You all talk like man is above God and that man has ever right to define Him. God is praise worth for many reasons, but this simple one should mean something to all, He allowed you this day, that's something to praise Him for, He could have left you in bed very, very dead. I think you two need to completely rethink who God is, maybe from the point that you are no more than a grasshopper compared to Him, yet He loves you. So God does not have to earn your praise, He does want it but does not need it, everyone owes Him praise.

(October 26, 2012 at 11:08 pm)Godschild Wrote: You all talk like man is above God and that man has ever right to define Him.

And your point would be?

(October 26, 2012 at 11:08 pm)Godschild Wrote: You all talk like man is above God and that man has ever right to define Him. God is praise worth for many reasons, but this simple one should mean something to all, He allowed you this day, that's something to praise Him for, He could have left you in bed very, very dead. I think you two need to completely rethink who God is, maybe from the point that you are no more than a grasshopper compared to Him, yet He loves you. So God does not have to earn your praise, He does want it but does not need it, everyone owes Him praise.

Here is the issue. God eternally is loving, good, etc.

God being eternal, didn't have to struggle to develop his character. It's character has always been.

You've been use to lower yourself to "God", and believing he is more praiseworthy and exalted, but he didn't earn his character, he didn't earn his praise.

His love may very well be infinite, his essence may very well be infinite, but at the end, it's unearned.

It isn't developed. It's there.

As great as he maybe, unearned greatness is less great then earned greatness.

So from this perspective, many humans are "greater" yes then the concept of "God".

This the problem, he is defined in a way that seeks to make him the greatest and most praiseworthy, but when we look at from the perspective he didn't earn his character, despite being defined to be infinite, it's less great then finite beings.

You can look at from perspective he has infinitely more love then we do, he has infinitely more benevolent will, but at the end, being unearned attributes, but eternal attributes, they are of less value and praise, then finite praise that is earned.

(October 26, 2012 at 2:18 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Strangely, that would paradoxically make him incapable of evil, making something god cannot do. If god is capable of evil, then he is not perfect...

I would have to disagree with you here. Perfection would not rule out evil. Perfectly 'good' might, but that would be a different discussion.

(October 26, 2012 at 11:08 pm)Godschild Wrote: You all talk like man is above God and that man has ever right to define Him. God is praise worth for many reasons, but this simple one should mean something to all, He allowed you this day, that's something to praise Him for, He could have left you in bed very, very dead.

On the other hand if people had not invented God in the first place you would not have Him to feel grateful toward and small beside. So perhaps you should praise men even more for coming up with the idea of God which you so cherish?

@apophenia

Your overly large signature has pushed the 'Kudo' button and 'Reply' button off my screen in Chrome and FireFox. No scroll either.

(October 26, 2012 at 11:08 pm)Godschild Wrote: You all talk like man is above God and that man has ever right to define Him. God is praise worth for many reasons, but this simple one should mean something to all, He allowed you this day, that's something to praise Him for, He could have left you in bed very, very dead. I think you two need to completely rethink who God is, maybe from the point that you are no more than a grasshopper compared to Him, yet He loves you. So God does not have to earn your praise, He does want it but does not need it, everyone owes Him praise.

Moosecock!!!

Why would an infinite being desire praise?

(October 26, 2012 at 11:50 pm)cato123 Wrote: Moosecock!!!

Why would an infinite being desire praise?

Infinite narcissism.

I don't feel like wading through this entire thread, so I'm just going to put something out here and if it's useful, so be it.

One of the first essays in The Impossibility of God argues that God cannot be virtuous, under ordinary conceptions of virtue. Yet ordinary conceptions of God require him to be virtuous. Ergo, God qua God cannot exist.

I'd have to get up out of my comfy chair, but I'll give one example in lieu of such measures as that. Take courage. To be courageous is certainly a virtue, particularly in the face of evil. But if we accept that God is omnipotent, he cannot fail in such contests. How much courage does it take to approach a task which you cannot fail to accomplish? None, right? It doesn't take any courage. Courage implies the risk of failure, and since there is no risk for God, he cannot be (classically) courageous. Can a god be God without this and other virtues which require limited capacity and risk? The author says no, and I tend to agree that fully virtuous, fully omnipotent, and fully omniscient are incompatible qualities under this argument. Perhaps having done so without the possibility of failure is your notion of unearned risk. However, under this analysis, it isn't the property of being meritorious which robs God of its fruits, but rather that virtue does not blossom without the possibility of failure or risk. Since God cannot fail, the flowers of virtue simply possess no soil within Him in which to take root. It's not that meritorious conduct is superior to non-meritorious conduct so much as it is meritorious because it requires virtue, and virtue requires risk, and risk is something of which God and other perfect beings cannot avail themselves.

---

(October 26, 2012 at 11:33 pm)IATIA Wrote: @apophenia

Your overly large signature has pushed the 'Kudo' button and 'Reply' button off my screen in Chrome and FireFox. No scroll either.

You seem to imply that this was unintentional. (For what it's worth, I use firefox and have no such issue; however if you feel it a likely recurrent problem, I suggest you start a thread to take it up with Tibbs, et al.) As noted elsewhere, this sig is solely for the Halloween season and may see changes at the beginning of November. Did it perchance also push the PM button off your screen as well? I have one hell of a sig if it can do that. Maybe I'll keep her.

ETA: Prior to such events, other standard elements of AFO's presentation start getting chopped as well when the width of the browser is reduced to those minimums (far right profile information, e.g.). I also note that in palemoon (a build of firefox), the problem is readily cured by adjusting the zoom level under View. Assessment? Your equipment sucks and you don't know how to use the standard features of a modern browser to compensate. Alas, I can't confirm this conjecture as I know of no one else with such an awesome signature.

ScreenShot

It is your signature, your post and your prerogative, but it does make it difficult to read and respond to your posts. I had not really noticed until I attempted to kudo you a few posts earlier.