on discussing god and religion

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Thu Apr 05, 2018 9:41 pm

Are you kidding? We come upon them all the time here. For example, something happens in the news.
I want you to describe how the discussion might go... "down to earth" and "out of the clouds". You pick the issue and you write out a dialog.

Person A says : _ (fill in the blank)
Person B says : _
Person A responds : _
.
.
.

I can't see you doing it. Not without going "general, "abstract", "up in the clouds".

Teach us deluded fools how it's done.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10870
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Thu Apr 05, 2018 9:48 pm

This is simply preposterous. I merely suggest that in the is/ought world, such distinctions revolve around "existential contraptions" rooted in the components of moral nihilism. Or, rather, in the manner in which "here and now" I have to construe the meaning of that.

All I insist is that for those who object [either in a God or a No God world] we bring the discussion out into the world of clearly recognizable conflicting human interactions we are all likely to be familiar with.

Though, sure, there is always the possibility that we cannot come to agree on what exactly that entails.
Right. You have your contraptions and others have their contraptions. Never the twain shall meet. What is there to discuss??

What is there to talk about? What is there to talk about for years on end?

What is the content of the discussion? I mean, I just summed it up in one sentence.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10870
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Thu Apr 05, 2018 9:49 pm

phyllo wrote:
Are you kidding? We come upon them all the time here. For example, something happens in the news.
I want you to describe how the discussion might go... "down to earth" and "out of the clouds". You pick the issue and you write out a dialog.

Person A says : _ (fill in the blank)
Person B says : _
Person A responds : _
.
.
.

I can't see you doing it. Not without going "general, "abstract", "up in the clouds".

Teach us deluded fools how it's done.


Here, take your pick: viewforum.php?f=3

And I would never label those who do not think of moral nihilism in a No God world as I do "deluded fools".

They have their existential contraption, I have mine.

Only mine doesn't provide the comfort and and the consolation embedded in the objectivist assumption that those who do refuse to think like them [and mimic their own behaviors] really are deluded fools.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26574
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Thu Apr 05, 2018 9:53 pm

Here, take your pick: viewforum.php?f=3
Those are substantive discussions "out of the clouds"????

Those are models of a "down to earth" discussion????

#-o
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10870
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sat Apr 07, 2018 6:47 pm

phyllo wrote:
Here, take your pick: viewforum.php?f=3
Those are substantive discussions "out of the clouds"????

Those are models of a "down to earth" discussion????

#-o


Sure, some of them are. There are folks all along the political spectrum here making arguments regarding one or another issue that is being discussed and debated in the news.

My point is only to suggest that...

1] their perspectives are often rooted in personal experiences, relationships and access to particular knowledge/information
2] they make rational arguments predicated on certain assumptions about human interactions --- assumptions embedded in various religious and political and philosophical narratives
3] that out in the "real world" what counts is less what you believe is true and more in having or not having the power to legislate and then enforce particular rules of behavior

It's just that on this thread these relationships/interactions are said to be judged by God. And that brings immortality and salvation into play.

And, in that case, what could possibly be more crucial than having the capacity to demonstrate the existence of a God, the God, my God?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26574
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:14 pm

In the Biblical allegory of Adam and Eve we can find the roots of what later developed into the Nihilistic psychosis, now being manipulated by a parasitical meme.
Adam and Eve's awakening to their own nakedness is a metaphorical way of saying that they became ‘self-conscious’.
Self-Consciousness is where the nihilistic psychosis germinates.
Animals do not feel self-conscious because they are only conscious of otherness, of world, so they cannot feel shame.


First, of course, there's the problem with how one reconciles the shame that Adam and Eve are said to have felt with an omniscient God. Nothing that any mere mortal might think or feel or do is not already known by God. So the illusion of human autonomy is merely another manifestation of God.

And if a God, the God actually does exist then any discussion of nihilism among mere mortals is also subsumed in His omniscience. Genes and memes too.

On the other hand, in a No God world, it is certainly the case that biologically men and women come into the world with the capacity to feel shame. But in any particular context what some will feel shame regarding others will take pride in.

So that begs the question: to what extent can philosophers in a No God world assess any particular instances of shame? Is his shame reasonable while her shame is not?

Is there in fact a capacity to note when shame is either necessarily appropriate or inappropriate?

Here however we would have to note particular instances from our own life. Things that we did feel shame regarding. We would have to discuss the reasons why we felt this shame. And then address the arguments of those who, in the same set of circumstances, felt no shame at all.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26574
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:25 pm

Sure, some of them are. There are folks all along the political spectrum here making arguments regarding one or another issue that is being discussed and debated in the news.
I'm not going to take the discussions down to that level.

If that's what you want, then good luck with it.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10870
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:35 pm

phyllo wrote:
Sure, some of them are. There are folks all along the political spectrum here making arguments regarding one or another issue that is being discussed and debated in the news.
I'm not going to take the discussions down to that level.

If that's what you want, then good luck with it.


Then perhaps you should reconsider participating in them yourself.

Sure, the huffers and the puffers, the trolls and the Kids are particularly abundant here. But over the years there have also been any number of more sophisticated and intelligent exchanges.

If less of late.

And, pertaining to those, I'm back to this:

1] their perspectives are often rooted in personal experiences, relationships and access to particular knowledge/information
2] they make rational arguments predicated on certain assumptions about human interactions --- assumptions embedded in various religious and political and philosophical narratives
3] that out in the "real world" what counts is less what you believe is true and more in having or not having the power to legislate and then enforce particular rules of behavior


And then [on this thread] the part about God and religion.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26574
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:42 am

Then perhaps you should reconsider participating in them yourself.
Well, that would be a waste of time.
And, pertaining to those, I'm back to this:

1] their perspectives are often rooted in personal experiences, relationships and access to particular knowledge/information
Right.

A guy in his thirties is going to tell me about women.
I've been married for almost 30 years and I have two adult daughters.

A guy with no personal experience of communism is going to tell me about communism based on what Marx wrote in a book. Cause what actually happens in real communist regimes is not "real communism" - the real stuff is in the book.
I've lived it.

A guy is going to tell me about capitalism.
I've had my own business for 30 years and I've dealt with businesses big and small the entire time.

A guy is going to tell me about multiculturalism.
I live in the most multicultural city in the world.

But just repeating your mantra "That guy is right based on his personal experiences and access to particular knowledge/information ..." :lol:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10870
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Jakob » Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:47 am

phyllo wrote:A guy with no personal experience of communism is going to tell me about communism based on what Marx wrote in a book. Cause what actually happens in real communist regimes is not "real communism" - the real stuff is in the book.
I've lived it.

Quite the discrepancy, isn't it.

Image
Marx: Politics as Navigating the Discrepancy Between Power and Ideal
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5917
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:12 pm

phyllo wrote:
Then perhaps you should reconsider participating in them yourself.
Well, that would be a waste of time.


It's your time then. Since you have participated in discussions there.

And, pertaining to those, I'm back to this:

1] their perspectives are often rooted in personal experiences, relationships and access to particular knowledge/information


phyllo wrote: Right.

A guy in his thirties is going to tell me about women.
I've been married for almost 30 years and I have two adult daughters.

A guy with no personal experience of communism is going to tell me about communism based on what Marx wrote in a book. Cause what actually happens in real communist regimes is not "real communism" - the real stuff is in the book.
I've lived it.

A guy is going to tell me about capitalism.
I've had my own business for 30 years and I've dealt with businesses big and small the entire time.

A guy is going to tell me about multiculturalism.
I live in the most multicultural city in the world.


Yes, that is precisely my point. All these "guys" live lives that may well be far, far removed from the life that you lived. Very different experiences, relationships and access to ideas.

Why on earth then would anyone expect them to share value judgments regarding these things?

My point on this thread is that with or without God, how might philosophers [or scientists] assess these narratives so as to ascertain the optimal frame of mind?

It's just that with God, immortality and salvation are at stake. And what could possibly be more crucial here then in pinning down the actual existence of a God, the God?

You tell me.

phyllo wrote: But just repeating your mantra "That guy is right based on his personal experiences and access to particular knowledge/information ..." :lol:


No, I'm not saying that he is right. I am saying that based on the components I describe in my own understanding of moral nihilism, there does not appear to be a way [sans God] for mere mortals to determine and then to demonstrate what it is alleged [by moral objectivists] that all rational men and women are obligated to accept as right.

Acknowledging in turn that I myself have no capacity to determine and to demonstrate that this too is any less an existential contraption.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26574
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:20 pm

Jakob wrote:
phyllo wrote:A guy with no personal experience of communism is going to tell me about communism based on what Marx wrote in a book. Cause what actually happens in real communist regimes is not "real communism" - the real stuff is in the book.
I've lived it.

Quite the discrepancy, isn't it.


No more so then the gap between the "real capitalism" conveyed by Ayn Rand in her books and the capitalism that actual flesh and blood human beings experience.

And, for millions, that experience is brutal indeed.

Just out of curiosity, how might VO factor in here? You choose particular behaviors on this side of the grave. And you must have imagined your fate on the other side of it.

Noting particular experiences from your own life, how would you connect the dots here?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26574
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:45 pm

It's your time then. Since you have participated in discussions there.
I've done lots of stupid things in my life. At some point, I learn not to keep on doing them.
Yes, that is precisely my point. All these "guys" live lives that may well be far, far removed from the life that you lived. Very different experiences, relationships and access to ideas.

Why on earth then would anyone expect them to share value judgments regarding these things?
I don't expect everyone to know the same things about math, physics, history, geography, etc.

That doesn't mean that some people are not more knowledgeable about those things than other people. It also doesn't mean that it's impossible to detect who is more knowledgeable.

Exactly what do you think that I would get out of a discussion with those guys in that particular forum?
No, I'm not saying that he is right. I am saying that based on the components I describe in my own understanding of moral nihilism, there does not appear to be a way [sans God] for mere mortals to determine and then to demonstrate what it is alleged [by moral objectivists] that all rational men and women are obligated to accept as right.
I don't care what "all rational men and women are obligated to accept". That's a crazy idea from the start. As far as I'm concerned, nobody is obligated to accept anything nor to demonstrate anything.

All that I'm required to do is to improve my ability to distinguish a fresh fish from a rotting fish ... an edible mushroom from a poisonous mushroom. That's doable.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10870
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:58 pm

Suppose that God reveals himself and states what humans ought to think and do.

It seems perfectly reasonable that some rational humans would disagree with God.

In Greek mythology, Prometheus (/prəˈmiːθiːəs/; Greek: Προμηθεύς, pronounced [promɛːtʰeús], meaning "forethought")[1] is a Titan, culture hero, and trickster figure who is credited with the creation of man from clay, and who defies the gods by stealing fire and giving it to humanity, an act that enabled progress and civilization. Prometheus is known for his intelligence and as a champion of mankind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus

Is Prometheus irrational? Is he wrong to defy the gods?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10870
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:23 pm

phyllo wrote:
It's your time then. Since you have participated in discussions there.
I've done lots of stupid things in my life. At some point, I learn not to keep on doing them.

Okay, let's see if you do continue to participate on that board.

Yes, that is precisely my point. All these "guys" live lives that may well be far, far removed from the life that you lived. Very different experiences, relationships and access to ideas.

Why on earth then would anyone expect them to share value judgments regarding these things?


phyllo wrote:I don't expect everyone to know the same things about math, physics, history, geography, etc.


But here there are going to actually be right and wrong things to know. Unless we go way out on the limb where conjecture is still the rule.

phyllo wrote: That doesn't mean that some people are not more knowledgeable about those things than other people. It also doesn't mean that it's impossible to detect who is more knowledgeable.


True, but, again, this can be calibrated to be either closer to or further from what can be demonstrated to in fact be true for all of us.

Communism as a political ideology did in fact exist historically on planet earth. But then it becomes a question of whether some can demonstrate in turn that it ought not to have.

phyllo wrote: Exactly what do you think that I would get out of a discussion with those guys in that particular forum?


Well, if you go into the discussion convined that your own value judgment is the right one, then the only thing you ever can hope to get out of it is that everyone accepts that.

No, I'm not saying that he is right. I am saying that based on the components I describe in my own understanding of moral nihilism, there does not appear to be a way [sans God] for mere mortals to determine and then to demonstrate what it is alleged [by moral objectivists] that all rational men and women are obligated to accept as right.


phyllo wrote: I don't care what "all rational men and women are obligated to accept". That's a crazy idea from the start. As far as I'm concerned, nobody is obligated to accept anything nor to demonstrate anything.


On the contrary, when engineers use the laws of nature in the construction of airplanes or dams or bridges or skyscrapers, the consequence of not being in sync with the most rational understanding of these relationships can be catastrophic.

You do agree, don't you?

phyllo wrote: All that I'm required to do is to improve my ability to distinguish a fresh fish from a rotting fish...


Or...

"All that I'm required to do is to improve my ability to distinguish a robust capitalism from a rotting communism."

The default premise here always being that you are simply "more knowledgeable" about this than those who disagree.

That part I get, believe me.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26574
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:33 pm

phyllo wrote:Suppose that God reveals himself and states what humans ought to think and do.

It seems perfectly reasonable that some rational humans would disagree with God.

In Greek mythology, Prometheus (/prəˈmiːθiːəs/; Greek: Προμηθεύς, pronounced [promɛːtʰeús], meaning "forethought")[1] is a Titan, culture hero, and trickster figure who is credited with the creation of man from clay, and who defies the gods by stealing fire and giving it to humanity, an act that enabled progress and civilization. Prometheus is known for his intelligence and as a champion of mankind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus

Is Prometheus irrational? Is he wrong to defy the gods?


I'm not all that familiar with "the gods" back then. Were they said to be both omniscient and omnipotent? As the preponderance of religious folks today describe their own rendition of a God, the God.

How could a mere mortal possibly be more rational than an omniscient God?

And leaving aside the conundrum embedded in reconciling human autonomy with an omniscient God, folks can in fact choose to defy the God they believe in.

But that's where being omnipotent comes into play.

In a word: Hell.

And this thing called "Judgment Day".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26574
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:46 am

Okay, let's see if you do continue to participate on that board.
:-k Now I'm tempted to post there ... just so that he overthinks it and continues to believe that he has some extraordinary ability to influence and predict behavior. :lol:
But here there are going to actually be right and wrong things to know. Unless we go way out on the limb where conjecture is still the rule.
](*,) Tired of hitting my head on the wall trying to explain.
Communism as a political ideology did in fact exist historically on planet earth. But then it becomes a question of whether some can demonstrate in turn that it ought not to have.
Cause the mass graves don't demonstrate anything.
Well, if you go into the discussion convined that your own value judgment is the right one, then the only thing you ever can hope to get out of it is that everyone accepts that.
That's not why I participate. It never was my motivation or expectation.
On the contrary, when engineers use the laws of nature in the construction of airplanes or dams or bridges or skyscrapers, the consequence of not being in sync with the most rational understanding of these relationships can be catastrophic.
They are not obligated to be engineers or to build anything. It's a choice which obligations a person takes on.
The default premise here always being that you are simply "more knowledgeable" about this than those who disagree.
And your default premise is that I can't be more knowledgeable about it.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10870
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:09 am

I'm not all that familiar with "the gods" back then. Were they said to be both omniscient and omnipotent? As the preponderance of religious folks today describe their own rendition of a God, the God.
So you don't need just any god to settle right and wrong ... you have to have an omniscient and omnipotent god. Anything less leaves you with the same dilemma. #-o
How could a mere mortal possibly be more rational than an omniscient God?
Who said "more rational"? Nobody.

I'm human and I'm playing Blackjack holding a 19 in my hand. The dealer shows 10. Rationality says that I don't draw a card.

God is playing Blackjack and is holding 19 and again the dealer shows 10. But God, being omniscient knows that dealer's hand is 20 and that the next card is a 2. God draws a card. And wins.

That play makes no sense for a human.

What's my point?

Even if God comes down out of heaven and lays out "the rules", humans are still going to have make decisions based on their limited knowledge and ability. The rules won't cover every possible situation and God is not going to make every decision for every person. What kind of puppetry/slavery would it be if He made every decision?

Men are not gods and gods are not men. They won't make the same decisions and they shouldn't.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10870
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Mon Apr 09, 2018 3:06 am

phyllo wrote:
Okay, let's see if you do continue to participate on that board.
:-k Now I'm tempted to post there ... just so that he overthinks it and continues to believe that he has some extraordinary ability to influence and predict behavior. :lol:


You have posted there. Many, many times. Just click on your name. Click on 'Search User's post', then scroll down.

Communism as a political ideology did in fact exist historically on planet earth. But then it becomes a question of whether some can demonstrate in turn that it ought not to have.


phyllo wrote: Cause the mass graves don't demonstrate anything.


I've addressed this above. The historical narratives are clearly in dispute. And capitalism is bursting at the seams with its own horror stories. But, again, it would seem your point of view is that Communism is to be construed only as you portray it. The right way.

Well, if you go into the discussion convined that your own value judgment is the right one, then the only thing you ever can hope to get out of it is that everyone accepts that.


phyllo wrote: That's not why I participate. It never was my motivation or expectation.


Okay, but, for all practical purposes, that seems to be the way it works. Otherwise you would offer us your own views on communism while acknowledging [as I do] that others [with very different life experiences] may well see it in other ways. Ways that they are able to rationalize based on a different set of assumptions regarding human interactions.

All this thread does is to provide an outlet for the believers -- a discussion enabling them to connect the dots between here and now and there and then.

On the contrary, when engineers use the laws of nature in the construction of airplanes or dams or bridges or skyscrapers, the consequence of not being in sync with the most rational understanding of these relationships can be catastrophic.


phyllo wrote: They are not obligated to be engineers or to build anything. It's a choice which obligations a person takes on.


What's that got to do with the point I'm making? There are the material obligations engineers must embrace if they ever get around to building the most effective wall for Don Trump; and there are the moral obligations that folks all along the political spectrum endlessly argue about regarding whether the wall ought to be built.

The default premise here always being that you are simply "more knowledgeable" about this than those who disagree.


phyllo wrote: And your default premise is that I can't be more knowledgeable about it.


No, my premise is that conflicting arguments do exist all along the political spectrum. Arguments the objectivist proponents already insist do reflect a more knowledgeable perspective.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26574
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Mon Apr 09, 2018 3:43 am

phyllo wrote:
I'm not all that familiar with "the gods" back then. Were they said to be both omniscient and omnipotent? As the preponderance of religious folks today describe their own rendition of a God, the God.
So you don't need just any god to settle right and wrong ... you have to have an omniscient and omnipotent god. Anything less leaves you with the same dilemma. #-o


Clearly, if "the Gods" are not deemed to be omniscient and omnipotent, then it must somehow be established how "for all practical purposes" the existential relationship between them and "mere mortals" really does work.

And I'm merely pointing out the obvious. This: that when [historically] "the Gods" reconfigured into a God, the God, my God, the overwhelming preponderance of the true believers themselves ascribed omniscience and omnipotence to them.

How could a mere mortal possibly be more rational than an omniscient God?


phyllo wrote: Who said "more rational"? Nobody.


Look, either the God that one believes in is deemed omniscient or He isn't.

If so, human moral interactions would [necessarily] be judged from that frame of mind. If not then it would appear that some human interactions are not known by God. They would be judged only by other mere mortals subscribing to whatever particular set of behaviors they deem to be either right or wrong.

Or you might choose a behavior that no one at all is privy to. Then what? Well, as long as you can rationalize it to yourself, you're good.

phyllo wrote: I'm human and I'm playing Blackjack holding a 19 in my hand. The dealer shows 10. Rationality says that I don't draw a card.

God is playing Blackjack and is holding 19 and again the dealer shows 10. But God, being omniscient knows that dealer's hand is 20 and that the next card is a 2. God draws a card. And wins.


Yep, that's the way it would work alright. But what about those who come along and insist that gambling itself is immoral. With an omniscient God, it either is or is not "a sin". But in a no-God world how exactly would mere mortals go about deciding that?

Well, Christians can Google it. They can find sites like this: https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical ... ing-a-sin/

They can read them. And, afterwards, the objectivists among them can decide that it either IS immoral or that it is NOT immoral. Period. That they are "more knowledgeable" about it.

Me? Well, in my own rendition of a No God world I tumble down into my dilemma above.

How about you?

phyllo wrote: What's my point?

Even if God comes down out of heaven and lays out "the rules", humans are still going to have make decisions based on their limited knowledge and ability. The rules won't cover every possible situation and God is not going to make every decision for every person. What kind of puppetry/slavery would it be if He made every decision?


But there a world of difference between being a gambler who proves he is more knowledgeable about playing poker and being an ethicist who alleges to be more knowledgeable in deciding if one ought to play poker for money at all.

And how about strip poker? [-o<
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26574
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Mon Apr 09, 2018 4:51 am

iambiguous wrote:
phyllo wrote:
I'm not all that familiar with "the gods" back then. Were they said to be both omniscient and omnipotent? As the preponderance of religious folks today describe their own rendition of a God, the God.
So you don't need just any god to settle right and wrong ... you have to have an omniscient and omnipotent god. Anything less leaves you with the same dilemma. #-o


Clearly, if "the Gods" are not deemed to be omniscient and omnipotent, then it must somehow be established how "for all practical purposes" the existential relationship between them and "mere mortals" really does work.

And I'm merely pointing out the obvious. This: that when [historically] "the Gods" reconfigured into a God, the God, my God, the overwhelming preponderance of the true believers themselves ascribed omniscience and omnipotence to them.

How could a mere mortal possibly be more rational than an omniscient God?


phyllo wrote: Who said "more rational"? Nobody.


Look, either the God that one believes in is deemed omniscient or He isn't.

If so, human moral interactions would [necessarily] be judged from that frame of mind. If not then it would appear that some human interactions are not known by God. They would be judged only by other mere mortals subscribing to whatever particular set of behaviors they deem to be either right or wrong.

Or you might choose a behavior that no one at all is privy to. Then what? Well, as long as you can rationalize it to yourself, you're good.

phyllo wrote: I'm human and I'm playing Blackjack holding a 19 in my hand. The dealer shows 10. Rationality says that I don't draw a card.

God is playing Blackjack and is holding 19 and again the dealer shows 10. But God, being omniscient knows that dealer's hand is 20 and that the next card is a 2. God draws a card. And wins.


Yep, that's the way it would work alright. But what about those who come along and insist that gambling itself is immoral. With an omniscient God, it either is or is not "a sin". But in a no-God world how exactly would mere mortals go about deciding that?

Well, Christians can Google it. They can find sites like this: https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical ... ing-a-sin/

They can read them. And, afterwards, the objectivists among them can decide that it either IS immoral or that it is NOT immoral. Period. That they are "more knowledgeable" about it.

Me? Well, in my own rendition of a No God world I tumble down into my dilemma above.

How about you?

phyllo wrote: What's my point?

Even if God comes down out of heaven and lays out "the rules", humans are still going to have make decisions based on their limited knowledge and ability. The rules won't cover every possible situation and God is not going to make every decision for every person. What kind of puppetry/slavery would it be if He made every decision?


But there a world of difference between being a gambler who proves he is more knowledgeable about playing poker and being an ethicist who alleges to be more knowledgeable in deciding if one ought to play poker for money at all.

And how about strip poker? [-o<

Did you understand any of the points that I was trying to make?

Nope, not even one. :character-willie:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10870
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Apr 09, 2018 10:59 am

Phyllo, note the ongoing contradiction....
iambiguous wrote:I've addressed this above. The historical narratives are clearly in dispute. And capitalism is bursting at the seams with its own horror stories. But, again, it would seem your point of view is that Communism is to be construed only as you portray it. The right way.
He creates a situation in which one 1) presumes moral/value judgments then, see the bolded value judgment 2) says he can see no way to make one objectively and 'wonders
' if we can show him how one does that. Objectivists are bad, they make 'objective value judgments', and these lead to horrors.

He accused me LOL of being an epistemologist. But he does not seem to realize that his posts claim ONLY to be about epistemology - since he has no way of knowing what is good or bad, good or evil - despite his motivation being precisely that, an urge to reduce the horrors caused by objectivists. If he truly thinks there is no way to know the objective good, he might as well talk about a sports team, because otherwise, this is only a discussion of epistemology, something he thinks is a bad thing to be, a la Will Durant. Talk about irony, since they just stack up and stack up.

If one points this out to him, he repeats his challenge, since his behavior and contradictions are not relevent in a discussion with him.

The only possible end to the discussion is precisely what he accuses objectivists of demanding: agreement with his values and epistemology.

The coquette posture of 'wondering'. I'm just.... I simply had this realiziation....

I understand why women took on the coquette role, when they were not allowed to take initiative or be self-assertive, the role shown so creatively in films in the 40s and 50s. Why he plays the coquette is known only to him and his therapist.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 881
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Mon Apr 09, 2018 3:07 pm

One of the really interesting questions is :

What would the world look like if God was around running it?

It think that people would still be making decisions based on their limited skills and knowledge. IOW, they would still be making the same sort mistakes that they make now.

Would God swoop down and smite them immediately when a mistake is made? Would he undo the consequences of the mistake?

That seems incredibly intrusive and oppressive. What kind of human life is that?

Is the natural consequence that people sit around waiting for God to tell them what do? After all, if He makes all the decisions then you might as well not think for yourself.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10870
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Mon Apr 09, 2018 3:19 pm

God is just another entity that you have a relationship with.

You can love, hate, obey, defy, ignore God.

You are an important part of the relationship.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10870
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Mon Apr 09, 2018 4:14 pm

phyllo wrote:Did you understand any of the points that I was trying to make?

Nope, not even one. :character-willie:


Of course it's been my experience with objectivists over the years that when they accuse you of not understanding their points, you are really being charged with not agreeing with them.

Call it, say, the Satyr Syndrome. :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26574
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users