On Nature

[Gavin_ 2027]

 

On Nature

 

 

Preface

 

I must state several things pertaining to this endeavour from the onset. I am aware that the initial conceits in each of your minds upon reading further will develop into thoughts of ill intent on my part, however, I assure you that I, dear reader, am a firm believer in GOD. Let this undertaking be seen as a plea.

 

Upon reflection, I have stumbled upon a particularly difficult notion and I now find myself in a state of aporia. I shall structure this piece in the following way;

 

1. The Origin of this quandary,
2. The Nature of this quandary,
3. The Conclusion of this quandary

 

 

The Origin

 

Several weeks ago I found myself sitting within a most humble abode, the morning was in its early hours and throughout the night I had been partaking in an internal dialogue, the topic of which was GOD. It had appeared to me that I had acted in an immoral way and this troubled me greatly for I try to live in a morally good fashion. Following this, I asked myself two questions.

 

 

The Nature

 

1. Where does goodness come from?
2. What makes an action good?

 

In response to my first question, I formulated what seemed to be a sound answer. Goodness is an extension of GOD’s very being. As GOD is omnibenevolent, he is not only the source of goodness, but also the objective standard of goodness. That is to say, without GOD there would be no good in the world. Goodness is dependent upon GOD.

 

It is in response to my second question that I now find myself at a mental roadblock. Initially, I had said that what makes an action good is that it was in line with GOD’s very nature. This is to say that whatever GOD wills, is good. We are morally obliged to adhere to GOD’s will, therefore we are adhering to ‘the good’. In other words, morality is based on the commands or character of GOD and the morally correct action is the one that GOD commands. Herein lies my issue.

 

GOD, if he so pleased could at any one moment will it to be, that the murder of the lame was indeed a morally good action, thus making it required of us to kill the lame. GOD could will it to be that alms were in fact morally wrong. If this is the case, then morality and goodness is ultimately, arbitrary. That is to say at any one moment, it could change. GOD who is omniscient and omnirational would not decide something based on a whim - for no reason. GOD would decide something based on his omniscience and omnirationality.

 

 

Conclusion

 

We now find ourselves at a crossroads, a dilemma per se. Either morality is arbitrary and by extent GOD, or morality is independent of GOD and he is subservient to ‘natural’ morality. This dilemma poses serious ramifications at either end of this binary spectrum, for if morality is arbitrary, potentially anything is morally permissible. If morality is independent of GOD, then GOD is subservient to natural morality and is not omnibenevolent, nor is he omniscient, omnipotent or omnirational. This logically follows as in order for GOD to be omnibenevolent, GOD must be the objective standard of goodness. GOD cannot be omniscient for if GOD acts in an omnibenevolent fashion, then GOD must know the best possible actions he could take. GOD cannot be omnipotent due to him being subservient to another ‘entity’ i.e nature. Lastly, GOD cannot be omnirational if GOD does not know everything.

 

 

 

Signed,

Ældrick Galloway.

6th of The First Seed, 1644

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[OzYmandi 647]

Raebert Horen-Therving claps

[Sultan 3953]

"Nonsense, as if the mind of creatures can comprehend that of the Creator, or that our Morality can judge the Creator, the bases of our Morality is from the Creator what he has deemed worthy to teach us. Furthermore reflection upon the Creator's being is beyond our scope of imagination, our simple minds cannot comprehend the magnitude that is the Creator, comparing the Creator to anything our simple minds could come up with is utter blasphemy he is the Creator and we do not need to fathom his being." The King retorts to his companions after reading this pamphlet  

[d0ntc4r3 104]

A semi-young Human would read this book in ponderous thought.

 

"Goodness me," Oedipus states to himself. "GOD, in all His omnibenevolence and omnipotence, felt it fit to allow this book to be written. I cannot think of such greater irony as the Creator's goodness allowing the creation of a book pondering over the Creator's goodness."

 

He pulls out a pen and paper and begins to write.

[argonian 14254]

"My good sir, we as Canonists believe that GOD is a just and good being. To suggest that He would perform immoral acts is a false argument, as then He would not be the deity we believe in. We believe that GOD is 'natural morality' as you put it, the source of Natural Law. He is all-powerful, but according to Scripture and tradition He would never choose to do something immoral, and nevertheless even if He did choose to do something we think as 'immoral', it would be the height of arrogance to suggest such as it'd be the assertion that we know more about morality than the one who invented it. And GOD's judgement can never be arbitrary by definition, as He is the root of all justice. He defines justice, therefore whatever He does is automatically just, even if imperfect mortals disagree."

[osumanduas 1442]

Moved to The Great Library. It shall be sorted into the appropriate category shortly.

 

If you feel this is a mistake, please contact myself or any FM and we'll restore it.