Bailey writes:
Does this imply that a man without emotion is anything but competent?
Not at all. All I'm saying is a god that has no emotion or limited emotion is anything but limitless. The moment we say god has no this or that OR god can't do this or that, we've boxed it into some kind of limitation. That's anything but infinite.
I've found this is a problem the religiously motivated have trouble understanding. This is why it's so damn frustrating to present the Euthephro dilemma (question) to a religious person. Is a thing good because god commands it or does god command it because it is good? They almost always answer "a thing is good because god commands it" in order to attribute everything to god. But this implies that there is nothing to prevent god from changing its mind, so tomorrow it's entirely possible that genocide is good. At this point, they usually try to say "but god has already given us his word through the bible, therefore he can't go back on his word..." They have just boxed god into a set of limits! "He can't do this or that" OR "he won't do this or that" implies limitation!!!!.
Added by edit.
Here is an example of a religious (christian) person trying to weasel his way out of this dilemma by claiming that the good is part of the christian god's moral character. I had to laugh when I saw this because he just did something very unchristian. He put god in a box of limitations by saying "god is this and that and it can't ever change..."
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.