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

Originally Posted by O'nus

You can try to re-define God, but most theists won't allow this. For example, a Christian (whom this is mostly directed to) will say that God does intend actions but that we cannot comprehend why he does.


Even still, God, in the common theistic stance, is responsible for all things imaginable. This includes all moral acts on all things that exist.

~

The "common theistic" stance/God has a lot of problems unfortunately. I think it's sad that so many people throw around huge terms and don't even understand their implications or real meaning. It seems superficial; for some of the same reasons even Atheists ridicule God, unfortunately.

Religions tend to set up some conflicting dualities and images, even while God is exactly what would resolve them. So what you're really arguing is against dogma. It probably doesn't do good for anyone.

Originally Posted by O'nus

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.

I'll tell you of an encounter I had when in the hospital. There was a young man there also around my age who had suffered an accident with a car. He was in a wheelchair. He claimed that prior to his accident he didn't feel as if he had a direction in life. After he'd been brought face to face with what could have been his demise though he'd begun to take everything more seriously. It had spun his outlook on life. He'd gotten himself into a good school. That was the effect of a negative situation on the person that suffered it.

In this hospital is also my sister. I'm here because she was hit by a car just over a year ago. She is still quadriplegic. I've not mentioned it here on DV before. The event flipped our family's life upside down. We took turns, my mother, father and I, spending nights with her while she stayed for around two months (she knows the time exactly, she counted the days, and I'm pretty sure she's still doing this). She suffers this day by day, but she carries a smile around all the time. She inspires everyone to try, try, try, to not take what we have for granted. I've reflected on my life more because of this. Now I even wonder that, going after an EE degree, if I can't apply this education to spinal cord research. It's an event like this happening to the right person that could end up resolving the issue (finding the cure, as it were) for everyone. It's in this way we learn to fix our problems, to fight against the resistance that slows our progress, and to progress at all. We grow because of this. Everything has changed for us. I can't tell you enough how deep the changes go here, but the mentalities are.. different.

For the boy who was raped, I can't say that there is justification. It's chancy. If he had a brother or sister, and they would have otherwise become "failures" in life, what if it had been that their own life outlooks had flipped? How many other lives could they have touched, and how would it have spread? What discoveries could have been made? What revelations for humanity, from an event that one innocent person had to suffer? No, I can't say there is justification. I would not ask that one suffer to benefit the whole. The majority does not wish for these things to happen.

There is another thing to consider. If we are saying that hypothetically there is a God, then life here becomes less meaningful in the sense that we don't just exist once, right here, right now, but that our experiences are, shall we say, eternally remembered. If God removes a soul from the world, it's not murder. That person is not exactly "gone" in the way we'd now imagine they would be. They'd still exist somewhere, or in some form, still as a part of this universal whole. If I was raped and murdered brutally myself, would I remember after passing? Would there be any "me" at all or would my re-integration back into the God-being mean that this God has to know the experience alone and that "I" would be free of it?

If God is omnipotent, could God choose to omit negative experiences from memory? The reason then that God would not intervene inside this universe is because there are still other possible positive encounters that could arise from what we deem the negative. Physically removing a negative encounter could likewise remove the possibility of other good ones.

Also, if the individual conscious mind remains intact after the physical body dies, they can either not remember altogether or remember and feel above the event in such a ways as they feel no pain from it. Distant, but there in the mind. Who's to say? I'm only offering possibilities to further illustrate the fact that we can't know what ultimately comes of negative events.

I used to get made fun of a lot in elementary school, you know. Saw a counselor, got depressed a lot, few friends. What good at all could have come from depression? Well, I have that feeling of being above the event. I remember it in full detail but none of it bothers me any more. If anything I'd gotten to see a side of people that isn't always there in the open. People can be cruel. I've been ready for that since being just a small child. It is obviously not as extreme as a rape case, but a growth in consciousness for the raped individual would eventually allow them to overcome such an event. That kind of growth may or may not happen in a lifetime.

Auschwitz.. We collectively saw the consequences of thinking in terms of "us vs them".

To God, all of these events may be non-issues because of the difference in consciousness. It can only be bad to us, and then, somewhere down the line, we'd overcome the events mentally and grow from them.

Short term suffering, long term growth?

Great post, Invader!
I think that this definition of God is very limiting. I believe: of course there isn't a creator God like this.
I think to attribute human values to something that is greater than the Universe is immature. I feel that most religions view of God is immature at best, infantile at worst.
So I cannot argue with an infantile view.
And, to be honest, I don't even feel that it is important at all as to whether or not God exists, or the nature of God, except out of curiosity. The question of how it applies to my life is much more important.
I do, however believe in Karma, and that everybody has consequences to their actions, for better or worse, and for every action there is a reaction, and every event has a cause. I don't believe that God, if there is one, can meddle in our affairs against our will. It is up to us what we do, and what happens to us. I feel that from God's point of view of its great consciousness is that it is all a dream and that all our suffering is a nonlucid dream. It is up to us to be lucid or not.
But, if your argument only applies to the Christian God, then I would say, "Yeah, no such God exists."

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

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.

Like this?

Originally Posted by juroara

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?

^ The only useful comment in the entire thread.

The thing that it lacks, (aside from DuBs argument,) seems pretty simple to me. It fails to offer the reason that an omniscient being of total goodness is responsible for all suffering. Sure, there are dozen's of well thought out arguments that you could use to justify the premise that God is responsible for suffering, (even notwithstanding arguments that goodness would not exist without bad/good is determined by God's actions and not the other way around,), but the above statement just assumes God has to be accountable not for his direct actions but simply things he could prevent. It is a huge gap in logic.

Originally Posted by O'nus

There is no omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being.
If God exists, then he is, by definition, an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being.

Therefore:

God does not exist.

~

Unfortunately, there is a flaw. You are only looking at a Christian Fundamentalist perspective, where God is perfect, or even a "being" at all.

If you take the 'God' of Eastern religions, you will find problems trying to disprove God. You may feel at peace with your answer, but Fundamentalists are at peace with their belief in God. Therefore:

You are the same as a Fundamentalist. See what I did there?

That's obviously just an example, but I've never met anyone who KNEW that "God" is morally perfect, a book said that. You may have "disproven" a morally perfect Christian "God" but you still have a bit of work to do.

So, your vastly superior logic simply resolves to the idea that if someone does not live for you, think for you, act for you, they are the one's who are too stupid to exist? RFL.
I thought I was good with jokes.

Nice language though. Nice touch.

The simple relation to self error (I don't suppose you might take some time to apply it to those terms of yours--it might be vastly more productive.)

I actually tried to use your argument for a long time--for you see, I was deliberately saved from my own stupidity. I should have been dead over 30 years ago. But you are right, what ever it is you call "god" can do those things-and if you are simple minded, you can get really, really angry--even at being alive. I was agnostic--but I eventually came away with a whole different understanding.

If superior intellect exists, it has the same responsibility to itself as any other--something like the law of identity--and it will do exactly what it wants to--just like everyone else. Your presumption of understaning its abilities, goals and purposes, is just way too sad to think about.

I lived in a state of Cognitive dissonance for decades--but I did not emerge religious either--just an understanding. There are real goals to achieve, real ideas to invest in--if life really is important to you. If you walk that road long enough, people will look at you as being --too stupid to exist--also. Turn about is fair play. .. ..

If you want to know if what ever it is man has called "god" exists or not--you might have to spend a long time learning how to think well enough to ask the question--and hear the answer. Lucid Dreaming does play a part of the process--it is in the Judeo-Christian Scripture.

But think of this--if you cannot think, or understand--what would be the point in trying to communicate with you? Is it your purpose--your desire that determines it--or is there something greater than any of us going on? Understanding is not in what you say, but in what you can hear.

Absolute lol at God necessarily conforming to what we define as God. Another conclusion is that we simply alter our definition of God.

The inherent problem is that: (1) you assume God is perfect, (2) that a perfect being must care about right/wrong, and (3) that its code for right/wrong is harmonious with the human code.

You are trying to tell God how it should be because of how the ideal human, in your opinion, should be.

Spoiler for ehh:

Originally Posted by [LIST

really;1406108]What do you think that disparity is?

What I'd point out (no surprise):

(You said the argument wasn't yours, so I am addressing the person who made the argument)

• A "being" that is Omnipotent and Omniscient means that it must also be Omnipresent. Altogether, this indicates that it exists within a non-dual paradigm. An Omnipotent/Omniscient being doesn't have intentionality and doesn't execute action.
• Thusly it transcends the Newtonian paradigm of cause-effect, demonstrating the reality of Karma.
• None of these transcendent attributes are subject to proof; neither is God. You cannot disprove a non-dual paradigm with dualistic notions of good vs. bad. If you are not talking about non-duality, then do not bother mentioning non-dualistic attributes in your argument.

• The problem of judging what is good or bad is a human projection of perception; blaming God. It is not much different than saying there is no God because I accidentally stepped on and killed a bug. Or because something you value is gone. The scale is irrelevant.

• There is not much use in saying there is no "morally perfect being" if humans themselves are the only ones who need morals. Even if that was not true, it is a judgment formed by people who have no understanding of what it means to be a morally perfect being.

ff

Originally Posted by [LIST

really;1406108]What do you think that disparity is?

What I'd point out (no surprise):

(You said the argument wasn't yours, so I am addressing the person who made the argument)

• A "being" that is Omnipotent and Omniscient means that it must also be Omnipresent. Altogether, this indicates that it exists within a non-dual paradigm. An Omnipotent/Omniscient being doesn't have intentionality and doesn't execute action.
• Thusly it transcends the Newtonian paradigm of cause-effect, demonstrating the reality of Karma.
• None of these transcendent attributes are subject to proof; neither is God. You cannot disprove a non-dual paradigm with dualistic notions of good vs. bad. If you are not talking about non-du

• ality, then do not bother mentioning non-dualistic attributes in your argument.

• The problem of judging what i
  Code:

  s good or bad is a human projection of  perception; blaming God. It is not much different
  
  	
  
  		
  
  			
  
  			
  				 thfffffffjdfsuf dsufsduifsh
  			
  		
  	
  

  an
  saying there is no God because I accidentally stepped on and killed a bug. Or because something you value is gone. The scale is irrelevant.

• There is not much use in saying there is no "morally perfect being" if humans themselves are the only ones who need morals. Even if that was not true, it is a judgment formed by people who have no understanding of what it means to be a morally perfect being.

ff

fff

I agree with most of this stuff. O'nus has definitely always come off as one of the most intelligent DV members to me.

Is nobody else seeing this page as totally fucked up? There's a massive floating quote box at the top of the page and... Marvo's spoiler is an infinite loop of quote boxes. wat.

Originally Posted by Xei

Is nobody else seeing this page as totally fucked up? There's a massive floating quote box at the top of the page and... Marvo's spoiler is an infinite loop of quote boxes. wat.

Yep, same. I actually thought that Marvo's spoiler was intentional. Didn't initially see the top of the page, however.

Originally Posted by O'nus

An omniscient being would know that such events were about to occur.

You're making the assumption that the future is something about which statements can be true or false. That's a big assumption. If the future does not exist, then a being can know everything there is to know about everything in existence, and still not know the future, because it hasn't occured yet. I'm not saying the argument is wrong, but it's based on the assumption of some kind of fatalistic reality of the future.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

You're making the assumption that the future is something about which statements can be true or false. That's a big assumption. If the future does not exist, then a being can know everything there is to know about everything in existence, and still not know the future, because it hasn't occured yet. I'm not saying the argument is wrong, but it's based on the assumption of some kind of fatalistic reality of the future.

Is true, Is false, is present tense. Most arguments concerning the future start from a simple tense error. However, an "all seeing" creature leave's out conception, therefore it would know everything but comprehend nothing. The Trinity is a metaphor, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--for an environmental acquisition system, perception, conception and will. It simply means, we learn by experience. Which also involves why Christ was the corner-stone that was rejected--he stood for perception. The second so called comming is conception--stated in a few places in the text. The last is will, when man finally learns how to learn and understand.

The Scripture is not mysticism, but it does use principles of reasoning that man does not ----- yet.

Any real reasoning starts with a convention of names, which is grounded in a standard by which to percieve and abstract from--which is something these types of arguments ignore--thus violating logic at the very start of the so-called "reasonings." i.e. rejecting the corner-stone.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Is true, Is false, is present tense. Most arguments concerning the future start from a simple tense error. However, an "all seeing" creature leave's out conception, therefore it would know everything but comprehend nothing. The Trinity is a metaphor, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--for an environmental acquisition system, perception, conception and will. It simply means, we learn by experience. Which also involves why Christ was the corner-stone that was rejected--he stood for perception. The second so called comming is conception--stated in a few places in the text. The last is will, when man finally learns how to learn and understand.

The Scripture is not mysticism, but it does use principles of reasoning that man does not ----- yet.

Any real reasoning starts with a convention of names, which is grounded in a standard by which to percieve and abstract from--which is something these types of arguments ignore--thus violating logic at the very start of the so-called "reasonings." i.e. rejecting the corner-stone.

Are you asserting that before one can 'reason' with words, one has to have a consensus agreement on the prescribed meaning of these words used in the argument? If not, then please explain further. It intrigues me.

There is no omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being.
If God exists, then he is, by definition, an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being.

Let me first argue with you about the point of Moral Perfection? Is there a universal moral code? No, that is the first problem. Second, God by your definition is such, by my definition, God is the creator. No omnipotency, no omniscience included? Why? Because you are going based off the common religious belief and are not considering reality as it might be. God could be omnipotent, could be omniscience, but I do not know. That is your first problem. Definition of God.

Second, consider that God is morally perfect, then why would the children suffer and the animals as well. One of the possibilities is the concept of Karma, and the life before this life. If such a thing exists, and the world works in a karmic way, then it can easily be explained that the children had misbehaved, having earned that punishment, the same for the animals.

Now, is it really like this? I do not know, is it a possibility? Yes, that is enough to counter it, philosophically considered of course.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

You're making the assumption that the future is something about which statements can be true or false. That's a big assumption. If the future does not exist, then a being can know everything there is to know about everything in existence, and still not know the future, because it hasn't occured yet. I'm not saying the argument is wrong, but it's based on the assumption of some kind of fatalistic reality of the future.

If someone knew everything about the present, they could know everything about the future, as well, assuming that person had deductive powers proportionate to their knowledge. If such a person waas, as Philospher argues, all knowing but not all comprehending, then you would be right.

Originally Posted by MrTransitory

Are you asserting that before one can 'reason' with words, one has to have a consensus agreement on the prescribed meaning of these words used in the argument? If not, then please explain further. It intrigues me.

Words have no meaning. They have an assignment with an abstractable by convention. This led to the often talked about but never understood "Well defined terms" in reasoning. However, there are two categories of words that cannot be defined, they must be abstracted---a social convention. Just like every other environmental system of a living organism--it cannot use what it has not abstracted. Both Cratylus and Ion were about names.

Originally Posted by elucid

Let me first argue with you about the point of Moral Perfection? Is there a universal moral code? No, .

Wrong. Your argument should be from first principles, Equality and inequality. These, and these alone, the two elements of reasoning, are the foundation of all reasoning, and so by default, the foundation of moral code. You only have to have the wit to figure out how to use them to get to where they must lead. Hint, A man cannot be different from himself--no matter how badly he reasons. Hint 2) the mind of man has the same definition as every other environmental acquisition system of a living organism--it uses language to do its job, therefore, in this is the justification that God (truth) is the creator of all, and all powerful. It is a metaphor---meaning, all the power that the mind can have, is defined by the function and methods of that mind. Some will understand these concepts as children do, others as strange mythologies, however, when one does understand, it really is simple. And last hint, there are three, and only three primitive categories of names, and only two elements. Language is not limited, it is the mind of man--who one day will be a craftsman--that is limited by his crafting ability to use names.

Oh, moral perfection is an oxymoron. Morality is a thing, perfection is not. The concept is a grammatical abomination. Perfection means no difference, same as equal, one cannot predicate the predicator--one of the lessons one should have learned by the study of Parmenides. i.e. "A =" is not a complete statement.

One should realize at some point when they are wresting with a complete idea or not.

When one understands the foundation of names, then one can start to see them as blocks that can fit together in only certain ways. The name of a thing is equal to the names of that things forms and the names of the various material differences in those forms. Then one can see the basic assertion and denial types. of the 6, only one is definitive, as Aristotle called it. Of the other 5, three are denials, and the remaining two, no predication is involved. Predication is not the same as assertion and denial.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Wrong. Your argument should be from first principles, Equality and inequality. These, and these alone, the two elements of reasoning, are the foundation of all reasoning, and so by default, the foundation of moral code. You only have to have the wit to figure out how to use them to get to where they must lead. Hint, A man cannot be different from himself--no matter how badly he reasons. Hint 2) the mind of man has the same definition as every other environmental acquisition system of a living organism--it uses language to do its job, therefore, in this is the justification that God (truth) is the creator of all, and all powerful. It is a metaphor---meaning, all the power that the mind can have, is defined by the function and methods of that mind. Some will understand these concepts as children do, others as strange mythologies, however, when one does understand, it really is simple. And last hint, there are three, and only three primitive categories of names, and only two elements. Language is not limited, it is the mind of man--who one day will be a craftsman--that is limited by his crafting ability to use names.

Oh, moral perfection is an oxymoron. Morality is a thing, perfection is not. The concept is a grammatical abomination.

It may be that my point was misunderstood, when I mentioned that is there a universal moral code and rhetorically answered no. I was implying that the first poster was making the assumption that his morality is the same morality of the creator. I was merely pointing that out.

I can understand how you misunderstood, having the word "perfect" in there and then my reply being irrelevant to that word, I am sorry for that.

We have all been raised in a social structure that is quite a bit backward and pick up bad habbits. I have many myself. I only toss out sparks to see if anything catches on fire.