What if I said my answer to your question above would be: "Well, I didn't see THAT coming!" ?I would say OK, now we're making progress. The important question is whether or not you would continue to try and do good, with good being defined as acting in accordance with God's unchanging moral nature.But there's a huge problem with your scenario . . . what circumstances would lead me to make a radical reanalysis of God's nature?God appearing to every sentient being in the universe and communicating this convincingly - whatever it would take to convince you. I've used the hypothetical several times. ( http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=27587734 or http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=27584574 , for example.)One thing I've lost is the whole point of this conversation. Weren't you making the Euthyphro objection to grounding morality in God's nature?If you answer 'yes, I would use my new knowledge of good and try and do good and exterminate humanity', then you have a consistent theistic morality. To me, it has nothing to do with morality and is just an arbitrary (subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion, with the one individual being God) rule-set.If you answer 'no, I would reject God's morality and use my own to guide my conduct', then your supposed grounding is not your real grounding for your morality. It's really your own subjective values, just like my grounding.Your pick.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar<