Bryan - 14 January 2009 09:52 AM

God is the grounding for reality.

What does that mean?

dougsmith - 14 January 2009 09:55 AM

Bryan - 14 January 2009 09:52 AM

God is the grounding for reality.

What does that mean?

It’s best understood in context.

“Right, for just as I pointed out we do not expect that God created himself and figured out his attributes in advance.  Here we have something analogous to the “ultimate responsibility” argument from Strawson (free will thread).  But we shouldn’t lose the distinction that it is ultimately up to God in that God is the grounding for reality.”

In a universe where all is contingent on God apart from God, the laws of logic depend (albeit not in the “ultimate” sense that Strawson argues as an impossibility) on God.

But that just says the same thing again. It doesn’t explain what it means for something to be the “grounding of reality”, particularly in the context where, as we have seen, the laws of logic and morality are not in any sense up to God’s will.

Also, is the claim that “God is the grounding for reality” an axiom of the system? Or is it deduced from some argument? If so, from which argument is it deduced?

dougsmith - 14 January 2009 10:26 AM

But that just says the same thing again.

Rather fitting, since I thought I was explaining to you what I meant by it.  At least I used different words. 

It doesn’t explain what it means for something to be the “grounding of reality”, particularly in the context where, as we have seen, the laws of logic and morality are not in any sense up to God’s will.

Yes, it does do that, and especially in that context.  Perhaps your complaint is that you want a deeper explanation.  But I don’t know why you’d need one unless you explain it to me.  If I know why you’re asking then perhaps I can figure out what sort of answer to give you.

Also, is the claim that “God is the grounding for reality” an axiom of the system? Or is it deduced from some argument? If so, from which argument is it deduced?

Again, I refer you to the context, which was, in fact, under the supposition that God exists eternally and subsequently created all other existant things.  I think drawing the phrase out of context lends itself to misunderstanding.

I got pissed off by these kinds of arguments from theist so I made my own mocking ones. It was therapeutic, I do not actually think this way.

Vaz The Spaz Godzilla - 11 March 2009 05:49 PM

I got pissed off by these kinds of arguments from theist so I made my own mocking ones. It was therapeutic, I do not actually think this way.

I hope you derived your hoped-for benefit from the therapy.  And I hope we didn’t seem too critical of you personally during the course of the discussion.

Cheers.

Hmmmm…this whole thread seems a waste of valuable brain calories to me.

Trying to define or describe god or god’s attributes always results in a logical black hole anyway.

omnibus09 - 18 March 2009 11:34 AM

Hmmmm…this whole thread seems a waste of valuable brain calories to me.

Trying to define or describe god or god’s attributes always results in a logical black hole anyway.

So you would define/describe god’s attributes such that trying to define or describe them always results in a logical black hole?  With yourself as the exception?