02 Jul 05
Originally posted by bbarrOK. If God did not create himself, then I follow this.
First, God is not the creator of all things, because he did not create himself. Second, if you were right, then then it would be contradictory to claim that God had a reason for creating the universe. Finally, if a theist took this line, and claimed that God could not have had a reason for creating the world such that A was morally wrong, then this would commit that theist to (7) above.
I suspect most theists would reject (7) which would seem to indicate that most theists would have to accept some reason existing before God, or at least some state of affairs before God.
03 Jul 05
Originally posted by telerionCan anything/any creature experience happiness as humans can?
It's his essence that humans be happy? Is this uniquely toward humans or is it his essence that everything that can experience happiness be happy?
Of course, I'm talking about spiritual happiness here.
03 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerCan anything/any creature experience happiness as humans can?
Can anything/any creature experience happiness as humans can?
Of course, I'm talking about spiritual happiness here.
Do we know enough about other species to warrant a guess? My guess is that porpoises do, elephants do, maybe other primates. This is still a “guess,” just on the basis of reading about their linguistic abilities, the fact that elephants apparently grieve the dead (or at least behave as if they do, etc.). And even if not as humans can, would that mean necessarily less than humans do? Can you experience happiness in the same way that I can?
Of course, I'm talking about spiritual happiness here.
Could you define this vis-à-vis other kinds of happiness, for example, my simple but profound joy at just being here and being alive, and witnessing the wild beauty of the environment in which I live?
03 Jul 05
Originally posted by vistesdTwo very good questions.
[b]Can anything/any creature experience happiness as humans can?
Do we know enough about other species to warrant a guess? My guess is that porpoises do, elephants do, maybe other primates. This is still a “guess,” just on the basis of reading about their linguistic abilities, the fact that elephants apparently grieve the dead (or at least behave a ...[text shortened]... being here and being alive, and witnessing the wild beauty of the environment in which I live?
[/b]
To answer the second - yes, those would be examples of spiritual happiness. 🙂
Human emotions are extremely complex and experienced at several levels (physical, mental/emotional and spiritual); so it would be difficult to tell these apart. In the simple act of spending an afternoon at the park with someone one loves, one experiences the primal pleasure of companionship, the joy of being with a particular person, and the much deeper happiness of being with one's soul-mate (if one is lucky!). I think that as one moves between these, one's "feelings" (another word that operates at multiple levels) moves from the concrete and self-centred to the abstract and other-centred.
It's easier to try and explain it through human situations. The person in the subway train at midnight with a few other passengers, the young boy at a movie with his girlfriend, and the husband who is spending a quiet evening at home with his wife of twenty years all experience a particular type of happiness (pertaining to companionship) - but we recognise that the emotions are quite different. Not just in intensity, but also quality. We often try to use the phrase "true happiness" and (to some degree) know what it means and, often, know when our happiness is not "true".
But, in terms of a normative definition - I cannot actually verbalise it.
To answer your first question - we would need to differentiate between the extremely concrete and primal emotions (such as fear, pleasure, anger) and the less concrete mental emotions (such as loss of a partner, basic parental emotions) - the first of which nearly all animals exhibit, the second some. But no, I do not think an animal can sit down and emote the abstract happiness of being alive, or appreciate the beauty of Nature as you and I do.
03 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI guess I’ve taken us off-topic here, and want to see the original thread topic continue; nevertheless, a few comments, then I’ll let it go:
Two very good questions.
To answer the second - yes, those would be examples of spiritual happiness. 🙂
Human emotions are extremely complex and experienced at several levels (physical, mental/emotional and spiritual); so it wo ...[text shortened]... f being alive, or appreciate the beauty of Nature as you and I do.
…and the much deeper happiness of being with one's soul-mate (if one is lucky!).
I am so fortunate!
…but we recognize that the emotions are quite different. Not just in intensity, but also quality. We often try to use the phrase "true happiness" and (to some degree) know what it means and, often, know when our happiness is not "true".
In my own lingo, I tend to differentiate between happiness and joy, the first being caused by some happening or event, etc.; the second being a sense of deep harmony which in large measure is not externally caused, but actively chosen. It’s hard to explain. The word “enjoy” was at one time an intransitive verb, though I think the usage is now archaic—it would be perfectly acceptable in this sense, when asked what one is doing, to say, “Enjoying.” “Enjoying what?” “Just enjoying.” I don’t know how to explain it, but if anyone objects that it can’t be done, I can only say that I know how to do it—I know how to choose joy—even in fairly adverse circumstances. It is a learned skill. (Have you ever read any of the Jesuit Anthony DeMello? I didn’t learn this from him, but he talks about it.)
But no, I do not think an animal can sit down and emote the abstract happiness of being alive, or appreciate the beauty of Nature as you and I do.
I just don’t think we have enough evidence about the consciousness of, say, elephants, to make a claim, and hence urge caution.
EDIT: Happiness (joy) is not "abstract" for me.
03 Jul 05
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdI suppose I'll just respond to one interesting point in your post - then I'll let it rest (since we're seriously derailing bbarr's thread!)
I guess I’ve taken us off-topic here, and want to see the original thread topic continue; nevertheless, a few comments, then I’ll let it go:
[b]…and the much deeper happiness of being with one's soul-mate (if one is lucky!).
I a ...[text shortened]... of, say, elephants, to make a claim, and hence urge caution.[/b]
[/b]
I don't think joy can be actively chosen - all one can do is open oneself to it. One can't choose to enjoy Bouguereau's Admiration Maternalle, for instance - one just does. Of course, one can choose to be in a receptive frame of mind. Not sure if that was what you were referring to. But, fundamentally, I think joy is like insight - it comes suddenly and (almost) unexpectedly.
Thanks for the pointer on Fr. Demello - I'll check him out (in general, however, I think the Jesuits are a bit of a weird bunch 🙂)
EDIT: I think we've got our lines crossed on the concrete-abstract. What I was referring to as "concrete" was a concrete, situational feeling as opposed to an abstract, transcendental "emotion".
06 Jul 05
Originally posted by NyxieI found this on the web:
Think, I don't even understand what you're talking about. Could you as a favor to me, break this down into a simpler langauge form? I'd love to be able to comment but I don't have a college degree in phylosophy.
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/euthyphrodilemma.html
Be careful of point (5), don't get hung up on it because it's explained further down the page with a couple of links.
I found it to be a good primer ...
06 Jul 05
Originally posted by KneverKnighthttp://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/evil/euthyphr.htm
I found this on the web:
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/euthyphrodilemma.html
Be careful of point (5), don't get hung up on it because it's explained further down the page with a couple of links.
I found it to be a good primer ...
06 Jul 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerThanks-enjoyed that.
http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/evil/euthyphr.htm
I thought the part about "grounding" to be weak and the statement that "Even the atheist understands what moral terms mean. He doesn't need God in order to recognize morality. He needs God to make sense of what he recognizes." is crazy, however.
Atheists don't need a god to be moral, no matter what the theist wishes.
07 Jul 05
Originally posted by bbarrI may be on the wrong track.....but heres my thoughts to this thread.....
Yes, but this doesn't change anything in the argument but the necessary phrasing. The question will be whether God had a reason or not for having created the world in a manner such that A is morally wrong.
Having free will.......our morals and ethics are based on.....what we believe within ourselves to be moral and ethical..........with or without the dct we have standards either learned through parenting.....or guidance through school years and as adults we have conscience.....
....most know that we should not kill. or steal.......
.......if someone is to steal......from you......the procedure would be to have that person apprehended and appear in a court of law ......and penalties served as warranted by state or country....... to steal is morally wrong.......or a neighbour breaks your fence and you know, or saw him do it, possibly charge him with vandalism......it is to fix the fence....and fix his too if it is broken..... Gods Law the law of love......can we... love that person?....not judge them for what they did......take that person into our hearts....
gil 🙂
Mathew 5
5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
07 Jul 05
Originally posted by gentlegilI may be on the wrong track.....but heres my thoughts to this thread.....
I may be on the wrong track.....but heres my thoughts to this thread.....
Having free will.......our morals and ethics are based on.....what we believe within ourselves to be moral and ethical..........with or without the dct we have standards either learned through parenting.....or guidance through school years and as adults we have conscience.....
. ...[text shortened]... good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Having free will.......our morals and ethics are based on.....what we believe within ourselves to be moral and ethical..........with or without the dct we have standards either learned through parenting.....or guidance through school years and as adults we have conscience.....
....most know that we should not kill. or steal.......
so you would agree that the DCT is a load of dung? i agree strongly with you here.
Gods Law the law of love......can we... love that person?....not judge them for what they did......take that person into our hearts....
goo...you lost me really fast. this is not relevant to the discussion. if you save up that sap, you'll be able to make a truckload of syrup at the end of each season.
07 Jul 05
3 edits
Originally posted by gentlegilHating doesn't do any good anyway. Nothing good ever comes from hate, hate begets hate and everybody runs around with their faces twisted.
I may be on the wrong track.....but heres my thoughts to this thread.....
Having free will.......our morals and ethics are based on.....what we believe within ourselves to be moral and ethical..........with or without the dct we have ...[text shortened]... nd pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
edit2,,,btw ,,I hate the way I typr.
edit 3 ,,,,,see what I mean 🙁