW, it's instructive to observe why the concept "good" doesn't work with "God": "God" is supposed to be indestructible, and his existence and well-being are not contingent on service to any function. OTOH, if you believe man's existence and well-being are contingent on "God," it is consistent to understand man's actions as "good" or "evil" in terms of God's will.

TriFloyd

Mar 16, 12 7:08

Post #158 of 185 (608 views)

Re: What I learned from Kirk Cameron [Eppur si muove] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Your viewpoint differs not only from my own, ...

I'm sorry that I have not really kept up with the thread. So, I don't know your position.

... but also from Guru's ...

I'm fairly confident that Guru would see my way* if we had some sort of discussion. My view has been held by orthodox Christianity since Augustine and, frankly, it's not very controversial among the orthodox Christian community down through the ages.

*Not really "my way" at all. It's really Augustine's, if any person's.

... unless he's changed his mind from earlier in the thread (when he acknowledged that good/evil made sense only with regard to free-will choices).

Put it this way, if God would have never created and there was only God, then evil would have no opportunity for application because with God there is no unrighteousness (Dt. 32:4; Job 34:10; Ps. 92:15, etc.). Yet, God would still be exercising His "free will choices."

So far as I can tell, you haven't provided a definition of "good," but I'm guessing it would be along the lines of "willed by God."

It would certainly include "willed by God" but would more broadly include anything consistent with God's character/nature because is the source of good.

I don't think that definition sheds any light on why God ought to act as he does ...

It probably does not shed light on that because I don't think we have any standing/basis to speak about God in light of any "oughtness". "Oughtness" is kind of a downward thing (if you catch my drift) and for us to speak in terms of "oughtness" to God would be upward. I would not have any basis to judge God's actions against any standard because for me God Himself is THE standard.

... and why man ought to act as God wills, ...

I think we definitely disagree here. If God created man, then God can and does make the rules (e.g., God's preceptive will) for his creation. Man, as God's creation, must be obedient to those rules (e.g., do not steal). This sheds light on the "oughtness." Where man chooses to violate God's preceptive will, then that is "evil" insofar as it deviates from God's preceptive will. God's preceptive will flows from God's nature.

... in terms of some deeper relationship between the nature/existence of the acting being in each case and its actions. That's exactly the problem I address in my own approach to the concept "good."

Right. But, your "deeper relationship" is still just a subjective standard.

The chief difference is that the source I identified is something that is actually available to empirical experience and evaluation, ...

It might be available to empirical experience and evaluation, but against no standard that is based on any objective truth other than one made up by you and some group of like-thinking people (i.e., it's subjective). I can easily find people (e.g., thieves or Iran) who disagree with your standard. Ergo, you are left with a subjective standard that does not apply objectively to all people.

... while your source is a three-letter word with no clear referent.

So you say.

Gurudriver10

Mar 16, 12 7:24

Post #159 of 185 (600 views)

Re: What I learned from Kirk Cameron [FTDA] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

FTDA wrote:

A semantic argument on the definition of "god" or "good"? Hey, God has to judge offenses. If someone is offended against, they deserve justice and the offender deserves punishment. This is perfect justice, ie "eye for an eye." But there's a problem. Perfect justice is not perfect love. So, God takes care of that by instituting perfect love through Jesus' sacrifice, clearing a way for us sinners to have access to our Father without fear. He goes further by resurrecting Jesus and offering us eternal life with Him through Jesus. So yes, you should thank God for taking care of the biggies via the Cross: evil, justice, mercy, forgiveness, and love.

Brick

Mar 16, 12 7:38

Post #160 of 185 (591 views)

Re: What I learned from Kirk Cameron [TriFloyd] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

It probably does not shed light on that because I don't think we have any standing/basis to speak about God in light of any "oughtness".

This is a good place to start.

In a Christian construct, there is no normative discussion about God. The only discussion about God is descriptive. Thus, we don't ask what God should have done because there is no basis upon which to disagree as to whether there was a better choice for God to have made. There is only an attempt to describe or understand what God did.

Now, if we concede that God as described above exists, then is not all of creation the result of His Will?

FTDA

Mar 16, 12 7:41

Post #161 of 185 (589 views)

Re: What I learned from Kirk Cameron [Gurudriver10] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Yawn......... An inempt attempt by fictitious god created by an archaic society.
------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus fish and Darwin fish leading school of smaller Jesus fish: FTDA's minivan.

Loving all religions...day 6.

Eppur si muove

Mar 16, 12 8:12

Post #162 of 185 (581 views)

Re: What I learned from Kirk Cameron [Gurudriver10] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Your premise #2 is still not quite what I believe to be revealed about God.

Premise #2 stated: "No actions that are willed by him are not good." You just said in #139 that "God wills only good actions." That means EXACTLY the same thing. Draw Venn diagrams for both statements, and you'll find they are identical. So have you changed your mind since #139?

And #3 is dubious unless God's nature fundamentally changes. #3 is not very likely since God has revealed Himself to be "unchanging" and "eternal".

Premise #3 stated: "There exist actions that are logically possible for him and not good." In #139 you said that "God could wil something 'not good' and added, "the possibility is there to do something bad but not the probability." So if the possibility is there for God to do something bad, that means that some actions are logically possible for him and bad. Unless you're trying to say that those actions are bad and good at the same time, that means you do in fact accept #3--unless, again, you've changed your mind on this point too. Again, try drawing Venn diagram for both statements over the universe of all conceivable actions, with circles for "logically possible," for "good," and for "bad."

Another aspect I might add is trying to define God on man's terms. I would try to define God on His terms He has said about Himself.

I don't think we're "defining God" at all; we're merely evaluating certain claims about the alleged entity and checking whether they are mutually consistent. The claims are expressed in human language because you're the one who made them and you are presumably a human being.

I would also suggest defining man on what God has said about man; however, you would have to believe in God to do so.

We're not talking about man at all. Even if we were, there's no reason why human beings could not examine themselves in the light of their own reason.

TriFloyd

Mar 16, 12 8:51

Post #163 of 185 (572 views)

Re: What I learned from Kirk Cameron [Eppur si muove] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

I showed how the concept of "good" identified an objective aspect of reality, the recognition of which is necessary to cognition of that reality, and also how that definition of the term was consistent with widespread usage of "good" and other value-terms. (I had already justified my use of those criteria in threads leading up to that one.)

I would stipulate that it's "widespread." Yet, that it's "widespread" is not useful to your other than to point out that you would probably win in a "might is right" fight to the death that your way is better. It must be universal. And, I think we agree that I could find people groups who you are not sovereign over (e.g., theives or Iran) that disagree with your "oughtness." Again, because your view is widespread, I bet that you and your likeminded group could take them in a "might is right" fight, but that would only prove my point. You could also outvote them in a democratic vote for who ethic to adopt, but again, that's not how we understand "oughtness."

That linkage between what is regarded as "good" and the functional cause of a human being's life and well-being, I further showed, was present regardless of whether one believes that the latter derives from God's will, or from the power of the state, or from society, or (as I do) from his or her own productive actions.

That one person believes in God or does not believe in God is not helpful. IOW, if I said that I don't believe in oxygen, then that doesn't really change the fact that oxygen is going into and out of my body to keep me alive. It's possible that people who disagree on the existence of God or oxygen actually borrow from another person's viewpoint (on the existence of God or oxygen) to live, notwithstanding their own viewpoint.

I appreciate that saying there is God or oxygen similarly does not represent an apologetic argument for the existence of God or oxygen.

... or (as I do) from his or her own productive actions.

Right, a subjective standard of similarly-minded people. That's not how we determine "oughtness." Your subjective standard does not seem to be persuasive to all people groups (e.g., thieves and Iran).

Obviously, people have different opinions about that, but not all of those opinions can be factually true. There must be some objective reason why human beings actually live and prosper, or fail to do so. That implies that the defining standard for the "good" is absolutely not, contrary to your contention, dependent on "whim, public opinion, majority vote, or brute force."

First, a standard based on the Creator of the whole system is not subjective. Second, a standard (however formulaic and laid out on a person's website) is totally subjective because no matter how formulaic to that one person/group the next person/group who has equal claims of sovereignty (e.g., theives and Iran) can make up their own system. IOW, it's subjective.

If you take your argument for "oughtness" over to Iran, then Iran is going to kill you. Who are you to say that Iran is wrong because they are sovereign over their own system as much as your are sovereign over your system (2 different systems appealing to their own standard of "oughtness").

TriFloyd

Mar 16, 12 9:08

Post #164 of 185 (567 views)

Re: What I learned from Kirk Cameron [Brick] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Now, if we concede that God as described above exists, then is not all of creation the result of His Will?

Yes.

Brick

Mar 16, 12 9:23

Post #165 of 185 (564 views)

Re: What I learned from Kirk Cameron [TriFloyd] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

TriFloyd wrote:

Now, if we concede that God as described above exists, then is not all of creation the result of His Will?

Yes.

Then it is also true that what we understand to be evil is the result of His Will.

If so, then it must be true that His Will includes what we understand to be evil.

Is it possible that what humans consider to be evil is divinely good?

Eppur si muove

Mar 16, 12 10:18

Post #166 of 185 (557 views)

Re: What I learned from Kirk Cameron [TriFloyd] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

It probably does not shed light on that because I don't think we have any standing/basis to speak about God in light of any "oughtness". "Oughtness" is kind of a downward thing (if you catch my drift) and for us to speak in terms of "oughtness" to God would be upward. I would not have any basis to judge God's actions against any standard...

If you're right, then human beings have no basis to judge whether "God" and "God's actions" ought to be as they are vs. something different, which is another way of saying that our concepts of "good" and "evil" simply don't apply to him. Sounds exactly like what I suggested at the outset of this conversation.

Brick

Mar 16, 12 10:30

Post #167 of 185 (548 views)

Re: What I learned from Kirk Cameron [Eppur si muove] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Eppur si muove wrote:

I think it means that our concept of good and evil flow from God. In other words, behavior that is in accordance with God's Will is good.

But then, as I pointed out above, this has its own problems.

TriFloyd

Mar 16, 12 10:43

Post #168 of 185 (541 views)

Re: What I learned from Kirk Cameron [Brick] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Then it is also true that what we understand to be evil is the result of His Will.

His decrective will, yes. But, against his preceptive will.

If so, then it must be true that His Will includes what we understand to be evil.

His decrective will, yes. But, against his preceptive will.

Is it possible that what humans consider to be evil is divinely good?

No, because it's against his preceptive will. Adam was told by God that Adam could eat from any tree in the Garden except one tree (God's precriptive will). Adam, against God's prescriptive will, ate from the forbidden tree. It was decreed from all eternty by God that Adam would eat from the forbidden tree. Adam, in the exercise of Adam's free will ate of from the forbidden tree. So, in the sense of God's decretive will, for God it is good that Adam ate from that tree because God is working out His plan of providence (good) through Adam's exercise of Adam's free will against God's prescriptive will. Adam cannot claim, "Oh, but God needed me to work out His good providential plan; therefore, my action is good, too."

Where this line of reaonong is going is a very important place: the problem of evil. The problem of evil is a tough problem, no doubt. Scholars greater than myself have tried unsuccessfully to tackle this. But, as you can see, people who don't believe in God have not only a problem of evil, but also a problem of good. Their system can not explain either because in a system of beings there is no standard of "good" or "evil"; things just are. Try as we might, we can't create a system of good or evil by which to judge another sovereign person, group or nation. So, my problem is tough, but I'll take it all day long versus their problem.

Eppur si muove

Mar 16, 12 10:47

Post #169 of 185 (539 views)

Re: What I learned from Kirk Cameron [TriFloyd] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

I would stipulate that it's "widespread." Yet, that it's "widespread" is not useful to your other than to point out that you would probably win in a "might is right" fight to the death that your way is better.

That's a very strange reaction that leaves me scratching my head as to what "it" you're referring to. The "it" I was talking about was how people use the term "good." There's no point in defining the word "good" in a particular way if it means something different to everyone else in the world, is there? If I want to communicate with the rest of the world, therefore, I have to look at what meaning other people will assign to the words I use.

As I explained in the other thread, my criteria for determining what "good" means are exactly the same as I would use to determine a proper definition for any other valid concept, namely:

"1. Cognition: A valid concept must be cognitively essential, that is, it must be needed in order for us to understand reality.

2. Communication: The words that we associate with our concepts need to correspond as far as possible (subject to the first criterion) to the usage that most people give to the words."

And, I think we agree that I could find people groups who you are not sovereign over (e.g., theives or Iran) that disagree with your "oughtness." Again, because your view is widespread, I bet that you and your likeminded group could take them in a "might is right" fight, but that would only prove my point. You could also outvote them in a democratic vote for who ethic to adopt, but again, that's not how we understand "oughtness."

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything I've said. I haven't expressed any intention of trying to force anyone else to agree to my opinions on morality or anything else. If I want to affect other people's thinking, I can only offer rational analysis and peaceful persuasion. I would use force (or allow others to do so on my behalf) only to protect my life, liberty, and property--with no expectation that force will change anyone's opinions or cause anyone miraculously to become "good."

IOW, if I said that I don't believe in oxygen, then that doesn't really change the fact that oxygen is going into and out of my body to keep me alive.

In a way, that's the very point I was trying to get across to Guru. The fact that some people have false beliefs about what actually furthers human life and well-being doesn't change the reality as to what behaviors do so. IOW, it's an objective standard, not a matter of opinion.

If you take your argument for "oughtness" over to Iran, then Iran is going to kill you. Who are you to say that Iran is wrong because they are sovereign over their own system as much as your are sovereign over your system (2 different systems appealing to their own standard of "oughtness").

One could equally well ask: "If you take your argument that the earth moves to the Vatican, then the Inquisition is going to kill you. Who are you to say that the earth moves when the Vatican says it doesn't and they're sovereign over their own astronomical beliefs as much as you are sovereign over yours?"

Eppur...si muove.

Brick

Mar 16, 12 10:54

Post #170 of 185 (535 views)

Re: What I learned from Kirk Cameron [TriFloyd] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

The whole notion of preceptive will versus decretive will is hogwash at this point in the discussion.

What those who advocate for such a dichotomy suggest is that

1. God has revealed to us how we should live (preceptive)

2. God has required that certain of us not live that way (decretive)

This suggestion does violence to any notion of free will and requires the believer to accept that God is no better than the hypocrite who demands that we all do as he says but not as he does.

TriFloyd

Mar 16, 12 11:38

Post #171 of 185 (526 views)

Re: What I learned from Kirk Cameron [Eppur si muove] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

That's a very strange reaction that leaves me scratching my head as to what "it" you're referring to. The "it" I was talking about was how people use the term "good." There's no point in defining the word "good" in a particular way if it means something different to everyone else in the world, is there? If I want to communicate with the rest of the world, therefore, I have to look at what meaning other people will assign to the words I use.

Then, you have a serious problem with your own definition of good, because I'm pretty sure more people know about God's standard of good then have visited your website Human Action Course.

Thankfully, God's has communicated his definition of "good" which is way it's so universally followed, notwithstading some people trying to figure out all manner of non-God ways to justify/explain it.

As I explained in the other thread, my criteria for determining what "good" means ...

I (and about 99.99999%) of people did not read your other thread. So, I can't be held accountable to your own definition of "good."

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything I've said.

Right. You don't see it.

I haven't expressed any intention of trying to force anyone else to agree to my opinions on morality or anything else.

Right. You have not. But, other people have. That's the problem. Your definition only works for you and like-minded people. But, as soon as you go outside of that group, you say, "I'm not sure what that has to do with anything I've said." Tell it to theives and Iran who apparently disagree with your definition. Your friendly definition of "good" and "bad" is rejected by them. They are sovereign and have the ability to have their own definition of "good" and "evil" over which your definition has no power or authority. That problem affects the truthfullness of your definition by your own standard (above).

If I want to affect other people's thinking, I can only offer ... peaceful persuasion.

Right. What you can't offer them is a universally-held standard outside of ourselves that is greater than them. That's a big problem when you try to impose your system of "oughtness" on them.

I would use force (or allow others to do so on my behalf) only to protect my life, liberty, and property--with no expectation that force will change anyone's opinions or cause anyone miraculously to become "good."

I believe you. The problem is that other people who disagree with your standard of "good" or "evil" are persuaded that "greater force" is the standard for "good" or "evil". And, all you have is your peaceful persuasion and some argument about how that's not a workable system ... as they employ their own system of "greater force" to "work." IOW, apparently, it's workable for them.

One could equally well ask: "If you take your argument that the earth moves to the Vatican, then the Inquisition is going to kill you. Who are you to say that the earth moves when the Vatican says it doesn't and they're sovereign over their own astronomical beliefs as much as you are sovereign over yours?"

Umm, neither I nor the Vatican are God.

TriFloyd

Mar 16, 12 11:42

Post #172 of 185 (521 views)

Re: What I learned from Kirk Cameron [Brick] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

This suggestion does violence to any notion of free will ...

Let me ask you 2 questions: 1) Do you believe in free will. If so, provide a brief definition. 2) Do you believe in God's sovereignty. If so, provide a brief definition of the extent of God's sovereignty.

Brick

Mar 16, 12 11:58

Post #173 of 185 (517 views)

Re: What I learned from Kirk Cameron [TriFloyd] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Let me ask you 2 questions: 1) Do you believe in free will. If so, provide a brief definition. 2) Do you believe in God's sovereignty. If so, provide a brief definition of the extent of God's sovereignty.

Neither is an easy question.

1. I do believe in free will. I also suggest that it goes beyond belief. Without acceptance of free will, there is no foundation other than spite for any notion of moral culpability.

2. While I fancy myself a Christian, I do not subscribe completely to any formal denomination. I am not certain what you mean by believing in God's sovereignty or how to define the extent of same. I can say that I believe God is eternal, has a will, and is the creator of all things.

Eppur si muove

Mar 16, 12 12:08

Post #174 of 185 (514 views)

Re: What I learned from Kirk Cameron [TriFloyd] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Then, you have a serious problem with your own definition of good, because I'm pretty sure more people know about God's standard of good then have visited your website Human Action Course.

As I've noted several times, if a person believes that human existence and well-being are contingent upon God and that "good" action for human beings consists in following his will, that usage of the word is entirely consistent with the definition I offered above.

I (and about 99.99999%) of people did not read your other thread. So, I can't be held accountable to your own definition of "good."

In the first place, you were responding to my post #157, which was answering a question from Guru about that thread. So if you haven't read the thread, you had no business commenting on something you knew nothing about in the first place.

In the second place, well over 99.99999% of the world haven't read any of your posts and in fact have never even heard of you, so they can't be held accountable to your definition either.

In the third place, all that any of us is ultimately accountable to is reality--not my opinion, and not yours. If a person doesn't act in a way that's consistent with his (or her) long-term life and well-being, he will suffer the consequences, regardless of what his opinions are about what's good or bad for him. The earth moves, even if most people never hear me say so.

The problem is that other people who disagree with your standard of "good" or "evil" are persuaded that "greater force" is the standard for "good" or "evil". And, all you have is your peaceful persuasion and some argument about how that's not a workable system ... as they employ their own system of "greater force" to "work."

No one is going to agree automatically with my opinions about what is right and wrong, and no one is going to agree automatically with yours or Guru's either. Where necessary, we defend ourselves with force after peaceful discussion fails. That's the way the world works, so you might as well accept it and learn to live with it. Going back to your example, preaching about your "God" isn't going to change the mind or the behavior of some Iranian Muslim.

vitus979

Mar 16, 12 12:13

Post #175 of 185 (511 views)

Re: What I learned from Kirk Cameron [Eppur si muove] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

I think you are missing Floyd's point. I *think* what he's saying is that you have no real expectation that anyone else should conform to your idea of "good." Whereas if God is the author of what is good, it should apply universally, and everyone *ought* to abide by it.

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

1 ... 4 5 6 7 8

View All