What is morality?

[popeye1945]

Too late. I'm miles ahead of you on this.

In the absence of consciousness, the physical world is utterly meaningless.

But God is a consciousness.

So you're right in this much: absent God, the world would be utterly meaningless. In fact, it wouldn't even exist...nor would any other consciousness.

God is consciousness is a really DUH response, and which god or gods might that be? If I knew I was dialoguing with the faithful, I wouldn't have wasted my time. I am out of here. Farewell!

[Immanuel Can]

In the absence of consciousness, the physical world is utterly meaningless.

But God is a consciousness.

So you're right in this much: absent God, the world would be utterly meaningless. In fact, it wouldn't even exist...nor would any other consciousness.

God is consciousness is a really DUH response, and which god or gods might that be?

The real one.

And I didn't say "God IS consciousness." I said "God is A consciousness." See above. You actually quoted it, just before you got it wrong.

[popeye1945]

But God is a consciousness.

So you're right in this much: absent God, the world would be utterly meaningless. In fact, it wouldn't even exist...nor would any other consciousness.

God is consciousness is a really DUH response, and which god or gods might that be?

The real one.

And I didn't say "God IS consciousness." I said "God is A consciousness." See above. You actually quoted it, just before you got it wrong.

So, you're not talking about an anthropomorphic god of traditional desert religions. Do you believe consciousness is elemental to the cosmos as a process?

[Immanuel Can]

God is consciousness is a really DUH response, and which god or gods might that be?

The real one.

And I didn't say "God IS consciousness." I said "God is A consciousness." See above. You actually quoted it, just before you got it wrong.

So, you're not talking about an anthropomorphic god of traditional desert religions.

You've got it backward.

God isn't patterned on man.

Man is patterned on God. See Genesis 1:26-27.

[popeye1945]

The real one.

And I didn't say "God IS consciousness." I said "God is A consciousness." See above. You actually quoted it, just before you got it wrong.

So, you're not talking about an anthropomorphic god of traditional desert religions.

You've got it backward.

God isn't patterned on man.

Man is patterned on God. See Genesis 1:26-27.

Good luck to you!

[Immanuel Can]

So, you're not talking about an anthropomorphic god of traditional desert religions.

You've got it backward.

God isn't patterned on man.

Man is patterned on God. See Genesis 1:26-27.

Good luck to you!

Happy trails.

[Gary Childress]

...what is the difference between a meaningless event and the same thing happening "meaningfully"?

We've been over this...and over this. I can't think of how to explain it to you again.

Well, I don't know if there is a God or not. If there's not, then I'll try to follow your lead and abandon all hope since, according to you, secularism is an empty pit of meaninglessness. If there is a God, then I don't see how anyone can call God "benevolent". The world is a dungeon of misery at best for many of us and an absolute horror show for some people out there in the world.

[Immanuel Can]

...what is the difference between a meaningless event and the same thing happening "meaningfully"?

We've been over this...and over this. I can't think of how to explain it to you again.

Well, I don't know if there is a God or not. If there's not, then I'll try to follow your lead and abandon all hope since, according to you, secularism is an empty pit of meaninglessness.

Well, that's not my "lead," really; but it certainly is the logical choice. If one takes his secularism seriously, then there can be no other consequence. But then, maybe we should ask why so many secularists, who should obviously see the logic of their suppositions, simply refuse to do so. Could it be that secularism is actually so unpleasant that they refuse to live consistently within its terms? Or could it be that intuitively they know that secularism isn't true, and is just a convenient defense against the thought that God exists and has intentions for them?

I don't know the answer to that. But the disconnect between the logic of secularism and the behaviour of so many secularists needs some explanation. And I don't think "inability to be logical" is usually part of such an explanation.

If there is a God, then I don't see how anyone can call God "benevolent".

Well, that would assume that human beings are in a connection with God, wouldn't it? I mean, if God exists, and if people are only whatever it is they are, then of course we'd have to think that God was being hard on them. But what about if man is wilfully antagonistic toward God -- like secularists are, in so many cases? What if they have a broken relationship with the Source of all goodness, health, rightness and life? What if they're rebels against Him, and would rather curse Him than seek Him?

And what if God is dedicated to allowing them their free will, their personal choice, their right of deciding whom they will love and hate? What if the whole concept of a genuine relationship requires such personal freedom as that? And what if men have used their freedom to reject God, to sever the relationship and to indulge in other things? Then how is God responsible for a situation that the bad choices of men have caused them?

And what if God did more. What if He offered to redeem men from their bad choices? What if He made a way for them to be restored to right relationship with Him, and then, eventually, to be freed from all the misery into which they've precipitated themselves by rejecting God? And what if He held out that offer, at great cost to Himself, and men still rejected it? What if they continued to use their selfhood, their free will, their power of choice as individuals not to establish a relationship with God, but to pursue evil more vigorously?

How then is God the problem? Perhaps the problem is not God at all. Perhaps the problem is our determination to be rebels and to "turn to our own way," as the Bible puts it? What if the offer of rescue is available, but we still refuse to take it? Then how is God failing to be benevolent, when He has done all He can to restore us to a proper relationship with Him -- and we will have none of it?

What then?

[Gary Childress]

We've been over this...and over this. I can't think of how to explain it to you again.

Well, I don't know if there is a God or not. If there's not, then I'll try to follow your lead and abandon all hope since, according to you, secularism is an empty pit of meaninglessness.

Well, that's not my "lead," really; but it certainly is the logical choice. If one takes his secularism seriously, then there can be no other consequence. But then, maybe we should ask why so many secularists, who should obviously see the logic of their suppositions, simply refuse to do so. Could it be that secularism is actually so unpleasant that they refuse to live consistently within its terms? Or could it be that intuitively they know that secularism isn't true, and is just a convenient defense against the thought that God exists and has intentions for them?

I don't know the answer to that. But the disconnect between the logic of secularism and the behaviour of so many secularists needs some explanation. And I don't think "inability to be logical" is usually part of such an explanation.

If there is a God, then I don't see how anyone can call God "benevolent".

Well, that would assume that human beings are in a connection with God, wouldn't it? I mean, if God exists, and if people are only whatever it is they are, then of course we'd have to think that God was being hard on them. But what about if man is wilfully antagonistic toward God -- like secularists are, in so many cases? What if they have a broken relationship with the Source of all goodness, health, rightness and life? What if they're rebels against Him, and would rather curse Him than seek Him?

And what if God is dedicated to allowing them their free will, their personal choice, their right of deciding whom they will love and hate? What if the whole concept of a genuine relationship requires such personal freedom as that? And what if men have used their freedom to reject God, to sever the relationship and to indulge in other things? Then how is God responsible for a situation that the bad choices of men have caused them?

And what if God did more. What if He offered to redeem men from their bad choices? What if He made a way for them to be restored to right relationship with Him, and then, eventually, to be freed from all the misery into which they've precipitated themselves by rejecting God? And what if He held out that offer, at great cost to Himself, and men still rejected it? What if they continued to use their selfhood, their free will, their power of choice as individuals not to establish a relationship with God, but to pursue evil more vigorously?

How then is God the problem? Perhaps the problem is not God at all. Perhaps the problem is our determination to be rebels and to "turn to our own way," as the Bible puts it? What if the offer of rescue is available, but we still refuse to take it? Then how is God failing to be benevolent, when He has done all He can to restore us to a proper relationship with Him -- and we will have none of it?

What then?

Yes. Not believing the Bible is divine truth or that Jesus is God is a "choice", like being diagnosed with mental illness. We just won't decide to come to our senses. It's our fault. Now God hates us.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, I don't know if there is a God or not. If there's not, then I'll try to follow your lead and abandon all hope since, according to you, secularism is an empty pit of meaninglessness.

Well, that's not my "lead," really; but it certainly is the logical choice. If one takes his secularism seriously, then there can be no other consequence. But then, maybe we should ask why so many secularists, who should obviously see the logic of their suppositions, simply refuse to do so. Could it be that secularism is actually so unpleasant that they refuse to live consistently within its terms? Or could it be that intuitively they know that secularism isn't true, and is just a convenient defense against the thought that God exists and has intentions for them?

I don't know the answer to that. But the disconnect between the logic of secularism and the behaviour of so many secularists needs some explanation. And I don't think "inability to be logical" is usually part of such an explanation.

If there is a God, then I don't see how anyone can call God "benevolent".

Well, that would assume that human beings are in a connection with God, wouldn't it? I mean, if God exists, and if people are only whatever it is they are, then of course we'd have to think that God was being hard on them. But what about if man is wilfully antagonistic toward God -- like secularists are, in so many cases? What if they have a broken relationship with the Source of all goodness, health, rightness and life? What if they're rebels against Him, and would rather curse Him than seek Him?

And what if God is dedicated to allowing them their free will, their personal choice, their right of deciding whom they will love and hate? What if the whole concept of a genuine relationship requires such personal freedom as that? And what if men have used their freedom to reject God, to sever the relationship and to indulge in other things? Then how is God responsible for a situation that the bad choices of men have caused them?

And what if God did more. What if He offered to redeem men from their bad choices? What if He made a way for them to be restored to right relationship with Him, and then, eventually, to be freed from all the misery into which they've precipitated themselves by rejecting God? And what if He held out that offer, at great cost to Himself, and men still rejected it? What if they continued to use their selfhood, their free will, their power of choice as individuals not to establish a relationship with God, but to pursue evil more vigorously?

How then is God the problem? Perhaps the problem is not God at all. Perhaps the problem is our determination to be rebels and to "turn to our own way," as the Bible puts it? What if the offer of rescue is available, but we still refuse to take it? Then how is God failing to be benevolent, when He has done all He can to restore us to a proper relationship with Him -- and we will have none of it?

What then?

Yes. Not believing the Bible is divine truth or that Jesus is God is a "choice", like being diagnosed with mental illness. We just won't decide to come to our senses. It's our fault. Now God hates us.

What if you HAD chosen your mental illness? (I know you didn't, but what if you had?) What if your mental illness was that you had wilfully decided to sever yourself from reality, say, by taking a drug that deprived you of normal cognition and plunged you into a realm of delusions from which you could no longer extricate yourself?

This is not so far-fetched: consider the many drug addicts on your streets. They may have begun by choice, but are now in a deplorable and helpless condition, and not in their right minds.

Two questions, then: whose fault would that be, and what would somebody who was both just and merciful to you do in response?

[Gary Childress]

Well, that's not my "lead," really; but it certainly is the logical choice. If one takes his secularism seriously, then there can be no other consequence. But then, maybe we should ask why so many secularists, who should obviously see the logic of their suppositions, simply refuse to do so. Could it be that secularism is actually so unpleasant that they refuse to live consistently within its terms? Or could it be that intuitively they know that secularism isn't true, and is just a convenient defense against the thought that God exists and has intentions for them?

I don't know the answer to that. But the disconnect between the logic of secularism and the behaviour of so many secularists needs some explanation. And I don't think "inability to be logical" is usually part of such an explanation.


Well, that would assume that human beings are in a connection with God, wouldn't it? I mean, if God exists, and if people are only whatever it is they are, then of course we'd have to think that God was being hard on them. But what about if man is wilfully antagonistic toward God -- like secularists are, in so many cases? What if they have a broken relationship with the Source of all goodness, health, rightness and life? What if they're rebels against Him, and would rather curse Him than seek Him?

And what if God is dedicated to allowing them their free will, their personal choice, their right of deciding whom they will love and hate? What if the whole concept of a genuine relationship requires such personal freedom as that? And what if men have used their freedom to reject God, to sever the relationship and to indulge in other things? Then how is God responsible for a situation that the bad choices of men have caused them?

And what if God did more. What if He offered to redeem men from their bad choices? What if He made a way for them to be restored to right relationship with Him, and then, eventually, to be freed from all the misery into which they've precipitated themselves by rejecting God? And what if He held out that offer, at great cost to Himself, and men still rejected it? What if they continued to use their selfhood, their free will, their power of choice as individuals not to establish a relationship with God, but to pursue evil more vigorously?

How then is God the problem? Perhaps the problem is not God at all. Perhaps the problem is our determination to be rebels and to "turn to our own way," as the Bible puts it? What if the offer of rescue is available, but we still refuse to take it? Then how is God failing to be benevolent, when He has done all He can to restore us to a proper relationship with Him -- and we will have none of it?

What then?

Yes. Not believing the Bible is divine truth or that Jesus is God is a "choice", like being diagnosed with mental illness. We just won't decide to come to our senses. It's our fault. Now God hates us.

What if you HAD chosen your mental illness? (I know you didn't, but what if you had?) What if your mental illness was that you had wilfully decided to sever yourself from reality, say, by taking a drug that deprived you of normal cognition and plunged you into a realm of delusions from which you could no longer extricate yourself?

This is not so far-fetched: consider the many drug addicts on your streets. They may have begun by choice, but are now in a deplorable and helpless condition, and not in their right minds.

Two questions, then: whose fault would that be, and what would somebody who was both just and merciful to you do in response?

I have never so much as touched an illegal substance in my life. I stayed away from drugs. The only drugs I take now are prescribed by psychiatrists and, depending on dosage and potency, can sometimes turn a person into an expressionless zombie. Can you think of some other way it might be my fault that I occasionally hallucinate or get delusional? I'm not convinced yet, Dr. Do I need to just "snap out of it"? BTW, how expensive are your therapy sessions. Do you take EBT cards?

[Immanuel Can]

I have never so much as touched an illegal substance in my life.

I didn't say you did. I said "What if..."

Do you have an actual answer to that problem?

[Gary Childress]

I have never so much as touched an illegal substance in my life.

I didn't say you did. I said "What if..."

Do you have an actual answer to that problem?

What's the point of saying "what if"? Not every mentally ill person has done anything to consciously choose mental illness. What about those people, what about me? Is it my fault? And if it's not our fault, then what? Where is this "benevolence"? Doesn't it seem more like a blind lottery than a divine "plan"? Is there "purpose" and "correctness" in the way some people who never wanted mental illness may get it anyway?

[Impenitent]

bread makers always get what they knead...

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

I have never so much as touched an illegal substance in my life.

I didn't say you did. I said "What if..."

Do you have an actual answer to that problem?

What's the point of saying "what if"?

It's called a "hypothetical." It's used to show that the logical consequence of some proposed state of affairs would be.

Play along. Accept I'm not accusing you of anything. Just answer the question.