There has to be life after death or there is only nihilism.

10,324 Views | 216 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by TheGreatEscape
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
kurt vonnegut said:

dermdoc said:


I hate the doctrine of Hell. Especially as taught by a large swath of the Western Church.

God is good and a redeemer of all things. He can not sin.

I look at "hell" as rehabilitation. There is punishment but for our own good. Just like loving fathers do.

You define God as 'good'. Saying that He cannot sin is 100% circular. Going back to one of my original points on this thread - if we define all of God's works as good, then all of our human experience, intuition, emotion and reason are irrelevant. For any of those to disagree with God is to invalidate them solely on the basis that they disagree with God. The existence of the Christian God, it seems to me, would make all human individuality value-less.

Putting my combativeness aside, I do very much appreciate your version of 'hell' as compared to other interpretations. For you, I think it comes from a place of empathy.


The problem is you have been presented the character of the Christian god and the Gospel and rejected it.

So there is no starting point.

God is God and I am not He. We are made in His image. Not the other way around.

And my version of "hell" is based on a lot of Scripture study and reading. It is not something to be taken lightly.

My spiritual gift is mercy so I probably will read Scripture and literature with a more empathetic lens.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

You define God as 'good'. Saying that He cannot sin is 100% circular. Going back to one of my original points on this thread - if we define all of God's works as good, then all of our human experience, intuition, emotion and reason are irrelevant. For any of those to disagree with God is to invalidate them solely on the basis that they disagree with God. The existence of the Christian God, it seems to me, would make all human individuality value-less.
I see the same facts and think the opposite. If God made me, and He is all powerful and all good, then all of those things have immeasurable value. The fact that I can have experience, intuition, emotion and reason, especially those that contradict the absolute standard of goodness, is a miracle in itself. The very fact of a perfect Creator making an imperfect creation is already a paradox, unless that the presence of that imperfection leads to something even more perfect than wouldn't exist without it
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc said:


The problem is you have been presented the character of the Christian god and the Gospel and rejected it.

So there is no starting point.

Ultimately, I reject the gospels because I don't think they are true.

But, just as you reject certain interpretations of God because they do not align with your understanding of who God is, I have an aversion to certain interpretations of God. The Westboro Baptist version of God is an example, I imagine, whom you and I would both be uneasy about.

I also want to say that I do not reject the Christian God because I reject the idea of any God. I can generally imagine a God that I would worship.

kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ramblin_ag02 said:

Quote:

You define God as 'good'. Saying that He cannot sin is 100% circular. Going back to one of my original points on this thread - if we define all of God's works as good, then all of our human experience, intuition, emotion and reason are irrelevant. For any of those to disagree with God is to invalidate them solely on the basis that they disagree with God. The existence of the Christian God, it seems to me, would make all human individuality value-less.
I see the same facts and think the opposite. If God made me, and He is all powerful and all good, then all of those things have immeasurable value. The fact that I can have experience, intuition, emotion and reason, especially those that contradict the absolute standard of goodness, is a miracle in itself. The very fact of a perfect Creator making an imperfect creation is already a paradox, unless that the presence of that imperfection leads to something even more perfect than wouldn't exist without it

And the only way for God's creation to reach this more perfect state is to go through the process of experience and contradiction? Why? What are the rules to existence that God is servant to that prohibit Him from simply making the 'more perfect' so? This seems like an awfully messy process, no?
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No clue. This is where my mind fails me. Maybe existence is perfect without flawed beings but incomplete? So now it's complete but no perfect and we're trying to get to where it is both? I base a lot of my theology on the biblical statement that it is better to love someone that hates you than it is to love someone that loves you. Since God is love and wants to maximize that, then He would need to love people that hate him. For that to happen, people that hate Him would have to exist. Since God is all good, then anyone who hates Him would have to be evil or at least lean evil. So God is good, but for Him to be maximally good then evil must exist. Just a way to sort the issue based on Christian thought
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
kurt vonnegut said:

dermdoc said:


The problem is you have been presented the character of the Christian god and the Gospel and rejected it.

So there is no starting point.

Ultimately, I reject the gospels because I don't think they are true.

But, just as you reject certain interpretations of God because they do not align with your understanding of who God is, I have an aversion to certain interpretations of God. The Westboro Baptist version of God is an example, I imagine, whom you and I would both be uneasy about.

I also want to say that I do not reject the Christian God because I reject the idea of any God. I can generally imagine a God that I would worship.


So you want a God that meets your criteria?

Then He is not God. You are.

I reject certain interpretations because I do not think the whole of Scripture backs that interpretation.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
TheGreatEscape
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dermdoc said:

kurt vonnegut said:

dermdoc said:


The problem is you have been presented the character of the Christian god and the Gospel and rejected it.

So there is no starting point.

Ultimately, I reject the gospels because I don't think they are true.

But, just as you reject certain interpretations of God because they do not align with your understanding of who God is, I have an aversion to certain interpretations of God. The Westboro Baptist version of God is an example, I imagine, whom you and I would both be uneasy about.

I also want to say that I do not reject the Christian God because I reject the idea of any God. I can generally imagine a God that I would worship.


So you want a God that meets your criteria?

Then He is not God. You are.



That's the hinge upon which the whole turns.
Rocag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think the underlying question being asked here is if all creator deities are worthy of worship (presuming their existence of course). Does the fact that a deity created you and the world you live in automatically mean you must worship them? What if you believe that deity is inherently evil? Still have to worship it?
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rocag said:

I think the underlying question being asked here is if all creator deities are worthy of worship (presuming their existence of course). Does the fact that a deity created you and the world you live in automatically mean you must worship them? What if you believe that deity is inherently evil? Still have to worship it?


No the underlying question is not which God is worthy of worship.

The underlying question is what is the true God? Not the God that we want. But the true God.

Until you get to that place you have to depend on moral relativism.

And that is not firm ground.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
TheGreatEscape
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dermdoc said:

Rocag said:

I think the underlying question being asked here is if all creator deities are worthy of worship (presuming their existence of course). Does the fact that a deity created you and the world you live in automatically mean you must worship them? What if you believe that deity is inherently evil? Still have to worship it?


No the underlying question is not which God is worthy of worship.

The underlying question is what is the true God? Not the God that we want. But the true God.

Until you get to that place you have to depend on moral relativism.

And that is not firm ground.


Someone said: If the theory of general relativity is true, then that is an absolute truth.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rocag said:

I think the underlying question being asked here is if all creator deities are worthy of worship (presuming their existence of course). Does the fact that a deity created you and the world you live in automatically mean you must worship them? What if you believe that deity is inherently evil? Still have to worship it?
This question pretty much evaporates under any sort of scrutiny. Inherently evil deities probably wouldn't give their creations a choice about whether or not to worship them. It's not like choice is some inherent thing that is entirely unavoidable; I would argue the exact opposite. So it would be trivial to create beings that had no choice in the matter, but it would be more difficult for a creating deity to give its creations a sense of self and a choice. Going back to the Kim Jong X references, they are just megalomaniacal humans. But it's not like they want their subjects to have open and free choices in the matter. The very fact that you can doubt, question, and reject your creator is a mark of the ultimate humility on the part of that creator, because those abilities were specifically built into you. So I'd argue that a creator that gives these abilities to its creations cannot be inherently evil.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc said:


So you want a God that meets your criteria?

Then He is not God. You are.

This is an obvious false dichotomy between "unquestioning loyalty to God" and "wanting to be God". I would like to think that over the years on this board I have been clear that my personal beliefs and moral opinions are simply my own. I do not speak for anyone else nor have I claimed that they are morally superior to anyone else. My experience on this board is that the religious are the ones that claim the moral authority and pretend to speak for God. Besides, maybe we have a moral relativistic God. That doesn't break any laws of the universe, does it?

God has no obligation to my criteria. And I don't know if I have an obligation to God . . . maybe He should tell us. I imagine your God as a CEO of a huge company trying to implement a new company policy. And to implement the policy, he hires his son and sends him to a tiny isolated department of the company to spread the word of the new policy. And 2000 years later, 3/4 of the company thinks the policy is nuts and that it is not the will of the CEO and the remaining quarter has splintered into 10,000 sects of policy believers, many who actively fight with each other. Maybe the CEO could send the whole company an email.

If we have an obligation to God's criteria, then one of several things might be said about that obligation. . . either:

a) We are meant to follow God's criteria blindly and without question. We are God's slaves. Or . . .
b) We are only capable of understanding some of God's criteria, and the rest must be blindly trusted and followed with slave-like loyalty. Or . . . .
c) God wishes for us to understand and agree to that obligation and invites us to question, debate, investigate, and even to disagree.

A relationship is a two way a street. In the Christian notion of relationship between man and God, God holds 100% of the power. God's rules are absolute. The conditions are set in steel and absolute. There is no compromise. 'Love' is on God's terms only.

This is already a long post, so I'm going to lean into it. . .

The Christian God does not make sense to me. And it isn't from lack of trying or petulance or from a desire to be my own God. You claim I am obligated to this God, but as far as I can tell, all you've got is human beings telling me they speak for God.

* Christianity claims that God created the universe, watched it evolve as countless galaxies, stars, and planets are formed and destroyed and churned over for literally billions of years. Why?

* And after 10 billion years, God allows a planet to form for humans. And then life - and the start a 3.5 billion year process of biological evolution in which an unfathomable number of lifeforms are born, live, and die. An unfathomable number of animals are born, experience suffering, and die. How many animals capable of feeling sorry or pain watched their children killed by predators or die from tragedy or illness? For what?

* And then after 3.5 billion years of life, God decides to poof humans into existence or to guide their evolution. And for 250 million years, He watches us in our most tribal years scraping for survival, sleeping in the mud, fighting with sticks, and living in fear of predators, other tribes, and the mysterious.

* And then somewhere around 5000 years ago, God decides its time to intervene by speaking to a few select individuals and claiming certain tribes to be chosen and special. God lays waste to wicked cities, causes plaques and disasters, floods the world killing everyone except a few people, commanding his allies to destroy their neighbors and steal their virgins to be sex slaves, sending bears to eat children, the list goes on. These were the strategies God used for 3000 years to show us how much he loved us.

* And then 2000 years ago, he sends his son (who is also himself) to preach to us. But, he doesn't write anything down. No, he goes through life doing some nice things relying on his buddies to write down the message 30 years or more after his life. And then some more buddies plagiarize the first guy and write their own accounts.

* Oh, and the of course the entirety of God's interactions over the period of the Old Testament though Jesus with the entire planet is confined a place smaller than New Jersey. Roughly 0.015% of the landmass of the world. If this doesn't scream "small tribal religious custom", then I don't know what does.

* And God gives us a book, The Bible, to be our guide. But written by fallible men and assembled by committee. And it documents the adventures of God and his team thousands of years ago. Except, we have to understand it all as allegory or fable or understand it through the context of a historical and cultural language we don't really know. And, I've learned from this board, that we must all be experts in linguistics, Hebrew, Greek, ancient history, geography, philosophy, anthropology, and culture in order to correctly interpret and understand the message.

* And Jesus talks to us about Hell and eternal fire, and devils, and thirst and anguish, and everlasting destruction and torment and weeping and gnashing of teeth. Characters in the NT are literally tortured in Hell and then we are told 'nah, God doesn't really torture people'.

* And God gives us a church, run by men in robes and funny hats, sitting in massive opulent structures, on piles of wealth and land and titles like " Vicar of Christ" and "Supreme Pontiff". An organization that has aligned with dictators and tyrants, supported slave trading, religious crusades, brutal colonization, burning witches, and hanging heretics.

* And God tells us to murder people that don't listen to priests, witches, fortune tellers, adulterers, fornicators, non believers, gays, blasphemers, and false prophets. But not really. We aren't actually supposed to do those things. Sike. . . . we get to ignore parts of the Old Testament that we don't like.

* And God calls us to know Him and love Him and be saved through Him. But, 2000 years after the big reveal, 70% of the world doesn't believe He exists. And the accident of time and geography that we are each born into remains a near perfect predictor of who will accept the faith. The Truth is sooooo obvious that we have to be indoctrinated into as children to accept it. Maybe if his face appears on enough toast, we'll finally get the message.


I do not understand your God. This God does not make sense to me. The Christian God is a Rube Goldberg tinkering, poor communicating, evasive, elusive, confusing, possibly genocidal. . . possibly not, possible sociopath. . . . maybe not, enigma wrapped in a riddle.

And all of the lovely flowery language in the world about how God is He and essence of existence and source of all that is good and loving doesn't excuse the fact that we don't really understand who God is and we don't have any reliable accounts of God and we have no reliable ways of discussing these things with God.

For you to tell me that this God also wishes for me to submit, without question, unconditionally, and eternally strikes me as absurd. I can't help but think that Christians are either delusional about God or so massively wrong about just about every aspect of who God is. And maybe I'm wrong, I still don't understand this God. I imagine there actually being a Christian God, sitting up on a cloud in Heaven. . . . as you do. . . . thinking to Himself "WTF are these Christians doing? I never said any of this stuff. . . . They've all gone mad!".

And no, I will not sit in a quiet room and listen and wait to hear a voice. When Christians do this, they hear God. When Muslims do it, they hear Allah. When ancient pagans did it, they heard their gods. And when crazy people do it, they hear someone telling them to drown their children in a bathtub. Maybe listening to the voices in your own head isn't so reliable.

TLDR; No, I don't think God should conform to my criteria. If God wishes for me to use my free will to accept Him or reject Him, then I'll just wait for Him to provide the terms. Until then, I'll just keep doing my best.



kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rocag said:

I think the underlying question being asked here is if all creator deities are worthy of worship (presuming their existence of course). Does the fact that a deity created you and the world you live in automatically mean you must worship them? What if you believe that deity is inherently evil? Still have to worship it?

I think the question is more sinister than that. The Christian presumption is that the Creator gets to establish the definitions of 'good' and 'evil'. So, maybe God cannot be evil simply because God has defined anything they do as 'good'. So, if God says that kicking puppies is 'good', then it is. It would be good to kick puppies if God wills it so. And there is nothing you can do about it. You may not object. You may not discuss or dissent. Any experience or knowledge you gain about how puppies feel pain and are sad when kicked is irrelevant. And if you don't kick puppies and worship this God, then however God deals with you is 'justice'.
Rocag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ramblin_ag02 said:

Rocag said:

I think the underlying question being asked here is if all creator deities are worthy of worship (presuming their existence of course). Does the fact that a deity created you and the world you live in automatically mean you must worship them? What if you believe that deity is inherently evil? Still have to worship it?
This question pretty much evaporates under any sort of scrutiny. Inherently evil deities probably wouldn't give their creations a choice about whether or not to worship them. It's not like choice is some inherent thing that is entirely unavoidable; I would argue the exact opposite. So it would be trivial to create beings that had no choice in the matter, but it would be more difficult for a creating deity to give its creations a sense of self and a choice. Going back to the Kim Jong X references, they are just megalomaniacal humans. But it's not like they want their subjects to have open and free choices in the matter. The very fact that you can doubt, question, and reject your creator is a mark of the ultimate humility on the part of that creator, because those abilities were specifically built into you. So I'd argue that a creator that gives these abilities to its creations cannot be inherently evil.
Well what about an evil deity that wants both freely given worship and to subject his creations to awful torment for his own pleasure? Perhaps that deity might set up a scenario in which a minority of people who choose to worship him are spared but the rest are condemned to eternal, conscious torment. A narrow path to salvation from what he's going to do to the rest of people, you might say. Best of both worlds for him, right?
TheGreatEscape
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Crusades helped us escape the incoming Shariah (law).

Look at what happened in Spain with the Moors (Muslims).
They had to eventually fight them off, but it took what ? 500 years…

And as far as all of the suffering, Christ suffered and took the pain of humanity and (even the universe; see Romans 8). And all of these things will be made right.

If all human suffering were left without a final justice, then I couldn't live in this world.

It would make ethics into a complicated philosophical theory that doesn't work for the common man. And I doubt it's even working for the elites. That's because there is a bunch of stupidity in the public square.

We wanted neutrality…but that didn't work in the public square. Stupidity never works.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'd still say that the deity you describe is less evil than one who just tortures people indiscriminately or capriciously. With a choice, there is a chance that the sadistic deity doesn't get to torture anyone. So why would this evil deity provide a choice? Can we have a quasi-evil deity?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Don't we have the same question in the opposite direction, can we have a quasi-good deity? There are tremendous ways in which a benevolent deity could seemingly improve existence without removing free will.

Our universe doesn't appear designed by something perfectly good or perfectly evil.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggrad08 said:

Don't we have the same question in the opposite direction, can we have a quasi-good deity? There are tremendous ways in which a benevolent deity could seemingly improve existence without removing free will.

Our universe doesn't appear designed by something perfectly good or perfectly evil.
That's an interesting question. I remember reading somewhere about a theological proof showing that if you have a monotheistic creator god then that god has to be perfectly good. It was probably Avicenna. In my mind it seems like it would have to be one or the other. Omnipotence plus an internally, fundamentally conflicted nature doesn't seem like it would give rise to a stable reality
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggrad08 said:

Don't we have the same question in the opposite direction, can we have a quasi-good deity? There are tremendous ways in which a benevolent deity could seemingly improve existence without removing free will.

Our universe doesn't appear designed by something perfectly good or perfectly evil.

Still the problem of what is 'good' and 'bad'. If the Creator determines an objective standard, then I doubt that Creator considers themselves quasi-good or quasi-evil. Would it mean anything to call this type of Creator quasi-good from a human perspective? In my opinion, it depends on the manner in which this Creator values our opinions and preferences.

What if being 'good' (as in God is 'good') includes being open to other points of view and not being an absolutist?

ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Maybe that was it. Something has to define good and bad. In Christianity at least, good is default. Evil is contrary to good, but good was there from the beginning. You can define good without evil, but you can't define evil without good. So if you have a monotheistic creator that existed before anything else, then that creator is good by default. Then anything that comes after and deviates would be evil. That's probably circular reasoning though.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

What if being 'good' (as in God is 'good') includes being open to other points of view and not being an absolutist?
Can you give examples? I follow for a bit. For instance, chocolate ice cream can be good. A well seasoned steak can be good. Broccoli can be good. They can all be good in different ways. OTOH, I don't really see how God could be open to points of view such as "cruelty can be good" or "selfishness is awesome"
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ramblin_ag02 said:

Aggrad08 said:

Don't we have the same question in the opposite direction, can we have a quasi-good deity? There are tremendous ways in which a benevolent deity could seemingly improve existence without removing free will.

Our universe doesn't appear designed by something perfectly good or perfectly evil.
That's an interesting question. I remember reading somewhere about a theological proof showing that if you have a monotheistic creator god then that god has to be perfectly good. It was probably Avicenna. In my mind it seems like it would have to be one or the other. Omnipotence plus an internally, fundamentally conflicted nature doesn't seem like it would give rise to a stable reality
Maybe, it certainly seems to lend itself toward extremes. But once you open up to the possibility the ominpotence or omniscience are not the only possible conditions for a being that can create the universe the possibilities are endless.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
kurt vonnegut said:

Aggrad08 said:

Don't we have the same question in the opposite direction, can we have a quasi-good deity? There are tremendous ways in which a benevolent deity could seemingly improve existence without removing free will.

Our universe doesn't appear designed by something perfectly good or perfectly evil.

Still the problem of what is 'good' and 'bad'. If the Creator determines an objective standard, then I doubt that Creator considers themselves quasi-good or quasi-evil. Would it mean anything to call this type of Creator quasi-good from a human perspective? In my opinion, it depends on the manner in which this Creator values our opinions and preferences.

What if being 'good' (as in God is 'good') includes being open to other points of view and not being an absolutist?


Yea that's only if you go might makes right horn of the Euthyphro dilemma. I don't see why an absurdly powerful and absurdly intelligent being couldn't still be imperfect, or indifferent rather than good or evil as we think of it.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ramblin_ag02 said:

Quote:

What if being 'good' (as in God is 'good') includes being open to other points of view and not being an absolutist?
Can you give examples? I follow for a bit. For instance, chocolate ice cream can be good. A well seasoned steak can be good. Broccoli can be good. They can all be good in different ways. OTOH, I don't really see how God could be open to points of view such as "cruelty can be good" or "selfishness is awesome"

Topics like cruelty or selfishness might be a tough example.

Is it moral to kill in self defense? Is premarital sex immoral? How about the death penalty? Euthanasia? Eating intelligent animals like octopus? Environmental conservation responsibility vs economic growth conflicts? Homosexuality? Open marriages? Polygamy? Censorship? Wealth distribution? Genetic Engineering?

I think there are a lot of topics we consider to be moral or ethic questions where two reasonable and rational people could argue different positions. My list of topics intentionally avoided murder, genocide, rape, theft, and a bunch of other moral topics where counter arguments are difficult.

So, maybe my argument is that there could be a God who has a much smaller list of 'moral vs immoral' actions than we realize. What if who we sleep with falls in the same category as what profession we choose in terms of moral or ethical importance?
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggrad08 said:

kurt vonnegut said:

Aggrad08 said:

Don't we have the same question in the opposite direction, can we have a quasi-good deity? There are tremendous ways in which a benevolent deity could seemingly improve existence without removing free will.

Our universe doesn't appear designed by something perfectly good or perfectly evil.

Still the problem of what is 'good' and 'bad'. If the Creator determines an objective standard, then I doubt that Creator considers themselves quasi-good or quasi-evil. Would it mean anything to call this type of Creator quasi-good from a human perspective? In my opinion, it depends on the manner in which this Creator values our opinions and preferences.

What if being 'good' (as in God is 'good') includes being open to other points of view and not being an absolutist?


Yea that's only if you go might makes right horn of the Euthyphro dilemma. I don't see why an absurdly powerful and absurdly intelligent being couldn't still be imperfect, or indifferent rather than good or evil as we think of it.
Completely agree. Again, I can imagine a Creator sitting on a cloud in the sky (or doing whatever Creators do) and laughing at all the stuff we've ascribed about God.

But the proposed Christian God is perfect and not indifferent. Using this model of God, if God says kicking puppies is good, we all have to simply submit to kicking puppies or face some retribution (justice) from God.
TheGreatEscape
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Kurt,

If this conversation is meaningless and all is relative, then why don't you write like that? You write in absolutes. You would make a great Puritan.

I mean you're busy discussing this, that, the other thing, and more.

If all we can know is material, then how are we able to use the laws of logic (though I think your premise is false)?
Where did the laws of logic come from? You clearly have the ability to reason within your worldview.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TheGreatEscape said:

Kurt,

If this conversation is meaningless and all is relative, then why don't you write like that? You write in absolutes. You would make a great Puritan.

I mean you're busy discussing this, that, the other thing, and more.

If all we can know is material, then how are we able to use the laws of logic (though I think your premise is false)?
Where did the laws of logic come from? You clearly have the ability to reason within your worldview.

Not sure I follow your points.

Just because I don't derive meaning from God, doesn't mean I think this conversation is meaningless. I don't think I write in absolutes, you can show me where I'm wrong. If I write something as an absolute, I intend it to be a personal belief rather than a universal cosmic absolute. I think I do a decent job of avoiding claims about how things MUST be. Again, open to being shown where I'm wrong.

If you are suggesting that because the laws of logic exist, then there MUST be a Creator God with characteristics, x, y, and z - then you understand that you are making the absolutist statements, right? My position is 'I don't know'. I don't have enough personal experience in creating existences and fabrics of realities to understand what MUST be the cause of what we see. Do you?
TheGreatEscape
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kurt vonnegut said:

TheGreatEscape said:

Kurt,

If this conversation is meaningless and all is relative, then why don't you write like that? You write in absolutes. You would make a great Puritan.

I mean you're busy discussing this, that, the other thing, and more.

If all we can know is material, then how are we able to use the laws of logic (though I think your premise is false)?
Where did the laws of logic come from? You clearly have the ability to reason within your worldview.

Not sure I follow your points.

Just because I don't derive meaning from God, doesn't mean I think this conversation is meaningless. I don't think I write in absolutes, you can show me where I'm wrong. If I write something as an absolute, I intend it to be a personal belief rather than a universal cosmic absolute. I think I do a decent job of avoiding claims about how things MUST be. Again, open to being shown where I'm wrong.

If you are suggesting that because the laws of logic exist, then there MUST be a Creator God with characteristics, x, y, and z - then you understand that you are making the absolutist statements, right? My position is 'I don't know'. I don't have enough personal experience in creating existences and fabrics of realities to understand what MUST be the cause of what we see. Do you?


For example, you stated basically that you wouldn't seek after God. Put yourself in a quiet room or something, so to speak.

My question regarding the laws of logic is how does your materialistic worldview account for them? How does science explain why or how they exist?

Did Darwinian evolution… poof …make them exist?
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
kurt vonnegut said:

ramblin_ag02 said:

Quote:

What if being 'good' (as in God is 'good') includes being open to other points of view and not being an absolutist?
Can you give examples? I follow for a bit. For instance, chocolate ice cream can be good. A well seasoned steak can be good. Broccoli can be good. They can all be good in different ways. OTOH, I don't really see how God could be open to points of view such as "cruelty can be good" or "selfishness is awesome"

Topics like cruelty or selfishness might be a tough example.

Is it moral to kill in self defense? Is premarital sex immoral? How about the death penalty? Euthanasia? Eating intelligent animals like octopus? Environmental conservation responsibility vs economic growth conflicts? Homosexuality? Open marriages? Polygamy? Censorship? Wealth distribution? Genetic Engineering?

I think there are a lot of topics we consider to be moral or ethic questions where two reasonable and rational people could argue different positions. My list of topics intentionally avoided murder, genocide, rape, theft, and a bunch of other moral topics where counter arguments are difficult.

So, maybe my argument is that there could be a God who has a much smaller list of 'moral vs immoral' actions than we realize. What if who we sleep with falls in the same category as what profession we choose in terms of moral or ethical importance?
Not trying to be too aggressive about it, but isn't this basically a list of your own cultural priorities? A medieval Mongolian might think cruelty is a-ok. The typical American thrives on selfishness; our whole society is built on it. The Romani don't have any concept of ownership or theft. I really can't think of any single moral principle that holds steady across all cultures. So I don't really see why the things you discussed are any more or less malleable than the rest.

Now I get to ponder the idea of a monotheistic god that embodies moral relativism or amoralism. I guess you could imagine a god that created everything that simple "is", without being good or evil or endorsing any particular actions as such. I think in that case the axis just shifts. Tolerance and lack of judgement becomes good and of the same character as god, and ardent morality of any kind becomes contrary to god and sinful. So we still have goodness and sin, but it's just different. It's still based on the character of god.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
TheGreatEscape
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Please provide a moral standard that is obligatory for all men that has stood the test of time?.

But you can't appeal to common consensus because that would change over time.
You can't appeal to instincts because they jostle.
You can't appeal to philosophy because philosophers contradict each other.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TheGreatEscape said:



For example, you stated basically that you wouldn't seek after God. Put yourself in a quiet room or something, so to speak.

My question regarding the laws of logic is how does your materialistic worldview account for them? How does science explain why or how they exist?

Did Darwinian evolution… poof …make them exist?

I am skeptical of the reliability of personal revelation. Personal revelation tends to either reinforce already held beliefs or to hit on a personal fear. If everyone alive were to be given the exact same personal revelations, then that would be something undeniably important. As it stands, Christians hear God in their quiet room and Muslims here Allah in their quiet rooms, and Hindus hear their gods.

All this doesn't mean I don't seek God. Read again what I said about God as a CEO of a big company. Why doesn't God just send out a F$%#ing email? Let everyone know whats what. Let us stop making us guess. Or . . . maybe, we all only know what God wants us to know. In which case, since I have not had a revelation, God wants me to be an atheist. Your welcome God. . . .

I don't have an explanation for the laws of logic. I don't have an explanation for existence, the big bang, life, consciousness, or fundamental constants. I believe "I don't know" is more honest than inventing a supernatural solution. Presuming 'God did it' does two things: First, it kicks the can down the road. Now, instead of trying to figure out the origin of logic and existence and consciousness, we have the question of the origin of God. Next, it introduces forces and concepts that have no meaning. Calling God an uncaused cause, timeless, spaceless, beyond our reality, and able to Create a universe from nothing. If you claim that God has these qualities without explaining how they work, I'm going to say youre making it up. The Cosmological argument boils down to a 'God of the Gaps' argument as far as I'm concerned.

No one is claiming that evolution "poof . . . . makes them exist". I think you might want to put a little more thought into this question if you want a thought out answer.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TheGreatEscape said:

Please provide a moral standard that is obligatory for all men that has stood the test of time?.

But you can't appeal to common consensus because that would change over time.
You can't appeal to instincts because they jostle.
You can't appeal to philosophy because philosophers contradict each other.

Obligatory based on what? I don't hold an objective standard. So, I don't have an example.

[edit] edited to say that I'm not sure if your question was directed at me.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ramblin_ag02 said:

kurt vonnegut said:



Topics like cruelty or selfishness might be a tough example.

Is it moral to kill in self defense? Is premarital sex immoral? How about the death penalty? Euthanasia? Eating intelligent animals like octopus? Environmental conservation responsibility vs economic growth conflicts? Homosexuality? Open marriages? Polygamy? Censorship? Wealth distribution? Genetic Engineering?

I think there are a lot of topics we consider to be moral or ethic questions where two reasonable and rational people could argue different positions. My list of topics intentionally avoided murder, genocide, rape, theft, and a bunch of other moral topics where counter arguments are difficult.

So, maybe my argument is that there could be a God who has a much smaller list of 'moral vs immoral' actions than we realize. What if who we sleep with falls in the same category as what profession we choose in terms of moral or ethical importance?
Not trying to be too aggressive about it, but isn't this basically a list of your own cultural priorities? A medieval Mongolian might think cruelty is a-ok. The typical American thrives on selfishness; our whole society is built on it. The Romani don't have any concept of ownership or theft. I really can't think of any single moral principle that holds steady across all cultures. So I don't really see why the things you discussed are any more or less malleable than the rest.

Now I get to ponder the idea of a monotheistic god that embodies moral relativism or amoralism. I guess you could imagine a god that created everything that simple "is", without being good or evil or endorsing any particular actions as such. I think in that case the axis just shifts. Tolerance and lack of judgement becomes good and of the same character as god, and ardent morality of any kind becomes contrary to god and sinful. So we still have goodness and sin, but it's just different. It's still based on the character of god.

I think that is an outstanding observation and one I didn't see when I was writing it. Yes, it probably could be said to be a list of some of my priorities or the priorities of our current culture.

But, I would also argue that the moral standards from each religion represents something very similar - that is the priorities of their specific time and place and culture. This is why the OT tells us to avoid eating hooved animals and shellfish and not to mix fabrics and things like that. And its why the Bible doesn't tackle many of the items in my list.

And for the record, I'm not advocating or believing in an morally relativistic God. In principle at least, I think I'm open to the idea that if there is a God, then said God is very different from what we can imagine. We have this idea of this Creator God and we say it is something so much bigger and complex and intelligent than us and then we claim to know what it thinks and wants and how it works. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to get it. . . but for something that intelligent and complex, I feel like I should avoid statements like "God MUST be . . . . . ".




TheGreatEscape
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Kurt,

What about the notes on a music scale?

How do you account for their existence?
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TheGreatEscape said:

Kurt,

What about the notes on a music scale?

How do you account for their existence?

Pressure waves caused by vibration of an instrument. Humans define specific frequency ranges at 'notes'.

If your plan is to burrow in further until we reach questions about how I account for fundamental forces in nature. . . .then see answer above. I don't know. And I'm okay with that. I'd like to know. But, I'm more inclined to admit I don't know rather than explain it with something I'm even further away from being able to explain.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.