[wanderer]

(Original post by Calvin)
I did restate the argument to avoid perfectly happy. But I agree with you on that point.

How do I know God wants my love? Because I'm told it is good to love God. Most gods make it a requirement or a mark of morality that I love them, Bur the same could also work for 'God wants me not to be an adulterer' 'I am an adulterer', For example. Or murder, or whatever. Any kind of religous requirement. The vast majority of religions make requirements on my behaviour or beliefs as stated by their God. The fact that there are these requirements made by religions in the name of their God plus the fact that I don't meet them is sufficient for the argument.
Even if that isn't really what God wants, just what the religion wants, its enough to show a fundamental flaw if those religions make those requirements in the name of their gods.

Ah, you're making the mistake of assuming God is temporal. He's outside of time, see, and you will love him eventually, which for him is the same as now.

Not actually that interested in Theology, but just can't resist an opportunity to disagree with Calvin ... *sneaks off back to the Philsoc*

[Calvin]

He must have some sense of time or else why put us through the trial of life? He knows we will pass or fail.

Now shoo!

[Socrates]

(Original post by Calvin)
He must have some sense of time or else why put us through the trial of life? He knows we will pass or fail.

Now shoo!

I suppose its the balance between freewill and determination. But God himself is not bound by time...

[Calvin]

Should I be concerned that both of you have the same avatar? Is this one of those things where you make up fake accounts just to confuse me and make me think I'm in the minority?

God needn't be bound by time. He can even be outside of time. But if I'm going to love him regardless... well... huh? Then why make it a requirement that I love him now if it makes no difference whether I do or not? It must make some difference or it wouldn't be a requirement

[wanderer]

(Original post by Calvin)
Should I be concerned that both of you have the same avatar? Is this one of those things where you make up fake accounts just to confuse me and make me think I'm in the minority?

God needn't be bound by time. He can even be outside of time. But if I'm going to love him regardless... well... huh? Then why make it a requirement that I love him now if it makes no difference whether I do or not? It must make some difference or it wouldn't be a requirement

No, its just one of the TSR avatars. Theres no-one like me ...

[Calvin]

Ah ok. And I'm surprised you haven't jumped on how weak that last argument was...

[wanderer]

(Original post by Calvin)
Ah ok. And I'm surprised you haven't jumped on how weak that last argument was...

I didn't really want to get into that kind of theological argument - as far as I'm concerned its a load of nonsense. And don't get me started on the effing ontological argument ...

[gezzar]

yep i'll join up :P

[Socrates]

(Original post by Calvin)
Should I be concerned that both of you have the same avatar? Is this one of those things where you make up fake accounts just to confuse me and make me think I'm in the minority?

God needn't be bound by time. He can even be outside of time. But if I'm going to love him regardless... well... huh? Then why make it a requirement that I love him now if it makes no difference whether I do or not? It must make some difference or it wouldn't be a requirement

Nope, wanderer's argument are much more superior to mine

Tbh, I don't get your point... could you explain in simpler term for idiots like me?

[Calvin]

Sure. Umm...
Well, first you need to accept that it is moral thing for me to love God, but that I don't love God at the moment.


Then I was saying that God can't be perfect. Because there is some good property (the property of being loved by me) that God doesn't have.

But then you and Wanderer said (I think) that He is still perfect because I will love him at some point in time, and because He is outside of time its all the same to God. He's still perfect.
But I was making the following argument:

God must have my love at some point in order to be perfect.
God is perfect.
Thus I will (by logical necessity) love god at some point.
So it doesn't matter that i don't love God now.
So God can't complain because it's all the same to him whether I love him now or later seeing as he's outside of time- it makes no logical difference to him.


To make a new point:
But does it matter to me?
You might want to argue that God just wants what is best for me. But then I think I could use the same sort of argument:

God wants whats best for me.
What's best for me is to love God.
It is a good thing for me to have whats best for me (or else God wouldn't want it)
I don't love God and so don't have whats best for me.
So God isn't getting some good thing. (he isn't getting the best for me)
So God is less than perfect.

And seeing as I am a temporal being it does matter to me whether I get what's best for me now or later. So I don't think you can get out of that one with God being outside of time. (But I may well be wrong there, I'm not quite sure)

any help? I'm sorry, it's a really picky argument and I'm sure I must be playing with words or cheating somewhere...

[Socrates]

(Original post by Calvin)
God must have my love at some point in order to be perfect.
God is perfect.
Thus I will (by logical necessity) love god at some point.
So it doesn't matter that i don't love God now.
So God can't complain because it's all the same to him whether I love him now or later seeing as he's outside of time- it makes no logical difference to him.

God doesn't need your love, thiests argue, but you need his love. He would be perfect even if nobody loved him because if that were the case, he would be dependent and be default could not be perfect, and hence not God.

(Original post by Calvin)
God wants whats best for me.
What's best for me is to love God.
It is a good thing for me to have whats best for me (or else God wouldn't want it)
I don't love God and so don't have whats best for me.
So God isn't getting some good thing. (he isn't getting the best for me)
So God is less than perfect.

Again God doesn't need the good thing, you do. God needing something makes him less than perfect. To be perfect he has to be (from logical deduction) be free of needing or wanting something.

I'm sure theres some holes in this, so go ahead and point them out for me

[Calvin]

Well then why does the bible demand and religions insist that I love God and tell me that God wants me to love him?

[Socrates]

(Original post by Calvin)
Well then why does the bible demand and religions insist that I love God and tell me that God wants me to love him?

I'm arguing from a purely philosophical viewpoint, but I suppose the bible demands as such so that you - the human - can reach perfection by loving the most perfect - i.e. god.

[Calvin]

Oh this isn't a disproof of God as such. The best it would do is show that what I do doesn't matter to God. In essence then its an argument against current religous teachings not against the existence of some kind of omnipotent being.

I can't ever reach perfection. To do so would be to become God. It also doesn't explain why God wants me to do these things. Surely any desire on his part is a demonstration that there is something he wants. And in wanting demonstrates his imperfection perhaps?

[Socrates]

Theologians would argue what you doesn't affect God per se. So you would love him for your benefit - i.e. salvation, going to heaven etc.

You misunderstand me. When I say perfection, I refer to relative perfection - the perfection that a human being can achieve, not the absolute perfection which would belong to God alone.

Who'd thought philosophy could be so interesting...

[Calvin]

You're right of course. The whole idea of God changing is supposed to be logically impossible. He's perfect. If he changed he's be worse and so he wouldn't be God anymore. But then how does that get squared with the teachings of the bible?

Oh Philosophy has alwaysbeen interesting. And the fact that it can even make religion interesting... wow!

[roxy_hart]

ok, so hows about this, in the bible there is no "one" god, but a series of gods, each different depending on the author - OT god is one that interacts with people - speaks through burning bush, gives moses commandments etc, in NT he is less "active" and is more loving, gives us a son etc. so i actually have no idea how christians can talk about "god" because the word can mean anything, the concept of god (from the bible) is so unclear that it really bugs me, like whenever people want to debate about the nature of god they talk about god's nature and all that, but where are they getting that from? (or am i being really stupid?!)

[Calvin]

Don't you think that's a little melodramatic? After all, there's Roxy the person and Roxy the Student Room persona. Or Tony Blair the prime minister and Tony Blair the person. People might have different aspects but it doesn't make it impossible to talk about them. The name Tony Blair doesn't mean just anything. True it means various different things but that isn't to say you can't talk about him because of that.

[jennmar]

ooh, a society! Can i join?! PLEASE!