“Thou shalt not subject thy God to Market Forces!”
Where, exactly, in theology, does it say this? Let’s see a bit of scripture that links volcanoes and diseases to our “turn away from God”.
That’s like saying that you can only cite quantum mechanics if you can resolve all of the problems with its implications. It’s a daft line of reasoning. One need not resolve every single problem with a premise or line of thought before it can be used.
I have to dash off to work and avoid the distractions of the Dope, so I can’t respond in detail right now. Suffice to say that I think the problems you cited as hardly insurmountable, partly for reasons that Skammer has already discussed.
Moreover, denying the existence of free will creates its own problems. For example, if there is no free will, then whatever “reasons” you have for rejecting it are ultimately not reasons of your own choosing. You may be right in rejecting it, but only as a matter of dumb luck, the same way that a stopped clock is right twice in one day. It also makes it nonsensical for someone to criticize a person who believes in free will, as that person ultimately has no choice but to believe it. If you insist in only using premises that are problem-free, then you can neither presume free will nor adopt a position of non-belief. It’s a self-defeating line of reasoning.
WTF?
Ineffable essentially means that something can’t be comprehended. Why is that binary? Why couldn’t a god be precisely (and effably) 183.5 cm tall, and yet his motivations completely incomprehensible? Why do all aspects of an entity have to be ineffable or none?
Can you please provide a cite for your claim that ineffability is binary
We don’t need to know what they “look like” to have a full concept in mind, especially one against which we can measure actual performance. For example, I can have a full mental concept of “infinity” sufficient to know whether a proposed series sum tends to infinity or not. Same-same with perfect love or perfect power. After all, love and power are human concepts.All-loving. ALL-loving. It’s really not that hard - words have meaning.Because if an omnipotent, good-intentioned deity uses an imperfect instrument while stating in it that it is intending to be his perfect word, either he doesn’t mean it to be perfect (meaning he’s a liar, so goodbye all-good) or it’s only as perfect as he can make it (so goodbye all-powerful)It’s not “sorta-effable”. The fact that you even make the attempt belies your own stated belief in ineffability.
[/QUOTE]
Because people don’t just say “god’s *motives *are ineffable”, they say “**god **is ineffable”. So god is either ineffable or he isn’t. That is, if I understand what they’re trying to say, his essential nature is either indescribable or it isn’t. Physical properties don’t come into it, but metaphysical ones definitely do. If you say “god is all-loving”, for instance, that’s very much not compatible with “god is ineffable” -
I don’t need to provide a cite - some *particular *thing either is or isn’t describable, by the bivalence principle. What differs is what thing’s under discussion. You seem to think it’s god’s properties, but that isn’t what’s alleged:
Well to be fair, every Christian and Jewish denomination I know of accepts that disease is a direct result of original sin, ie a turning away from God. There was no disease in Eden, there will be none after the resurrection. There are also ocuntless examples of people being afflicted with disease for committing specific sins. If you’re looking for a specific passage that says “original sin caused disease” you’re probably out of luck, but like I said, it’s a universal belief in all Judeo-Christian religions, so it’s not like it’s something just made up.
The volcanoes OTOH. :dubious:
No it isn’t. You’re indulging a textbook fallacy of composition.
The bivalence principle simply states that a concept must be either true or false, it can’t be both simultaneously. It doesn’t dictate the that an entity can only have one property at a time, which is what you are trying to twist it to mean.
To help you understand your rather obvious error: you’ve already conceded that a god can have some precisely known physical characteristics while remaining ineffable. Now try to take it to the next step. Why can I not say that a God craves heat, but that all else about him is ineffable? In what way is that situation precluded by the by the bivalence principle? “The god craves heat” is true. “We can comprehend nothin gelse about it” is also true. Where is the conflict with the bivalence principle? All we know is the one fact that we know. That one fact remains true, in perfect keeping with the bivalence principle. Another totally separate fact, that every other aspect is ineffable, also remains true, once again in perfect keeping with the bivalence principle
As far as I can see all that you are trying to do is shoehorn the word “utterly” into a statement where it never existed. IOW construct a strawman. You want to argue against the statement “God is utterly ineffable”, which nobody has made. Once we remove that absolute and say “God is in some aspects ineffable” your attempt to apply the bivalence priciple are revealed for what they are: a blatant strawman.
Good grief, according to your “logic” if someone said " The communist movement is dishonest" you would be forced to agree, because I can show you at least one Communist that is indeed dishonest. Since, according to you, the bivalence principle must be absolutely applicable to all statements, and since we know that one part of the communist movement is a liar, then the statement must be true. It is utterly impossible, according to your “logic”, that other aspects of the entity “communist movement” may possess different traits. The trait of one part of the entity must be the trait of the whole. To paraphrase yourself: some particular thing either is or isn’t honest, by the bivalence principle.
Which then puts you in the rather unenviable position that if I find a communist who told the truth, you then need to simultaneously concede that the movement is honest. Because some *particular *thing either is or isn’t honest, by the bivalence principle. Right?
By trying to apply the bivalence principle to every statement as an absolute you end up in the paradoxical position of having to say that a statement and its opposite are both simultaneously true.
Doesn’t that suggest to you that your “logic” has a flaw?
The flaw of course, and it should have been obvious, is that you are applying a composition error. Some parts of God’s are metaphysical makeup are ineffable, that doesn’t mean that the whole metaphysical makeup has to be ineffable. Just as some parts of the communist party can be dishonest without the whole having to be dishonest.
No? Do we have an exact universal scientific definition? Do various people have concepts of what love is that vary quite a bit? Can we know that a certain feeling is love or do we as individuals call something love based on our own judgement and individual feelings and concepts.
I’ll note that I’m using a definition of ineffible that means “incapable of being expressed in words completely or accurately” rather than “in any way whatsoever.”
That’s not how logic works. We don’t need to experience omnipotence ourselves to evaluate some other entity’s claims to it. All that’s needed is the definition.
[/QUOTE]
But your conclusions about that definition and what that implies must be complete and sound.
example; begbert claims that by definition if an ominipotent being wants something it must be that way and whatever the conditions are now must be what it wants. Therefore , said being cannot want peace and harmony to be achieved at some unknown later moment.
I say, that doesn’t nessecarily follow. Couldn’t the definition omnipotent mean it can want both things, or make both things be happening at the same time from it’s timeless perspective?
I think reason and logic must apply but that doesn’t mean they are always applied correctly. I’m claiming and maintaining that lacking the perspective of the being we’re supposing, we cannot make certain logical claims from our perspective about said being.I’m claiming logic itself dictates this to be true. It’s like coming to a conclusion while missing crucial data. Not a good idea and hardly logically inevitable. A reasonble guess, sure. But that’s different.
okay but it’s in the Book of Mormon is that alright?
no wait,…make that the Koran., … no wait,
the Bhagavad Gita,… dang it. can’t remember which of God’s writings said that.
Quantum Mechanics largely works. (libertarian) free will doesn’t make a damn lick of sense no matter how you look at it. The two are not remotely comparable.
I countered both his objections and he accepted one of my arguments (rebutting it with basically, “but I don’t care”). Can you do better?
You don’t think my objections are insurmountable? That nice, I do, for the latter two. (The first objection is indeed surmountable, in theory.)
Or I can take door number three, where we are deterministic decision-making machines - organic computers. Computers do things for reasons, without libertarian free will. Consider your objection here refuted.
Okay. Whew, it’s been a busy day at work. Let me see if I can address some outstanding comments.
Ineffability. I think we’ve gotten of on a tangent here that’s pretty irrelevent. What I mean by ineffable is that, we are unable to comprehend or describe God in total. Yes, we can identify certain characteristics that God has, but at best we’re taking human constructs or ideals and applying them to God. So we can say things about God: that God is the First Cause, the primal mover, the source of love; that he is all benevolent, kind, and just, etc. But we are incapable of understanding, let alone describing, God perfectly and completely. If that’s not your definition of ineffable, fine, forget I used that word. It’s not in the creeds or anything.
Free Will. As I’ve said, I’m on the fence about Free Will. I can be convinced it’s an illusion. Whether it is or not does not disprove the existence of God.
You’re right, it is pretty ill-defined and different theologians have defined it differently. It’s an interesting topic – but ultimately, isn’t it a different issue than whether or not God is disprovable? I mean we can conceive of such a God whether or not it is possible to “sin” against him. If you want to start another thread on “What is Sin?” I’m all for it.
I’m sorry what was that argument again? The POE?
About why God created us? You need to do more reading then; it goes back at least to the second century.
Yes, mutual meaning both parties participate. It implies that one party has the option not to participate in relationship.
This is Christian doctrine going back at least as far as St. Augustine of Hippo. Mankind’s disobedience introduced sin into the world, and all of creation is corrupted. Again this is the spiritual explanation, not the physical one.
No. Not even close. It’s hard to even have a conversation at this level when you are so ignorant of real doctrine, and not some fanciful characature of it. Find me any theologian who claims that suffering is because God is pissed of and tortures us out of spite.
I think it’s been mentioned in this thread that none of the main Chrisitan denominations, nor Judaism, disbelieve evolution or believe in a literal global flood. Once again you arguing against your own misconception about what we believe.
If I could come up with a nice, succinct, elegant answer to the POE I would publish it. My personal solution is:
- God is perfectly benevolent, i.e all-loving
- God is sovereign, i.e. all-powerful
- God is everywhere, i.e. all present
- There are bad things in the world which seem to imply that God is either not present, not powerful enough, or not benevolent enough to fix them
- Therefore: God must have a reason, incomprehensible to me, to allow this state of affairs that is consistant with his presence, power, and love. I don’t know what it is.
Jesus actually alluded to (but did not answer) this problem:
See above.
Thank you or the opportunity to clarify. By “outside the universe” I mean, separate from the universe. Not the same substance as the universe. As opposed to (my understanding of) Pantheism, where the universe=God. God is not confined by space-time, he exists in all places and times at once.
This is usually linked to Romans 8:19-22:
This passage, and related ones in Genesis and elsewhere, are the foundation of this doctrine of the fall of creation.
See above, but yes: this is a well established doctrine.
The problem with trying to “disprove” God, as you’ve seen, is that you can raise all kinds of objections and the theist can say “I don’t know.” Not coincidentally, very much like all the unanswered questions of science to do not invalidate scientific theory. There are always new theories, new discoveries, and new ideas. The fact that we don’t know why Evil exists or whether or not free will is real just means we still have unanswered questions about God, but it’s not going to make the whole thing come crashing down.
We’ve done sin plenty of times.
Let’s get back to defining God. It appears that you believe that God is benevolent. Now, usually, we can test the hypothesis that a person is benevolent by looking at his actions. So, if benevolence is a critical component of your God, and we can show lack of benevolence, then we can disprove your specific God. Your response has been to wave away the problem by asserting that whatever God does is benevolent in some way we can’t understand. You’ve made this part of the definition unfalsifiable. Besides making it impossible to disprove god in this way, you have made the concept fairly useless, since we cannot say anything at all about what god will do. You can no more expect God will be benevolent by blessing you that you can that God will be benevolent by making you suffer greatly - all in some unknowable cause, of course.
Same thing for the Bible. God is revealed in the Bible, but you won’t tell us how to distinguish parts that are revelation from parts which are myth. Similarly, God reveals himself to people, but his characteristics and message are all mutually contradictory, which you explain away by God showing himself in different ways.
Yes! I mean, I wouldn’t say I’m “waving away the problem,” but you’ve got the gist of it. Here is some Biblical support:
So, yes, there’s no denying that there is suffering, but there is faith that the suffering is necessary and beneficial for some reason we don’t yet understand.
Well, myth and revelation are not mutually exclusive. In fact myth is probably one of the most important tools of revelation used in the Bible. As far as God’s direct revalation to people, the are not all mutually contradictory. Some are, though, and those that are need to be discerned for truth. Sometimes the body of believers is good at that and sometimes not so much, and sometimes it takes years or centuries for new revelation to be accepted – slavery is one example of this but there are others.
Bleh, missed the edit window. Pretend I spelled “revelation” correctly.
True or false: An all powerful being could create a world with no suffering?
You are wrong. The only way revelations are not contradictory is if you chose only to accept ones that match your beliefs. Why don’t you believe the revelations of Smith or Hubbard? Or for that matter, Jones or Koresh?
Your arguments are laughable.
Fact: There is exactly as much evidence for God as there is for Santa. So why is one more childish than the other?
Free will only relates the existence of God in that it is a common counter to the POE and related arguments. In other words the argument goes something like this:
-Atheist: You say your god is benevolent. I see evil around. No benevolent god would allow that, thus no benevolent god exists, thus your god doesn’t exist.
-Theist: I counter that with free will - God doesn’t do evil, people do evil and he allows it because to do otherwise would trample free will, which to count as free will has to makes us able to do evil and make it so god doesn’t predict and prevent our evil acts.
If free will doesn’t do what the theists require, then that doesn’t itself disprove the existence of the god, but what it does do is disprove the counterargument presented by the theist. And when the counterargument is disproven, this opens the door for the atheist argument, when then (unless otherwise disproven) does disprove the existence of the god in question.
Of course, another common way to sidestep the theist counterargument is to just build the argument around natural evil, but I figure, why should I limit myself to the easy approach? The more complex free will argument is more intellectually stimulating.
More accurately, a POE variant with omnibenevolence removed. The standard POE has two functional parts:
-
if an omnipotent, omniscient being exists, then everything that exists or happens does so with its explicit approval, since it could and would correct anything it didn’t like (because it lacks reasons not to). Similarly, anything that in the being’s opinion could be improved, would be, because there would be no reason not to. This line of thought proves that that the world we are in is, in the being’s opinion, the best possible world it could be, and that he would change nothing about it.
-
if the being was also omnibenevolent, then clearly its optimal world would not include evil or pain or suffering. The current world does. Therefore, no omnimax being exists.
That’s the full POE. I’m focusing on the first half of it alone - I think it’s a more powerful and interesting argument without limiting it to just harm, becuase it shows that we can divine god’s desires just by looking at the world around us. If it exists, your god loves everything that happens in the world, from giggling babies to murdered children. It can’t think of a single improvement that can be made - and this is God, so it’s not like he’s lacking imagination.
So forget ineffable, and throw out that bible - if you want to know the wishes of God, just turn on the evening news.
cosmosdan has made what I see as the only cogent argument against this, which is that our current universe may only be part of a larger picture which may include things that we don’t see, and to which our small part contributes - like how looking at just a single pixel on your screen won’t allow you to appreciate the brilliance and meaning of my post that you’re reading.
Of course, this doesn’t change the fact that if God hates green with a burning feiry passion, he’s not really likely to use green as part of his painting - even a small part of it.
Too bad nobody says that anymore, huh? I’m not really all that into religious history. Plus I didn’t even argue against it, though you clearly are just looking for something to snipe at me about.
Since when? My heart and lungs are mutually participating in my cardiovascular system. Neither of them gets vacation time.
You’re making up nonsense ex nihilo. There’s nothing at all about mutuality that requires the parties to have an ability or inclination to quit.
So the disobedience got up off it’s chaise lounge, strolled over to Sin (which was in the la-z-boy) and said, “Sin, I’d like you to meet my good friend, The World. Mr. The World, this is Sin - you two should get acquainted.” And then Mr The World shook Sin’s hand, and then Mr. Sin smiled evilly and said, “Ha! Got you! I’ve just given you Corruption, through my contagious touch! (I got it from a brothel, myself.) Sucker!”
You don’t like that? Give me something better! Disobedience and sin don’t magically cause disease and volcanos, even from a spiritual explanation - it still doesn’t make sense. Seriously, god did it. Man may have asked for it (though he clearly wasn’t shown the fine print), but God clearly got up off his Barcalounger and did it himself - because he was pissed.
Genesis 3. God walks in, ask’s what’s up, interrogates the parties to find out who’s responsible (Omniscience? What?), and then starts personally slapping curses and sorrows (his words) around in order of guilt. Oh yeah, he was a happy boy.
Admittedly “fanciful charicature” is an excellent description for the bible, but I still feel justified in using it as a source in this discussion.
Go back and read St. Augustine of Hippo again. You’re the one claims authority from “traditional Christian theology” - you get to pick your sources, but I get to point out their flaws.
In other words - 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. But I don’t like that the answer is 3, so, uh… mysterious ways! Mysterious ways! Mysterious ways! Don’t look at the man behind the curtain - the ways are mysterious! Remember that! Stop looking at the curtain dammit!
…and then Jesus promptly proceeds to use the man’s blindness as an opportunity to demonstrate Jesus’s power, which is obviously the ‘work of God’ was talking about - Jesus was saying “this man was born blind so that I could heal him and show up the Pharisees.” Which is rather a weak reason for God to do such a dickish thing to the guy, honestly.
I find it actually rather appalling that you would distort the meaning of the text in this way. It’s typical of christians, mind you, but I expect better. Particularly from somebody who’s struggling to take a high ground with regard to being knowledgeable.
Stop right there - as I see it, “wholly” and “utterly” are synonyms, and that’s precisely the word that was used. God was said to be “**wholly **Other”, which was then glossed as “ineffable and beyond human comprehension”. No fallacy of composition, I was addressing the actual content of Skammer’s definition.
Now, you could argue that “wholly” and “utterly” are not synonymous. Go for it. But otherwise, my reading stands, and no straw man argument is being attempted. Of course, **Skammer **can always backpedal from his initial utterance.
Do we need one?
Does it matter? Your analogy is about to fall apart because of the difference between an emotion and an entity.
Perfectly acceptable for an emotion
That’s the definition I’m working with, too, obviously. Especially the “accurately” part.
Not if you want it to be compatible with all-goodness at the same time.
Argument from incredulity mixed with argument from ignorance = argumentum ad ineffabilus, it seems. But logical fallacies don’t cancel each other out. All you’re saying is that we can’t say. That’s great if that’s your belief, but that’s no logical argument, like I said - it’s a refusal to debate, in fact.
Err, no. Logics always apply (or, at least, logical systems always are set up as though they apply to everything). The only way you can win is by not playing, which is what you seem to be doing. But you can’t say it’s logical that you do so.
Which data? We’re only addressing the definitions presented, and attacking their logical basis. You’re saying that a logical inconsistency in omnimax isn’t one because of ineffability, but that’s not right. It remains an inconsistency regardless of god’s reasons, or timelessness, or ineffability. And none of those explanations *resolve *the inconsistency at all. The merely throw there hands up and say “So what!” That’s not an argument, that’s a surrender of any philosophical justification whatsoever, a retreat into dogma. Which, hey, if it floats your boat, go for it, but don’t pretend it’s logic.
I miss Liberal, sometimes.
Oh good grief, you do twist meanings don’t you?
God was said to be “**wholly **Other”, which was then expanded upon as “ineffable and beyond human comprehension”.
It was never glossed. Nobody ever said that God was wholly ineffable. That is your invention.
Do you honestly not understand this? It means what it says. The subject is wholly other, and I can qualify that by describing aspects that are indeed other. It doesn’t mean all of the subject has those properties.
To show you the obvious flaw in your reasoning: I say that God is wholly other, you ask what I mean and I say that he is, for example, invisible. According to you I must have meant that his preference in ice cream is invisible, because according to you either a statement must be true of a the entire subject or not at all.
This is a nonsense of course. You are constructing a strawman.
no. that’s the point. believers continue to try and commune and learn about god even when they realize they can never understand completly
.
Most believers will tell you we experience god on a spiritual level, which is akin to an emotion.
That’s the point of describing god as ineffible. people can’t be sure, {even though many claim to be}
so they have to decide for themselves and go forward on faith. Sometimes they’re wrong, or led by others.
Logic and reason apply in many ways, especially when we’re dealing with myths like the flood or the history of the Bible. Logic and reason also require that we are aware of what we don’t and can’t know but we can still form a working theory and go forward based on that.
of course logic is always in place.
Logic requires we have certain information to reach what would be a logical reasonable conclusion especially when we make claims of logical inevitability. Lacking the proper information we can create logical reasonable theories but theories don’t qualify for the title of inevitability.
I’ll explain it one more time.
You and I can both see, hear, taste, touch, and with subtle differences we could reach logical conclusions about input from our senses. What we can’t do is hear, see, and comprehend, everything at once. We understand that there are still things left to discover and plenty of things we don’t know. Not the case for an omnimax god. While we have certain definitions to work with we lack the perspective to claim with logical inevitability what such a being must or must not be.
begbert seems to understand my arguemnt even though I’m sure he doesn’t agree. You can insist I’m not playing if you like, even though that’s not the case.
If we’re inside and we hear what sounds like rain it’s logical to claim it’s raining but it is not a logical inevitability from that one input and perspective. when we see it’s coming from the sky rather than a hose and feel it, then we have enough input to make a far stronger claim.
We cannot judge an omnimax being from our human perspective and claim logical inevitability. I appreciate the POE argument and in this thread begberts addition that whatever is going on now must in some way be what god wants… That’s an interesting point that requires further consideration.
cute. I have no dogma. I don’t embrace the personal god as seperate being ruler of the universe model. I’m not a Christian or any other religion.
I repeat, to claim logical inevitibility certain perspective , beyond definitions, have to be in place. See, when talk about the POE we’re speaking from a human perspective. How can we judge what is good or evil from the perspective of an omnimax being, or if good and evil even exist from that perspective, just as we suggest time does not.
If it makes you feel good to hold on to the idea that you can crush any god model with your logic that’s okay, but as you know, feelings are not logic.
If you don’t get that I can some how carry on , claim it’s logical, and be assured that someone will get it.