RE: A Half-Serious Definition of God
December 17, 2021 at 10:31 am
(This post was last modified: December 17, 2021 at 10:42 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Plantingas great sin, despite coming up with the only successful argument for any kind of god (insomuch as the apologetic community is concerned), is that his formulation only establishes what sorts of beliefs in what sorts of gods would be or could be rational in what sorts of worlds - the great majority of christian belief is necessarily excluded in his formulation. Additionally, it allows for a situation where such a belief, rationally constructed as described, could still be incorrect. That they've got the right kind of thing in mind to call a god, and are being presented with an environment which is signaling to them this thing does exist...but, not for reasons of that things existence.
In general, people want their beliefs to be inarguable. Not subject to disproof. Incapable of being incorrect. That which must exist, must exist...but the greatest conceivable being may not. Ironically, the greatest conceivable being may be greater than any existent god in this world. Any definition for a god or argument for a god no matter how well constructed that doesn't offer them these tangibles is doa in lay belief. Belief, meanwhile, is reverting back to a time when it's justifications were absolute and unassailable - a thousand years past or more. Their last safe space.
I think it's a shame, as we've learned a great deal of consequential things since the time when the phrase "that which must exist" could be offered as a god. That leaves a huge gulf of things for reformed theology to work on that would, themselves, be consequential in our lives in communities organized around these beliefs. Tough nut, though, since the institutions which formed around these concepts have every reason to resist correction from the outside or inside. Diminishes the appearance of authority, necessary to their continuation and the perpetuation of that very faith.
In general, people want their beliefs to be inarguable. Not subject to disproof. Incapable of being incorrect. That which must exist, must exist...but the greatest conceivable being may not. Ironically, the greatest conceivable being may be greater than any existent god in this world. Any definition for a god or argument for a god no matter how well constructed that doesn't offer them these tangibles is doa in lay belief. Belief, meanwhile, is reverting back to a time when it's justifications were absolute and unassailable - a thousand years past or more. Their last safe space.
I think it's a shame, as we've learned a great deal of consequential things since the time when the phrase "that which must exist" could be offered as a god. That leaves a huge gulf of things for reformed theology to work on that would, themselves, be consequential in our lives in communities organized around these beliefs. Tough nut, though, since the institutions which formed around these concepts have every reason to resist correction from the outside or inside. Diminishes the appearance of authority, necessary to their continuation and the perpetuation of that very faith.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
