Philosophy Now Forum

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 1:00 pm And it’s “crucifixion” not ten thousand word salady syllables.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 1:05 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 1:00 pm And it’s “crucifixion” not ten thousand word salady syllables.

Yes, the point(s) I make are incomprehensible to the unreasonable, irrational, short-sighted mind.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 10:12 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 4:14 pm Thanks for the discussion.

No worries, not sure what the point is though.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 2:34 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 10:12 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 4:14 pm Thanks for the discussion.

No worries, not sure what the point is though.

Okay. I guess we're both GOOD then -- I've put as much energy into this right now as I care to, also.

Carry on with all the other stuff you do that has a point.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 2:01 am Hey, sorry if you are taking that as some personal 'it's pointless talking to LW' thang!

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 2:01 am ..I'm just pondering with what my reasons are for discussing esoteric matters on this forum.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 2:01 am Nice to chat, glad you're back on the forum.

Now, having faith in an untrustworthy God is different from believing in an evil God. Believers in an evil God affirm the existence of an immoral deity. By contrast, those who have faith in an untrustworthy God align themselves with an understanding of the divine whose character they consider untrustworthy..

Having faith in an untrustworthy person or thing is not so uncommon: people often choose to put their faith in romantic partners who repeatedly let them down. Nor is it unheard of for voters to have faith in politicians commonly acknowledged to be corrupt, even by them. However, in both cases, the morality and rationality of maintaining these faith positions are easily criticised.

Religious faith, on the other hand, is often given a free pass.

Critiquing the claims made by religions and objecting to portrayals of God are common; but questioning the rationality of having faith in an untrustworthy God even if that God turns out to be real is less common: “My God might look like a monster – a violent bully who once demanded racial cleansing and who allows great suffering in the world; but if he or she is real, you had better follow him or her” – or so the argument goes. However, absolute submission on the basis of retributive, fear-based threats is rarely seen as the best exercise of reason.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jun 16, 2025 7:21 pm Faith & An Unreliable God
Patrick Wilson argues that it’s irrational to trust an untrustworthy God.

Now, having faith in an untrustworthy God is different from believing in an evil God. Believers in an evil God affirm the existence of an immoral deity. By contrast, those who have faith in an untrustworthy God align themselves with an understanding of the divine whose character they consider untrustworthy..

On the other hand, in my view, nothing is more important in a world bursting at the seams with all manner of conflicting leaps of faith than the capacity of the faithful to go beyond this in providing evidence that a God, the God, their God really does exist. After all, what does it mean to broach either an untrustworthy God or an evil God if it always comes down to leaps of faith?

Having faith in an untrustworthy person or thing is not so uncommon: people often choose to put their faith in romantic partners who repeatedly let them down. Nor is it unheard of for voters to have faith in politicians commonly acknowledged to be corrupt, even by them. However, in both cases, the morality and rationality of maintaining these faith positions are easily criticised.

Okay, but leaps of faith among mere mortals revolve precisely around the fact that romantic partners or politicians can be demonstrated to exist. Instead, among and between mere mortals, such leaps exist because we can never really know for certain what is going on inside the minds of others. But no one will challenge you that they exist. For example, some deem Donald Trump to be untrustworthy, others to be evil. But who is going to argue that he does not exist?

Religious faith, on the other hand, is often given a free pass.

Why? Because the stakes involved on both sides of the grave are staggering. If you are unable to sustain your faith in God, what of moral commandments "here and now" or immortality and salvation "there and then"?

Critiquing the claims made by religions and objecting to portrayals of God are common; but questioning the rationality of having faith in an untrustworthy God even if that God turns out to be real is less common: “My God might look like a monster – a violent bully who once demanded racial cleansing and who allows great suffering in the world; but if he or she is real, you had better follow him or her” – or so the argument goes. However, absolute submission on the basis of retributive, fear-based threats is rarely seen as the best exercise of reason.

This can be a tricky thing for some, of course. Suppose a God, the God is in fact demonstrated to exist. Or suppose he simply "reveals" Himself. There may be any number of things about His "mysterious ways" that rub you the wrong way. But if denouncing or rejecting Him gets you thrown in Hell or sends you tumbling down into the abyss that is oblivion...?

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Jun 17, 2025 1:33 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jun 16, 2025 7:21 pm Faith & An Unreliable God
Patrick Wilson argues that it’s irrational to trust an untrustworthy God.

Now, having faith in an untrustworthy God is different from believing in an evil God. Believers in an evil God affirm the existence of an immoral deity. By contrast, those who have faith in an untrustworthy God align themselves with an understanding of the divine whose character they consider untrustworthy..

Paradigms are objects of faith in a given structure to achieve specific results.

On the other hand, in my view, nothing is more important in a world bursting at the seams with all manner of conflicting leaps of faith than the capacity of the faithful to go beyond this in providing evidence that a God, the God, their God really does exist. After all, what does it mean to broach either an untrustworthy God or an evil God if it always comes down to leaps of faith?

Having faith in an untrustworthy person or thing is not so uncommon: people often choose to put their faith in romantic partners who repeatedly let them down. Nor is it unheard of for voters to have faith in politicians commonly acknowledged to be corrupt, even by them. However, in both cases, the morality and rationality of maintaining these faith positions are easily criticised.

Okay, but leaps of faith among mere mortals revolve precisely around the fact that romantic partners or politicians can be demonstrated to exist. Instead, among and between mere mortals, such leaps exist because we can never really know for certain what is going on inside the minds of others. But no one will challenge you that they exist. For example, some deem Donald Trump to be untrustworthy, others to be evil. But who is going to argue that he does not exist?

Religious faith, on the other hand, is often given a free pass.

Why? Because the stakes involved on both sides of the grave are staggering. If you are unable to sustain your faith in God, what of moral commandments "here and now" or immortality and salvation "there and then"?

Critiquing the claims made by religions and objecting to portrayals of God are common; but questioning the rationality of having faith in an untrustworthy God even if that God turns out to be real is less common: “My God might look like a monster – a violent bully who once demanded racial cleansing and who allows great suffering in the world; but if he or she is real, you had better follow him or her” – or so the argument goes. However, absolute submission on the basis of retributive, fear-based threats is rarely seen as the best exercise of reason.

This can be a tricky thing for some, of course. Suppose a God, the God is in fact demonstrated to exist. Or suppose he simply "reveals" Himself. There may be any number of things about His "mysterious ways" that rub you the wrong way. But if denouncing or rejecting Him gets you thrown in Hell or sends you tumbling down into the abyss that is oblivion...?

It doesn't always come down to leaps of faith. What it all comes down to is paradigm. Reasoned belief, or scientific hypothesis , begin with paradigm and proceed to evidence of the paradigm .
For instance, Immanuel Can, to take an easy example, his paradigm is that a particular supernatural way of being is true. Another , contrasting, example of paradigm is my own belief that there are no supernatural ways of being and that absolutely all is natural.

Religious faith is not given a free pass by philosophers. Religious faith is often given a free pass by politicians who are are populist to that degree. Similarly to religious faith----- ethnic customs are often given a free pass for the same reason: a degree of populism.

If one's paradigm includes that only natural beings exist the question does not arise that a supernatural being may send one to Hell.

Some religion may also be given a free pass for historical reason. An old friend had to 'accept ' Christianity in order to get into a particular college at Oxbridge.

Some theists argue that the goodness and therefore trustworthiness of the divine should not be questioned because as mere mortals we have no right to question our creator, and moreover, God Himself set up morality.

But their argument is fallacious as it derives an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’: God did something, and we ought to respond in a certain way. Moreover, the values of a creator do not necessarily determine the meaning or values of the creation.

The inventors and developers of automobiles, tanks, and atomic bombs do not by virtue of their scientific ingenuity have a monopoly on how their creations should be used.

Likewise, if a God fashioned our world and maintains the capacity to determine events which occur in it, this deity’s responsibility for outcomes which appear unjust might be criticised in the same way that subjects of a state might question their rulers. This weak form of moral argument need not and should not give any deity an ethical get-out clause, resulting merely from their creative ability.

From this perspective [above], God’s omnipotence is not undermined, but rather redefined, to include voluntary constraints based on a broader understanding of his character and purposes. However, as David Hume argues in his Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion (1779), extreme cases of suffering, such as that in genocides or significant natural disasters, seem disproportionate to any conceivable greater purpose or higher good.

And on the other hand, even without such pervasive evil, life presents us with numerous obstacles to be overcome by applying virtues and moral qualities which are developed in the face of these obstacles.

Free will is often invoked to explain the existence of moral evil, which is to say, evil committed by people as opposed to natural disasters. The contemporary philosopher Alvin Plantinga, in his free will defense, argues that even an omnipotent being cannot do self-contradictory things like creating a square circle or controlling someone without violating their autonomy (God, Freedom, and Evil, 1977).

However, some atheists argue that the very notion of an all-knowing deity contradicts the concept of free will. Simply said, if God knows our future decisions, then they are fixed in advance, so we have no free will, and the free will argument collapses.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Jun 21, 2025 8:19 pm Evil & An Omnipotent, Benevolent God
Zdeněk Petráček looks at the biggest problem facing monotheism

From this perspective [above], God’s omnipotence is not undermined, but rather redefined, to include voluntary constraints based on a broader understanding of his character and purposes. However, as David Hume argues in his Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion (1779), extreme cases of suffering, such as that in genocides or significant natural disasters, seem disproportionate to any conceivable greater purpose or higher good.

On the other hand, what can we mere mortals possibly grasp with any sophistication regarding an entity said to have created the universe itself? And while any number of atheists might insist this is all predicated on leaps of faith [or on Scripture] that is hardly likely to change many minds given all that is at stake in a No God universe.

And on the other hand, even without such pervasive evil, life presents us with numerous obstacles to be overcome by applying virtues and moral qualities which are developed in the face of these obstacles.

And which particular virtues might they actually be, given what particular set of obstacles to be overcome? How about someone noting how this is manifested given their own interactions with others. What were they able to overcome themselves?

Free will is often invoked to explain the existence of moral evil, which is to say, evil committed by people as opposed to natural disasters. The contemporary philosopher Alvin Plantinga, in his free will defense, argues that even an omnipotent being cannot do self-contradictory things like creating a square circle or controlling someone without violating their autonomy (God, Freedom, and Evil, 1977).

Back to that again. Simply assuming that a God, the God must exist because that really is the only way to account for free will. And who really dwells on God creating square circles? His job instead is to recognize that we've been either good or bad so that on Judgment Day the verdict will go in our favor.

Then back to this as well...

However, some atheists argue that the very notion of an all-knowing deity contradicts the concept of free will. Simply said, if God knows our future decisions, then they are fixed in advance, so we have no free will, and the free will argument collapses.

What rarely changes though is that, if moral commandments, immortality and salvation are important to you, you'll come up with a way to rationalize anything and everything that is ascribed to God on your very own One True Path in order to sustain the comfort and the consolation it gives you all the way to the grave.

I know that I would if I could.