Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (12588)	5/10/2002 1:20:56 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Hi Solon. It appears we’re still struggling with whether or not the definition I gave can hold water. "I offered a definition of a God who is truly Omnipotent, non-dependant, non-anthropomorphic, beyond materialistic descriptors, eternal, and infinite" +++++++++++++++++++ Me: "The closest descriptor that I can come up with, at the moment, is “the beneficent.” This term describes a being who is kind, charitable, and considerate." Solon: “Well, that is fine. But how can you have such attributes without having desire?” Desire is a human attribute that is associated with an underlying votive urging. Also, in the human sense, there are the usual entanglements of need fulfillment. Solon: “If you do not desire improvement or happiness...how can you will such change? Improvement implies something short of perfection. Again the desire to change, improve, find happiness is a human urge but I would not attribute that to God. In addition, if you imply that God desires improvement and to be made happy by these improvements, you subjugate God to the choices made by human beings. Of course this violates the definition that I offered and opens the door to all kinds of rational entanglements. Solon: “If your will is not based on the motive of desire...then what is the motive?” It appears to me that my will to do things is motivated by need fulfillment, but I am a human being. "I offered a definition of a God who is truly Omnipotent, non-dependant, non-anthropomorphic, beyond materialistic descriptors, eternal, and infinite" Solon: “You have offered a description of a black hole. You have described something alien and inhuman, and lacking (naturally) in human character. I have always been repelled by this inhuman conception. You apparently feel differently.” Yes I do feel differently. Our discussion is not about whether or not this definition is repugnant to anyone, but about whether or not it could be viewed, at least in the abstract, as viable. Solon: “If nothing mattered to human beings they would have no basis on which to assign different values to different outcomes. But it does matter to us; and so we make choices.” Agreed, as one of us, I am grateful for any motivation I can find to greet each day's new light. I’m hoping its not such a challenge in the next life. Solon: “But what of God? God could not make rational choices without first determining value.” The key word for me in this statement is “choices.” Human beings have been given the ability to choose, based on underlying principles, that relate to circumstances involving conflicting values. God’s “mind” is made up on things, eternally…no rationalizing or flipping coins over hard choices or anything. Solon: “The act of acknowledging that something is incomplete or imperfect is an act of acknowledging a sense of personal incompleteness if one is the creator of all things.” I don’t accept the premise of, “personal incompleteness” of the creator of all things, as this again is an unnecessary violation of the definition that I offered. Solon: “So we may name a couple of problems: 1). What is the motive for "creation", and 2). What is the explanation for "Concern" or "consideration"?” Since the premise was unacceptable the dependant questions don’t apply. Solon: “What does a complete and perfect being who cannot be changed, moved, or affected have to be "concerned" about??” I don’t know. Solon: “Do you see the problem?” No. Solon: “You try to give this entity human qualities, and you make Him vulnerable.” I did not try to give God human qualities, that is your push. Solon: “You make Him invulnerable, and you make Him inhuman. You cannot have it both ways. Agreed. I don’t believe God is human. Humans are creatures, created by God, myself being among them. Solon: “Then there is what we call "evil".” Yes. Solon: “You say it is perfect.” You mean God is perfect? Yes, I say that. Solon: “Well, people can say anything, can't they?” Seems like it. Solon: “But saying that bad is good and vice versa is awfully silly, and really just a moral dead-end...“ Agreed. It was not my intention to suggest any such thing, however.

To: Solon who wrote (12588)	5/10/2002 2:29:55 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I hope I have addressed your concerns. Lets look then at the basis for your other inquiries. Me: "The closest descriptor that I can come up with, at the moment, is “the beneficent.” This term describes a being who is kind, charitable, and considerate." Solon: Well, that is fine. But how can you have such attributes without having desire? If you do not desire improvement or happiness...how can you will such change? If your will is not based on the motive of desire...then what is the motive? Lets pick one characteristic, "Charitable." When we associate other human qualities with the act of being charatable we can assume several things. What is the "desirable" out come that the human being had in mind, which may have motivated the charatable act. Perhaps it was to improve the situation in the community. So, by giving in a charitable way, the giver hopes the reciever of charity becomes a more solid citizen within the community. This is a noble motive since everyone in the community benefits by this action. The giver of charity is motivated as described above and a beneficiary along with the other community members by having a more stable community to live in. How else does the giver benefit. The self esteme of the giver may be improved by knowing that they have acted in a kind way toward someone in need. The status of the giver may be raised in the eyes of the community members as a person of high morality. The status of the giver may also be seen as someone who is able to wield an influence in the community that effects the living conditions of other members. Depending on the extent of charitable acts performed by the giver this person may be viewed as having significant power to contribute (or not) to the success of community members. It may therefore be concluded, that such a person who is recognized by the community membership at large may have obtained positions of power to direct the community affairs in a way that returns significant personal benefit. They could even use their elevated status to obtain a beneficial outcome where other men would not. The recent issues of protections afforded to Priests violating boys is a case in point. So, in conclusion: Where charity can be associated with motive, there also is the contagion related to the returns to the giver of charity. Perfect charity would be an act without an expectation of return benefit. (definitely non-human)