Godly Motivations

[Anomalocaris]

Ken Ham “thinks” the world is 6000 years old, that Noah’s flood actually happened and there were dinosaurs on a rudderless boat.

He also believes that he is entitled to break the law thanks to his beliefs.

Paul Tillich I’ve heard of but don’t know enough about to comment on.

I agree that Ken Ham is a dummy. I hope that if I mention a name it isn't always taken as an endorsement!

awwww shucks

[arewethereyet]

Ken Ham “thinks” the world is 6000 years old, that Noah’s flood actually happened and there were dinosaurs on a rudderless boat.

He also believes that he is entitled to break the law thanks to his beliefs.

Paul Tillich I’ve heard of but don’t know enough about to comment on.

I agree that Ken Ham is a dummy. I hope that if I mention a name it isn't always taken as an endorsement!

I think 'dummy' is quite charitable of you.  Charlatan comes to my mind when Hammy is mentioned.

[Belacqua]

I think 'dummy' is quite charitable of you.  Charlatan comes to my mind when Hammy is mentioned.

Old habits from earlier web sites!

The Amazon forum software didn't let you type "idiot."

[Anomalocaris]

So you have no answer to the OP?  Just affecting a Socratic “I think you know the answer” as a way of denigrating your betters and gaining counterfeit moral advantage?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

God does stuff, and has done stuff.  We're told this constantly.

Why?  What could possibly motivate such a being to create or do anything?  God knows everything and can do everything.  God is complete and unchanging.  How could such a being possibly have any motivation whatsoever? 

Boru

I think you already know the answer to this.

Different Christians believe different things. Those things are sometimes incompatible.

Ken Ham thinks that God has motivations.

Paul Tillich thinks that God is the motivation.

What I'm asking is how it is possible for a complete, immutable Being to have motivations at all. 

I'm going to dismiss Ken Ham out of hand.

I read Tillich's 'Dynamics of Faith' years ago (and I confess I found it rather heavy going).  It seems to me that claiming 'God is the motivation' as an explanation of how an immutable being can do anything is so much semantic tail-biting.  Motivation - of necessity - requires a desire, a lack, or both.  I doubt very much that even Tillich, with his 'transtheism', would have been willing to admit that God consists of desires and deficiencies, something which would seem to be requisite for God to be (as opposed to 'have') the motivation.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

So you have no answer to the OP?  Just affecting a Socratic “I think you know the answer” as a way of denigrating your betters and gaining counterfeit moral advantage?

Please don't refer to me as one of Bel's 'betters'.  You don't know either one of us well enough to make that call.

Boru

[Belacqua]

I think you already know the answer to this.

Different Christians believe different things. Those things are sometimes incompatible.

Ken Ham thinks that God has motivations.

Paul Tillich thinks that God is the motivation.

What I'm asking is how it is possible for a complete, immutable Being to have motivations at all. 

I'm going to dismiss Ken Ham out of hand.

I read Tillich's 'Dynamics of Faith' years ago (and I confess I found it rather heavy going).  It seems to me that claiming 'God is the motivation' as an explanation of how an immutable being can do anything is so much semantic tail-biting.  Motivation - of necessity - requires a desire, a lack, or both.  I doubt very much that even Tillich, with his 'transtheism' would have been willing to admit that God consists of desires and deficiencies, something which would seem to be requisite for God to be (as opposed to 'have') the motivation.

Boru

Obviously there's a lot of variation among Christians.

The God of [most] theologians and philosophers doesn't have any motivations. It is impassible, has no desires, wants nothing, etc. 

This is irreconcilable with the sola scriptura literalist view.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

What I'm asking is how it is possible for a complete, immutable Being to have motivations at all. 

I'm going to dismiss Ken Ham out of hand.

I read Tillich's 'Dynamics of Faith' years ago (and I confess I found it rather heavy going).  It seems to me that claiming 'God is the motivation' as an explanation of how an immutable being can do anything is so much semantic tail-biting.  Motivation - of necessity - requires a desire, a lack, or both.  I doubt very much that even Tillich, with his 'transtheism' would have been willing to admit that God consists of desires and deficiencies, something which would seem to be requisite for God to be (as opposed to 'have') the motivation.

Boru

Obviously there's a lot of variation among Christians.

The God of [most] theologians and philosophers doesn't have any motivations. It is impassible, has no desires, wants nothing, etc. 

This is irreconcilable with the sola scriptura literalist view.

Then how is it possible for such a Being to be creative?

Boru

[Anomalocaris]

So you have no answer to the OP?  Just affecting a Socratic “I think you know the answer” as a way of denigrating your betters and gaining counterfeit moral advantage?

Please don't refer to me as one of Bel's 'betters'.  You don't know either one of us well enough to make that call.

Boru

I will stop assuming you have a fair statistical chance of not being equal to or worse than such as persona as Belaqua has exhibited on this forum.

[Belacqua]

Obviously there's a lot of variation among Christians.

The God of [most] theologians and philosophers doesn't have any motivations. It is impassible, has no desires, wants nothing, etc. 

This is irreconcilable with the sola scriptura literalist view.

Then how is it possible for such a Being to be creative?

Boru

Again, there are different ideas about this. 

One is that God emanates the world through an abundance of goodness. bonum diffusivum sui 

One of the most widespread conceptions of God, or the One, is that it is completely simple, with no parts. Given that, it is impossible for there to be two things: 1) God, and 2) what God wants. Or 1) God, and 2) what God knows. 

This whole lecture series looks pretty good:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sic5OdUIkgk

The episode here introduces some of the Neoplatonic ideas of the One that found their way into Christianity.