Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9046 total)
614 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, jar, Parasomnium, PaulK, PurpleYouko (6 members, 608 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,286 Year: 4,932/14,102 Month: 530/707 Week: 85/176 Day: 14/34 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Essence Of Faith & Belief.
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 46 of 189 (631056)
08-30-2011 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by iano
08-30-2011 4:37 AM


Re: This is my idea.
That said, you do know that I permit that I could be a brain in a jar and that all my knowing is but the probing of a mad scientist.

Then you are open to new evidence that could redefine your belief and change what you know to be true.

That's not faith, that's a tentative conclusion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by iano, posted 08-30-2011 4:37 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by iano, posted 08-30-2011 5:18 AM Larni has responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 47 of 189 (631058)
08-30-2011 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Larni
08-30-2011 5:09 AM


Re: This is my idea.
Larni writes

quote:
Then you are open to new evidence that could redefine your belief and change what you know to be true.

That's not faith, that's a tentative conclusion.


Only on a technicality. I'd have to be God in order to know that what I know is absolutely the case (although I suppose someone could ask God how he knows he isn't a brain in a jar).

For all practical purposes, I've reached a terminus and lines have now closed.

Are you open to evidence that would change your view that the lines should always remain open?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Larni, posted 08-30-2011 5:09 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Larni, posted 08-30-2011 6:09 AM iano has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 48 of 189 (631062)
08-30-2011 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by iano
08-30-2011 5:18 AM


Re: This is my idea.
For all practical purposes, I've reached a terminus and lines have now closed.

Are you open to evidence that would change your view that the lines should always remain open?

If the lines are now closed then your faith acts as an impediment to the acquisition of knowledge.

I'm open to new knowledge because my lines are not closed. It would be very hard to convince me that your god is real, but I would not reject evidence because I had faith he wa not real.

I could not claim to know anything in the way you know your god is real.

I would boil it down to a closed vs open mind.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by iano, posted 08-30-2011 5:18 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by iano, posted 08-30-2011 6:18 AM Larni has not yet responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 49 of 189 (631064)
08-30-2011 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Larni
08-30-2011 6:09 AM


Re: This is my idea.
Larni writes

quote:
If the lines are now closed then your faith acts as an impediment to the acquisition of knowledge.

You're back to denying the existance of truth again. Arrival at a truth means (per definition) that there is no more knowledge required (other than that which might help investigate the lay of the land of that truth.

More knowledge is like sperm No2 arriving at a fertilzed egg. Things have simply moved on.

quote:
I could not claim to know anything in the way you know your god is real.

I know God exists in the same way I know I do. You know you exist don't you?

-

quote:
I would boil it down to a closed vs open mind.

Where open mind means denying the possibility of arrival at truth. Is your mind open to evidence that would change that view?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Larni, posted 08-30-2011 6:09 AM Larni has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4042
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 50 of 189 (631071)
08-30-2011 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by iano
08-29-2011 4:52 PM


Re: This is not my idea.
iano writes:

Stile writes:

Best answered with another question:
How many innocent lives do you think should be tortuously ruined beyond imagination, just so you can freely choose chocolate ice-cream for dessert?

That's not a very good answer. I don't think it's possible to answer that question. And I think you know that.

Why isn't it a good answer? I can asnwer it very easily. The answer is obvious... 0 innocent lives should be tortuously ruined beyond imagination just so you can freely choose chocolate ice-cream for dessert. I didn't think the answer was particularly difficult. However, if you're struggling with this question, I can understand why you're avoiding the others as well...

iano writes:

Stile writes:

Again, how many women would you allow to be raped so that you can have "free will of the highest order?"

That's best answered with a question. How many women would you deny the potential joys that come with freewill by clipping the wings of it?

Really? The answer, again, is obvious to anyone with any amount of positive morality. The answer is "all of them." Gaining joy at the expense of the suffering of others is just plain evil. How could anyone really experience "joy" knowing that in order for them to feel such there are innocent's suffering horrible pains? It's revolting.

iano writes:

As I say, I don't really think you can quantify that. It's truly impossible to measure. And truly impossible to wash the subjectivity off it even if you managed to tot it up.

It is the way it is, is about all that can be said.

But, of course, it isn't impossible at all. I can tell just by looking at all the suffering in the world that if such a system was put into place on purpose... then the one who decided to create it is as evil as evil gets. More evil than Hitler. More evil than The Joker. More evil than anything we can imagine. To say we can't measure it is nothing more than to create a coping mechanism within your mind so that you can relieve yourself of the responsibility of having to say "Hey, you! That's wrong!!" Maybe that's okay with you, but I simply can't let someone (or something, whatever God is... if He exists) just set up something like this and think it's okay. It's not okay, and He deserves a giant punch in the nose for it. Of course, He likely didn't create it because He likely doesn't exist... but it's still rather obvious that if an omnipotent God does exist and is responsible for creating the world... then He's obviously not worth a second thought. Given omnipotence, I could have created a better world (with an even higher level of free-will) in my sleep.

Anyone who can't see it simply hasn't experienced the kind of evil this world is capable of, or is fooling themselves.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by iano, posted 08-29-2011 4:52 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by iano, posted 08-30-2011 9:43 AM Stile has responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 51 of 189 (631082)
08-30-2011 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Stile
08-30-2011 8:24 AM


Re: This is not my idea.
Stile writes:

quote:
Why isn't it a good answer?

It's not a good answer because it is skewed to limiting the activity of one side of freewill - namely the evil side. But in order to maintain balance you need to trim back the freedom to do great good too. You might agree that a being confined to doing only good isn't a freewilled being.

So in addition to preventing the suffering of children, let's close down the schools and hospitals.

quote:
Really? The answer, again, is obvious to anyone with any amount of positive morality. The answer is "all of them." Gaining joy at the expense of the suffering of others is just plain evil. How could anyone really experience "joy" knowing that in order for them to feel such there are innocent's suffering horrible pains? It's revolting.

Who said anything about gaining joy at another's expense? I was merely asking that you clip the both sides of the freewill equation: that which leads to peoples suffering and that which leads to peoples joy.

-

quote:
But, of course, it isn't impossible at all. I can tell just by looking at all the suffering in the world that if such a system was put into place on purpose... then the one who decided to create it is as evil as evil gets. More evil than Hitler. More evil than The Joker. More evil than anything we can imagine. To say we can't measure it is nothing more than to create a coping mechanism within your mind so that you can relieve yourself of the responsibility of having to say "Hey, you! That's wrong!!"

At what point in proceedings are you going to describe how it is you measure the totality of all the good and evil so as to conclude the balance hangs as much to evil as you say. You don't "just look at all the suffering". You see an infinitely small fraction of the totality of it. Nor do you just look at all the joy which is produced by the freewilled actions of people - for the same reasons.

It would take a god to view it all and evaluate the relative worth of each item. It's not something you're able to do.

quote:
if an omnipotent God does exist and is responsible for creating the world... then He's obviously not worth a second thought. Given omnipotence, I could have created a better world (with an even higher level of free-will) in my sleep.

Anyone who can't see it simply hasn't experienced the kind of evil this world is capable of, or is fooling themselves.


It wouldn't be hard to design a world in which the will is free to choose only from a set of good options. You might share how you could call this a higher-level freewill since you are lowering the number of options available.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Stile, posted 08-30-2011 8:24 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Stile, posted 08-30-2011 10:07 AM iano has not yet responded
 Message 55 by Straggler, posted 08-31-2011 1:15 PM iano has responded
 Message 56 by Larni, posted 08-31-2011 2:24 PM iano has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4042
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(3)
Message 52 of 189 (631084)
08-30-2011 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by iano
08-30-2011 9:43 AM


So Simple
iano writes:

So in addition to preventing the suffering of children, let's close down the schools and hospitals.
...
Who said anything about gaining joy at another's expense? I was merely asking that you clip the both sides of the freewill equation: that which leads to peoples suffering and that which leads to peoples joy.

Why would you ask me to do those things?

We're not talking about dealing with the world after it's been created.
We're talking about an omnipotent being deciding to create the world in the way we see it now. In that context... you *are* talking about gaining joy at another's expense. If you're not talking in this context... what, specifically, are you discussing?

If the world "must" be created in the way it is... then it is immoral to create the world.
This leaves two possibilities:

1. God isn't omnipotent.
2. God didn't create the world.

It would take a god to view it all and evaluate the relative worth of each item. It's not something you're able to do.

Again, you're just wrong.
I can evaluate some of the evil that is present in the world without a problem.
Some of the evil that is present is enough to conclude that no amount of good can "balance the equation."

Let's take the most wonderful thing in the world: Love.
Let's make us omnipotent.
Now. You're saying that the only way it's possible for you to experience the love you have with your wife is if you create the world in such a way that innocent children are brutally murdered.
Would you save those innocent children by not creating the world in the first place? Or would you rather have them brutally murdered so you can love your wife?

I think the answer is rather simple and easy. It is obviously more moral to save the innocent children and not create the world in the first place. Deciding to create the world anyway is nothing short of selfish. Which means the "love" you would be experiencing would be selfish love and not really all that great anyway.

No viewing of all evil is necessary.
No viewing of all good is necessary.
No specific terms of evaluation are necessary... just the general terms that Love is good and brutally murdering innocent children is evil. Are you seriously going to argue against that? It's insane.

An omnipotent God would have had these decisions to make.
If He exists and He is omnipotent and He decided to create this world in this way anyway... God deserves a punch in the nose for being a dimwitted fool.

It wouldn't be hard to design a world in which the will is free to choose only from a set of good options. You might share how you could call this a higher-level freewill since you are lowering the number of options available.

Why would I design a world in which we can only choose good options? What a boring world.
I wouldn't lower the number of options of available. I would allow evil-doers to choose to do evil, if they wanted to.

The world we have now:
When an evil-doer hurts an innocent we have two beings coming into contact... one gets their free-will options lowered. In our system the evil-doer retains all their free-will where the innocent's free-will becomes restricted.

I'd simply reverse that outcome.

Stile's world:
If an evil-doer hurts an innocent than I would have the evil-doer's free will restricted as a consequence instead of the innocent's.

Same number of options... evil-doers can choose to be evil as much as they want. Yet a higher-level of results = a better, "higher-level" freewill system. Very easy, if one is omnipotent.

In both scenarios we have two people coming into contact. An evil-doer hurting an innocent. One of them will leave the situation with a restriction on their free will. God decided to restrict the innocent's free will. I decided to restrict the evil-doer's free will. Who's got the moral high ground? Me for punishing an evil-doer who decided to do evil? Or God for punishing an innocent who's just in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Why decide to let the innocent's free-will get restricted instead of the evil-doers? It's a immoral system. Therefore, if it was created puposefully that way, than the creator is immoral and deserves a punch in the nose.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by iano, posted 08-30-2011 9:43 AM iano has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Larni, posted 08-30-2011 11:27 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 53 of 189 (631105)
08-30-2011 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Stile
08-30-2011 10:07 AM


Re: So Simple
In both scenarios we have two people coming into contact. An evil-doer hurting an innocent. One of them will leave the situation with a restriction on their free will. God decided to restrict the innocent's free will. I decided to restrict the evil-doer's free will. Who's got the moral high ground? Me for punishing an evil-doer who decided to do evil? Or God for punishing an innocent who's just in the wrong place at the wrong time?

I would like to sell my house on god's green Earth and buy some property on Stiles green Earth.

It seems a much nicer place to live.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Stile, posted 08-30-2011 10:07 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 54 of 189 (631140)
08-30-2011 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by iano
08-29-2011 5:47 PM


Like the good in man that counters his evil, nature too consists of a balance: the good in nature that provides for us and gives us much joy, is tempered and balanced by the contamination caused by mans evil.

Did you mean that the good in nature is balanced by the evil in nature? How has man’s evil contaminated nature? How is man to blame for childhood cancer or malaria or polio or MS or trisomy 21 or earthquakes that kill thousands and cause untold suffering? Man is a product of nature. Saying that man has contaminated nature is like saying that water has got itself all wet. Nonsense.

Combined, the stage is set for our being exposed to a sense of heaven and a sense of hell. The question is set: which will we chose.

Take the myth of Cain and Able. Had god not required sacrifices and offerings there would have been no problem. It was god’s pride that led to the fall, Cain was just following his ‘god given’ instinct and pride. Had god’s favour fallen equally upon them there would have been no problem.

To your point about having arrived at the truth, I do not think that truth is a static thing.
Even though, for the longest time, I ‘knew’ that only 1 is exactly equal to 1, my mind is open to the realization that 0.999...9 is also exactly equal to 1.

If you let your imagination run free, could you not imagine a god with more godly qualities than the god of the bible?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by iano, posted 08-29-2011 5:47 PM iano has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 55 of 189 (631295)
08-31-2011 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by iano
08-30-2011 9:43 AM


Re: This is not my idea.
Iano writes:

I was merely asking that you clip the both sides of the freewill equation: that which leads to peoples suffering and that which leads to peoples joy.

Why not just clip one side?

Rather than create good and evil why not narrow the scale so that the only possibilities are indifference and escalating degrees of good?

You still get freewill but you don't get evil. The worst someone can be is indifferent.

Doesn't this make far more sense than a God that is supposedly incapable of evil but who has apparently created the capacity for evil anyway??


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by iano, posted 08-30-2011 9:43 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by iano, posted 08-31-2011 2:40 PM Straggler has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 56 of 189 (631299)
08-31-2011 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by iano
08-30-2011 9:43 AM


Re: This is not my idea.
It would take a god to view it all and evaluate the relative worth of each item. It's not something you're able to do.

I disagree.

I declare a world were every one suffered as muc as I have in life is far better than the world we live in.

I'm healthy, educated, loved, happy and hopeful of a bright future. Never on e have I died of AIDs as a baby, been burnt to death, tortured, denied my rights to freedom or been drowned, crushed or electrocuted in a freak natural disaster.

If every one had a similar level of good in their life the world would be a lot better for evey one.

None of my 'free will' has been restricted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by iano, posted 08-30-2011 9:43 AM iano has not yet responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 57 of 189 (631303)
08-31-2011 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Straggler
08-31-2011 1:15 PM


Re: This is not my idea.
quote:
Why not just clip one side? Rather than create good and evil why not narrow the scale so that the only possibilities are indifference and escalating degrees of good?

That's what I figure heaven to be like. A place wherein dwelleth only righteousness.

quote:
You still get freewill but you don't get evil. The worst someone can be is indifferent.

I wouldn't call a will that is denied half the available options a free one. I don't suppose a will in heaven to be a free one for that reason. The will in heaven is a holy will.

quote:
Doesn't this make far more sense than a God that is supposedly incapable of evil but who has apparently created the capacity for evil anyway??

The old argument goes that you can't make someone love you. They have to be able to choose to love you. Or not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Straggler, posted 08-31-2011 1:15 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Larni, posted 08-31-2011 5:45 PM iano has responded
 Message 62 by Straggler, posted 09-01-2011 6:20 AM iano has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 58 of 189 (631331)
08-31-2011 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by iano
08-31-2011 2:40 PM


Re: This is not my idea.
Straggler writes:

Why not just clip one side? Rather than create good and evil why not narrow the scale so that the only possibilities are indifference and escalating degrees of good?

Iano writes:

The old argument goes that you can't make someone love you. They have to be able to choose to love you. Or not.

Aside from this not addressing Straggler's point at all; why would you choose to love someone who makes the place you live in a total shit hole and if you are not greatfull you go to an even worse place?

Back on topic.

The essence of faith and belief is the denial of new data.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by iano, posted 08-31-2011 2:40 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by iano, posted 08-31-2011 6:13 PM Larni has not yet responded
 Message 60 by Jon, posted 08-31-2011 9:20 PM Larni has responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 59 of 189 (631339)
08-31-2011 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Larni
08-31-2011 5:45 PM


Re: This is not my idea.
Larni writes:

quote:
Aside from this not addressing Straggler's point at all;

Au Cointreau Rodney, au cointreau. Straggler suggests that a consequence of doing as he asks be done is..

Straggler writes:

..You still get freewill but you don't get evil

To which I replied

iano writes:

I wouldn't call a will that is denied half the available options a free one.

-

quote:
why would you choose to love someone who makes the place you live in a total shit hole and if you are not greatfull you go to an even worse place?

Because I didn't lick my theology off biblecaricatures.com?

-

quote:
Back on topic. The essence of faith and belief is the denial of new data.

He said tentatively...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Larni, posted 08-31-2011 5:45 PM Larni has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 189 (631403)
08-31-2011 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Larni
08-31-2011 5:45 PM


Re: This is not my idea.
The essence of faith and belief is the denial of new data.

Not from my window it ain't.


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Larni, posted 08-31-2011 5:45 PM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Larni, posted 09-01-2011 3:20 AM Jon has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021