Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

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

Moderator: Dan~

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jan 26, 2018 8:59 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:I don't agree with your 'ontological/teleological foundation' but rather I agree there must be absolute moral laws to ground and for mere mortals to rationalize their ethical acts.
This absolute moral laws are associated with the Ens Realissimum which is actually has nothing to do with God as generally understood and believed by theists.


But that's my point about objectivism. Whether rooted in religion or reason or ideology or deontology or nature, there have been hundreds and hundreds of arguments -- hopelessly conflicting and contradictory arguments in many respects -- embracing what you have just said.

The only difference then being that they are predicated on their own argument/analysis/assessment, and not yours.

You either grasp [as I do here and now] the psychological element that seems embedded in this or you don't.

Prismatic567 wrote:Note this point from the article you linked;

However, Kant’s argument is greatly misunderstood and it has a lot of “if-and-or-buts” involved.
Kant does not believe that we ultimately have to believe in God. “Thou shalt believe in God” would certainly be out of the question.


Thus if you believe Kant incorporate God as generally understood into his Morality, then you are wrong.


Here I can just imagine all the "serious philosophers" trying to pin down precisely what Kant meant by God, by "transcendental idealism". Technically.

But, sans God, mere mortals of your ilk [who are anything but omniscient and omnipotent] still manage to insist that they and they alone have accumulated just enough knowledge to grasp what those "absolute moral laws" will be.

If only in the future.

Only [with me] that is almost never explored existentially pertaining to particular contexts and particular conflicting behaviors.

Prismatic567 wrote:Re the 'lying-hiding person' casuistry this is not the deontological approach as you and most would think is Kant's basis of morality. Kant did not use the deontological approach for his Morality and Ethics.

The point is, to Kant, the idea of God is an illusion and an impossibility within the empirical-rational reality. However the idea of God [in the Kantian way - reconciles with Plato only in this case] is necessary for Morality and Ethics.


Again, I'll let the "Kant scholars" sort all this out such that the definitive argument/analysis/assessment is finally subscribed to by all of them.

Has this in fact already been accomplished? Has there come to be one optimal understanding of the man and his ideas?

In any event, with an omniscient/omnipotent God, one would seem either obligated to tell the truth to the murderer and disclose the location of the woman [if lying is always wrong], or, instead, in this, that or some other context, it might be okay to lie.

And the actual contexts of course could number in the thousands.

So, in a No God world, you tell me: what would you say to the murderer?

And in what particular context? Would your answer change with the changing contexts?

In other words, there have been folks here who have argued for a universal morality, and those who insist that an objective morality does exist...but only pertaining to each and every particular context.

Prismatic567 wrote:I am trying to say your insistence on 'ALL that is to be known of existence' is equivalent to trying to know a square-circle.
If you can give up the idea of 'ALL that is to be known of existence' then you will be free of all its encumbrances and sufferings you are entangled with at present.


Why on earth would anyone want to grasp what a square circle is when by definition they describe two different shapes? Do you often confuse the two? I suspect though that this may well be another "technical" discussion that is way over my head.

On the other hand, existence itself can either be wholly understood or it cannot. And, either way, how succinctly would any mere mortal be able to fit their own moral narrtive into whatever may or may not be All There Is.

Indeed, from my perspective, the only way in which you are able to fit it all in is by stuffing it all inside your own particular intellectual contraption.

In other words, sometime in the future human interactions [in the is/ought world] will finally be revealed as wholly in sync with your own "progressive" assumptions here and now.

Only you won't at least broach that future by situating your "progressive morality" in the present.

What would the argument sound like pertaining to a particular conflicting good? And how are you not entangled in my own dilemma in describing this?

Thus:

As I see it, it can only be an intellectual contraption here and now because no one has ever been able to encompass the very nature of Existence itself. At least not to my own satisfaction. Why something and not nothing? Why this something and not another something?
But common sense tells me that until I do grasp this, I cannot possibly comprehend a full and complete understanding of something as seemingly insignificant as the "human condition". In other words, in the context of All There Is. Let alone a full and complete understanding of the relationship between mere mortals on this tiny little rock floating in the vastness of space and the existence of a God, the God.


Prismatic567 wrote:The above re your pursuit for 'All There Is' i.e. the impossible is where your are digging your own hole and entrapping yourself deep in it.
For Philosophy sake you must ask the above questions, note Russell's 'the purpose of philosophy is not to arrive at definite answers but to keep asking questions.'

As I had suggested you have to reframe your question and stop seeking and expecting answers to ' what is ALL there is".


Once again, you had the opportunity to flesh this exchange out substantively by bringing these abstractions down to earth. From my frame of mind then you really do need to ask yourself why you refuse to.

Prismatic567 wrote:As I had posted somewhere, DNA wise all human beings are born with an inherent meaning to life and what we need to do is to reflect with knowledge, understand it and strive to flow with it as much as possible.


This seems somewhat analagous to Satyr's "genes ever and always trump memes" dogma. There is a "natural" way to behave that, going all the way back to the caves, trumps any and all renditions of culture.

Perhaps you should take up your own narrative here with him over at KT. See what he gets wrong according to you or what you get wrong according to him. My point though revolves around the assumption what while both of you believe that only one of you can be right, it is always going to be one or the other. And certainly not the multitudes who embrace their own entirely different narrative.

You would both insist [to each other]:

Prismatic567 wrote:The point is you don't have sufficient knowledge to do it at present and you do not show any interest in gathering the necessary knowledge...


My point in other words.

Then I note this:

You claim that God is an "impossibility in the first place" becasue you simply argue that He is. In a world of words. You demonstrate nothing. And, as with folks like James Saint [who seems to have disappeared of late], that ever and always revolves around the "definitional logic" of the "analysis" embedded in the intellectual contraption/invention itself.


And how do you respond? By, once again, doing the same thing:

Prismatic567 wrote:You got the above wrong and that is where it created your own bottleneck to hinder any progress within you.

The point is the path to any knowledge must start with abstraction, if not what else.
    1. From the abstraction we form/argue a reasonable hypothesis.
    2. Then the hypothesis is tested with available evidences.
    3. If proven, the hypothesis will be concluded as knowledge.

What I have done is to follow the above methodology.
Note process 1 is firstly to be argued with reasons/thoughts only to generate a reasonable hypothesis.
Accordingly I have countered with reason, 'God is an impossibility' because the idea of God cannot even pass process 1. The idea of God is moot and a non-starter.
With process 1, what other processes can I do other than to argue to agree or reject the hypothesis. Yes, it has to be a world and war of words only in process 1.

I am arguing the same for your insistence to know 'ALL there is' which cannot be a feasible hypothesis. You are chasing an illusion. Give this up and you will be a 'free' man.


Another "world of words" defining and defending itself up in the scholastic clouds.

In my own opinion of course. After all, who am I to actually demonstrate that my own intellectual contraption here isn't just another "philosophical" rendition.

All I can do here is to situate my own value judgments [in a No God world] in an "assessment" that does in fact come down to earth.

This one:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.


Will you or will you not provide me with a similar trajectory? Such that I might more clearly understand the existential evolution of your own thinking 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: 23487
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:41 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:I don't agree with your 'ontological/teleological foundation' but rather I agree there must be absolute moral laws to ground and for mere mortals to rationalize their ethical acts.
This absolute moral laws are associated with the Ens Realissimum which is actually has nothing to do with God as generally understood and believed by theists.


But that's my point about objectivism. Whether rooted in religion or reason or ideology or deontology or nature, there have been hundreds and hundreds of arguments -- hopelessly conflicting and contradictory arguments in many respects -- embracing what you have just said.

The only difference then being that they are predicated on their own argument/analysis/assessment, and not yours.

You either grasp [as I do here and now] the psychological element that seems embedded in this or you don't.
Your 'objectivism' is a straw man in this case.

I agree within the history of mankind, there have been and there are thousands and hundred of arguments -- hopelessly conflicting and contradictory arguments in many respects -- many are true within their respective perspectives.
Note Kant's antinomy - 'the equally rational but contradictory results of thoughts.'

The point is when one venture to explore knowledge there is a necessity to embrace its divergence. But the problem with the direction of divergence is it is forcing one into an infinite regression and thus inducing frustration, e.g. 2->4->8->16->32->64->128->256-512-1024-2048-4096-> ....68,719,476,736 ....... and the forms goes on infinitely. I had the same problem when I started and worried where it this going to end, which one will realize it is an impossibility.
Then I turned inward to the convergence of all knowledge, i.e. its substance or essence. But this also face a problem of infinite regression on the opposite side, thus another cause of worry due to conflicting goods and evil. This is where theists resolve their worry with a final cause, i.e. God.

The solution to the above dilemma is complementarity [I used this very often].
To enable complementarity has has to explore as far as possible in each opposite direction and understand how they interact in affecting oneself and the collective.
What is most critical is to develop the base critical requirement, i.e. a state of equanimity so that one is not shaken easily by conflicts one is sensitive to.
As I had stated understanding the theory [knowing] is one thing but it has to be complemented with doing and acting [actual rewiring of the brain].

From what I gather you are very low in term of the venture and understanding of the necessary knowledge and not much in terms of doing, acting and practicing the necessary to promote a state of complementariness within your psyche.

It is not easy is exploring as much knowledge as possible and also doing/practicing what is learned. Such take a lot of time and brain power in reflecting then practicing what is learned.

Not everyone have the capacity or the time to do such necessary extensive researching and practicing the necessary. The alternative to this requirement in the event of limitation is thus to anchor oneself with the cultivation of equanimity to deal with conflicting goods or evils.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193778
Here you are rejecting this suggestion outright.

The cultivation of equanimity takes time.
If one do not have the time, then one has to understand its usefulness and force it upon oneself logically, rationally and psycho-analytically and hope it works.
E.g. in NLP -neurolinguistic programming can induce happiness from outward to inward as a short-cut by consciously reproducing the genuine smile ["Duchenne smile,"] of happiness.

If the above is not possible due to various reason, then the drug option [prozac, other tranquilizers, weeds, etc.] is the only way and bearing in mind its inevitable side effects.



Another "world of words" defining and defending itself up in the scholastic clouds.

In my own opinion of course. After all, who am I to actually demonstrate that my own intellectual contraption here isn't just another "philosophical" rendition.

All I can do here is to situate my own value judgments [in a No God world] in an "assessment" that does in fact come down to earth.

This one:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.


Will you or will you not provide me with a similar trajectory? Such that I might more clearly understand the existential evolution of your own thinking here.

The above issue is very complex, wide and deep thus a lot of coverage, time and effort are needed.
Since I have gone through the necessary generic phases, personally I would have no issue resolving the above if I am in those conditions.

I would recommend the solution is to adopt the approaches I have listed above, i.e. explore as much necessary knowledge as possible [e.g. all you need to know of the "I" its existential elements] with the complementarity of divergence-convergence in mind and mindful there are no definite answers in philosophy. In addition one must engage in the necessary practices, i.e. action and doing.

Then depending on whether you are faced with constraints or not, take the relevant optimal path and as a last resort, take the necessary drugs or just give up if there are no other options.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1691
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Sat Jan 27, 2018 4:14 pm

phyllo

A long time ago, I started a thread which asked what Jesus would do if the adulterous woman did not stop the adultery. What if she was brought to him over and over?

If he keeps letting her go, then he is accepting/condoning her behavior.

It appears that eventually he would have to condemn her and punish her in some way.


So what do you think Christ ought to have done? Join the herd and stone her to death?
I would think that since Jesus was the supposed Son of God, he might just simply listen to her, not once, not twice, but each time she was brought to him.
He might ask her why ~~ you know, try to get to the bottom of it.
Would he actually condemn her or would he let her know that he did not condone her behavior?
Do you see any distinction between condemning the behavior and condemning her?

Maybe she was an adulterous woman because her husband had no respect for her, beat her, regarded her as simply so much chattel. Maybe it was love and affection which she was looking for - not the sex.
Perhaps it is the husband who needed to be condemned. Did you ever think of that?


But that's contrary to the concepts of "judge not lest ye be judged" and "forgive your brother 70 times 7" which Jesus is promoting.


I do not think that Christ was *promoting* forgiving someone 70 times 7.
Is the wife suppose to forgive the husband for beating her up 70 times?

"Matthew 18:21-22 (NKJV) - Then Peter came to Him and said, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?" Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. The interesting thing about this verse is that Jesus is not saying that we should forgive 490 times or simply a lot of times for that matter. I came to understand recently that there is a very specific meaning when we look behind the symbolism of those numbers. In the Bible, the number "7" symbolises completeness or a finished work, while the number "70" signifies 'perfect spiritual order carried out with all spiritual power and significance' (Bullinger, 1921, p.235). Therefore, 490, being the product of 70 x 7, signifies spiritual perfection of perfect order and completeness. Peter asked Jesus how often he should forgive someone and eagerly offered an answer to his own question. He thought that forgiving completely would suffice. But Jesus responded by saying that it wasn't good enough to just forgive completely but to forgive to the point of spiritual perfection! If we think we have no unforgiveness... we need to stop and examine our hearts. This is one of those things that makes me go "ouch" whenever I stop to think about it or have those creeping negative thoughts against someone... We are required to forgive to the point were we no longer meditate on the hurt or have any anger or animosity towards the person who sinned against us. Our hearts need to be completely cleared to say the least. Unforgiveness hurts us and not the person who hurt us. It also hurts and hinders our spiritual lives. I often use something I've heard to illustrate, it gets a laugh but gets the point across: "Unforgiveness is like taking poison while waiting for the other person to die!"... I quoted E.W. Bullinger, Number in Scripture: Its Supernatural Design and Spiritual Significance, 1921

https://www.christianblog.com/blog/doul ... mes-seven/


It appears to be a problem with Christian ethics.


Perhaps if we dropped the *Christian* part of it and suggested a humane ethics, it might work better - but probably not.

I never did get an answer in the thread.

Not even one though there could be moooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeee than one?
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15036
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby phyllo » Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:12 pm

So what do you think Christ ought to have done? Join the herd and stone her to death?
If he does nothing, then the crowd will eventually stone her or the crowd will change their minds and think that adultery is okay.
I would think that since Jesus was the supposed Son of God, he might just simply listen to her, not once, not twice, but each time she was brought to him.
He might ask her why ~~ you know, try to get to the bottom of it.
He becomes her therapist/psychiatrist? For how many years? And all the time she is doing the same behavior?

Then the behavior is accepted as "basically okay".
Would he actually condemn her or would he let her know that he did not condone her behavior?
He calls it a sin. But it has no consequences "in this world".
Do you see any distinction between condemning the behavior and condemning her?
Maybe in how she feels about herself there is a difference but in a practical sense it's the same.
Maybe she was an adulterous woman because her husband had no respect for her, beat her, regarded her as simply so much chattel. Maybe it was love and affection which she was looking for - not the sex.
Perhaps it is the husband who needed to be condemned. Did you ever think of that?
Sure, it can be rationalized. The blame can be shifted to someone else. Maybe the pedophile priests were abused so that the blame for their behavior really rests on some acquaintance or relative.

I do not think that Christ was *promoting* forgiving someone 70 times 7.
Yes, he is promoting endless forgiveness.
Is the wife suppose to forgive the husband for beating her up 70 times?
According to Jesus, yes. Of course, the husband is a sinner for beating her.
The interesting thing about this verse is that Jesus is not saying that we should forgive 490 times or simply a lot of times for that matter. I came to understand recently that there is a very specific meaning when we look behind the symbolism of those numbers.
The symbolism of numbers in the Bible. No, I don't buy that. People find all sorts of numbers in texts and assign meanings to them and arrive at all sorts of fictitious conclusions.
Perhaps if we dropped the *Christian* part of it and suggested a humane ethics, it might work better - but probably not.
How would it work? Besides redefining adultery so that it's not a crime ... which magically makes the dilemma go away in this example.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10338
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jan 27, 2018 8:47 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
I ask you to situate these Capital Letter Words embedded in what I construe to be an analytic contraption, in an exchange that revolves around a context that most of us will be familiar with. I like to focus on abortion here for all the reasons that I have noted on other threads. But, sure, choose your own context, your own conflicting good.


Somehow you don't have a very good working short-term memory.
I believe the analytical/intellectual must be complemented with the practical.
I have presented loads of practical views in addition to the intellectual.


What I am looking for revolves around the existential evolution of your views on abortion. Your own rendition of this:


1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.


Why?

Because this relates precisely to my argument about values being rooted substantively in the actual life that you lived. Embedded in a particular historical and cultural context. Predicated on a particular sequence of experiences, relationships and access to information/knowledge.

Once you are able to grasp "I" here as an existential contraption, you can then begin to work on an argument that would enable you to transcend it. As a philosopher. To explain to me how you are not entangled in my dilemma above.

By noting specifically contexts in which you confronted others who were at odds with your own values. Contexts/conflicts in which your description might allow us to more clearly grasp a set of behaviors that "in the future" would come to reflect an objective morality in a world sans God.

Prismatic567 wrote: I believed I have discussed the issue of abortion. I believe this issue even if you do not agree with whatever should be taken as 'spilt milk' thus why bother about the past, just focus on the present and plan for the future. Just accept no fallible humans can be absolutely perfect. We already have 7+ billion i.e. much more enough to ensure the reproduction of the next generation and preservation of the species.


Sure, this may be deemed an adequate rejoinder by you, but certainly not by me. Again, just imagine yourself outside that abortion clinic telling those pro-life/pro choice folks to "just focus on the present and plan for the future."

How on earth does that even begin to obviate the conflicting goods that they will be pummeling each other with?

Instead, I get this...

Prismatic567 wrote: I am well equipped [theory and practice] not to be emotionally bothered by such a dilemma.


I have no doubt that you have much invested psychologically in believing that this is true. I need but recall how much I had invested psychologically in my own wholly intact dictums.

On the other hand, there have been hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of others down through the ages able to construct a "right makes might" contraption in their head. Anything to sustain "I" in the is/ought world as though morality could be grasped objectively as really just another manifestation of the either/or world.

You just take away the part about immortality and salvation and predict that in the future you will be vindicated.

For the No God folks, this may well be the mother of all psychological defense mechanisms.

From my own frame of mind, this reflects yet again the numbingly scholastic didacticism embedded in the so-called analytic contributions of the "serious philosopher".

Again, what Will Durant called the "epistemologists":

"In the end it is dishonesty that breeds the sterile intellectualism of contemporary speculation. A man who is not certain of his mental integrity shuns the vital problems of human existence; at any moment the great laboratory of life may explode his little lie and leave him naked and shivering in the face of truth. So he builds himself an ivory tower of esoteric tomes and professionally philosophical periodicals; he is comfortable only in their company...he wanders farther and farther away from his time and place, and from the problems that absorb his people and his century. The vast concerns that properly belong to philosophy do not concern him...He retreats into a little corner, and insulates himself from the world under layer and layer of technical terminology. He ceases to be a philosopher, and becomes an epistemologist."


Prismatic567 wrote: I don't fit in with Durant's point.
It is most likely he was referring to academic philosophy, which someone has condemned as 'incestuous'.

As I mentioned above, Philosophy-proper must essentially both be theoretical and practical.


Let's just agree to disagree then regarding the extent to which your own "world of words" here is, say, deftly intertwined in the lives that we live "for all practical purposes" from day to day. Lives that ever go in and out of sync in a world of conflicting goods.

You know what you believe.

I once did too.
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: 23487
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:40 am

Prismatic567 wrote: I believed I have discussed the issue of abortion. I believe this issue even if you do not agree with whatever should be taken as 'spilt milk' thus why bother about the past, just focus on the present and plan for the future. Just accept no fallible humans can be absolutely perfect. We already have 7+ billion i.e. much more enough to ensure the reproduction of the next generation and preservation of the species.

iambiguous wrote:Sure, this may be deemed an adequate rejoinder by you, but certainly not by me. Again, just imagine yourself outside that abortion clinic telling those pro-life/pro choice folks to "just focus on the present and plan for the future."

How on earth does that even begin to obviate the conflicting goods that they will be pummeling each other with?
I believe the above is the critical bottleneck where you are wearing your own straight-jacket.

You are not being realistic at all.
The real thing is you cannot do anything much at all with the majority of pro-life/pro choice folks at present or hope for them to change their mind immediately or even in the short term. (a insignificant few may change their mind over the short term but not all).

Take for example, those who were protesting against chattel slavery since 3000 years ago or even 500 years ago. There was no way, the protestors or anyone could expect the slave owners to give up chattel slavery or laws banning chattel slavery then, i.e. 3000 or even 500 years ago.
It is the same with racism, no black Americans could have agreed with any proposals it is possible for a black to be a US president 200 or even 50 years ago, but it happened.
There are so many "cannots" and not-possibles in the past that became possible in the present.

It is the same for the pro-life/pro choice folks re the issue of abortion. In their current psychological state it is not easy for the majority of them especially the hardcores to change their views or deal with their emotions on those matters. Thus to be realistic the optimal choice for each is to tolerate the opposite views. Otherwise at present it has to be an issue of might or else.

But the fact is humans also has an inherent drive to improve toward the better and the truths will always prevails eventually in time like how the banning of Chattel Slavery by all Nations is the norm.

Your problem is you are stuck in one view and thus suffers because there are conflicting views in opposition to yours. If you do not do anything to yourself [as I had suggested with the range of alternatives strategies,] you will continue to suffer.

If you don't change, humanity will not give a damn with you as an individual at present [only you can get out of the hole yourself], rather humanity will "just focus on the present and plan for the future" to ensure there are no individuals like yourself in the future [50, 75, 100 or > years ] who will be entrapped by the issues of abortion.
It is possible the question of abortion will even not arise at all because in the future the majority will have greater impulse controls [yeah equanimity, etc.], have access to easy preventive methods and others.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1691
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby Gloominary » Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:46 am

@Prismatic

I have stated there are two categories of perfection, i.e. Relative and Absolute Perfection.

And you're claiming only relative perfection exists in the empirical world?
Well, I countered this, I just posited: all things are absolutely/perfectly themselves.

Furthermore, the universe is either finitely or infinitely divisible.
Which of these is more perfect, finitely or infinitely divisible?
In one sense, finitely divisible is more perfect, because this means the ultimate, or smallest things, which everything else is made up of, are perfectly solid, and the void surrounding them, perfectly, but on the other hand, infinitely divisible is more perfect, as it has no restrictions.
So either way, there's some perfect in the universe.

God per se ultimately must be absolutely perfect, i.e. a perfection that is totally unconditional i.e. inherent to God itself.

Many polytheists think of their Gods as imperfect.
Wiccans believe the supreme beings are a seemingly imperfect horned God and a triune Goddess.

Zoroastrians believe their supreme deity Ahura Mazda is imperfect in the sense that he can't yet vanquish Ahriham his evil counterpart.

Hindus admit their Gods are imperfect, however they believe there is this ultimate reality called Brahman that's perfect.
However this Brahman isn't outside the cosmos so much as it is the cosmos (pantheism), in stark contrast to the Abrahamic conception of God (monotheist).
They believe the cosmos is essentially consciousness, that matter is either illusory, can be reduced to or is a by-product of consciousness, and that this ultimate reality is available to all of us and experiential, via exercises and practices such as meditation and studying/reflecting upon scripture, which elevates our consciousness, and since we're all a manifestation of this perfect God perceiving itself an infinite amount of finite entities.

Those theists who are very casual with their God generally are ignorant what their God is expected to be, i.e. absolutely perfect. When they are informed of such a gap, they will naturally and readily insist their God is absolutely perfect.

I don't think this is so, why do you believe it to be?

A lesser inferior God is logically vulnerable to be dominated by a God which is more and absolutely superior. In such a case there would be doubts in the minds of those who accept an inferior God that their God will not be able to deliver the promised eternal life in Paradise since and capable of all possibilities, as such is monopolized by the absolutely perfect God.

That's only if you believe there is another God.
And most theists seem to like a little danger in their lives and their spirituality, I mean most of them believe in hell don't they?
If they believed in things only to make themselves feel better, wouldn't they want to feel more certain they're not going to hell, but not even believing such a place exists?
User avatar
Gloominary
Thinker
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Jan 28, 2018 6:11 am

Gloominary wrote:@Prismatic

I have stated there are two categories of perfection, i.e. Relative and Absolute Perfection.

And you're claiming only relative perfection exists in the empirical world?
Well, I countered this, I just posited: all things are absolutely/perfectly themselves.

Furthermore, the universe is either finitely or infinitely divisible.
Which of these is more perfect, finitely or infinitely divisible?
In one sense, finitely divisible is more perfect, because this means the ultimate, or smallest things, which everything else is made up of, are perfectly solid, and the void surrounding them, perfectly, but on the other hand, infinitely divisible is more perfect, as it has no restrictions.
So either way, there's some perfect in the universe.
Note 'absolute' in this case meant totally unconditional.
Your concept of "Universe" cannot be totally unconditional but credibly it has to be conditional within the Scientific Framework and System which is human made.
The most credible knowledge human has is the empirical-rational basis which is always conditional. Whatever is empirically-based cannot be totally unconditional.

Only the idea of God as thought can be totally unconditional.

God per se ultimately must be absolutely perfect, i.e. a perfection that is totally unconditional i.e. inherent to God itself.

Many polytheists think of their Gods as imperfect.
Wiccans believe in a horned God and a tripartite Goddess.

Zoroastrians believe their supreme deity Ahura Mazda is imperfect in the sense that he can't yet vanquish Ahriham his evil counterpart.

Hindus admit their Gods are imperfect, however they believe there is this ultimate reality called Brahman that's perfect.
This Brahman tho isn't outside the cosmos so much as it is the cosmos.
They believe the cosmos is essentially consciousness, that matter is either illusory or can be reduced to consciousness, and that this ultimate reality is accessible to all of us and experiential, through exercises and practices such as meditation and studying/reflecting upon scripture, since we're all a manifestation of this perfect God perceiving ourselves as many finite entities.
Most polytheists has a hierarchy of gods but at the topmost is the absolutely perfect God e.g. Brahman in Hinduism.

Those theists who are very casual with their God generally are ignorant what their God is expected to be, i.e. absolutely perfect. When they are informed of such a gap, they will naturally and readily insist their God is absolutely perfect.

I don't think this is so, why do you believe it to be?
The idea of God is based purely on reason and by reason, logically a God has to be absolutely perfect.
Why? note my reasons below;

A lesser inferior God is logically vulnerable to be dominated by a God which is more and absolutely superior. In such a case there would be doubts in the minds of those who accept an inferior God that their God will not be able to deliver the promised eternal life in Paradise since and capable of all possibilities, as such is monopolized by the absolutely perfect God.

That's only if you believe there is another God.
And some theists may like a little danger in their lives or in their worldview, I mean many of them believe in hell don't they?
If they believed in things only to make themselves feel better, wouldn't they want to feel more certain they're not going to hell, but not even believing such a place exists.
Believing in Hell is one reason why they need to believe in an absolutely perfect God to ensure they absolutely and certainly will go to heaven.

If they believe in a lesser God, then a more superior God can exists to prevent them from going to heaven, sent them to Hell or worst make them eat shit. Their inferior God cannot stop that.

E.g. an Islamic God [absolutely perfect God] assert Christians will go to hell because they believed in a lesser god who had given birth to a son. In this case the Christian logically can only counter at most, their God is also an absolutely perfect God an on par so their God is not lesser than the Islamic God.
So it is the same with other theists who logically has to claim their God is absolutely perfect, i.e. a God than which no greater can exists to dominate their God.

The above is why, logically a God via thought by default MUST and IMPERATIVE be an absolutely perfect God.
Can your counter this logic? Gotcha!
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1691
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby Gloominary » Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:40 am

@Prismatic

Only the idea of God as thought can be totally unconditional.

God is conditional too tho.
For example God is incorporeal, lacks a body.
That's a condition.
For a thing to have no conditions, it would have to be absolutely everything to the max.

Most polytheists has a hierarchy of gods but at the topmost is the absolutely perfect God e.g. Brahman in Hinduism.

Most, but not all.

Believing in Hell is one reason why they need to believe in an absolutely perfect God to ensure they absolutely and certainly will go to heaven.

If they believe in a lesser God, then a more superior God can exists to prevent them from going to heaven, sent them to Hell or worst make them eat shit. Their inferior God cannot stop that.

E.g. an Islamic God [absolutely perfect God] assert Christians will go to hell because they believed in a lesser god who had given birth to a son. In this case the Christian logically can only counter at most, their God is also an absolutely perfect God an on par so their God is not lesser than the Islamic God.
So it is the same with other theists who logically has to claim their God is absolutely perfect, i.e. a God than which no greater can exists to dominate their God.

The above is why, logically a God via thought by default MUST and IMPERATIVE be an absolutely perfect God.
Can your counter this logic? Gotcha!

Or they could just not believe in other Gods or a hell.
User avatar
Gloominary
Thinker
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:47 am

Gloominary wrote:@Prismatic

Only the idea of God as thought can be totally unconditional.

God is conditional too tho.
For example God is incorporeal, lacks a body.
That's a condition.
For a thing to have no conditions, it would have to be absolutely everything to the max.
Note my argument that followed, Why God MUST imperatively be totally unconditional.

Most polytheists has a hierarchy of gods but at the topmost is the absolutely perfect God e.g. Brahman in Hinduism.

Most, but not all.
What is concern here is God per-se [theism in essence] which is absolutely perfect, i.e. totally unconditional.
Those who believe only in a lesser God is not of serious contentious issue here.
For example, the lesser Eros the God of sexual attraction which is not that omnipotent God who created the whole universe and has whatever omni-qualities.
Note these
https://greekgodsandgoddesses.net/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_G ... al_figures

Believing in Hell is one reason why they need to believe in an absolutely perfect God to ensure they absolutely and certainly will go to heaven.

If they believe in a lesser God, then a more superior God can exists to prevent them from going to heaven, sent them to Hell or worst make them eat shit. Their inferior God cannot stop that.

E.g. an Islamic God [absolutely perfect God] assert Christians will go to hell because they believed in a lesser god who had given birth to a son. In this case the Christian logically can only counter at most, their God is also an absolutely perfect God an on par so their God is not lesser than the Islamic God.
So it is the same with other theists who logically has to claim their God is absolutely perfect, i.e. a God than which no greater can exists to dominate their God.

The above is why, logically a God via thought by default MUST and IMPERATIVE be an absolutely perfect God.
Can your counter this logic? Gotcha!

Or they could just not believe in other Gods or a hell.[/quote]Then that is atheism [non-theism], thus off topic in this thread.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1691
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby Greatest I am » Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:57 pm

Gloominary wrote:Or they could just not believe in other Gods or a hell.


Can Christians not believe in other Gods when Yahweh himself says that there are other Gods in his first commandment?

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1583
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:35 pm

Prismatic567 wrote: I believed I have discussed the issue of abortion. I believe this issue even if you do not agree with whatever should be taken as 'spilt milk' thus why bother about the past, just focus on the present and plan for the future. Just accept no fallible humans can be absolutely perfect. We already have 7+ billion i.e. much more enough to ensure the reproduction of the next generation and preservation of the species.
iambiguous wrote:Sure, this may be deemed an adequate rejoinder by you, but certainly not by me. Again, just imagine yourself outside that abortion clinic telling those pro-life/pro choice folks to "just focus on the present and plan for the future."

How on earth does that even begin to obviate the conflicting goods that they will be pummeling each other with?


I believe the above is the critical bottleneck where you are wearing your own straight-jacket.

You are not being realistic at all.


Being realistic from my point of view revolves around the manner in which those on both sides of the abortion wars here and now would react to your advice to "just focus on the present and plan for the future."

Again: How does that "even begin" to make the conflicting goods here go away?

The "strait-jacket" I believe is worn by the objectivists. You either think like they do or you are wrong. Necessarily wrong. Why? Because they are necessarily right.

Prismatic567 wrote: The real thing is you cannot do anything much at all with the majority of pro-life/pro choice folks at present or hope for them to change their mind immediately or even in the short term. (a insignificant few may change their mind over the short term but not all).


Not to worry though, right? In the future everyone who is truly rational and virtuous will come around to the "progressive" narrative/political agenda.

And then back again to slavery:

Prismatic567 wrote: Take for example, those who were protesting against chattel slavery since 3000 years ago or even 500 years ago. There was no way, the protestors or anyone could expect the slave owners to give up chattel slavery or laws banning chattel slavery then, i.e. 3000 or even 500 years ago.


I rooted slavery historically in political economy above. Where have you demonstrated that it is necessarily immoral? Slavery [chattel or otherwise] is still rationalized in the world today. Indeed, the egoists and/or sociopaths need but argue that morality here revolves solely around what they perceive to be in their own best interest.

Prismatic567 wrote: It is the same with racism, no black Americans could have agreed with any proposals it is possible for a black to be a US president 200 or even 50 years ago, but it happened.
There are so many "cannots" and not-possibles in the past that became possible in the present.


Yet here we are living in an age where once again the racists are on the march. Naturally, they have their own set of assumptions. In fact, many argue that it actually is "natural" to be racist.

I don't think so. But how do I demonstrate that what I think here and now is that which all rational men and women are obligated to think there and then. In the future. And, as well, in any and all historical, cultural and experiential context.

Prismatic567 wrote: It is the same for the pro-life/pro choice folks re the issue of abortion. In their current psychological state it is not easy for the majority of them especially the hardcores to change their views or deal with their emotions on those matters. Thus to be realistic the optimal choice for each is to tolerate the opposite views. Otherwise at present it has to be an issue of might or else.


Yet you predict the optimal psychological state whereby, in the future, all rational men and women come to embrace the one and only truly progessive Middle-Way. The embodiment of an "inherent drive to improve toward the better".

Or something else as inherently vague and problematic as this.

Prismatic567 wrote: Your problem is you are stuck in one view and thus suffers because there are conflicting views in opposition to yours. If you do not do anything to yourself [as I had suggested with the range of alternatives strategies,] you will continue to suffer.


Maybe. Or maybe you need to explore more rigorously what it is exactly that takes your own suffering away. How substantive is your own "world of words" here given just how far removed human interactions here and now are from the world as you imagine it in your head?

Are actually insisting that there is no chance at all that your own motivation here is rooted more in the psychological than the philosophical?

On the other hand [admittedly] I could just as easily have asked myself that all those years ago. When, for all practical purposes, I was more or less you.

On the other hand, "in the future", lots and lots and lots and lots of things are "possible".

Lucky for you. :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: 23487
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Jan 31, 2018 5:50 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:I believe the above is the critical bottleneck where you are wearing your own straight-jacket.
You are not being realistic at all.

Being realistic from my point of view revolves around the manner in which those on both sides of the abortion wars here and now would react to your advice to "just focus on the present and plan for the future."
You are not realistic at all because you are ignoring and diverting from facts.

    Say, there are 10 schizophrenics reporting God spoke and is speaking to them.
    In this case the first point of being realistic is to recognize the fact that their brains are connected in such a way that made them schizophrenics.
    The next course of being realistic is to counsel them and explain why they are they way they are and the psychiatric conditions they are in. Some may understand to mitigate the situation.
    The other reality is to threat the hardcore cases medically.

    As far as the problem of schizophrenia is concern I will not advise the schizophrenics "just focus on the present and plan for the future."
    The above point is relevant to humanity as a whole. Humanity will have to tolerate with schizophrenia at the present but plan for the future to prevent schizophrenia down to zero in the future generations.

Applying the above "just focus on the present and plan for the future" to the abortion issues, meant;
'humanity will have to tolerate with the abortion issue at the present but plan for the future to prevent abortion down to zero in the future generations or rewire the brains of the problematic ones to ensure humans are able to resolve whatever issues on abortion effectively.' This pro life and pro-choice is a very extensive and complex but it is possible to resolve from the neural basis in the future [not now].

Again: How does that "even begin" to make the conflicting goods here go away?

The problem will not go way immediately but only possible in the future.
The majority of individuals within the pro life and pro-choice issues are a lost cause at present and the only way is to tolerate them as long as there are no violence.

But for a rare group of the individual[s] at present we may advise them of "just focus on the present and plan for the future" i.e. strive to reframe their problem, cultivate equanimity and the Middle-Way.

Other than that humanity will have to tolerate with the existing individuals from the pro-life and pro-choice at present and strive for the Middle-Way in the future.

The "strait-jacket" I believe is worn by the objectivists. You either think like they do or you are wrong. Necessarily wrong. Why? Because they are necessarily right.
You are putting the "straight-jacket" on yourself because you are not aware of the facts or are deliberating ignoring them.

Yes, the objectivists [not me] are wearing their own "strait-jacket" with their ideology but that is a different issue from your "straight-jacket" in this case.

Prismatic567 wrote: The real thing is you cannot do anything much at all with the majority of pro-life/pro choice folks at present or hope for them to change their mind immediately or even in the short term. (a insignificant few may change their mind over the short term but not all).

Not to worry though, right? In the future everyone who is truly rational and virtuous will come around to the "progressive" narrative/political agenda.
There is already trend of progress at present and thus hope that humanity can achieve very reasonable positive progress in the future to tackle the abortion issue.

And then back again to slavery:

Prismatic567 wrote: Take for example, those who were protesting against chattel slavery since 3000 years ago or even 500 years ago. There was no way, the protestors or anyone could expect the slave owners to give up chattel slavery or laws banning chattel slavery then, i.e. 3000 or even 500 years ago.

I rooted slavery historically in political economy above. Where have you demonstrated that it is necessarily immoral? Slavery [chattel or otherwise] is still rationalized in the world today. Indeed, the egoists and/or sociopaths need but argue that morality here revolves solely around what they perceive to be in their own best interest.
I have used slavery because the evidence of the trend are clear-cut.
It is obvious ALL Nations in the World has adopted the UN resolution to make Chattel Slavery illegal. This is very objective to show what the protestors of slavery have been doing since 3000 years ago is now realized as truth at least as a milestone of progress albeit the legal perspective.
As with human nature, some humans will try to practice slavery in various forms but they now has to do it underground and not openly.
From this basis of progress, humanity will have to strive to lead all humans to a natural state of an aversion to all forms of slavery.

Prismatic567 wrote: It is the same with racism, no black Americans could have agreed with any proposals it is possible for a black to be a US president 200 or even 50 years ago, but it happened.
There are so many "cannots" and not-possibles in the past that became possible in the present.

Yet here we are living in an age where once again the racists are on the march. Naturally, they have their own set of assumptions. In fact, many argue that it actually is "natural" to be racist.
Again you are not focusing on the trend within humanity related to the attitude of racism as compared to 10,000 years ago.

From evolutionary psychology, racism as subset from tribalism was a critical necessity to facilitate survival when humans first emerged but tribalism is in general no more a critical need to facilitate survival in our modern society [except in the jungles of Amazon, Papua, etc.].

The trend is the roots of tribalism and racism must be inhibited* and modulated in our modern society due to more cons then pros and totally suppressed in the future. * The tribalistic drive is embedded deep in the brain and cannot be got rid of but only suppressed.

I don't think so. But how do I demonstrate that what I think here and now is that which all rational men and women are obligated to think there and then. In the future. And, as well, in any and all historical, cultural and experiential context.
As I had stated we have to take note of the trend from the past [hundreds to millions of years] to the present.
The other perspective is to establish absolute moral laws as a guide [a different topic - complicated]

Prismatic567 wrote: It is the same for the pro-life/pro choice folks re the issue of abortion. In their current psychological state it is not easy for the majority of them especially the hardcores to change their views or deal with their emotions on those matters. Thus to be realistic the optimal choice for each is to tolerate the opposite views. Otherwise at present it has to be an issue of might or else.


Yet you predict the optimal psychological state whereby, in the future, all rational men and women come to embrace the one and only truly progessive Middle-Way. The embodiment of an "inherent drive to improve toward the better".

Or something else as inherently vague and problematic as this.
I stated there is not much we can do now -that is obvious because it is difficult to rewire the human brain to get instant change that are sustainable.
But is it very reasonable the change for the better [accompanied by change in the brain] is possible in the future as extrapolated from existing trends.

Prismatic567 wrote: Your problem is you are stuck in one view and thus suffers because there are conflicting views in opposition to yours. If you do not do anything to yourself [as I had suggested with the range of alternatives strategies,] you will continue to suffer.


Maybe. Or maybe you need to explore more rigorously what it is exactly that takes your own suffering away. How substantive is your own "world of words" here given just how far removed human interactions here and now are from the world as you imagine it in your head?

Are actually insisting that there is no chance at all that your own motivation here is rooted more in the psychological than the philosophical?

On the other hand [admittedly] I could just as easily have asked myself that all those years ago. When, for all practical purposes, I was more or less you.

On the other hand, "in the future", lots and lots and lots and lots of things are "possible".

Lucky for you. :wink:
I understand, the default is ALL humans are born to suffer [dukkha].
Thus the rational approach is to understand what this suffering is all about and act to mitigate [rewire and change the brain] this inherent suffering to the optimal minimum.

In your case you are amplifying your own existing default suffering and make it worse by not acknowledging the facts of life.

Change is the only constant, yes, things can change for the better in the future but you are not making any change for yourself [stuck in a hole and digging deeper] or for humanity in the future.


William Barrett - Irrational Man
Btw, I have just read William Barrett's Irrational Man and I can understand why you are so lost. The Book is full of complains of the perceived problem during his time [1958] and the existentialism presented therein is a very deformed philosophical kind.

Note the complains against Logical Positivism and Scientism common during his days till the 90s are outdated and not applicable at present in 2017.
Another complain of his i.e. academic philosophy [I don't have a good impression of] has its pros and cons in the modern world.

Barrett also brought up the Analytic Philosophy versus Continental Philosophy issues but he was bias against the Analytic [Anglo-Saxon] and did not tread along the Middle-Way to tap what is positive from both sides.

Generally Barrett's condemnation of the 'other' and bias to his own is all talk and no action.
This 'no actions' [to change and rewire the brain] is the most critical issue you are encountering and facing. Note I kept emphasizing 'knowing' must always be complemented with 'doing'.
However in existentialism of the Continental kind, most of the elements are very superficial and advocate no practical actions for the individual to take after expelling the 'subject' into its version of 'nothingness' and the 'absurd' from a relative 'somethingness'.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1691
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby iambiguous » Thu Feb 01, 2018 8:44 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Applying the above "just focus on the present and plan for the future" to the abortion issues, meant;
'humanity will have to tolerate with the abortion issue at the present but plan for the future to prevent abortion down to zero in the future generations or rewire the brains of the problematic ones to ensure humans are able to resolve whatever issues on abortion effectively.' This pro life and pro-choice is a very extensive and complex but it is possible to resolve from the neural basis in the future [not now].


Again, what on earth does this have to do -- substantively -- with confronting the conflicting goods embedded in the "present" arguments from both sides so as to arrive at the most "progressive" "Middle-Way" assessment "in the future"?

We simply understand this is very different ways. And, in particular, how one goes about demonstrating the distinction between progressive and regressive behavior.

Here you can focus the arguments [the good] on the "natural right" of the unborn to life, or on the "political right" of women to choose abortion.

What I am looking for then is the argument that [philosophically, politically etc.] reflects the most rational manner in which mere mortals in a No God world can aim their behaviors so as to be construed by others as virtuous.

I'm not saying the argument doesn't exist mind you, only that I [having abandoned moral objectivism here and now] have not come upon it of late.

And certainly not from you.

Instead, I get this:

Prismatic567 wrote:The problem will not go way immediately but only possible in the future.
The majority of individuals within the pro life and pro-choice issues are a lost cause at present and the only way is to tolerate them as long as there are no violence.
But for a rare group of the individual[s] at present we may advise them of "just focus on the present and plan for the future" i.e. strive to reframe their problem, cultivate equanimity and the Middle-Way.


A typical "general description" of...of what exactly?

Consider:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... ion_debate

Now, what in your opinion can be gleaned from this such that Middle-Way progressive behaviors can [eventually] be embodied by mere mortals in a No God world?

After all, in the "ideal state", Plato once proposed this: "The proper officers will take the offspring of the good parents to the pen or fold, and there they will deposit them with certain nurses who dwell in a separate quarter; but the offspring of the inferior, or of the better when they chance to be deformed, will be put away in some mysterious, unknown place, as they should be."

How close is this to your "progressive Middle-Way"?

Prismatic567 wrote:I have used slavery because the evidence of the trend are clear-cut.
It is obvious ALL Nations in the World has adopted the UN resolution to make Chattel Slavery illegal. This is very objective to show what the protestors of slavery have been doing since 3000 years ago is now realized as truth at least as a milestone of progress albeit the legal perspective.
As with human nature, some humans will try to practice slavery in various forms but they now has to do it underground and not openly.
From this basis of progress, humanity will have to strive to lead all humans to a natural state of an aversion to all forms of slavery.


On the other hand, much of the world today is clearly embedded in the global capitalist economy. Back again to the historical relationship between slavery and political economy.

But where is the philosophical argument that slavery is inherently [necessarily] irrational and/or immoral? In a No God world?

Basically, you are arguing this: that even though others might rationalize slavery from their own selfish points of view [historically, culturally, experientially], to the extent that these points of view don't align themselves with your own, they are wrong.

Thus folks like Plato and Aristotle in particular really fucked up here.

The trend back then was wrong. The trend today is right. And our trend reflects the one and only rational manner in which any future generations must align their own political narratives/agendas.

With yours.

Though of course you are not being an objectivist here.

And that's before we get to issues like abortion, the role of government, animal rights, gun control etc., in which political opinions are considerably more fractured.
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: 23487
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Feb 02, 2018 2:34 am

Prismatic567 wrote:Applying the above "just focus on the present and plan for the future" to the abortion issues, meant;
'humanity will have to tolerate with the abortion issue at the present but plan for the future to prevent abortion down to zero in the future generations or rewire the brains of the problematic ones to ensure humans are able to resolve whatever issues on abortion effectively.' This pro life and pro-choice is a very extensive and complex but it is possible to resolve from the neural basis in the future [not now].

iambiguous wrote:Again, what on earth does this have to do -- substantively -- with confronting the conflicting goods embedded in the "present" arguments from both sides so as to arrive at the most "progressive" "Middle-Way" assessment "in the future"?

We simply understand this is very different ways. And, in particular, how one goes about demonstrating the distinction between progressive and regressive behavior.

Here you can focus the arguments [the good] on the "natural right" of the unborn to life, or on the "political right" of women to choose abortion.

What I am looking for then is the argument that [philosophically, politically etc.] reflects the most rational manner in which mere mortals in a No God world can aim their behaviors so as to be construed by others as virtuous.

I'm not saying the argument doesn't exist mind you, only that I [having abandoned moral objectivism here and now] have not come upon it of late.

And certainly not from you.

I think your are messing and conflating lots of different things here.

If you are looking for an argument as highlighted above, then you should open a separate thread to discuss it.

My train of thought and discussion with 'you' is you stated you have a mental problem with conflicting goods and is troubled with it.
Thus what I have been discussing with 'you' is why are you so disturbed by 'conflicting goods' and my contribution to the discussion is to analyze and reveal the root cause [ultimate, proximate, others].

If you have specific issues in relation to conflicting goods, I suggest you discuss them in specific threads in the appropriate section of this forum.

This is why I am suggesting we tolerate the existing abortion issue at present in this case and focus on why 'you' are having an issue with conflicting goods which I believe is due to your being brainwashed with a deformed version of existentialism [Continental].

At present there is no way you can change the minds of the hardcore believers of the pro-life and pro-choice immediately. Can you? But it is possible in the future and this has to be discussed in a separate thread[s] so that we don't mess with the personal issue you have with 'conflicting goods' and other existential problems.


Instead, I get this:

Prismatic567 wrote:The problem will not go way immediately but only possible in the future.
The majority of individuals within the pro life and pro-choice issues are a lost cause at present and the only way is to tolerate them as long as there are no violence.
But for a rare group of the individual[s] at present we may advise them of "just focus on the present and plan for the future" i.e. strive to reframe their problem, cultivate equanimity and the Middle-Way.


A typical "general description" of...of what exactly?

Consider:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... ion_debate

Now, what in your opinion can be gleaned from this such that Middle-Way progressive behaviors can [eventually] be embodied by mere mortals in a No God world?

After all, in the "ideal state", Plato once proposed this: "The proper officers will take the offspring of the good parents to the pen or fold, and there they will deposit them with certain nurses who dwell in a separate quarter; but the offspring of the inferior, or of the better when they chance to be deformed, will be put away in some mysterious, unknown place, as they should be."

How close is this to your "progressive Middle-Way"?
As I had suggested, the above has to be addressed in details in a separate thread.

Prismatic567 wrote:I have used slavery because the evidence of the trend are clear-cut.
It is obvious ALL Nations in the World has adopted the UN resolution to make Chattel Slavery illegal. This is very objective to show what the protestors of slavery have been doing since 3000 years ago is now realized as truth at least as a milestone of progress albeit the legal perspective.
As with human nature, some humans will try to practice slavery in various forms but they now has to do it underground and not openly.
From this basis of progress, humanity will have to strive to lead all humans to a natural state of an aversion to all forms of slavery.


On the other hand, much of the world today is clearly embedded in the global capitalist economy. Back again to the historical relationship between slavery and political economy.

But where is the philosophical argument that slavery is inherently [necessarily] irrational and/or immoral? In a No God world?

Basically, you are arguing this: that even though others might rationalize slavery from their own selfish points of view [historically, culturally, experientially], to the extent that these points of view don't align themselves with your own, they are wrong.

Thus folks like Plato and Aristotle in particular really fucked up here.

The trend back then was wrong. The trend today is right. And our trend reflects the one and only rational manner in which any future generations must align their own political narratives/agendas.

With yours.
This again require a separate thread to get into the details.
There are very strong philosophical arguments from the secular perspective why slavery is immoral. One is the Golden Rule, i.e. who in the world would want to be a chattel slave to another human. There are other ways to ground the universal moral rule why Slavery is not permissible morally.

Though of course you are not being an objectivist here.

Please remember that.

And that's before we get to issues like abortion, the role of government, animal rights, gun control etc., in which political opinions are considerably more fractured.
As I had suggested, to discuss the above, raise specific threads in the relevant sections.
I believe you are too engaged with the forms rather than the substance of a problem.

My understanding from your posts is you are trapped in a deep hole you have dug yourself arising from your knowledge of existentialism. Why and how to get out? that is the substance of the problem we should focus on rather than diverging into the forms which could be infinite. Agree?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1691
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby iambiguous » Mon Feb 05, 2018 6:10 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Here you can focus the arguments [the good] on the "natural right" of the unborn to life, or on the "political right" of women to choose abortion.

What I am looking for then is the argument that [philosophically, politically etc.] reflects the most rational manner in which mere mortals in a No God world can aim their behaviors so as to be construed by others as virtuous.

I'm not saying the argument doesn't exist mind you, only that I [having abandoned moral objectivism here and now] have not come upon it of late.

And certainly not from you.

I think your are messing and conflating lots of different things here.

If you are looking for an argument as highlighted above, then you should open a separate thread to discuss it.

My train of thought and discussion with 'you' is you stated you have a mental problem with conflicting goods and is troubled with it.
Thus what I have been discussing with 'you' is why are you so disturbed by 'conflicting goods' and my contribution to the discussion is to analyze and reveal the root cause [ultimate, proximate, others].

If you have specific issues in relation to conflicting goods, I suggest you discuss them in specific threads in the appropriate section of this forum.

This is why I am suggesting we tolerate the existing abortion issue at present in this case and focus on why 'you' are having an issue with conflicting goods which I believe is due to your being brainwashed with a deformed version of existentialism [Continental].

At present there is no way you can change the minds of the hardcore believers of the pro-life and pro-choice immediately. Can you? But it is possible in the future and this has to be discussed in a separate thread[s] so that we don't mess with the personal issue you have with 'conflicting goods' and other existential problems.


Yes, in the future lots and lots and lots and lots of things are possible. But in the present you seem intent only on avoiding a discussion that revolves around arguments that speak directly [and substantively] to the actual conflicting goods embedded in, among other things, the abortion wars.

Your progressive Middle-Way narrative has to start somewhere. But you and I seem far removed regarding the extent to which you are willing to go there.

Perhaps that can be rectified, perhaps not.

On this thread, or on any other thread, pertaining to any God or No God narrative deemed superior or inferior, I'm still entangled in my dilemma. But I'll be damned if I can figure out how exactly you are not.

Not in the world of actual flesh and blood interactions.
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: 23487
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby Gloominary » Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:47 am

@Prismatic

Note my argument that followed, Why God MUST imperatively be totally unconditional

Christians, Muslims and Jews don't believe God is say a chair, or a woman, so their God is conditional.

What is concern here is God per-se [theism in essence] which is absolutely perfect, i.e. totally unconditional.
Those who believe only in a lesser God is not of serious contentious issue here.
For example, the lesser Eros the God of sexual attraction which is not that omnipotent God who created the whole universe and has whatever omni-qualities.

The point is some theists can and do believe in relatively impotent Gods.

Or they could just not believe in other Gods or a hell.

Then that is atheism [non-theism], thus off topic in this thread.

I said other Gods, not any Gods.
User avatar
Gloominary
Thinker
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:13 am

Gloominary wrote:@Prismatic

Note my argument that followed, Why God MUST imperatively be totally unconditional

Christians, Muslims and Jews don't believe God is say a chair, or a woman, so their God is conditional.
If they don't believe God is say a chair, or a woman, then they are striving toward believing in a God that is unconditional, i.e. not related or conditioned to a chair or woman.

What is concern here is God per-se [theism in essence] which is absolutely perfect, i.e. totally unconditional.
Those who believe only in a lesser God is not of serious contentious issue here.
For example, the lesser Eros the God of sexual attraction which is not that omnipotent God who created the whole universe and has whatever omni-qualities.

The point is some theists can and do believe in relatively impotent Gods.
Generally a normal human will avoid pain, but there are perverts like masochists and others who deliberate trigger pains for various reasons. But these humans are abnormal and comprised only of a small percentile of humans.

I agree there are theists [like the abnormal above and others] who will accept a lesser god for various reasons but the majority of theists in the know will never accept a God that is inferior to another due to the reasons I have highlighted.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1691
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:08 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:I think your are messing and conflating lots of different things here.

If you are looking for an argument as highlighted above, then you should open a separate thread to discuss it.

My train of thought and discussion with 'you' is you stated you have a mental problem with conflicting goods and is troubled with it.
Thus what I have been discussing with 'you' is why are you so disturbed by 'conflicting goods' and my contribution to the discussion is to analyze and reveal the root cause [ultimate, proximate, others].

If you have specific issues in relation to conflicting goods, I suggest you discuss them in specific threads in the appropriate section of this forum.

This is why I am suggesting we tolerate the existing abortion issue at present in this case and focus on why 'you' are having an issue with conflicting goods which I believe is due to your being brainwashed with a deformed version of existentialism [Continental].

At present there is no way you can change the minds of the hardcore believers of the pro-life and pro-choice immediately. Can you? But it is possible in the future and this has to be discussed in a separate thread[s] so that we don't mess with the personal issue you have with 'conflicting goods' and other existential problems.


Yes, in the future lots and lots and lots and lots of things are possible. But in the present you seem intent only on avoiding a discussion that revolves around arguments that speak directly [and substantively] to the actual conflicting goods embedded in, among other things, the abortion wars.

Your progressive Middle-Way narrative has to start somewhere. But you and I seem far removed regarding the extent to which you are willing to go there.

Perhaps that can be rectified, perhaps not.

Yes, things are possible in the future, but what is possible must be based on present experiences and justifications. Based on the existing trends I am confident humanity will be able to resolve the 'abortion' issue in the future.

It is not that I don't want to go there.
Note my preference is this;
If you have specific issues in relation to conflicting goods, e.g. issues on abortion, etc., I suggest you discuss them in specific threads in the appropriate section of this forum.

You keep reminding me of the 'abortion' issue and I kept avoiding the issue.
My point is this;
Whilst I understand you raised the abortion issue as a 'conflicting good' I note it is complicated by other problems that you are facing.
Since there are various problems, I have redirect the issue to 'How to resolve any problem on a generic basis?'

In this particular case, I am not interested in dealing with a specific issue, e.g. re abortion. Rather I think it would be more effective to discuss the general, i.e. How to resolve any problem?
Now if you good at resolving any problem, X, Y or Z, then you can easily resolve the abortion issue yourself, i.e. no need for me to get involved.

On this thread, or on any other thread, pertaining to any God or No God narrative deemed superior or inferior, I'm still entangled in my dilemma. But I'll be damned if I can figure out how exactly you are not.

Not in the world of actual flesh and blood interactions.
Here I am discussing an issue, i.e. God or No God but it is not entangled in any dilemma in relation to this question.
On this issue I can detach myself from the issue.

I'm still entangled in my dilemma

Actually I am not very sure what is the nature of your dilemma or should there be a dilemma at all in the first place.

A more obvious dilemma would be something like, if you in such a a situation;
    "I [Iambigous] have just murdered someone and I am in a dilemma [conflicting on what to do] to confess [as per conscience] to the police or ran away to a foreign country, etc."
If the dilemma is that clearcut, then I can give my views on how to resolve the above dilemma.

If someone is in a dilemma re abortion, it could be a simple dilemma like whether to go ahead with the abortion or not.

If someone is having a certain views re abortion but not actually directly involved in it, this is not exactly a real dilemma. This is only having a mental dilemma which can easily be resolved mentally by applying the generic problem solving technique I proposed earlier.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1691
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:09 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:If they don't believe God is say a chair, or a woman, then they are striving toward believing in a God that is unconditional, i.e. not related or conditioned to a chair or woman.
If God is not any of those things, then God is limited, for example God might be ONLY spirit and not found in nature. That would be one of the conditions of God's existence.

Generally a normal human will avoid pain, but there are perverts like masochists and others who deliberate trigger pains for various reasons. But these humans are abnormal and comprised only of a small percentile of humans.

I agree there are theists [like the abnormal above and others] who will accept a lesser god for various reasons but the majority of theists in the know will never accept a God that is inferior to another due to the reasons I have highlighted.
The God(s) in question do not have to be inferior to other Gods, nor need there be other Gods for a God to have limited powers in some way. It was only the rise of rather weird theological arguments that a mathematically unlimited and perfect God arose. The God of the OT gets pissed off, changes his mind, competes with Lucifer. This is not some unconditional mathematically perfect and all powerful entity. Many religions grant other entities power over parts of creation and this includes Christianity.
Karpel Tunnel
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby iambiguous » Tue Feb 06, 2018 8:30 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:Yes, things are possible in the future, but what is possible must be based on present experiences and justifications. Based on the existing trends I am confident humanity will be able to resolve the 'abortion' issue in the future.


Yes, but my argument here is that all of the other moral objectivists then tell me exactly the same thing. Like you, they are all convinced there is a way in which to resolve the abortion wars. But only if others are willing to accept that their own initial assumptions are the place to start.

That's the part embodied in what I call the "psychology of objectivism". It's the being sure that counts far, far more than whatever it is that you/they are sure about.

The being sure is the subjunctive foundation for any comfort and consolation one can accumulate in a world bursting at the seams with all manner of human pain and suffering brought on by all manner of conflicting goods.

And I know how this works first hand because it was years before I was able to abandon my own objectivist narrative. It becomes engrained in "I" because without it "I" begins to fracture and fragment into the dilemma I am myself entangled in here and now.

And it is in avoiding this, in my view, that precipitates many of the hostil reactions I get. And then the irony being that I strive myself to yank myself up out of the hole. Recognizing all the while that the hole itself is just another existential contraption.

On the other hand, at least that is a source of hope, right?

And what the fuck difference does it make [to me] if I pursue that on this thread or on a new one? You are either able to demonstrate to me why you are not entangled in that dilemma yourself or you are not.

Though even here it is never a question of which of us is right or wrong. Why? Becasue that is embedded in the gap between what any of us think we know about these things "here and now" and all that would need to be known about existence itself in order to know this. Something that you obviously don't think about in the same way at all.

Instead, you want this:

Prismatic567 wrote:In this particular case, I am not interested in dealing with a specific issue, e.g. re abortion. Rather I think it would be more effective to discuss the general, i.e. How to resolve any problem?
Now if you good at resolving any problem, X, Y or Z, then you can easily resolve the abortion issue yourself, i.e. no need for me to get involved.


That's not me though. You'll need to pursue that "technical", "analytic", "serious philosophy" stuff with others here. And while I don't argue that this sort of thing is unimportant, my interest revolves more around any conclusions that are reached and their applicability to conflicting goods in the is/ought world.

Prismatic567 wrote:Actually I am not very sure what is the nature of your dilemma or should there be a dilemma at all in the first place.


How can I possibly make it clearer?

1] some argue reasonably that abortion is moral
2] some argue reasonably that abortion is immoral

They merely premise their arguments with conflicting goods: the right of the baby to life, the right of the woman to abort it.

Now, what then are philosophers/ethicists to make of this? What is the argument said to reflect either the optimal or the only rational frame of mind? An argument then used to precipitate the optimal or the only rational behaviors.

How are you not embedded in my own dilemma in assessing this? The part about dasein, the part about conflicting goods, the part about political economy.

Instead, all I see is you proposing here is yet another "intellectual scaffold" designed to convey to others how they ought to think epistemologically about conflicts of this sort.

Prismatic567 wrote:A more obvious dilemma would be something like, if you in such a a situation;
    "I [Iambigous] have just murdered someone and I am in a dilemma [conflicting on what to do] to confess [as per conscience] to the police or ran away to a foreign country, etc."
If the dilemma is that clearcut, then I can give my views on how to resolve the above dilemma.


But what of those who are not in a dilemma at all? They rationalize the murder given their own assumptions about the context. Or they rationalize all of their behaviors as the embodiment of self-interest in a No God world. Then their only concern is not being caught. In other words, the legal consequences of murder.
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: 23487
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:25 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Yes, things are possible in the future, but what is possible must be based on present experiences and justifications. Based on the existing trends I am confident humanity will be able to resolve the 'abortion' issue in the future.


Yes, but my argument here is that all of the other moral objectivists then tell me exactly the same thing. Like you, they are all convinced there is a way in which to resolve the abortion wars. But only if others are willing to accept that their own initial assumptions are the place to start.
I think you are generalizing too far here. I don't belief my approach is the same with the majority of either the pro-life or pro-choice believers who are stuck [not give an inch] with the beliefs now till eternally.

My solution which is feasible and possible in the future will not end up with either the pro-life nor pro-choice stance. This dichotomy will be totally eliminated and humanity will move into another paradigm with no abortion issues at all.

Btw, I have not presented the details of my future plans, so it will be premature for you to brand me as a moral objectivist [which I strongly denial]. My approach re the Framework and System strategy is very novel which no one has officially implemented explicitly albeit it does exist implicitly in some degrees.

The critical problem re the abortion issue is 'unwanted pregnancies.'
As such our objectives [in the future] will be 'There will be Zero unwanted pregnancies' (preventing the problem at source].
instead of what do to with unwanted pregnancies [fire-fighting the problem].
Note I mentioned about reframing the problem statement in another post.
The above is feasible and possible given the current very steep positive trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge in all fields of knowledge, especially the new ones, like neurosciences, IT, and others.

As such when we approach from the above angle, there will be no issue of unwanted pregancies, abortion, pro-life and pro-choice and all other related fuss.


That's the part embodied in what I call the "psychology of objectivism". It's the being sure that counts far, far more than whatever it is that you/they are sure about.

The being sure is the subjunctive foundation for any comfort and consolation one can accumulate in a world bursting at the seams with all manner of human pain and suffering brought on by all manner of conflicting goods.

And I know how this works first hand because it was years before I was able to abandon my own objectivist narrative. It becomes engrained in "I" because without it "I" begins to fracture and fragment into the dilemma I am myself entangled in here and now.

And it is in avoiding this, in my view, that precipitates many of the hostil reactions I get. And then the irony being that I strive myself to yank myself up out of the hole. Recognizing all the while that the hole itself is just another existential contraption.

On the other hand, at least that is a source of hope, right?

And what the fuck difference does it make [to me] if I pursue that on this thread or on a new one? You are either able to demonstrate to me why you are not entangled in that dilemma yourself or you are not.

Though even here it is never a question of which of us is right or wrong. Why? Becasue that is embedded in the gap between what any of us think we know about these things "here and now" and all that would need to be known about existence itself in order to know this. Something that you obviously don't think about in the same way at all.

All these problems you raised are in the existing and old paradigm.

When we have the competence in the future [discuss now to implement in the future] to shift to the new paradigm, all your complains will be things of the past and irrelevant.

I anticipate you will insist what I proposed for the future is another intellectual 'contraption'. I believe such a view is a bankrupt one.
Note over the history of mankind, humans has been speculating, forecasting and planning for the future and many plans had been implemented successfully. Note the airplane, going to the moon, my usual one on Chattel Slaver, the 'impossible' genome project, and tons of other projects.


Instead, you want this:

Prismatic567 wrote:In this particular case, I am not interested in dealing with a specific issue, e.g. re abortion. Rather I think it would be more effective to discuss the general, i.e. How to resolve any problem?
Now if you good at resolving any problem, X, Y or Z, then you can easily resolve the abortion issue yourself, i.e. no need for me to get involved.


That's not me though. You'll need to pursue that "technical", "analytic", "serious philosophy" stuff with others here. And while I don't argue that this sort of thing is unimportant, my interest revolves more around any conclusions that are reached and their applicability to conflicting goods in the is/ought world.
That is your problem and that is why you are always stuck then suffer and poison your self with stress and its related toxins.

Prismatic567 wrote:Actually I am not very sure what is the nature of your dilemma or should there be a dilemma at all in the first place.


How can I possibly make it clearer?

1] some argue reasonably that abortion is moral
2] some argue reasonably that abortion is immoral

They merely premise their arguments with conflicting goods: the right of the baby to life, the right of the woman to abort it.

Now, what then are philosophers/ethicists to make of this? What is the argument said to reflect either the optimal or the only rational frame of mind? An argument then used to precipitate the optimal or the only rational behaviors.

How are you not embedded in my own dilemma in assessing this? The part about dasein, the part about conflicting goods, the part about political economy.

Instead, all I see is you proposing here is yet another "intellectual scaffold" designed to convey to others how they ought to think epistemologically about conflicts of this sort.
All humans problems [of experiential nature] start with the empirical but to resolve them we have to begin from the epistemological base then to the pragmatic doing. If not what and how else?

I don't deny the above dilemmas exist but based on what we know we cannot resolve them based on the existing psychological states of the differing camps.

This is why I suggested if any one is standing on any side of the dilemma and faces psychological problems because the other side do not conform to one's expectation, then one should take care of one's psychological problem by focusing on one's psychological self via the generic problem solving technique and know thyself.

If one focus and persist on the generic problem solving model and not the problem itself, it is likely one will have to shift one's paradigm towards a problem that is feasible and possible.


Prismatic567 wrote:A more obvious dilemma would be something like, if you in such a a situation;
    "I [Iambigous] have just murdered someone and I am in a dilemma [conflicting on what to do] to confess [as per conscience] to the police or ran away to a foreign country, etc."
If the dilemma is that clearcut, then I can give my views on how to resolve the above dilemma.


But what of those who are not in a dilemma at all? They rationalize the murder given their own assumptions about the context. Or they rationalize all of their behaviors as the embodiment of self-interest in a No God world. Then their only concern is not being caught. In other words, the legal consequences of murder.
For those not caught in the dilemma but nevertheless is a concern citizen of humanity, as with the above, the most effective solution is to find way to shift to a new paradigm by continually reframing the problem statement.

As you will note, you are stuck in one paradigm without the mindfulness and ability to try to reframe the problem statement to shift to a new paradigm.

Thus the most effective Problem Statement for the future [not now] would be,
How to ensure there is Zero murder [real or attempted].
If this is the case, there will be no dilemma related to murder at all.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1691
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby Gloominary » Thu Feb 08, 2018 12:49 am

@Prismatic

If they don't believe God is say a chair, or a woman, then they are striving toward believing in a God that is unconditional, i.e. not related or conditioned to a chair or woman.

No, if God isn't a chair, or a woman, those're conditions.
In order for God to be unconditioned, it has to be both absolutely everything that is, and absolutely everything that could be, which also means, absolutely everything that could be, is.
See Pantheism.

Which also means if something could be, like say unicorns existing in another dimension, it does.

Generally a normal human will avoid pain, but there are perverts

Why're they perverts, why shouldn't they like pain?

like masochists and others who deliberate trigger pains for various reasons. But these humans are abnormal and comprised only of a small percentile of humans.

We're all sadomasochists to a degree, we all like to dominate, humiliate and punish, and be dominated, humiliated and punished, it's universal.

Some people think God can't be perfect, because of the problem of evil.
If God is perfect, why is there evil in the world?

Zoroastrian gets around this by claiming God's, or Mazda's power is great, but not absolute.
They believe Mazda is opposed by a nearly equally powerful, evil entity named Ahriman.
It's sort of like their version of Satan, but where as Jehovah created Satan, both Mazda and Ahriman are either uncreated, or were spawned from a neutral entity named Zurvan: father time.

Other religions may get around the problem of evil by claiming God isn't perfect, that he is omnibenevolent, but not omnipotent or omniscient, meaning there's limits to what it can do/it makes mistakes, or omnipotent and omniscient, but not omnibenevolent, meaning it's partly or wholly sadomasochistic.

Others do away with the notion of good/evil altogether, they say good/evil are constructs human beings erroneously impose upon a fundamentally neutral cosmos God created for its/our amusement, or that good/evil go together, you can't have one without the other, and so God, being a creator, wanted to create both, rather than letting there be neither.
User avatar
Gloominary
Thinker
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby Greatest I am » Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:49 am

If there was only a tree of good, how would you know it was good?

You could not. Good is a subjective call based on alternatives.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1583
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby iambiguous » Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:14 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
My solution which is feasible and possible in the future will not end up with either the pro-life nor pro-choice stance. This dichotomy will be totally eliminated and humanity will move into another paradigm with no abortion issues at all.


And, of course, no issues about God and religion either. They don't exist in your head now. And it's only a matter of waiting for the future to yank them out of the heads of everyone else too.

Prismatic567 wrote:The critical problem re the abortion issue is 'unwanted pregnancies.'
As such our objectives [in the future] will be 'There will be Zero unwanted pregnancies' (preventing the problem at source].


Right. Just as the critical problem with No God is no immortality, no salvation and no divine justice. Does your "Framework and System strategy" have a solution for that too?

Thank God [if there is one] for the future. And the amazing capacity of didactic objectivists [mine not yours] to invent any number of hopelessly conflicting moral and political paradigms to go along with it.

You'll need to pursue that "technical", "analytic", "serious philosophy" stuff with others here. And while I don't argue that this sort of thing is unimportant, my interest revolves more around any conclusions that are reached and their applicability to conflicting goods in the is/ought world.


Prismatic567 wrote:That is your problem and that is why you are always stuck then suffer and poison your self with stress and its related toxins.


Come on, my problem is that I refuse to accept your solution. Or, more to the point, that "solutions" themselves [in the is/ought world] would appear to be largely existential contraptions.

But what of those who are not in a dilemma at all? They rationalize the murder given their own assumptions about the context. Or they rationalize all of their behaviors as the embodiment of self-interest in a No God world. Then their only concern is not being caught. In other words, the legal consequences of murder.


Prismatic567 wrote:For those not caught in the dilemma but nevertheless is a concern citizen of humanity, as with the above, the most effective solution is to find way to shift to a new paradigm by continually reframing the problem statement.


A classic substanceless response from someone who is only really capable of arguing through a series of numbingly abstract "general descriptions". General descriptions of...of what exactly?

Certainly not of the conflicting goods embedded in the abortion wars.

Cue the next Problem Statement.

[I apologize for the "tone" of this post. In part it revolves around my propensity for polemics, and in part it reflects my increasing reluctance to take you seriously.

We appear to be embedded in two very, very different ways of construing the world around us. The is/ought world in particular.]
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: 23487
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