God is a coward

[jack]

Sorry, not really. (Well, not necessarily. Uh, I mean, I didn't have any reason to say that, other than as a humorous example of a controversial subject. Argue amongst yourselves if you so wish, but don't blame me. Just look at this bracket, it's amazing how many words saying nothing takes up :))

Where is everyone? My "inbox" has been nearly unclogged of lj updates recently -- have you all become productive or something? Have you all moved to chiark or myspace?

ETA: OK, that seemed to work :)

Comments

[simont]

I was offering a counter-example, when refuting any specific instance is quite sufficient.

A single counterexample would be sufficient if I had claimed that all (possible) gods were always immune to all personal risk, but all I claimed was that if you believe in that kind of god then some consequences follow, and that isn't attackable in the same way.

Not knowing is certainly an interesting point, and arguably does refute my claim that nothing immune to personal risk can meaningfully display courage or cowardice, since if it doesn't know it's immune to personal risk then it will still behave as if it weren't. To what extent this was true of Jesus is not a question I have a great interest in exploring in great detail :-)

If I'd added omniscience to my definition of a god, it would have closed that loophole. It would also have solved the problem of Jesus by defining him to be either not-God-in-that-sense or not somebody to whom you could meaningfully apply quantifiers of courage (and you get to choose which you prefer).

[yrieithydd.livejournal.com]

but all I claimed was that if you believe in that kind of god then some consequences follow,

Conceptions of God amuse me. I was reading a book yesterday (Awesome God by Sara Maitland) which describes various different pictures of god/gods including an inuit one who is well-meaning but incompetent and so the priest's job is to keep the god asleep. The most important moral precept is not to fight as the noise will wake him up and he'll cause chaos!

Too often, in debates about God's existence (in the abstract) a certain type of God is assumed without going into ideas of revelation.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I think I may have misread a quantifier. If you want to say the concept *could* be meaningless, then I agree. Some interpretations of Jesus just mean it isn't automatically so.

To what extent this was true of Jesus is not a question I have a great interest in exploring in great detail :-)

LOL. Good call.

If I'd added omniscience to my definition of a god, it would have closed that loophole

OK, that could work. There are still difficulties -- eg. do I know the future? If so, do I have 'free will'? If not, am I potent at all? :) -- but there could be things to which courage doesn't really apply.