That seems to be getting into the "God is inscrutable" territory, to me.
Which seems, to me, to be the only tenable territory. Otherwise you have to assert that our simple minds can grasp things as well as God's mind does, which seems, given God's infinite knowledge, etc. to be a tad silly.
The moral argument for God rests on stuff "everyone knows" (that there are moral absolutes, say). But if you're on the other prong of the fork, by hypothesis, what everyone knows is wrong. But if we allow that what "everyone knows" can be wrong, then the moral argument fails too.
Aaah, yes, that makes sense to me. If the argument is that there is Good and Evil, therefore there is God, then without absolute morality it falls apart.
no subject
Which seems, to me, to be the only tenable territory. Otherwise you have to assert that our simple minds can grasp things as well as God's mind does, which seems, given God's infinite knowledge, etc. to be a tad silly.
The moral argument for God rests on stuff "everyone knows" (that there are moral absolutes, say). But if you're on the other prong of the fork, by hypothesis, what everyone knows is wrong. But if we allow that what "everyone knows" can be wrong, then the moral argument fails too.
Aaah, yes, that makes sense to me. If the argument is that there is Good and Evil, therefore there is God, then without absolute morality it falls apart.