Who is fool'in who?

Originally posted by bbarr
If your children withdrew from you, would you witdraw from them in return?

If I was perfect and the standard of all that is righteous, wouldn't I cease to be if my actions didn't follow the truth of my righteousness?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If I was perfect and the standard of all that is righteous, wouldn't I cease to be if my actions didn't follow the truth of my righteousness?

Conditional claims are vaccously true when their antecedent is false.

Originally posted by bbarr
Conditional claims are vaccously true when their antecedent is false.

And their antecedent is false based on a condition of impossibility, no doubt.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And their antecedent is false based on a condition of impossibility, no doubt.

While it's not impossible that you're perfect and the standard of righteousness, your behavior certainly suggests otherwise. What is impossible is that you, or any other agent, be more than a mere standard of righteousness but actually the foundation or ultimate ground of normativity.

Originally posted by bbarr
While it's not impossible that you're perfect and the standard of righteousness, your behavior certainly suggests otherwise. What is impossible is that you, or any other agent, be more than a mere standard of righteousness but actually the foundation or ultimate ground of normativity.

Thus I prefaced my supposition with the ever-helpful "if." God, however, needs no such "if," as He is just that standard.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Thus I prefaced my supposition with the ever-helpful "if." God, however, needs no such "if," as He is just that standard.

All conditional claims start with 'if'. They are of the form 'if P, then Q'. It is because you prefaced your claim with 'if' that I brought up the truth-conditions of conditional claims.

Originally posted by whodey
I can comprehend that I am made in his image.

You may ask why this is important? It is important because it tells me that he has attributes that I have. This is important because areas of commonality infer the ability to relate one to another. The bottom line is that relationship is important not only to God, but to man. Your life is meaningless witho ...[text shortened]... g in any other fashion would almost be like violating the free will he has bestowed upon us, no?

But surely what is important about god is that these properties are, in a sense, unbounded.

God is supposed to be infinitely good, is he not? Omniscient? Omnipresent?

I can make sense of "X is a good person". I cannot make sense of "X is infinitely good". I can make sense of "x is knowledgable" and "x is large", but not "x is omniscient" or "x is everywhere".

Take the last one, "god is everywhere". What sense can you attach to that? And if you can't attach any meaning, is the sentence truly meaningful?

Originally posted by bbarr
If your children withdrew from you, would you witdraw from them in return?

To answer your question, if I had a child that was old enough to be an adult and they tried to distance themselves from me, I would have to honor their wishes. Granted, it would be painful and miserable, however, what is my alternative? My alternative is to continue to pursue them when they want nothing to do with you which by human nature would make them want to distance themselves that much more from you. Have you ever heard of the prodigal son? The son reaches the age of accountability and demands his inheritance. The father knows that the son wants his inheritance to live it up and spend it on booze and women and is torn. However, he grants him his wish and gives him his inheritance to blow. As a rule, if you love someone, you must set them free.

Originally posted by dottewell
But surely what is important about god is that these properties are, in a sense, unbounded.

God is supposed to be infinitely good, is he not? Omniscient? Omnipresent?

I can make sense of "X is a good person". I cannot make sense of "X is infinitely good". I can make sense of "x is knowledgable" and "x is large", but not "x is omniscient" or "x is eve ...[text shortened]... h to that? And if you can't attach any meaning, is the sentence truly meaningful?

God is the totality of reality. We are merely bits and pieces of that reality. That is how I make sense of it.

Originally posted by whodey
God is the totality of reality. We are merely bits and pieces of that reality. That is how I make sense of it.

Well by that definition, everyone could believe in "god".

Which means the definition isn't very helpful.

Originally posted by bbarr
All conditional claims start with 'if'. They are of the form 'if P, then Q'. It is because you prefaced your claim with 'if' that I brought up the truth-conditions of conditional claims.

Yet, I was not suggesting a conditional claim, I was simply answering your query regarding God's policy of honoring man's decisions. You asked whay type of parent would cut their (rejecting) child off.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If I was perfect and the standard of all that is righteous, wouldn't I cease to be if my actions didn't follow the truth of my righteousness?

Which has causal precedence, God's nature or the standard of righteousness?

If the former, then in your hypothetical, you wouldn't cease to be the standard - the standard of perfection would simply change, but you would still be the standard.

If the latter, you wouldn't cease to be the standard since you weren't ultimately the standard in the first place. The standard remains unchanged, even when those who implement it do change.

In either case, the conclusion of your hypothetical is false. So, as bbarr notes, the entirety of your claim's truth derives from nothing more than prefacing it with an absurd antecedant.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Which has causal precedence, God's nature or the standard of righteousness?

If the former, then in your hypothetical, you wouldn't cease to be the standard - the standard of perfection would simply change, but you would still be the standard.

If the latter, you wouldn't cease to be the standard since you weren't ultimately the standard in the f ...[text shortened]... f your claim's truth derives from nothing more than prefacing it with an absurd antecedant.

That made no sense.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Which has causal precedence, God's nature or the standard of righteousness?

Same thing.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That made no sense.

Which case didn't you understand?