Philosophy Now Forum

Regard God as nothing more than a power polemic and the entire history, point and purpose of OUR god creations becomes clear making IT the least mysterious entity of all. The real enigma is why it still exists.

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Mar 26, 2018 8:57 pm Regard God as nothing more than a power polemic and the entire history, point and purpose of OUR god creations becomes clear making IT the least mysterious entity of all. The real enigma is why it still exists.

The reason 'it' still exists is because there are those amongst us that have direct experience of 'it'. I think this entity has influenced most of man's religious culture over the aeons.

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Mar 26, 2018 8:57 pm Regard God as nothing more than a power polemic and the entire history, point and purpose of OUR god creations becomes clear making IT the least mysterious entity of all. The real enigma is why it still exists.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:35 pmThe reason 'it' still exists is because there are those amongst us that have direct experience of 'it'.

No question...except one. Does the "experience" of IT proclaim its reality or is it only the experience itself that's real? People sense and feel many things concluding the phenomena behind is equally real.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:35 pmI think this entity has influenced most of man's religious culture over the aeons.

Of that there's no doubt! But couldn't it be the innate religious proclivities of humans which first creates the entity?

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:16 am No, Immanuel. Your version of God allows too much evil../

You don't even have a definition of "evil," except, "What Belinda doesn't like." You can't even legitimately say that "evil" exists beyond that.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:49 am I'm not sure why you insist on using the term 'evil' in our discussion.

Belinda brought that term in.

It's really rather simple: there is no benevolence being shown toward the child and parents, in this instance, the child dying of leukemia. Thus, your statement 'God is ALL benevolent' is inaccurate.

How do you judge that? How do you know nobody's "showing benevolence" tower the parents or the child? You really have no basis for such an assessment, except for a vague intuition.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:37 pm

atto wrote:

Are you a politician?

No. Rather, I'm asking you to clarify, and promising you a straight answer once you do. There's nothing political in that. And if you answer, I will also answer; because only if I know what you mean can I answer your question honestly and accurately. Fair enough?

But I turned the same questions you asked of me back to you, since I am the one seeking to clarify your stance, perhaps you could have answered your own questions first.

I can't. Because I don't know what you mean by the question. You asked me if I thought Genesis was "true." But I don't know if your definition of "true" includes one thing or another: and what it includes changes my answer to the question to the opposite. So I literally cannot answer you honestly until I know what you were asking.

Now, you were the one who asked it, so you can't ask me to tell you what you meant. I honestly don't know what you meant.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:53 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:16 am No, Immanuel. Your version of God allows too much evil../

You don't even have a definition of "evil," except, "What Belinda doesn't like." You can't even legitimately say that "evil" exists beyond that.

I thought I had told you that my definition of evil is that of St Augustine of Hippo "Evil is absence of good".

This definition does not necessarily imply blame so the good is not punitive. And Augustine's definition may imply the suffering that results from natural disasters.

This definition of Augustine's may be interpreted also to include the all powerful trait of God in the sense that good is the default.

Similarly to Augustine, Spinoza said that evil is what prevents good from reaching us.

Moral relativism i.e. morality relative to cultures does not imply that good is not the default. Moral relativism implies that men have to live lives that for much of the time include what keeps good from us. No society with its culture gets it perfect.

Immanuel Can believes in revealed religion that's to say that his religion was deliberately revealed to people by God.If this were true, Immanuel Can would always be right.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:59 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:49 amIt's really rather simple: there is no benevolence being shown toward the child and parents, in this instance, the child dying of leukemia. Thus, your statement 'God is ALL benevolent' is inaccurate.

How do you judge that? How do you know nobody's "showing benevolence" tower the parents or the child? You really have no basis for such an assessment, except for a vague intuition.

Ok. Give me an example in this situation where God might be considered being benevolent.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:26 am I thought I had told you that my definition of evil is that of St Augustine of Hippo "Evil is absence of good".

That would work if "good" were, in your view, objective. But the bottom line is that given your subjectivism, you don't have a definition of "good" either.

No good. No evil. In short, because of moral subjectivism, you're without any moral poles to which to refer anything. You aren't in a position to be able to say what either is. All you can say is that some things you do like, and some you don't like -- that is, if I we can hold as credible your own claim that these things are merely subjective.

So are you now admitting that "good" is objective? That's not the impression I had of your position, but I'm open to correction on that.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 27, 2018 7:05 pm
Ok. Give me an example in this situation where God might be considered being benevolent.

Everything in good order. But actually, I'm still waiting to hear what you mean when you use the word "true."

Have you decided what you meant?

Immanuel Can replied to me:

That would work if "good" were, in your view, objective. But the bottom line is that given your subjectivism, you don't have a definition of "good" either.

Good reply Immanuel.

Good is notoriously difficult to define while evil is comparatively easy to define. I could say truthfully that I know good when I see it and that is as you would object subjective.
My only riposte to you is that it's true that I know good when I see it,as do you. Additionally I pray to whoever it may concern that I will recognise that good (the noun)which is indefinable and which can be darkly described by images and reflections.

Unlike Plato I'm not certain that good (the noun) exists even in the Augustinian sense. If it does it's so beautiful that I can't not believe it. That is subjective too. So you are right to accuse me.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 28, 2018 12:19 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 27, 2018 7:05 pm
Ok. Give me an example in this situation where God might be considered being benevolent.

Everything in good order. But actually, I'm still waiting to hear what you mean when you use the word "true."

Have you decided what you meant?

Nice diversionary tactic. I'm only interested in this ALL benevolence that God is showing to a child and her parents where the child is dying from leukemia. You know there is no rational argument here for your claim that God is ALL benevolent.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:41 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 28, 2018 12:19 am Have you decided what you meant?

Nice diversionary tactic.

Diverting you from explaining what you meant, you mean? Perhaps. But it's exactly what you raised, and it's what you asked first.

As for "diversion," no such thing. I am happy again to promise you an answer, just as I promised to answer your first question. Let's just keep things in the order in which you raised them, no?

Really, atto...you're talking to me as if I'm someone laying a trap or something. But you needn't be suspicious like that. I have no such intention. I was simply interested in your question, and am trying to follow it through. Relax; I'm not trying to play a game here; there would be nothing to win if I did.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 28, 2018 12:25 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:41 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 28, 2018 12:19 am Have you decided what you meant?

Nice diversionary tactic.

Diverting you from explaining what you meant, you mean? Perhaps. But it's exactly what you raised, and it's what you asked first.

As for "diversion," no such thing. I am happy again to promise you an answer, just as I promised to answer your first question. Let's just keep things in the order in which you raised them, no?

Really, atto...you're talking to me as if I'm someone laying a trap or something. But you needn't be suspicious like that. I have no such intention. I was simply interested in your question, and am trying to follow it through. Relax; I'm not trying to play a game here; there would be nothing to win if I did.

No. It was not raised first, it was a separate and not related part of the conversation. The main part of our conversation is your assertion that God is ALL benevolent, which you are diverting from, now that you are unable to support your claim on the very simple example I have provided.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 28, 2018 12:47 pm
No. It was not raised first, it was a separate and not related part of the conversation.

Page 9: And I quote: "Do you believe all the statements within Genesis are true?" I must have missed your marker indicating that it was to be a "separate and not related" question. It seemed to be part of what you actually wanted to ask.

So do you wish me to ignore it now? Okay, I guess. But I thought it was interesting.

The main part of our conversation is your assertion that God is ALL benevolent, which you are diverting from, now that you are unable to support your claim on the very simple example I have provided.

It looked like part of the same conversation. I thought you meant to ask what you asked.

Well, once again you're simply wrong about "diversion." Go and look back, and you'll see that I've already asserted that the presence of human free will allows that evil cannot be assigned, either exclusively or with definiteness, to God.

Rather, it may well be the product of human choice, and in fact, very clearly is, if we take a common-sense view. I've further pointed out that only by believing in the existence of God, meaning "Supreme Being," meaning He must necessarily be the index by which we judge "good" and "evil" (for were there a pre-existing standard beyond God, that standard would be the "Supreme Being", and the "god" of which we were speaking would be secondary and contingent, not "supreme," just as the Euthyphro Dialogue suggests).

God being the index of "good," and "evil" being deprivation, corruption or negation of "goodness," means that God cannot be other than good.

Or to put it the other way, what we (if accurately) know as "good" cannot be other than what God is.

And assuming you think beneficence is "good," then QED.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 28, 2018 2:01 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 28, 2018 12:47 pm
No. It was not raised first, it was a separate and not related part of the conversation.

Page 9: And I quote: "Do you believe all the statements within Genesis are true?" I must have missed your marker indicating that it was to be a "separate and not related" question. It seemed to be part of what you actually wanted to ask.

So do you wish me to ignore it now? Okay, I guess. But I thought it was interesting.

It was the last question I had and the only relating factor is that we are talking about God. YES, ignore it now, I am quite happy to come back to that other line of questioning down the track.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 28, 2018 2:01 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 28, 2018 12:47 pmThe main part of our conversation is your assertion that God is ALL benevolent, which you are diverting from, now that you are unable to support your claim on the very simple example I have provided.

It looked like part of the same conversation. I thought you meant to ask what you asked.

Well, once again you're simply wrong about "diversion." Go and look back, and you'll see that I've already asserted that the presence of human free will allows that evil cannot be assigned, either exclusively or with definiteness, to God.
Rather, it may well be the product of human choice, and in fact, very clearly is, if we take a common-sense view. I've further pointed out that only by believing in the existence of God, meaning "Supreme Being," meaning He must necessarily be the index by which we judge "good" and "evil" (for were there a pre-existing standard beyond God, that standard would be the "Supreme Being", and the "god" of which we were speaking would be secondary and contingent, not "supreme," just as the Euthyphro Dialogue suggests).

God being the index of "good," and "evil" being deprivation, corruption or negation of "goodness," means that God cannot be other than good.

Holy crap! Why do you keep insisting on using this term 'evil'? Again, God not being ALL benevolent does not necessarily render 'it' 'evil'.

I gave you an example: A child dying from leukemia. ..and I stated:- there is no benevolence being shown toward the child and parents, in this instance, the child dying of leukemia. Thus, your statement 'God is ALL benevolent' is inaccurate.

You replied:- How do you judge that? How do you know nobody's "showing benevolence" tower the parents or the child? You really have no basis for such an assessment, except for a vague intuition.

I then replied:- Ok. Give me an example in this situation where God might be considered being all benevolent.

So...all you need to do is provide an example where God is "showing benevolence" toward the parents or the child. SIMPLE!