Comments on The Secular Outpost: Horia George Plugaru's Argument Against the Abunda...

We are thus led back to David Hume's fundament...

2012-01-05T13:52:16.294-06:00

We are thus led back to David Hume's fundamental dilemma for Christianity:

Either God is infinite, unlimited, perfect, and thus beyond human experience, understanding, and affection, or else God is subject to human experience, understanding, and affection, and thus is finte, limited, and imperfect.

From the article: "If the very essence of Go...

2012-01-05T13:45:43.176-06:00

From the article:

"If the very essence of God is infinite and perfect love, then it follows that the possibility must exist that would allow God to do the supreme, loving act mentioned earlier: unconditional self-sacrifice for the benefit of another. Otherwise how could God's love be perfect in the greatest conceivable way? In what sense would God be capable of perfect love and of reaching his true loving potential if it would be impossible for him to perform what we deem to be the greatest possible loving act?"
===============
Comment:

This reminds me of previous discussion about God and 'heroism' on this blog.

God cannot be injured or suffer pain or be killed, thus God cannot be a hero.

This is why, it seems to me, there is a need for God to become incarnate, to become a human being who can be injured, suffer pain, and be killed. God can only be a hero, and can only demonstrate sacrificial love, by becoming a finite, limited, mortal creature.

But this leads to what appear to be logical contradictions at the heart of Christianity. The claim that Jesus was completely human and completely divine is problematic, since to be divine MEANS to be free from the finitude and limitations of humans and other physical creatures. If God cannot suffer or be killed (by definition), then someone who can suffer and be killed cannot be God. If Jesus could suffer and be killed, then Jesus cannot be God.

The more general question would be: Does perform...

2012-01-05T13:34:15.649-06:00

The more general question would be:

Does performing an action logically imply that the agent who performed the action have a need or a want?

For Swinburne, God's being perfectly good means that God only chooses to do what is best, when there is a best option, or one of an equal best action, when there are equal best actions to choose from, or something that is good when there is no best or equal best sort of action.

On Swinburne's view, God's actions are motivated by reason, which means motivated to do what is good or best. Swinburne believes in objective value, and that in some cases one action is objectively better than other alternatives, and that in some cases one action is objectively an equal best action, and that in some cases there is no best action or equal best action, but there are objetively good actions that are better than objectively bad actions.

Given this view of action and reasons for action, we can speak of God as 'wanting to do good' and 'desiring to do what is best' and so forth, but such expressions do not logically imply that God is lacking anything or that God is less than perfectly good. On Swinburne's view, having such 'desires' or 'wants' is a logical implication of being perfectly rational.

Hahaha. Wait...you're serious?

2012-01-04T13:29:13.213-06:00

Hahaha. Wait...you're serious?

Amazing! What science has unsuccessfully tried to...

2012-01-02T09:42:37.845-06:00

Amazing! What science has unsuccessfully tried to do, this person did in one short paragraph: Proven there is no God!