RE: Conscience and the Moral Argument as Evidence for the Goodness of God.
July 8, 2023 at 3:09 pm
(This post was last modified: July 8, 2023 at 3:56 pm by Bucky Ball.)
(July 8, 2023 at 2:12 pm)Nishant Xavier Wrote:(July 8, 2023 at 1:30 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: God and good being identical isn’t a third option…it’s actually the question the dilemma asks.
Why…are they identical? Because good is a divine arbitrarity, or because god is constrained and motivated by an external standard of goodness?
The very same question can be asked of us, of our own good/ness. God isn’t even necessary to explore this, as usual.
Thomistic Divine Simplicity, or the Doctrine that God is Pure Actuality, and in Him is no Potentiality (i.e. Contingency) is the Solution to the Euthyphro false dilemma. In God, every attribute or perfection that He has exists in the highest possible plenitude, as in its Ultimate Source. Thus, God is not merely Good, but Goodness Itself and the Source of All Goodness everywhere, not merely wise, but the Source of All Wisdom, and Holiness etc.
We perceive Good and Evil exist by our Conscience, just as we perceive Light and Darkness exist by our Sight. But they exist Objectively and prior to any will of ours. This Goodness, which comes from God, and which we His creatures can reflect in certain amounts to the extent that we obey His Eternal Moral Law, finds its Source in God. Thus, God is not constrained or moved by an external standard of Goodness, but is Himself the Source of All Goodness. The more good and holy a creature becomes, the closer it moves toward God. God's commands, to do good and avoid evil, whether already known to us by our Conscience, or confirmed in e.g. the Ten Commandments, or Two Great Commandments of Christ, manifest His Goodness. God has made Nature a certain way, and studying Nature, and examining our Conscience, we can discover Good and Evil. We don't invent it because it is not Subjective, but we do discover it, the same as we do with Mathematical or Scientific Facts, because it is Objective.
The problem with all your bullshit, is, (as I posted), ... the following ...
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” ... Epicurus.
YOU have no answer to this.
Tell us what is the PRACTICAL difference between Chinese Tao Mysticism, Agnostic Atheism, the Medieval (Catholic) "Cloud of the Unknowing", the "Dark Night of the Soul ( St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila), and the highest form of Catholic Contemplative mysticism, St. Bernard of Clairveaux and Thomas Merton ?
Take your time.
Last but not least, why would you possibly be so stupid to think we gave a shit about your interpretation of Aquinas or any of the corrupt pedophile church's interpretation of Aquinas or anyone in Catholicism ? We don't.
The Archbishop of Paris began an inquiry into Aquinas in the 1270's. It was never completed.
Tempier's other 1277 condemnations
The second doctrinal inquiry was aimed against Thomas Aquinas. It was begun after Giles's censure, but still before March 28, 1277. According to Robert Wielockx, the inquiry against Thomas Aquinas was never completed.
Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble. - Joseph Campbell
Militant Atheist Commie Evolutionist
Militant Atheist Commie Evolutionist