Philosophy Now Forum

If God exists we can't know anything about Him. What we can do is try to be good and do good. There are plenty of saints and seers who show us how to be good and do good.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 7:53 pm If God exists we can't know anything about Him. What we can do is try to be good and do good. There are plenty of saints and seers who show us how to be good and do good.

What if a saint or seer told it was good to do something and it felt wrong?

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 7:53 pm What we can do is try to be good and do good.

For God to be.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 8:33 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 7:53 pm If God exists we can't know anything about Him. What we can do is try to be good and do good. There are plenty of saints and seers who show us how to be good and do good.

What if a saint or seer told it was good to do something and it felt wrong?

Then it is wrong.

And it will remain wrong as long as we feel that way.

bobmax wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 9:44 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 8:33 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 7:53 pm If God exists we can't know anything about Him. What we can do is try to be good and do good. There are plenty of saints and seers who show us how to be good and do good.

What if a saint or seer told it was good to do something and it felt wrong?

Then it is wrong.

And it will remain wrong as long as we feel that way.

And then, if it's God?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 10:29 pm

bobmax wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 9:44 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 8:33 pm What if a saint or seer told it was good to do something and it felt wrong?

Then it is wrong.

And it will remain wrong as long as we feel that way.

And then, if it's God?

If God appeared and told me to follow him by doing what I don't think is right, I would not follow him.
I would refuse him, because he would not be my God.

God needs me.
It is for this reason that he threw me into the world.
For me to make God be.

This does not mean that I know the Truth. Far from it!

But the Truth needs me.
It needs me to become who I am.

To be instead of not to be.

bobmax wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 10:45 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 10:29 pm

bobmax wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 9:44 pm

Then it is wrong.

And it will remain wrong as long as we feel that way.

And then, if it's God?

If God appeared and told me to follow him by doing what I don't think is right, I would not follow him.
I would refuse him, because he would not be my God.

God needs me.
It is for this reason that he threw me into the world.
For me to make God be.

This does not mean that I know the Truth. Far from it!

But the Truth needs me.
It needs me to become who I am.

To be instead of not to be.

Well, if you don't know the Truth, maybe God does and it seems wrong to you but isn't.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 11:46 pm Well, if you don't know the Truth, maybe God does and it seems wrong to you but isn't.

That's it!

What I reject because I feel wrong may be right.
But even the bad and the good could be an illusion...

A tragic condition is life, because not even God can I count on.

But at the same time great, because it forces me to bring the Truth out of myself.

And here's the pain.
The search for Truth implies suffering.

For the non-being that is there and should not be there.

The soul must die.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 8:33 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 7:53 pm If God exists we can't know anything about Him. What we can do is try to be good and do good. There are plenty of saints and seers who show us how to be good and do good.

What if a saint or seer told it was good to do something and it felt wrong?

Trusting your intuition is good as long as you retain some scepticism about your intuition. Jesus said "by their fruits" you can know which seer, prophet, and saint is a good one, and this is good advice from JC. Thus we know that Hitler and Putin were false prophets because of the terrible fruits of what they did and of course in the case of Putin, still does.
On a smaller scale, we know that an adult who grooms children for sex is a false prophet as he or she causes much suffering and harm.

Intuitions are only as good as the learning that precedes them. We have learned the lurid details of Epstein and Maxwell and so we have well- rehearsed the evils of procuring children for prostitution. The result of our learning is we would intuitively defend any child at risk.

Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Nature of Evil
From the Thomistic Philosophy website

Evil is a privation

First of all, we need to understand that evil is a privation. What does this mean? It is sometimes thought that theists are saying that evil is nothing. This is only sort of right. Evil is not some thing in its own right – like some kind of dark seeping ooze that invades goodness and destroys it.

No, evil is not a “thing” at all, but the falling-short, an emptiness or non-functioning, in something else. As Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, evil is a privation: the lack of being in something good which does exist.

Right, a privation. Though for some here the first order of business will be to define it. What, technically, does "privation" mean such that when we finally do get around to discussing it in regard theodicy, we're all on the same page "philosophically".

So, let's start with the dictionary:

"Privation: noun: a state in which things that are essential for human well-being such as food and warmth are scarce or lacking.

formal: the loss or absence of a quality or attribute that is normally present."

Okay, in regard to...

"...the endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages."

...how is evil as a privation to be understood? The privations above are derived from God. Either formally or otherwise. What quality or attribute of God that is there in the good times is lost or absent in the bad times?

Existing itself chiefly has the nature of being desirable, and so we perceive that everything by nature desires to conserve its existing and avoids things destructive of its existing and resists them as far as possible. Therefore, existing itself, insofar as it is desirable, is good. . . . Therefore, evil, which is universally contrary to good, is necessarily also contrary to existing.

As "general description spiritual contraptions" go, this "explanation" is to be expected. Now connect the dots between it and your own "loving, just and merciful" God.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=196522

so to avoid having to contend philosophically with theodicy and the problem of evil altogether, you can say evil isn't a product of 'god', isn't something he designed or is responsible for in any way. this saves you from having to defend 'god' against such grievances.

pretty fuckin smaht that Thomas, but he bout to fool the kid.

Theodicy...the philosophical justification for the goodness and justice of a make-believe god.

Philosophy is getting old, very old to the point of getting senile.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jul 16, 2022 10:32 am Trusting your intuition is good as long as you retain some scepticism about your intuition.

Aye, there's the rub. And we can all see around us people with poor intuition (often claiming it is reason) who think their intuition is just fine. And we all know that doubt can be crippling, so skepticism about our own good intuition (if it is good intuition) can be problematic. So, we need a good balance. And to reach that good balance we need good intuition about a couple of things: our own ability to introspect (are we hiding things from ourselves?) and then whatever the practical consequences of our actions based on that intuition are. Yes, we can reason also, but we are much more dependent on intuition than most people want to admit. Precisely because it is not science nor is it deduction. So, we often want to appear like these reasoning creatures who can justify our actions, beliefs and attitudes in reasoned argument. When in fact we cannot. Many actions, choice, beliefs and attitudes that are good - in the sense of practically useful - and spot on cannot be demonstrated to be true to others with much rigor. That is part of the being human in this universe.

But many refuse to notice or admit this - to themeslves or others. So, we get endless arguments over things that cannot be demonstrated to others. Both sides needing to think they can demonstrate, online no less, that the other person is irrational. When in fact one cannot rule out that their intuition and experience have in fact shown them something good for them and that in fact fits their goals and needs and is correctedly interpreted.

Intuitions are only as good as the learning that precedes them.

Yes, though I think some people are born with natural gifts also. But yes the learning, but much of this learning may not be formal and may not be conscious. They may be aware they are curious about cows, but later when they find they have excellent intuition into cow cognition, they won't be able to look back and see how they in fact were testing all the time during their cow watching and interactions with cows. They know they focused on cows, but had no idea they were building a skill set and their intuition.

If you come to a forum like this one everyong pretends to have reasoned and studied their way to knowledge and the positions they take in the threads. And pretends that others have to. If you can't prove to me X exists then you are irrational to beleive in X. is an often underlying pattern in interactions here. And it's ridiculous.

Iwannaplato wrote:

If you can't prove to me X exists then you are irrational to beleive in X. is an often underlying pattern in interactions here. And it's ridiculous.

I think you can study the ideas of philosophers or you can decide which ideas you agree with and perhaps even use the ideas to help you make your real life decisions, or both.

Naive realism doesn't appeal to me, and I think I detect a trend for naive realists not to have read much philosophy.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:02 am Iwannaplato wrote:

If you can't prove to me X exists then you are irrational to beleive in X. is an often underlying pattern in interactions here. And it's ridiculous.

I think you can study the ideas of philosophers or you can decide which ideas you agree with and perhaps even use the ideas to help you make your real life decisions, or both.

Naive realism doesn't appeal to me, and I think I detect a trend for naive realists not to have read much philosophy.

I think you can even be a naive realist, but at the same time you realize that some regular life tactics and strategies, beliefs and attitudes can be based on intuition and often necessarily must be. And that going with one's intuition is rational. If they examine their lives, they will find routines and beliefs that they cannot demonstrate to others are rational, but that work and that they cling to. Perhaps naive realist will have less people who realize this, but there is nothing in acknowledging this that goes against naive realism.