Thread: A Concrete, Deontological, and Direct Inductive Formulation (No God)

Repetitive post is repetitive.

Did anybody ever think that maybe god is omnipotent and omniscient, but he just likes to watch humans suffer?
Maybe he's just a sadistic bastard.

Your threads on god make less and less sense.

Wrongmaking? Rightmaking?

These sound like nonsense absolutist concepts that suggest the perceived ability to know all consequences of any particular event, which is of course impossible. Are you suggesting that there is a fundamental and absolute morality? Such a suggestion seems to be at odds with your conclusion, but to be honest I can't really tell. You say that there is no omniscient, morally perfect being and yet one would be required in order to accurately decide if an event were "wrongmaking", or "rightmaking".

Perhaps cute woodland creatures and chubby babies die so that people can have discussions like this one and realize just how irrational their beliefs about morality (and god) really are.

That was just...extremely repetitive. And...I disagree.

Thanks for your thoughtful and respectful responses. Your considerable replies fully reinforce my dissatisfaction with dream views. The above was taken fro
Stanford universities philosophy directors and you have made mockery of it instead of substantial replies.

You three have easily made a decision for me.

~

PMed you.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating.

Next time you are lucid, realize you are everything. The ground, the DCs, the air. Keep expanding your attention to include everything, right down to the molecular level, being aware of every molecule at once, just humming away. At that point, you are no longer able to think, to want, to do anything.

You problem is not with god, but with your conception of god, what you think it should be.

Originally Posted by O'nus

If God exists, then he is, by definition, an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being.

I had never known moral perfection was a part of what defines the concept of God! In fact, I'd never included it myself. I never thought it was a necessary factor (and why should it be?). If there is an ultimate being that makes other realities and has absolute control over them if they wanted to exercise it, would that not still make them a god in the reference frame of the reality they created?

I checked out Merriam-Webster's dictionary online:

1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

Does that inclusion of "goodness" come out of the Bible? Because I'm inclined to believe that this definition of God is one that is specific to our culture. I would believe (because I don't know) that there must be cultures that see God as a neutral entity.

As far as the conclusion goes, especially in regards to the Christian God, it would be entirely correct.

However, this notion of moral goodness and right-making actions raises another question: Is there a reason that suffering from natural causes would be allowed to occur? Is there a right making aspect that is not being made apparent to us? This of course goes into the nature of God: What would prompt a being to make any realities at all, or do anything, or exist? There's been the idea floating around that conscious beings were created in order to provide experiences for this God-being that the God-being could otherwise not experience without the limited perspectives that all other conscious beings have. Suffering might be a part of this set of experiences, but not that we create it intentionally. I understand that it would mean that the God-being would be making it intentionally by allowing other creatures to suffer from natural causes... But it would make sense that this "higher up" being would be "privileged" (sounds wrong to say that when taking about suffering) to things we ought not meddle around with. The question is why it would be allowed to happen.

Again though, as far as the actual definition of God goes the argument makes it clear that there can be no God that is morally good, being that it commits wrong-making actions with no right-making actions (that we are aware of) to balance them.

[edit]

Last [wordy] question:

If there is an omnipotent, omniscient being who made our reality, and to our standards it was not morally good, so that it did not fit our definition of God, what would it be called instead?

I ask, because I think we'd still call this God, which further illustrates my point about moral goodness as being a non-issue in terms of determining whether or not this thing exists.
The terms "God" and "Creator" have always been synonymous to me, but you're making me wonder know whether or not God was meant originally to be something more than just an all powerful, neutral creator.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Thanks for your thoughtful and respectful responses. Your considerable replies fully reinforce my dissatisfaction with dream views. The above was taken fro
Stanford universities philosophy directors and you have made mockery of it instead of substantial replies.

You three have easily made a decision for me.

~

Because we didn't agree with it, we were making a mockery of it?

I explained the main issue I have with what you posted here. If you didn't accept my response as "substantial" then that's your deal. The fact that it is from 'philosophies directors' doesn't change my opinions. If you are incapable of discussing it and instead choose to be 'dissatisfied' then you have already made your decision and nothing that was said here had any effect on that.

The conclusion doesn't strictly follow from the premises. You correctly alluded in the title that this is, at a crucial step, an inductive argument, and we can see the strong induction in action with the phrase "Therefore it is likely that..." Even if we grant you all of your premises (some of which are questionable, but I'll humor you for the moment), the most you are warranted to conclude is that "It is likely that God does not exist." That's a rather unremarkable claim.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Your threads on god make less and less sense.

Wrongmaking? Rightmaking?

Perhaps cute woodland creatures and chubby babies die so that people can have discussions like this one and realize just how irrational their beliefs about morality (and god) really are.

These are what you call mature and substantial contributions?

That's fine. I can have discussions elsewhere.

This was not made by me, it's from Plato.Stanford.edu

Dub; that's entirely the point; it's iductive probability.

~

Then your conclusion is missing a very important qualifier indicating that fact.

Shouldn't this be in the R/S thread? I mean, it would be hard for other people with other view points to reply without religion or spirituality being a part of their post?

Your argument doesn't seem to flow well. Can you explain the premise:

Originally Posted by O'nus

Give me what you got.

Both the property of intentionally allowing an animal to die an agonizing death in a forest fire, and the property of allowing a child to undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, are wrongmaking characteristics of an action, and very serious ones.

Our world contains animals that die agonizing deaths in forest fires, and children who undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer.
An omnipotent being could prevent such events, if he knew that those events were about to occur.

First of all, this seems to imply that the Omniscient/Omnipotent being has performed the "wrong" actions, and purposefully "caused" the incidents of suffering. Can you explain this, if the being (by definition) is also Omnipresent?

Originally Posted by O'nus

These are what you call mature and substantial contributions?

You must have ignored one of his important points? v

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

These sound like nonsense absolutist concepts that suggest the perceived ability to know all consequences of any particular event, which is of course impossible. Are you suggesting that there is a fundamental and absolute morality? Such a suggestion seems to be at odds with your conclusion, but to be honest I can't really tell. You say that there is no omniscient, morally perfect being and yet one would be required in order to accurately decide if an event were "wrongmaking", or "rightmaking".

Originally Posted by O'nus

These are what you call mature and substantial contributions?

That's fine. I can have discussions elsewhere.

This was not made by me, it's from Plato.Stanford.edu

Dub; that's entirely the point; it's iductive probability.

~

You conveniently cut out the bulk of my post in which I explained exactly why I disagreed with you/plato.stanford.edu. You can have discussions elsewhere, but if you are looking for a place where everyone is just going to agree with you then you are in for some pretty bland discussions.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

You conveniently cut out the bulk of my post in which I explained exactly why I disagreed with you/plato.stanford.edu. You can have discussions elsewhere, but if you are looking for a place where everyone is just going to agree with you then you are in for some pretty bland discussions.

You've really offended me, Xaqaria.

I copied this post here for influence on how to argue it.

When did I ever say it was my opinion? When did I ever say it was my thoughts?

I never did. I then explained that they were from another site. Then you continued to condescend me.

I cut out that part of the post because I did not disagree with it. However, you still had to have that "bulk of your post" around some insulting words that you seem to think are alright to juxtapose with it.

I didn't make the thread to have people tell me how right I am - this is not mine, I don't agree, and I want help trying to argue it.

You provided none of that.

These sound like nonsense absolutist concepts that suggest the perceived ability to know all consequences of any particular event, which is of course impossible. Are you suggesting that there is a fundamental and absolute morality? Such a suggestion seems to be at odds with your conclusion, but to be honest I can't really tell. You say that there is no omniscient, morally perfect being and yet one would be required in order to accurately decide if an event were "wrongmaking", or "rightmaking".

The argument is clearly taking a DEONTOLOGICAL approach to God - being an omni-being capable of perfect morality.

Do I really need to clarify that? It's in the title.

My only guess why you made such a digressive comment is that you don't know what deontological means. Is that right?

~

Perhaps then you could actually address or explain what you agree/disagree with, instead of making this into a drama on who's mocking who. Not responding to something could mean anything as far as we know. I don't even know what your position on the OP is.

I think an argument can be made that goes beyond inductive reasoning and probabilities. I have argued about this subject a ton on this site, and I stand by my earlier points. The existence of suffering is proof that no being with both infinite power and total goodness exists. An infinitely powerful being could make suffering completely unnessary. A totally good one would. Suffering exists, so if God is defined as a being that is both infinitely powerful and totally good, he does not exist.

One cannot think thoughts for someone else, nor can one redirect misdirected thoughts.

Stop getting hung up on silly semantics and wordddddding.

Words words words...

"God"-this and "Dog"-that.

Who cares if "____" exists or doesn't exist?

It's only a word... a thought... an idea...

No thought or word can capture and contain all the thoughts and experiences ever had by all perceptions since the beginning of time without becoming this ever-unfolding epiphenomenon of this eternal moment.

Yet you still semantically struggle to define and capture this ever-changing thought of this moment with your ever-silly limited definitions of the term "God".

All ideas exist in so much as you can think them.

This eternal moment contains all thoughts and ideas ever had.

Imagine that...

This eternal moment is "God" in the sense it contains and houses all ideas.

Including all these silly limited thoughts you have of it.

There it lies...

Ever-changing.

Ever-containing.

Know that no thought you will ever have can ever pay it justice...

Seek solace in that idea.

The idea of all ideas.

There you will stop defining and start experiencing what you seek to define.

Remember: What you are looking for is what is looking.

O'nus, will you accept me as your pupil?

*bows down respectfully*

Originally Posted by really

Perhaps then you could actually address or explain what you agree/disagree with, instead of making this into a drama on who's mocking who. Not responding to something could mean anything as far as we know. I don't even know what your position on the OP is.

That's the thing; I disagree but not entirely. I'm not sure, but I intuitively sense a disparity on it. This why I came here in the first place; to help clear up what it is I am sensing wrong about this.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think an argument can be made that goes beyond inductive reasoning and probabilities. I have argued about this subject a ton on this site, and I stand by my earlier points. The existence of suffering is proof that no being with both infinite power and total goodness exists. An infinitely powerful being could make suffering completely unnessary. A totally good one would. Suffering exists, so if God is defined as a being that is both infinitely powerful and totally good, he does not exist.

Thank you. So far, I am working on an essay on William Rowe and his problems of evil vis-a-vis God.

Originally Posted by Cyclic13

One cannot think thoughts for someone else, nor can one redirect misdirected thoughts.

Stop getting hung up on silly semantics and wordddddding.

Words words words...

"God"-this and "Dog"-that.

Who cares if "____" exists or doesn't exist?

It's only a word... a thought... an idea...

No thought or word can capture and contain all the thoughts and experiences ever had by all perceptions since the beginning of time without becoming this ever-unfolding epiphenomenon of this eternal moment.

Yet you still semantically struggle to define and capture this ever-changing thought of this moment with your ever-silly limited definitions of the term "God".

All ideas exist in so much as you can think them.

This eternal moment contains all thoughts and ideas ever had.

Imagine that...

This eternal moment is "God" in the sense it contains and houses all ideas.

Including all these silly limited thoughts you have of it.

There it lies...

Ever-changing.

Ever-containing.

Know that no thought you will ever have can ever pay it justice...

Seek solace in that idea.

The idea of all ideas.

There you will stop defining and start experiencing what you seek to define.

Remember: What you are looking for is what is looking.

You are actually all caught up in subjectivity and semantics that you are giving no credit to objective reason.

That's fine if it works for you - but objective reason is what I am looking for here as it is not for personal venture - I'm working on an article in light of this topic. In that sense, arguing the idea of arguing it all together doesn't really help at all.

I may agree with you.. but it's also part of my duty to argue it. I think you'll understand that, sometimes, it is also a necessity to argue something anyway.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

O'nus, will you accept me as your pupil?

*bows down respectfully*

lol thanks. What's happening with the DVA thing maybe?

~

I think that the problem is with the assumption that something that is Divine has to be "good". "Good" and "bad" are relative man-made concepts. An animal dies in the forest naturally as food for another animal. Before the animal gets too sick or too old it becomes food. When it is being killed it is in shock which minimizes pain. Have you ever been in an accident and seriously hurt yourself and were in shock? You could be bleeding profusely and not even know it. In nature, everything is recycled and nothing is wasted. Life feeds on life. The lion kills the gazelle quickly and humanely. That is why you never find a dead animal in the forest. It is taken care of already.
Nature is not moral. Nature is not immoral either, Nature is AMORAL. Morality is a human conception. When are we going to realize that Nature or God or animals or plants or anything else in the worlddo not operate under human morality.
God isn't good, but God isn't Bad. Or he is both. Just like Nature. But there is a difference between the badness of nature and the badness of man. With Nature it is not "Bad" it is just that we don't like it. But it serves the great purpose whether we like it or not. All badness and goodness are just our own preferences projected onto a flux of energy. The energy has too flow and be a flux and reach a balance. We cannot hold our own preferences into this field of energy.
Sure suffering exists, duality exists. God is not one half but all.
Other cultures do have a concept of God that is more realisitic. That God is both light and shadow, kind and loving and wrathful. But we have this idea that God is only good and that all the bad belongs to Satan and that they are at war. Satan is God's shadow that we don't let him own. God and Satan are one and the same.
When we realize that God id both god and satan then evil becomes less evil and we recognize that it is just what we don't prefer.
Yeah, so maybe a omniscient, omnipotent, GOOD creator doesn't exist. But it IS good.

Being good involves being against unnecessary suffering.

This idea of goodness and badness is troubling. I think it depends on the frame of reference. Human beings have their ideas of what constitutes good and bad. We evolved to perceive certain actions as beneficial and others as detrimental, and the development of social customs carried down from one generation to the next had much to do with it. If one were to imagine a race similar to ours but who could reproduce faster and warred with others of their kind more openly, they may have developed notions of violence and pain that they feel are good in nature. Their frame of reference would not be our own. And to an omniscient being? Does anyone have the faintest clue of what that should feel like? To be aware of every whirring electron popping in and out of existence in the universe, every lightwave, the position of every spec of matter in relation to all other specs of matter still in this universe? Not with the combined conscious minds of one billion Earths could this be simulated. Not with a trillion. How phenomenal would that be?

When we assume that the being we are talking about is omniscient, I find it difficult to come to any conclusion about how we ought to apply our standards of morality to it.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I think that the problem is with the assumption that something that is Divine has to be "good". "Good" and "bad" are relative man-made concepts. An animal dies in the forest naturally as food for another animal. Before the animal gets too sick or too old it becomes food. When it is being killed it is in shock which minimizes pain. Have you ever been in an accident and seriously hurt yourself and were in shock? You could be bleeding profusely and not even know it. In nature, everything is recycled and nothing is wasted. Life feeds on life. The lion kills the gazelle quickly and humanely. That is why you never find a dead animal in the forest. It is taken care of already.
Nature is not moral. Nature is not immoral either, Nature is AMORAL. Morality is a human conception. When are we going to realize that Nature or God or animals or plants or anything else in the worlddo not operate under human morality.
God isn't good, but God isn't Bad. Or he is both. Just like Nature. But there is a difference between the badness of nature and the badness of man. With Nature it is not "Bad" it is just that we don't like it. But it serves the great purpose whether we like it or not. All badness and goodness are just our own preferences projected onto a flux of energy. The energy has too flow and be a flux and reach a balance. We cannot hold our own preferences into this field of energy.
Sure suffering exists, duality exists. God is not one half but all.
Other cultures do have a concept of God that is more realisitic. That God is both light and shadow, kind and loving and wrathful. But we have this idea that God is only good and that all the bad belongs to Satan and that they are at war. Satan is God's shadow that we don't let him own. God and Satan are one and the same.
When we realize that God id both god and satan then evil becomes less evil and we recognize that it is just what we don't prefer.
Yeah, so maybe a omniscient, omnipotent, GOOD creator doesn't exist. But it IS good.

While I agree that we can argue the very definition of God that this is arguing, it does no good for the common religions of today. The most common theistic religions will argue that God is loving and omni-benevolent, not amoral. In this case, we cannot simply cast away the definition of God in this argument and change the direction of the deontological argument - it is crucial for the pertinent religions in which would most likely reply to this.

Although, if I were to personally argue this, I would likely take your stance; that God is amoral or the very definition of good and evil.

Though, that is not the case that can be taken. The most common theistic religions are those in which this argument is directed and how would they likely respond?

Originally Posted by Invader

This idea of goodness and badness is troubling. I think it depends on the frame of reference. Human beings have their ideas of what constitutes good and bad. We evolved to perceive certain actions as beneficial and others as detrimental, and the development of social customs carried down from one generation to the next had much to do with it. If one were to imagine a race similar to ours but who could reproduce faster and warred with others of their kind more openly, they may have developed notions of violence and pain that they feel are good in nature. Their frame of reference would not be our own. And to an omniscient being? Does anyone have the faintest clue of what that should feel like? To be aware of every whirring electron popping in and out of existence in the universe, every lightwave, the position of every spec of matter in relation to all other specs of matter still in this universe? Not with the combined conscious minds of one billion Earths could this be simulated. Not with a trillion. How phenomenal would that be?

When we assume that the being we are talking about is omniscient, I find it difficult to come to any conclusion about how we ought to apply our standards of morality to it.

It is a good stance to argue of our ability to argue the limits of our cognition to justify evils.

However, let us take the case of a child that was strangled, raped, and killed on new years eve in flint, michigan.

Now, let me ask you, what good could possibly justify this instance? What good could there possibly come out of it that would justify it that could not have been done, by an all-powerful being, without letting the child suffer?

What of Auschwitz? What good is an omni-God aiming for by allowing Auschwitz to happen?

In this light, it is not simply that we are incapable of knowing it, it is that there is no possible good to come of it if at all along with the fact that an all-powerful God ought to have an alternative method of achieving this good.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Being good involves being against unnecessary suffering.

Precisely.

Though, I still think there is something off about this argument and I am not sure what it is.. I think it is perhaps the type of stance it ought to take in the face of revelation based theology rather than natural humanistic reasoning theology.

~