Just to recap, there are groups of people who find the Christological definition of God to be flawed. The main “flaw” that is often pointed out is concerning the benevolence of God. Recall that benevolence is defined as “a disposition to do good”, it does not simply mean “good”. This definition, although technical, is the main cause of hostilities.
The main argument which claims God to be contradictory is that if God is supposed to be benevolent there is no reason for a judgement day to have been prophesied. Let me elaborate. God, being inherently good, according to our understanding, will contradict this attribute when judgement day occurs. This is a bit over simplified, but it works for the purpose intended. Now this appeals to most rational people, because it is sound in logic.
This is essentially one of the core arguments against the existence of God.
Now I’m going to deconstruct the argument. (this might get a little technical, if you have any questions there is a comment section below USE IT!)
My first argument is derived from Plato and his concept of the forms. If you have read my earlier posts, you should know that Plato thinks that the highest intellectual form, or essence is “the good”. He claims this but he never defines what good is. I believe he skips over that definition because as a man he cannot define it. I am of the same view in that respect. There are always a few certainties when it comes to ethical / moral behavior (i.e. murder is bad). Let me question you as to why you think murder is bad. Why? What motivations do you hold which make you come to the conclusion that murder, or anything else, is bad or evil? When I thought about this for a long time (that’s the reason for the no post Friday) I arrived at the conclusion that society tells us that it is. Now I’m not promoting anarchy or anything of the like, I am simply promoting you to doubt everything that you think you know.
That is your assignment, think about everything and question it.
Seriously, stop reading, the post is not going anywhere. Take some time and just think.
Done?
You sure?
Ok now we move on. Hopefully, we can agree that we know almost nothing. Whatever we do know has been told to us. Our definition of good was given to us. But assuming that there is a God (which you should have been since the The “paradoxical” God 1 post), the true definition of good can be something which is entirely different to what we think good is.
Now for me the question would break down here.
But for the sake you, my readers, I will continue.
This time I’m going draw form Aristotle. Now Aristotle says that “God” or a being of pure intellect which was the first cause, does thinks which we cannot comprehend being human and all that. This should be a comfortable idea for most people of Christian faith. The idea that man can never truly know the will / mind of God. This is point for me is just a reassurance of something that I accept already. The point is as a being of pure reason, or transcended reason and logic the methods of a divinity cannot be comprehended by mere mortal, and if we could comprehend such a mind, our lives would hold no more meaning, we would have superseded the common man, and entered into the realm of the eternal (why this is I will explain is later posts)
(Sorry for missing the Friday post drop, hopefully this was a good enough post to make up for that mistake.)
ideasandotherstuff 