|
Post by Winter_King on Aug 16, 2022 9:49:27 GMT
I guess it's possible that God is a natural being just like the rest of us but he's usually defined as something supernatural. Maybe theists should do what scientists do and just change the laws to fit. That would be good. Changing things when we have new information it's one the best thing about science. Not like those dogmatic people who refuse to change their mind when the evidence contradicts their pre conceived notions.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Aug 16, 2022 15:15:46 GMT
Maybe it's just me....but what's the problem with convincing evidence? In almost every other walk of life, the 'buyer' expects some evidence...some showing that what they've bought (into) is something real and not a hoax. I think you've touched on the heart of the matter - faith in God is not like any other walk of life. If you try to change it so it is, it becomes of a fundamentally different character and something is lost in the process. Belief in God is an existential matter - deciding that, all evidence to the contrary, there is something in the universe that cares about you. It seems to be a genuinely uplifting experience for those who have faith, regardless of whether their faith is misplaced or not. You reckon so? I disagree. First, many of the morals taught by various religions are universal anyway. Most religions have variants of the Golden Rule and many non-religious folk follow it anyway. Where religions do get a bit more individual and prescriptive, most believers pick and choose what morals to hold and the ones they don't agree with are explained away. Take something like homosexuality - the homophobes look to the scriptures to support their homophobia while those who think homophobia is wrong come up with ways to explain that their scripture of choice doesn't actually condemn homosexuality. Or to look specifically at Christianity, there are few more blatant rulings Jesus gave than denouncing divorce as a practice, yet how many Christians think divorce is absolutely fine? On a related point, it seems like we have a pre-existing idea of what is moral and then use that to determine whether God is good rather than being blank slates. Obviously there's a bit of a dialectic to proceedings - many of us are raised with morals before we actually think about them, but as we mature, we reject ones we no longer agree with. And many religions don't put primacy on morality - they put it on belief itself. In Christianity for example, one is saved by accepting Jesus as their saviour - doing good works is either supplementary to that or not important at all. In Hinduism and Buddhism, the path to Enlightenment is contemplation of the universe, not doing good deeds, which again are just a supplement to that. Finally, even if God did reveal itself unambiguously, we'd still have to decide whether we wanted to follow his moral dictats or not. It doesn't really solve anything unless the only reason to be good is to get reward/ avoid punishment. And if that is the only reason then morality and faith are purely cynical exercises, devoid of beauty. As to many views of what is right and wrong ie among religions and among individual followers...I agree. But I don't see that as plus of any kind of religion or God belief.
I agree pretty much everyone, every theist, has a preconceived notion of what is right and wrong and decides based on that what rules to follow...thus the myriad of responses to ancient scriptures that are supposedly the 'word of God.'
As to the last point in that if God were to unambiguously reveal itself and make it crystal clear with demonstration what it deemed right and wrong and what the punishment was for disobeying, people would still be free to abide or not. But as to WHY someone might abide by these rules...ie because of threat of punishment or hope of reward, so what? A set of rules and morality is not to benefit the individual following those rules...it is to benefit society at large. When more people abide by the rules for whatever reason society functions better. It is up to the individual as to whether they can find beauty/pleasure/satisfaction in following the rules...so it's on them if they don't enjoy being a law abiding member of society. I don't care if they're happy about it or not, as long as they follow the rules. I personally find satisfaction following the rules and being as productive non-trouble-making member of society even if there are punishments for not doing so.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 16, 2022 17:07:35 GMT
I actually think we are thinking very similar things in this regard, yes it is conceivable that this world (or universe, whatever granularity ) you want to use, happened in a completely random and unprecedented way, as you say it is an infinite (insert granularity here), having said that, this is really only an observation (in my opinion) on the creation of the universe, we can see that the evolution of the universe that led us to this point is governed by known laws, and is not random, at least not in the sense that a tornado in a scrap yard is. I mean that could just be mans (my) requirement to see order where there is none, I just dont buy that the end result is just a matter of pure chance, maybe the start point is (I read an argument that the big bang should (who knows how we know what it should do) produce equal amounts of matter and antimatter and so would have destroyed itself, but for some reason OUR big bang was different, that is the sort of randomness I would accept) I think that the laws in place are pretty obvious though and so the randomness argument falls down there. This is an interesting point to explore because a few years ago I would have agreed 100% and now I don't know. During the pandemic I spent a lot of time watching physics lectures. The math is still beyond me but I wanted to at least grasp the concepts and what I've learned is that we know a lot and the more we know the more questions we have. I believe we are still in a Newtonian universe, in a manner of speaking, which is to say we have figured out enough mathematics to make accurate predictions, but our underlying understanding of the universe is still in its infancy. Newton invented calculus to explain gravity and it was so close we can use it to send a space probe to rendezvous with Pluto a decade hence, but Einstein came along and said, wrong! Well, I think we are still wrong. I believe the mysterious "dark matter and energy" are mathematical cheats to explain a gap in knowledge. What I know for certain is that the universe we perceive with our senses is not reality, but a good enough proximation that we can exist. I wanted to make some deep response, but I think you just summed it up really well. Thank you, nice chatting.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,655
Likes: 1,275
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 16, 2022 19:54:53 GMT
It is up to the individual as to whether they can find beauty/pleasure/satisfaction in following the rules...so it's on them if they don't enjoy being a law abiding member of society. I don't care if they're happy about it or not, as long as they follow the rules. I personally find satisfaction following the rules and being as productive non-trouble-making member of society even if there are punishments for not doing so. But then what if this unambiguous god wants us to do things that we aren't comfortable with or else he'll subject us to torment? What if he wants us to stone all left-handed people? Then you would have a bit of a dilemma on your hands! Obviously that's a bit of an extreme example but you're assuming this dispenser of justice would want to maintain society how you like it.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Aug 16, 2022 20:57:39 GMT
It is up to the individual as to whether they can find beauty/pleasure/satisfaction in following the rules...so it's on them if they don't enjoy being a law abiding member of society. I don't care if they're happy about it or not, as long as they follow the rules. I personally find satisfaction following the rules and being as productive non-trouble-making member of society even if there are punishments for not doing so. But then what if this unambiguous god wants us to do things that we aren't comfortable with or else he'll subject us to torment? What if he wants us to stone all left-handed people? Then you would have a bit of a dilemma on your hands! Obviously that's a bit of an extreme example but you're assuming this dispenser of justice would want to maintain society how you like it. It's not extreme at all. Yahweh (via a human of course) demanded the stoning of a man for picking up sticks on the Sabbath.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 16, 2022 20:58:37 GMT
It is up to the individual as to whether they can find beauty/pleasure/satisfaction in following the rules...so it's on them if they don't enjoy being a law abiding member of society. I don't care if they're happy about it or not, as long as they follow the rules. I personally find satisfaction following the rules and being as productive non-trouble-making member of society even if there are punishments for not doing so. But then what if this unambiguous god wants us to do things that we aren't comfortable with or else he'll subject us to torment? What if he wants us to stone all left-handed people? Then you would have a bit of a dilemma on your hands! Obviously that's a bit of an extreme example but you're assuming this dispenser of justice would want to maintain society how you like it. If I say no to air conditioning in the summer, I'm going to be hot and miserable. Is the heat tormenting me?
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Aug 16, 2022 21:07:40 GMT
Philosophy is the study of argument, not a search for truth. Philosphers are people who ask questions that seem deep but are generally meaningless, as an excuse to not get a real job. I've heard physicists suggest "the universe" includes more than we can ever know and that our Big Bang may only be one small part of it but that's highly speculative and not supported by evidence. I've listened to Krauss speak but I'm not arguing that anything is possible, I'm arguing that the universe popped into existence from nothing. The statement by Krauss could be used as a reply to quantum entanglement, string theory, or double slit light experiments, but I doubt Krauss would deny those. Even though a theist might argue against the universe popping into existence, that's also their argument, that god snapped his fingers and brought the universe into existence. So either way the universe came from nothing. It's not just a matter of something from nothing; it's also a matter of something happening without a cause. If X brought the universe into existence - even from nothing - then X would be the cause of the universe's existence. If the universe needs a cause, then whatever caused it needs a cause, which needs a cause, which needs a cause, which needs a cause, hence turtles all the way down. A theist might say their god "always was" but that's silly don't you think? To demand the universe have a cause but not their god? That's an unnecessary complication. There might be a physical cause for the Big Bang that we have yet to discover but that just pushes the question further back and at some point, you have to accept the irrational conclusion, "That things just happen, what the hell." Our universe could be part of a cycle that extends so far back in time that we don't have a meaningful way of describing it. Or it could be that time (causality) didn't exist prior to our universe so the concept of a cause is meaningless, or the cause hasn't happened yet. It could be we are all there ever has been and that nothing existed prior to our universe.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 16, 2022 21:54:44 GMT
It's not just a matter of something from nothing; it's also a matter of something happening without a cause. If X brought the universe into existence - even from nothing - then X would be the cause of the universe's existence. If the universe needs a cause, then whatever caused it needs a cause, which needs a cause, which needs a cause, which needs a cause, hence turtles all the way down. A theist might say their god "always was" but that's silly don't you think? To demand the universe have a cause but not their god? That's an unnecessary complication. There might be a physical cause for the Big Bang that we have yet to discover but that just pushes the question further back and at some point, you have to accept the irrational conclusion, "That things just happen, what the hell." Our universe could be part of a cycle that extends so far back in time that we don't have a meaningful way of describing it. Or it could be that time (causality) didn't exist prior to our universe so the concept of a cause is meaningless, or the cause hasn't happened yet. It could be we are all there ever has been and that nothing existed prior to our universe. I tried explaining that to him on another thread, that however you do it, you are making a rule then excluding a special case from the rule. This is why I ascribe to the Ain Soph Ur idea, god is simply beyond our understanding, it means god may or may not have a cause it is simply the cause of OUR existence.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 16, 2022 22:05:43 GMT
It's not just a matter of something from nothing; it's also a matter of something happening without a cause. If X brought the universe into existence - even from nothing - then X would be the cause of the universe's existence. If the universe needs a cause, then whatever caused it needs a cause, which needs a cause, which needs a cause, which needs a cause, hence turtles all the way down. A theist might say their god "always was" but that's silly don't you think? To demand the universe have a cause but not their god? That's an unnecessary complication. There might be a physical cause for the Big Bang that we have yet to discover but that just pushes the question further back and at some point, you have to accept the irrational conclusion, "That things just happen, what the hell." Our universe could be part of a cycle that extends so far back in time that we don't have a meaningful way of describing it. Or it could be that time (causality) didn't exist prior to our universe so the concept of a cause is meaningless, or the cause hasn't happened yet. It could be we are all there ever has been and that nothing existed prior to our universe. Everything that comes into existence needs an external cause because nothing can bring itself into existence. Saying God "always was" is less silly than saying the universe "always was" because, unlike God, the universe is bound by natural law. You seem to understand this by rejecting infinite regress in favor of the notion that the universe just popped into existence from nothing, by nothing, and with no cause for no reason.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 16, 2022 22:06:45 GMT
If the universe needs a cause, then whatever caused it needs a cause, which needs a cause, which needs a cause, which needs a cause, hence turtles all the way down. A theist might say their god "always was" but that's silly don't you think? To demand the universe have a cause but not their god? That's an unnecessary complication. There might be a physical cause for the Big Bang that we have yet to discover but that just pushes the question further back and at some point, you have to accept the irrational conclusion, "That things just happen, what the hell." Our universe could be part of a cycle that extends so far back in time that we don't have a meaningful way of describing it. Or it could be that time (causality) didn't exist prior to our universe so the concept of a cause is meaningless, or the cause hasn't happened yet. It could be we are all there ever has been and that nothing existed prior to our universe. I tried explaining that to him on another thread, that however you do it, you are making a rule then excluding a special case from the rule. Yup, and I tried explaining to you why that isn't the case. I guess you were too busy talking to listen.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 16, 2022 22:33:32 GMT
I tried explaining that to him on another thread, that however you do it, you are making a rule then excluding a special case from the rule. Yup, and I tried explaining to you why that isn't the case. I guess you were too busy talking to listen. Yes you did, but all you did was move the thing you said everything needed, if it is not the cause then it was to be caused, and for some reason you implied that I was too stupid to understand. if you make a rule for things and then exclude one thing from that rule, you are special pleading no matter what the rule is. Hey look I am really sorry if you thought I was not listening, I really tried to ask you to explain it in a way I could understand a couple of times, for some reason I was not able to understand how your version of the argument differed so as to avoid the pitfall of special pleading.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 16, 2022 22:37:58 GMT
If the universe needs a cause, then whatever caused it needs a cause, which needs a cause, which needs a cause, which needs a cause, hence turtles all the way down. A theist might say their god "always was" but that's silly don't you think? To demand the universe have a cause but not their god? That's an unnecessary complication. There might be a physical cause for the Big Bang that we have yet to discover but that just pushes the question further back and at some point, you have to accept the irrational conclusion, "That things just happen, what the hell." Our universe could be part of a cycle that extends so far back in time that we don't have a meaningful way of describing it. Or it could be that time (causality) didn't exist prior to our universe so the concept of a cause is meaningless, or the cause hasn't happened yet. It could be we are all there ever has been and that nothing existed prior to our universe. Everything that comes into existence needs an external cause because nothing can bring itself into existence. Saying God "always was" is less silly than saying the universe "always was" because, unlike God, the universe is bound by natural law. You seem to understand this by rejecting infinite regress in favor of the notion that the universe just popped into existence from nothing, by nothing, and with no cause for no reason. THIS. This is what I mean, you make a rule, then exclude God from it, that is special pleading, why is God not bound by natural law?? What laws is God bound by, how can you say anything about the nature of God??
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 16, 2022 22:41:43 GMT
Yup, and I tried explaining to you why that isn't the case. I guess you were too busy talking to listen. Yes you did, but all you did was move the thing you said everything needed, if it is not the cause then it was to be caused, and for some reason you implied that I was too stupid to understand. if you make a rule for things and then exclude one thing from that rule, you are special pleading no matter what the rule is. Hey look I am really sorry if you thought I was not listening, I really tried to ask you to explain it in a way I could understand a couple of times, for some reason I was not able to understand how your version of the argument differed so as to avoid the pitfall of special pleading. Even if the universe itself is an infinite chain of causes with no beginning, it would not be special pleading because the "rule" is that nothing comes into existence without a cause. You continue to distort the argument by saying everything needs a cause.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 16, 2022 22:44:12 GMT
Everything that comes into existence needs an external cause because nothing can bring itself into existence. Saying God "always was" is less silly than saying the universe "always was" because, unlike God, the universe is bound by natural law. You seem to understand this by rejecting infinite regress in favor of the notion that the universe just popped into existence from nothing, by nothing, and with no cause for no reason. THIS. This is what I mean, you make a rule, then exclude God from it, that is special pleading, why is God not bound by natural law?? What laws is God bound by, how can you say anything about the nature of God?? Why is it ok for the universe to be an exception, but not God? You can't have it both ways.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,655
Likes: 1,275
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 16, 2022 22:49:05 GMT
But then what if this unambiguous god wants us to do things that we aren't comfortable with or else he'll subject us to torment? What if he wants us to stone all left-handed people? Then you would have a bit of a dilemma on your hands! Obviously that's a bit of an extreme example but you're assuming this dispenser of justice would want to maintain society how you like it. If I say no to air conditioning in the summer, I'm going to be hot and miserable. Is the heat tormenting me? What if the air conditioning wanted you to do something you consider wrong before it let you cool off?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 16, 2022 22:56:27 GMT
If I say no to air conditioning in the summer, I'm going to be hot and miserable. Is the heat tormenting me? What if the air conditioning wanted you to do something you consider wrong before it let you cool off? If the A/C dictates morality, I would consider the possibility that I'm wrong in considering it wrong. Even still, sacrificing my son would be a hard sell, and I think Andrea Yates is a nutbag although her ultimate intentions were good.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 16, 2022 22:56:57 GMT
THIS. This is what I mean, you make a rule, then exclude God from it, that is special pleading, why is God not bound by natural law?? What laws is God bound by, how can you say anything about the nature of God?? Why is it ok for the universe to be an exception, but not God? You can't have it both ways. The universe is NOT an exception, it came into existence.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 16, 2022 22:58:22 GMT
Yes you did, but all you did was move the thing you said everything needed, if it is not the cause then it was to be caused, and for some reason you implied that I was too stupid to understand. if you make a rule for things and then exclude one thing from that rule, you are special pleading no matter what the rule is. Hey look I am really sorry if you thought I was not listening, I really tried to ask you to explain it in a way I could understand a couple of times, for some reason I was not able to understand how your version of the argument differed so as to avoid the pitfall of special pleading. Even if the universe itself is an infinite chain of causes with no beginning, it would not be special pleading because the "rule" is that nothing comes into existence without a cause. You continue to distort the argument by saying everything needs a cause. Not the point, you hit the point just now, when you responded to my second comment. If you make a rule why does your special thing get to be excluded from that rule?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 16, 2022 23:07:13 GMT
Why is it ok for the universe to be an exception, but not God? You can't have it both ways. The universe is NOT an exception, it came into existence. Not by itself. Even if the universe itself is an infinite chain of causes with no beginning, it would not be special pleading because the "rule" is that nothing comes into existence without a cause. You continue to distort the argument by saying everything needs a cause. Not the point, you hit the point just now, when you responded to my second comment. If you make a rule why does your special thing get to be excluded from that rule? The "rule" is that everything that comes into existence needs a cause.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Aug 17, 2022 0:32:52 GMT
It is up to the individual as to whether they can find beauty/pleasure/satisfaction in following the rules...so it's on them if they don't enjoy being a law abiding member of society. I don't care if they're happy about it or not, as long as they follow the rules. I personally find satisfaction following the rules and being as productive non-trouble-making member of society even if there are punishments for not doing so. But then what if this unambiguous god wants us to do things that we aren't comfortable with or else he'll subject us to torment? What if he wants us to stone all left-handed people? Then you would have a bit of a dilemma on your hands! Obviously that's a bit of an extreme example but you're assuming this dispenser of justice would want to maintain society how you like it. There's always that chance. In fact it's not too extreme at all. The bulk of Americans believe it's some how sacred to pretend to drink the blood and eat the flesh of a fallen hero. But anyways, I would not go against my better judgement...I'd refuse. Besides...there's a good chance it would be a trap anyways and he was just 'testing' me/us/you, you know, like Abraham.
|
|