What we must accept if we accept materialism

I agree. Not to be (merely) contrary, but this presumes that God must be supernatural and cannot be physical.It's a mighty big multiverse...if God is the Creator of our universe and, either directly or by unfolding, of us, is it necessary that God be supernatural in the usual, immaterial sense of the word? Would it not suffice that God have sufficient mastery of physical laws and processes so as to accomplish what we ascribe to Her?I'm not advancing this as my belief, merely exploring the logical possibilities. I agree. I agree that nihilism has to be more precisely defined before I can declare a stance. As to (a), see my logical quibble with supernatural above; as to (b), I'm not sure that even subjective values and purposes should be so readily dismissed. If we have free will, then our decisions about values and moral choices become even more important, both to ourselves and to others. If we are Creators of our own moral universes, is that meaningless?

I agree. Not to be (merely) contrary, but this presumes that God must be supernatural and cannot be physical.It's a mighty big multiverse...if God is the Creator of our universe and, either directly or by unfolding, of us, is it necessary that God be supernatural in the usual, immaterial sense of the word? Would it not suffice that God have sufficient mastery of physical laws and processes so as to accomplish what we ascribe to Her?I'm not advancing this as my belief, merely exploring the logical possibilities. I agree. I agree that nihilism has to be more precisely defined before I can declare a stance. As to (a), see my logical quibble with supernatural above; as to (b), I'm not sure that even subjective values and purposes should be so readily dismissed. If we have free will, then our decisions about values and moral choices become even more important, both to ourselves and to others. If we are Creators of our own moral universes, is that meaningless?

I agree. Not to be (merely) contrary, but this presumes that God must be supernatural and cannot be physical.It's a mighty big multiverse...if God is the Creator of our universe and, either directly or by unfolding, of us, is it necessary that God be supernatural in the usual, immaterial sense of the word? Would it not suffice that God have sufficient mastery of physical laws and processes so as to accomplish what we ascribe to Her?I'm not advancing this as my belief, merely exploring the logical possibilities. I agree. I agree that nihilism has to be more precisely defined before I can declare a stance. As to (a), see my logical quibble with supernatural above; as to (b), I'm not sure that even subjective values and purposes should be so readily dismissed. If we have free will, then our decisions about values and moral choices become even more important, both to ourselves and to others. If we are Creators of our own moral universes, is that meaningless?

I knew you weren't, JM, and I almost edited my post when I realized I seemed to be implying that you were. I was intending to challenge the notion, as you well describe it, that "A nihilist would argue that because there is no absolute, unchanging ground for our morality (e.g. a God), then it's impossible to find objective criteria for making judgements." You were already doing a good job with a direct challenge to the impossibility of finding objective criteria on our own, and I wanted to cover the base of defending subjectivity. Indeed it would--the questions of whether a God should necessarily be considered good, or be worshipped, immediately come to mind.Lately, I've been trying to consider the logical possibilities of a God without reference to definitional constraints extant religions have imposed--again, not because I feel compelled to believe in one (I'm an agnostic restrained from atheism by intellectual will, i.e., I see no grounds for certainty), but as an exercise in open-minded logic: Must God be supernatural? Must God be omnipotent and/or omniscient? Must God be good? Must God love us?I find it an intriguing project, but I don't want to derail your thread. If anyone wants to discuss those ideas at any greater length, I'd be happy to join or start a new thread.

Another logical possibility is that each religion has produced a flawed formulation of God's moral principles--as one might expect from fallible mortals.In that case, one might divine those principles by examining the areas of agreement, rather than using the lack of perfect agreement to paint a false dilemma.

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

If God revealed Her laws and if She revealed them in antiquity to only one religion and if that religion understood perfectly and has preserved a perfect record of that perfect understanding (even though the scriptures of all religions have changed over the millennia) and if God did not later share Her laws, unchanged or changed, with anyone outside that religion...Why then, yes, your statement would be correct, though there may be some other ifs I haven't thought of yet.

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Faith, that is a very kind offer.E-mail me (check my profile), and I'll send you an address. I promise to listen to the tape and share my thoughts privately. No apology necessary: we both know we disagree about the possibility not only of Biblical inerrancy but the possibility of the inerrant transmission of scriptural events as well.

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------