Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Would God Care?
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 217 (395927)
04-18-2007 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by ringo
04-18-2007 12:25 PM


The extrapolations I'm making are based on the only information we have.
It's a flawed extrapolation. The available information is enough to know that. Saying that we care about our equals, and that God thinks in similar ways as us, does not suggest that God cares about his inferiors.
Aren't you embellishing a bit on the OP?
We're talking about the western God, here. If I didn't describe him in enough detail in the OP, my bad.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by ringo, posted 04-18-2007 12:25 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Phat, posted 04-18-2007 12:51 PM Dan Carroll has replied
 Message 181 by ringo, posted 04-18-2007 1:10 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 217 (395930)
04-18-2007 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Phat
04-18-2007 12:51 PM


Re: A quick question for the topic author
Pretty sure I've gone over them already in this thread, and really don't have the time to do so again today.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Phat, posted 04-18-2007 12:51 PM Phat has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 217 (395937)
04-18-2007 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Archer Opteryx
04-18-2007 1:05 PM


Re: Knowing God
If we also postulate the existence of deity that is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent--limitless in every conceivable way, in other words--then there is no logical problem in imagining that the active interest taken by the deity in creation would be likewise limitless.
Again, ability does not equal interest. As I said above, we are able to go step on anthills, but why would we?
Sure, God would have the ability to inspect every last nook and cranny of the universe; it doesn't suggest that he would do so.
I have shown you that in rejecting this idea you are asserting a limit on divine 'care,' not its absence as you said at first.
No, I'm asserting that God's total interest is not automatically suggested by the premise, as you say it is.
And if to comes out pirple or chartreuse or candy-cane striped, you will care very much about that, too.
This, like the later cancer cells, relies on situations in which I can be hurt by a lack of interest or caring on my part. God, as always, is omnipotent, and can not be hurt.
So as far as God's concerned, there are no purple shits, or cancerous cells. There's only a normal dump and harmless mold.
A deity that could bring a universe into being is under no compulsions of any sort, whether of a biological nature or any other kind, because it is under no imaginable constraints. All actions would be voluntary.
Even then, I might etch a drawing in the sand with my foot while waiting for the bus. It's voluntary, so clearly I want to make it, but there's no impetus to check up on it once it's there. In fact, more than likely, it'll be ruined by the next time I see it. But so what?
The fact of God's omnipotence goes both ways. If God can do anything without effort, then the act of creating the universe might well be of no more interest to him than shuffling his foot around in the sand, and making pretty patterns. Nice while he's doing it, but of no interest when it's done.
Why should the source of the universe bear much resemblance to us?
*shrugs*
No real reason. But if it doesn't, then any questioning of its desires is meaningless; we can't hope to understand them one way or the other.
Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-18-2007 1:05 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 183 of 217 (395939)
04-18-2007 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by ringo
04-18-2007 1:10 PM


Nor does it suggest otherwise.
Nor does it suggest that there are no invisible flying elves circling my desk at this moment.
It's an extrapolation based on the principle of if-it-walks-like-a-duck-and-quacks-like-a-duck-there's-a-good-chance-it-tastes-like-a-duck. Humans have been doing that kind of "flawed" extrapolation since before they were human.
But what you're doing with the humans:equals::God:inferiors extrapolation is saying if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, there's a good chance it tastes like chicken.
"The Western God™" is too broad a description for the narrow conclusions that you insist on.
Well, I really don't have time to define the western God for you today. If we can work under the assumption that you know the gist of what I mean, and we can hash out minor differences as they come up, great. If not, oh well.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by ringo, posted 04-18-2007 1:10 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by ringo, posted 04-18-2007 2:23 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 217 (395949)
04-18-2007 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by ringo
04-18-2007 2:23 PM


Exactly. And if you had postulated invisible flying elves in the OP, I would hold you to that description. Based on the God described in the OP, it is quite reasonable to expect some degree of caring.
You don't seem to be getting what I'm saying. God is absolutely described as caring, whether in my OP, or in the Bible, or wherever. I'm not stamping my foot and insisting that this can't possibly be the case. I'm asking why it would be the case, since there doesn't seem to be any sensible reason.
If you feel like dealing with that question directly, that'd be great. If you feel like running rings around the taste of duck, or dithering about whether God is really "superior", then I hope you have fun, but I'm way too busy to play along.
Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by ringo, posted 04-18-2007 2:23 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by ringo, posted 04-18-2007 3:06 PM Dan Carroll has replied
 Message 189 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2007 5:28 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 217 (395959)
04-18-2007 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by ringo
04-18-2007 3:06 PM


The general extrapolated answer still stands and the more specific "artistic" answer still stands. Handwaving and foot-stamping have failed to topple them.
Of course they do. Have a great weekend, Ringo.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by ringo, posted 04-18-2007 3:06 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by ringo, posted 04-18-2007 3:22 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024