Wednesday, December 13, 2006



So I am three and twenty today. It will be quite a day; I plan on going to morning Mass, visiting Caelius and Alice in San Francisco, then there's a house dinner (plus Justine), and I'll wind up at a bar with the other mathematicians. This whole week has been a gauntlet of fun, and it looks to continue as such.

And I just want to say, wow, there are a lot of great comments on the "why can't we be gods" point, though I have an issue with the following

Claim: God is uncreated Being; we are created beings. This has the strong point of being true, but it doesn't help much as an objection to Mormon theology since they simply deny that God is uncreated. Ditto for the "we depend on God for our very being" argument, since they believe He depends on another for His very being.

(I know, I know, we could then trace the Uncaused Cause argument back further, apply Zorn's Lemma if we're mathematicians, and conclude that there is some uncreated God behind any such schema of created gods. But I don't know whether that's the most fruitful path in argumentation.)

The notion of aseity has a lot going for it, though I wonder whether we could demonstrate the absolute necessity of God (rather than just His necessity for this universe) in actual argument with such a Moroni's Advocate.

Well, that's all for tonight!

P.S: In fact, that wasn't all for tonight. It's almost 2 and I really need to sleep now, but I had to link to Zippy's most recent post. He clarifies what is meant by the 'object' of a moral act in a way that illuminates many things in Catholic moral philosophy for me. To oversimplify the distinction he drew: X is the object of my act if I personally did X. I can be morally responsible for X in other cases, for example if I hire someone to do X. But in that case the object of my act isn't X, but 'hiring someone to do X'.

If that doesn't seem right to you (and it didn't at first to me), I encourage you to read through the fruitful comment section on the post.

No comments: