Robbielogic

 

Michelangelo's depiction of God creating Adam (1511) in the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, Rome

 

Ok Robbie lets consider your argument and let me ask you a few questions along that line of thought since you have tossed out words like justice and truth.  

Is something good because G-d approves it? Or does G-d approve of something because it is good?

Can we really assume that G-d approves of something we do because it is good? If we answer yes to this, then we are also saying that we believe there is an independent standard of goodness, are we not?

If there is an independent standard of goodness from G-d, then does his judgment not have to fit this, hence not actually creating it? If that was to be the case then G-d’s attitude or stance about something would not underlie its moral or theological character- it would not be what defines it as you seem to indicate in what you write. 

On the other hand if we say something is good because G-d approves of it ( Im assuming this is how you think )  then things like values and ethics are a direct function of divine approval. This then raises the question of why did G-d approve it – not by the theory above of some independent standard, because he did approve it. But then this brings up the question of what if he had approved something else or even its opposite? This to then would presumably be good, and the opposite of it, what was good, now bad. 

You are a self professed protestant Christian so every Sunday you are in a intellectual structure that was partially defined by John Calvin. If Im not mistaken Calvin said that predestination was not unjust on the ground that justice does not exist as a standard independent of G-d. But that is defined or created by G-ds specific actions. Do you believe this foundation of Christian thought?This is interesting to me for it implies that “good” could have been different if G-d had simply chosen differently. 

We are thinking here – not being blasphemous, so in that spirit and using our minds, this line of thinking of course now asks even more questions. I think its fair to say that if the above is true, then we have established that justice  ( a Robbieword like truth and freedom)  does not exist independent of G-d but is actually defined by, or created by, his actions alone. 

Im not sure I feel entirely comfortable with the notion that what we think of is good could have been very different if G-d had simply chosen something else, like murder, stealing from others, abuse, etc. Thats unsettling to my mind. But Im going to call it robbielogic, that helps.

This brings up another question though, are G-d’s actions and his existence valuable ? Of course we would both answer instinctively yes! But if this is so, then does this not mean there is a external standard independent of him? And is he in any way constrained by this? What could this be? Where would it have come from? 

But we have agreed on your word “omnipotent”, so then in reality what we are really saying is he is pleased at joining something he has founded / legislated and determined the membership requirements etc., i.e. robbielogic.

I think there has to be another alternative for a system of ethics that is theologically based. I do not buy this idea of G-d creating and eating his own cake so to speak. 

~ by Moshe on February 6, 2009.