ftr I think religion would be much less of a pain in the ass and do far less harm if they could accpet not knowing as part of thier view rather than claiming divine knowledge and that their particular dogma is not their creation but GOD"S WILL.
I’m shocked it took 83 posts to finally get some wisdom on this topic. Science is our best way of knowing about the natural world. Period, that’s it. When it comes to things like defining what is good or imagining what human beings could/should/ought to be, the humanities take the lead.
And that’s when we reach for religion or philosophy.
Why reach for religion instead of philosophy?
I have the greatest respect for the marketing abilities of the writers of the Bible. They were certainly clever enough to see the contradiction between the benevolence of their god and the suffering of the people they were trying to recruit, thus the verse you quoted and others like it. Repeat after me, it’s a good life.
If there is some revelation hidden inside a myth, you need to tell me a way to differentiate the pure story from the truth. Moral “truths” sure, or at least teaching - but we get that from Aesop without actually believing in talking animals.
One of the things that was impressed upon me when I started looking at religion and Chrsitianity again by asking questions and seeking out answers for myself by looking at science and other religions as well, was how a lot of the more positive aspects of Christ’s teachings existed in other places and in other religions. There are amazing similarities between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Buddha.
I also noticed that mankinds tendency to build a religion around something and how the basic concept useually gets distorted. Add that to the annoying need to be so dam sure, rather than just admit they’re following their beliefs and aren’t sure, we get into dogma. Then you mix in the power to influence and even control people as well as the big money issue, we get some pretty lousy scenarios in organized religions.
What the fuck is your beef with me? This steers close to calling me a liar - take it to the Pit if that’s what you want to do.
My bolding - just what the fuck do you think “gloss” means? And what the fuck does the “ineffable and beyond human comprehension” expand on if not the “wholly Other” bit that’s the primary descriptor? What the fuck does"wholly Other" *mean *if not ineffable or beyond comprehension?
So, you’re the anti-Humpty Dumpty now?
Says you. Says Skammer, I guess, now, pedalling backwards as he is. So what?
Nice try at an analogy. But invisible is a physical property, not a metaphysical one like ineffable, and so the analogy collapses. So much for the “obvious flaw”
Hey, if **Skammer **had said god’s motives were ineffable, or god’s plans, or god’s left toenail, there’d be no need for this pitiful defence you’re attempting. But that wasn’t what he said - he said god was ineffable. That ineffability was a property of god, the entity. Damn straight I take that as god, himself, is ineffable. As such, any description of god that touches on his true nature at all is off the table, as being definitionally inaccurate. That includes things about his nature, his essential properties, his motives, the whole shebang.
That’s just great for the believers. Ineffable doesn’t mean not able to be experienced.
It’s when they try to tell the rest of us anything about god at all that they leave their jurisdiction, as it were.
Great. Keep your god right there, no problems.
I notice the notion of *just not trying *doesn’t occur to you. I mean, if god is ineffable, he must mean to stay that way, no? Being omnipotent as well.
The only things we can’t ever know are things not worth knowing about, because they are impossibilities.
So it’s still apeal to ineffability?
Only if your claim is that god does not need to be logically consistent in any way. That omnipotence in some way trumps logical consistency. Is that what you’re claiming? Because the POE is internally complete and isn’t dependent on any new information. Nothing about god’s motives would change the POE as a logical argument.
I’ll leave that up to begbert.
We have sufficient input in the POE - we have the existence of evil, and the definitions of god as omnimax. That’s *all *we need.
Yes we can. We do.
You seem quite dogmatic in the idea that ineffability trumps consistency.
Never said you were. I’m only addressing what you, yourself, have said, and its implications.
I disagree. All you need is to pick your logical framework, and go from there. You’re only allowed to argue the addressed premises, not add your own.
The same way we know that said being is omnimax, obviously - by what said being has (apparently) revealed about itself and its wishes (or so it is claimed). So if god says we are created in his image, in our sense of right and wrong, then those are the standards we must apply. And thereby god fails the PoE test
Or you could make the argument that god has a *different *sense of right and wrong from ours, as you seem to be doing. That’s fine, but then, you’ve put yourself in quite the moral pickle. One that would even need its own thread, I’m thinking.
Yeah. Feelings aren’t very persuasive, either. This isn’t the Great GroupHugs forum.
Well, you can try, but anyone can post in most any thread here, you know. Don’t expect to blithely go unchallenged on it.
See, that’s where we’ve had it wrong all these millennia. That’s exactly when Science *should *be in charge, damn it.
(pity there’s no mouthless smiley)
I did, but found nothing that answered (or even satisfactorily addressed) my question.
Hell, the cornfield, same thing.
The late, great geography polymath Peter Gould would agree.
crap crap crap. I hate it when you type a long response and when you go to post it you’ve timed out and then when you try to go back to copy it you can’t and crap crap crap!
I always copy the text first, before trying to post just in case for just that reason.
.
Things we comprehend now were not even imagined in the fairly recent past. They were thought of as impossible. Can’t know means can’t know now.
It’s an appeal to how logic actually works.
Not at all. I’m claiming your claim of what is logically inevitable in this case is incorrect.
Excpet that’s not what I said. It only demonstrates that you don’t really grasp my point.
Now this made me laugh. So if I think your logic is faulty and incomplete I’m not allowed to correct you? That’s rich. This is GD isn’t it?
nope. The human perspective of what is good and evil is inconsistant. Is that what we use to logically judge?
again, since humanities sense of right and wrong has not remained consistant then you really have no argument here.
.Oh I know. Don’t think that simply by claiming logic you don’t have any emotional attachment or bias.
I appreciate being challanged. A redundant repitition of insisting you’re logical and I’m not is not a challange and not something I’m interested in.
I understand your argument and I’ve explained why I don’t agree that it’s logically inevitable. If all you have to offer is “yes it is so” then I think we’re done.
thanks; I often do that too, which makes it even more frustrating when I get careless and forget.
Err, that’s not the sense I use it in. Can’t know, to me, means can’t *ever *be known.
Obviously, I disagree. Maybe you could rephrase your argument in symbolic form?
Not directly, but yes.
Then rephrase it until I understand. I don’t think it’s my fault for not getting it, if it’s a logical statement, it shouldn’t be hard to rephrase into a form I do understand.
Unless you’re also alleging wilfulness on my part, but you don’t seem to be.
You can *correct *all you want. Show that the premises are false, or there’s a fault in the logical sequence, or whatever. Adding your own premises isn’t it.
So you’re saying we don’t have our moral sense from god? Like I said, *an *argument, but one with rather messy consequences.
Assuming we’re accepting the theist’s premises, yes.
Hey, the argument that we have god’s moral sense isn’t mine, it is a theistic argument. Take it up with the Christians.
Of course I do. Religion is personally repellant to me. But that isn’t going to win any arguments if the logic is flawed.
If you like. Thanks for the chat, though. Despite that “I miss Liberal” crack, I *do *appreciate the effort you made to show me your side, even if I think you’re wrong.
but no.
I expect such a being to be completely consistent. You’re claiming god is not logically consistant , but from our limited human perspective. I’m saying that by even supposing an omnimax being for the logical equation we must include the possibiity that such a being , who created all, sees all, comprehends all, has a vastly different persepctive. I’m saying that to remain true to logic we must consider the possibility of that perspective when we propose such a being.
I’m suggeting that within the definition of omnimax there may be a perspective that takes in the purpose of all creation that encompasses and explains our perspective on good and evil in a logically consistant manner. That purpose is something we , with our limited perspective, cannot or do not yet grasp.
I read all the arguments from atheists about how god could create a world where all is good and yet we still have free will, or that an omnipotent being doesn’t need to teach us because he could just give us the understanding etc etc. Then when I suggest that an omnimax being must have a vastly different perspective and that perspective that comprehends all of creation, how it all fits together and works, might explain what we describe as the POE, I get. That’s not logically consistent. It seems to me that it’s required under the very definition of omnimax you’re invoking.
It’s at least partially your fault. I’ve explained it several times and begbert stated it fairly simply but no matter. I’ve explained it again. If it still doesn’t make sense then we’ll leqave it for another thread. Sometimes I have to read something several times and let it percilate a little before I undertand it.
I’m not adding anything. I’m saying the very premise of an omnimax being must include that beings persepctive to be logically consistent, and also the acknowledgement that we cannot gain that perspective. That’s the flaw in the POE argument. We soppose an omnimax being and then judge it from our limited human perspective. Of course we must make some judgements but claiming logical inevitibility is going to far.
No I’m not saying that. I’m saying our moral sense is inconsistent and still a work in progress while such a beings would not be. A few years ago slavery was morally acceptable. We are striving for a clearer understanding of who and what we are and how we as a race are connected to each other. Such a being already knows all of that.
I don’t think you understand the beleifs.
That’s what GD is all about. I’m sure it will come up again. Perhaps I’ve have a way of explaining it more clearly in the future.
As people overall became more educated and intelligent, they began to realize what a massive con religion is. It has become less and less important over the years. Sadly, it’s not obsolete yet.
You’re completely missing the point - nobody cares what’s good or evil from the god’s perspective, and it doesn’t matter. “Omnibenevolence” is a human word, as are “good” and “evil” - when we talk about whether god qualifies for them, he has to conform to our definition of the term for it to count.
So. Suppose that the god has a different persepective from us: specifially, he derives great entertainment from watching babies being raped, and so declares that babies being raped is “good”, and that allowing and encouraging the rape of babies is “benevolent” and that trying to prevent baby rape is “evil”. What effect does this have on the POE argument?
Answer: none at all - or rather, you have a god that escapes from the POE by not being benevolent, despite claiming to qualify because he (and his followers) are using the term wrong. This has nothing to do with ineffability and everything to do with people (and/or dieties) not knowing what the heck they’re talking about.
I’ll also take a moment to note that, if you want to get all strict about it, that the ‘the journey matters’ diety you’ve been talking about does not qualify as omnibenevolent - he’s putting people through hell for his ‘art’. As a person who’s dabbled in writing fiction myself I’m well aware that this is not the act of a benevolent creator - my characters would be well-justified in hating me for what I’ve put them through. Any god that is orchestrating or overseeing the events of the world and allowing them clearly is similarly uncaring of our well-being.
(quote modified - unrelated material snipped.)
Quite succintly, you’re wrong - and your last paragraph here exemplifies the problem - you’re saying that the premise of an omnimax god must include that that being’s perspective is logically consistent. On the one hand yes - if the being existed, it would be logically consistent because no logically inconsistent being can exist. But that’s not what you’re saying - you’re saying that as a premise, you get to assume that omnimax beings are logically consistent, and that no matter how many times and how many different ways we prove that 1+1+1 doesn’t equal 18, that doesn’t matter because the premise says 1+1+1=18 and that’s the way it is and if we disagree it’s just because we’re perspectiveless dimwits.
Suffice to say, this is not how logic works - if something is soundly shown to be logically contradictory, then there is some untruth in the premises. The only possible degree to which ‘perspective’ can be a factor is if your ‘perspective’ is causing you to misdefine terms in your premises. But if this is happening with the POE, it’s the god and his defenders who are making the error. The god who will sacrifice me for his art is not omnibenevolent - no matter what he says. The closest he can get is to simply declare humans irrelevent - he and his friends are all that matter, so and bad things happening to us human makes the best possible show for him and his friends, so that’s the benevolent way to go. But the arguers for the POE are under no onus to accept a modified definition of ‘benevolent’ that disregards humanity, and so cannot be logically countered in this way.