God & Objective Morals

[Tex]

Unicorns do not participate in existence. One eye'd one horn'd flying purple people eaters do not participate in existence. The cat from "Cat in a Hat" does not participate in existence.

The things you've mentioned participate in existence as concepts in our head. In reality, they do not exist.

I agree with this completely. Aquinas lists things as ens reale and ens rationis to distinguish between the two senses of "exist".

"To exist is good" means "there is objective qualitative value in existing".

It sounds like a subjective assertion to me, unless you can prove said assertion.

It was just a definition.

God gives what is internal to himself. That is also how I participate in existence; it is giving.

Do you fade into non-existence when you don't give?

If God stops giving existence in this system, Tex is not.

The game is over and I do concede, not because I think I'm wrong, but I honestly have no idea how to prove "God is inherently Good" using the argument by necessary being.

I'll help you out and say it can't be proven. By now, our dialogue should have made you realise that the word "necessary" inherently depends upon external conditions. To say I necessarily had to eat an apple without giving a reason external to myself makes that necessity redundant. It's effectively an arbitrary action. Likewise with anything you can tell me about God. Objective morals, his nature, his attributes.. they're all arbitrary until you choose to identify for me what exists externally to God that dictates who God is, which then of course means we can all cut out the middle man and go to the source that controls God Almighty himself. Something that I'm assuming you wouldn't want to happen.

I tentatively agree. However, there are things external to God, so we can tell what God is like through those externals.

If I ever think of something, I'll make a argument in a new thread and we'll go from there.

I'm all ears

Wonderful.

Breathing and living is the existence in which I participate.

Begging the question. You assume an "I" to breath and live.

Yep, with definitions like this who hasn't experienced god? I just keep calling it things like my dog, my friend and my car. In fact I'm typing on god right now. Of course the bible is god too but then again so is every other book. If god is everything, should we shit can the dictionary or should we just go on calling everything by its separate name for clarity's sake?

You know it's all in your head when your improv apologetics has lead you to invoke panentheism as a defence for Christianity. Yahweh will strike you down for your blasphemous ways(!), or will he, Mr. closet panentheist!

I do believe it takes effort to misunderstand my words to say this. I am not God. I am not part of God. The entirety of the universe is not God. The universe is not a part of God. All things not-God are external to God. God causes my existence and I am external to him. This is opposite of pantheism. There is no way I am any sort of pantheist.

[The Grand Nudger]

You did claim that god was the existence we participate in Tex. You're part of the existence I participate in. So are tse-tse flies. So god is you, and tse-tse flies, you're both permeated by it and created of it. Simple.
(it's okay to have elements of panentheism in your theology Tex.....don't take it so harshly-just ask Chad, he's still safely christian)

-of course, there are some even less flattering (than tse tse flies) things wich are in a similarly permeated position...as I've had occasion to mention recently.

[FallentoReason]

I went back and read your first two paragraphs, and it seems like it was a prologue to what you then started discussing, which was how objective morals would actually function. Let's get back into it:

... I'll hypothetically believe there are objective morals (i.e. a standard set by an "Ultimate Judge") and now please lead the way: show me this standard.

The standard takes the form of the final judge, the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. A bold statement, so let me explain. In his humanity Jesus is the Christian example of love perfected. I see a human being who endured the greatest injustice, torture and execution at the hands of evil doers. And through it all He was able love them, pray for them, and ultimately die for them. The standard them is this ability to love. A Christian compares his live to this standard. Can I demostrated this kind of love while making moral choices and making moral judgments. Now we all have role models. Muslims look to Mohommed as the 'perfect man'. Secular people chose a variety of leaders and humanitiarians as their role models. Part of the Great Commission is to point out, if we can, the superiority of using the Son of God for this purpose. Not only does He provide the example, but also judges us against the standard He set Himself as the manifestation of love-itself, i.e. "Be perfect, as I am perfect." Thus, there is no exterior source for judging whether perfect love is an acceptable standard (regardless of the form we think it takes), because there is no alternative.

So our set of objective morals is: love...?

1) A man starts attacking me on the street late one night. It seems as though I will actually die in the assault.
2) North Korea starts invading the U.S.
3) You're a spy gathering intel on the USSR (back in the day) and you get caught. They tell you that they will let you go if you give them confidential information about the U.S.

Does our single method for acting morally right help us in any of these cases?

You know it's all in your head when your improv apologetics has lead you to invoke panentheism as a defence for Christianity. Yahweh will strike you down for your blasphemous ways(!), or will he, Mr. closet panentheist!

Hey Fallen, it looks like I might actually be having an influence!

Do you consider yourself a panentheist..?

[FallentoReason]

I tentatively agree. However, there are things external to God, so we can tell what God is like through those externals.

Does this external thing set the conditions that make it necessary for God to be the way he is?

[Neo-Scholastic]

:..So our set of objective morals is: love...?...1) A man starts attacking me on the street late one night. It seems as though I will actually die in the assault….2) North Korea starts invading the U.S….3) You're a spy gathering intel on the USSR (back in the day) and you get caught. They tell you that they will let you go if you give them confidential information about the U.S.

Not exactly. Morality is not objective, but there is a consistent standard. Before it became a cliché, the WWJD idea had a lot of merit. For whatever you do in whatever role you serve, you will stand before the White Throne and be judged, which is actually a self-evaluation in comparison to the perfected love personified by Jesus Christ. So if you are a spy, were you a spy in the service of a cause you believed just or for the protection of the innocent, etc.? Your own judgment may be flawed if tainted by self-serving motives. But if your assessment is honest though misguided, I expect God to be merciful.

o you consider yourself a panentheist..?

Very much so! I also lean very heavily toward panpsychism, but I’ve been reconsidering that position. Process theology is interesting, but I haven’t yet made up my mind how I feel about it.

[Tex]

I tentatively agree. However, there are things external to God, so we can tell what God is like through those externals.

Does this external thing set the conditions that make it necessary for God to be the way he is?

The external does not set the necessary, no. It simply displays what is already internal.

And I haven't thought of anything that addresses the question between the relationship of Being and Good. I may have to... google it... =(

[Neo-Scholastic]

And I haven't thought of anything that addresses the question between the relationship of Being and Good. I may have to... google it... =(

Here is the link. Being comes out of Love. Love, as a propensity to create and unite, is origin of all finite beings. And love is good, is it not?

[Tonus]

Well, love is just an emotion, right?

Bob loves to staple kittens to trees.

Josh hates seeing children harmed.

Is Bob good because he feels love? Is Josh evil because he feels hate?

[Tex]

That is definitely not the "love" he is speaking of.

Agape is different from eros or philos.

@Chady Poo

I'll think on the whole "Metaphysics of Love" thing you proposed. It seems like it might help my thought process.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yes, my metaphysics is based on the hylomorphic union of Divine Love (the primal substance) and Divine Wisdom (the ideal form). Love serves as the substance since it has the disposition for coming into being and forming unities. That is the nature of love: to give and seek union. Wisdom serves as the imposition of order from divine intellectual activity. That is the nature of wisdom: to bring harmony. These two are reflected in physical reality. At the infinitesimal scale, the building blocks of constantly instantiate and find their place in the on-going overall pattern. Currently, I think sensation comes from the love side and prepositional form on the wisdom side, but its very speculative right now.