Is it KInd of Reasonable to Think That....

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: The Temple of Logic
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Is it KInd of Reasonable to Think That....

Post #1

Post by Dimmesdale »

Is it Kinda-Sorta natural or REASONABLE to assume that, based off of what we see in the world (a sliding scale of ontological hierarchies) that it is at least intuitive to think there is a God who is the MAXIMAL good?

In Religious Ed class, there is shown to young kids the following:

Rock -> Plant -> Dog -> Human ....

Now imagine at the first end we have NOTHINGNESS. So the lowest possible ontological status (not good, since nothing is nothing).

Next, imagine if there is something Over and Above the Human level. Is it not NATURAL to assume there at least could be something greater since, after all, we have such a DRASTIC sliding scale of VALUES as something so insignificant as a ROCK then up to a plant, then DOG (yay, puppies!) To a BABY HUMAN (MIRACLE!!!).

Why not angels afterwards? And why not Gods or THE GOD (BEING)? Is it not at least INTUITIVE? Thanks.

User avatar
ElCodeMonkey
Site Supporter
Posts: 1587
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:49 am
Contact:

Post #2

Post by ElCodeMonkey »

I think it's intuitive to be able to comprehend something continuing in either direction up until the point that our minds are blown (i.e. space goes on forever, but... but... how??) and chunks of matter get smaller and smaller until... what the heck?! I don't think that means it's intuitive that we should believe either does exists eternally, however. I would similarly argue that "nothing" is impossible. Like, literally, it's impossible for there to be nothing. If it were possible, it would have remained as nothing since nothing doesn't beget something and what could have happened to make it not nothing if nothing was around to cause the difference? So it fails going in both directions. No nothingness, no almighty perfection.
I'm Published! Christians Are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress
My Blog: Friendly By Nurture
The Wisdom I've gleaned.
My Current Beliefs.

Menotu
Sage
Posts: 530
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2019 5:34 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Is it KInd of Reasonable to Think That....

Post #3

Post by Menotu »

[Replying to post 1 by Dimmesdale]

MAXIMAL good?
Not reason to see this unless you want to see this.
Rock -> Plant -> Dog -> Human
I'd say Rock -> Plant -> Human-> Dog
At least based on much of my experience. Dogs are capable of unconditional love as a species. Humans are not.
Is it not NATURAL to assume there at least could be something greater
Maybe, but it's natural to walk around, but many drive cars. Driving a car is not natural. Fun, but natural. Humanity can, in many aspects, exceed what's 'natural'.
Why not angels afterwards? And why not Gods or THE GOD (BEING)? Is it not at least INTUITIVE?
Angels, as used today, is rather uncommon with how they were used (explained/defined may be a better term). Doesn't mean they're not real. But probably does mean we're not experiencing the original.
Why not god? Sure let's have fun with it! Enjoy it. Worship it. Be a slave to it. Etc. But surely you can't understand it, assuming it's all knowing, of course.
Intuitive? I'm not sure. This would seem to mean you know it's real as soon as you're capable of thought. But it seems it's taught as you get older. Doesn't seem intuitive to me. Natural? Maybe. Intuitive? No.

User avatar
elphidium55
Student
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:37 pm
Location: Champaign, IL
Been thanked: 12 times

Natural hierarchy of beign

Post #4

Post by elphidium55 »

Human beings seem to naturally intuit a hierarchy of being. We think we see in nature a gradation of ontological "worth" going from inanimate objects to single-celled microbes up through the "higher" animals and then to humans and at the top of the heap, god(s). Think of drawings of the "Tree of Life" that used to illustrate old fashioned biology text books.

Today, biologists speak of evolution as a bush and humans are just one branch among many on this bush. Humans and chimps, for example, each separately occupy the ends of lines that branch off from their common hominid ancestor. Humans are not higher up than chimps on this bush.

Also, you need to be aware that in philosophy, the word "natural" is used to mean the opposite of "super-natural." So don't mix these two usages up. Otherwise you might be committing an equivication fallacy.

Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: The Temple of Logic
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Natural hierarchy of beign

Post #5

Post by Dimmesdale »

elphidium55 wrote: Also, you need to be aware that in philosophy, the word "natural" is used to mean the opposite of "super-natural." So don't mix these two usages up. Otherwise you might be committing an equivication fallacy.
I think we can say of God that he is good in some sense as finite (natural) things are good, at least in a way..... I should probably look more into the analogical/univocal distinctions of goodness, if that's what you are referring to. I do know there is some difficulty regarding these things.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: Is it KInd of Reasonable to Think That....

Post #6

Post by Divine Insight »

Dimmesdale wrote: Is it Kinda-Sorta natural or REASONABLE to assume that, based off of what we see in the world (a sliding scale of ontological hierarchies) that it is at least intuitive to think there is a God who is the MAXIMAL good?
If we postulate that there exist a Creator God who is MAXIMALLY good, then the next question we would need to ask why this God created a universe that is NOT MAXIMALLY good?

So if we embrace the premise that God must be MAXIMALLY good, then our next conclusion should be that no such entity exists because our reality is not MAXIMALLY good.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: The Temple of Logic
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Is it KInd of Reasonable to Think That....

Post #7

Post by Dimmesdale »

Divine Insight wrote:
If we postulate that there exist a Creator God who is MAXIMALLY good, then the next question we would need to ask why this God created a universe that is NOT MAXIMALLY good?

So if we embrace the premise that God must be MAXIMALLY good, then our next conclusion should be that no such entity exists because our reality is not MAXIMALLY good.
Why does the world have to be maximally good?

A tree bears a fruit. The fruit comes from the tree but is not the tree. The fruit is much smaller than the tree yet it still comes from it.

Although, the seed can potentially bear a tree of the same size and shape, roughly, perhaps....

God may have had a purpose in mind in making the world finite and good in a lesser degree than himself. If he made a world just like him, he would cease being unique. And there can only be One Almighty God.

God may have injected badness into the creation for a variety of reasons: free will, the potential for adventure, soul-making, and for the stars to shine ever more brightly in the darkness.

It is simple prejudice to assume the creation has to be maximally good. The creation need not be God proper.

User avatar
elphidium55
Student
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:37 pm
Location: Champaign, IL
Been thanked: 12 times

theodicies?

Post #8

Post by elphidium55 »

God may have injected badness into the creation ...
Are you saying that god created evil? This seems to be contrary to orthodox Christian belief - but maybe you're not Christian. Also, there are pretty strong arguments against "soul making" theodicies. You're going to have to explain yourself further if you're making that move.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Is it KInd of Reasonable to Think That....

Post #9

Post by Bust Nak »

Dimmesdale wrote: Why does the world have to be maximally good?

...God may have injected badness into the creation...
A god that does not inject badness into creation is better than a god who has injected badness into creation, therefore the latter is not maximally good.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: Is it KInd of Reasonable to Think That....

Post #10

Post by Divine Insight »

Dimmesdale wrote: And there can only be One Almighty God.
Why? Would two almighty Gods not be able to get along? If not, why not?

Also, if there can be one almighty God why not infinitely many? How did the first God come to be? What prevented more God's from existing as well?

Monotheism is a human ideal. No doubt inspired by the human ego thinking that if there were more than one God they would end up butting egos. There's no logical basis for the idea that only one God could exist.

If a maximally good being can exist, then there's no reason that many maximally good beings can exist.

The Abrahamic religions insist on there being only one God because they want to claim the patent rights on God for their religious dogma. They even claim their God is a jealous God who will cast non-believers into a permanent state of damnation.

But the irony there is that no maximally good being could cast other beings into a state of damnation as this would cause the God to no longer be maximally good. So this whole theological ideal is self-defeating.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Post Reply