Philosophy Now Forum

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 1:42 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 03, 2025 11:33 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jul 03, 2025 11:02 pm

That's your own flagrant assumption, of course.

No.  It's called "burden of proof."  It's a basic concept in logic, that says one has to be able to justify the premises one takes.

Simply unbelievable.

Look it up. Then you'll believe it.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jul 04, 2025 5:48 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 04, 2025 1:52 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jul 04, 2025 12:05 pm

If the Biblical God is not deterministic then He necessarily must be constantly creating the created world.

No, that doesn't follow. It could work that way only if God wasn't really God: then He wouldn't be the Supreme Being, of course; Time would be. There's another way, and I think it's the way things actually are.

If God can, as the Supreme Being, create free-will-possessing beings (humans), then what they do is a product of their freedom, not of His dictating. You and I certainly act as if we have free will. And it's manifest that we humans can do things of which God does not approve. So it's pretty obvious to all of us that God is not the only effective will in the universe -- that we also can make choices that shape outcomes. And whether or not God knows what those outcomes will be is merely a matter of His knowledge, not of His action. Knowledge, all by itself, never makes things happen, of course; when was the last time you or I made something happen merely by knowing about it? So God's foreknowledge does not entail Determinism, even if that knowledge is conceded to be perfectly accurate.

That takes care of all the evils men do. The fault belongs on us. But there's a second question, which is about what Susan Neiman has labelled "natural evils." That is to say, if we can extend moral status to natural disasters, then the question arises of why they exist, since, in most cases, we can't discern how human freedom relates to how they come about. There is a connection, but it's not an obvious one, at first.

Did or did not God create it all at once?

Or alternatively, is God in the process of creating it all? Genesis creation story indicates a Big Bang sort of event that took six days .Following that great work of creation He rested , His work done.

Deterministic Science tells us that creation is still evolving.

It's one or the other, exclusively. God , after all created science and also man's capability to do deterministic science. It would be queer if God had said "don't enquire into how it all works"!

He created time, and space. He also created force.

Any God worth His salt has been doing infinity forever. And takes full responsibility for all of it. Transcending every cloven worm. Otherwise He's pitifully, despicably inadequate and needs to beg our forgiveness.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 2:59 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 1:24 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 03, 2025 2:33 pm Of course. But if you think God is a Determinist, then you've got some other god. You need a revision of your conception, if that's the case.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jul 03, 2025 10:37 pmCome on, IC, you know full well that in regard to meaning and morality, it's not what we think conceptually is true about a God, the God "in our heads" that matters nearly as much to me as what we can actually demonstrate is in fact true objectively for all of us. I certainly cannot demonstrate that the Christian God does not exist, but then I'm not the one here arguing that He not only does in fact exist but there is ample evidence to prove it. Then the part where those who do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior are damned.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 03, 2025 2:33 pm"The god in your head" is a Determinist? So much the worse for him, I suppose. But it has nothing to do with the Biblical God.

And this has exactly what to do with those of your ilk demonstrating to us how an omniscient God would not be an embodiment of determinism?

It's already obvious. Knowlege does not make things happen. Omniscience is a claim about God's knowledge, not about his making of things to do this or that. Thus, omniscience does not at all entail Determinism.

So the burden is on you to make the countercase, if you think you can.

Okay, just out of curiosity then, how does that work here:

"Texas Flood Live Updates: ‘Devastating’ Wait as Rescuers Seek Missing Campers
At least 27 people died in fast-moving floodwaters northwest of San Antonio, including nine children. Twenty-seven girls remained unaccounted for from a camp on the Guadalupe River."

Make that 55 dead, including 15 children.

He is a Goddamn useless son of a bitch isn't He? His wonders not to perform.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 8:15 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jul 04, 2025 5:48 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 04, 2025 1:52 pm
No, that doesn't follow. It could work that way only if God wasn't really God: then He wouldn't be the Supreme Being, of course; Time would be. There's another way, and I think it's the way things actually are.

If God can, as the Supreme Being, create free-will-possessing beings (humans), then what they do is a product of their freedom, not of His dictating. You and I certainly act as if we have free will. And it's manifest that we humans can do things of which God does not approve. So it's pretty obvious to all of us that God is not the only effective will in the universe -- that we also can make choices that shape outcomes. And whether or not God knows what those outcomes will be is merely a matter of His knowledge, not of His action. Knowledge, all by itself, never makes things happen, of course; when was the last time you or I made something happen merely by knowing about it? So God's foreknowledge does not entail Determinism, even if that knowledge is conceded to be perfectly accurate.

That takes care of all the evils men do. The fault belongs on us. But there's a second question, which is about what Susan Neiman has labelled "natural evils." That is to say, if we can extend moral status to natural disasters, then the question arises of why they exist, since, in most cases, we can't discern how human freedom relates to how they come about. There is a connection, but it's not an obvious one, at first.

Did or did not God create it all at once?

Or alternatively, is God in the process of creating it all? Genesis creation story indicates a Big Bang sort of event that took six days .Following that great work of creation He rested , His work done.

Deterministic Science tells us that creation is still evolving.

It's one or the other, exclusively. God , after all created science and also man's capability to do deterministic science. It would be queer if God had said "don't enquire into how it all works"!

He created time, and space. He also created force.

Any God worth His salt has been doing infinity forever. And takes full responsibility for all of it. Transcending every cloven worm. Otherwise He's pitifully, despicably inadequate and needs to beg our forgiveness.

He can't because He does not exist. If we want a God worth worshipping we need to make it all by ourselves . The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights , anyone?

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 11:16 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 8:15 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jul 04, 2025 5:48 pm
Did or did not God create it all at once?

Or alternatively, is God in the process of creating it all? Genesis creation story indicates a Big Bang sort of event that took six days .Following that great work of creation He rested , His work done.

Deterministic Science tells us that creation is still evolving.

It's one or the other, exclusively. God , after all created science and also man's capability to do deterministic science. It would be queer if God had said "don't enquire into how it all works"!

He created time, and space. He also created force.

Any God worth His salt has been doing infinity forever. And takes full responsibility for all of it. Transcending every cloven worm. Otherwise He's pitifully, despicably inadequate and needs to beg our forgiveness.

He can't because He does not exist. If we want a God worth worshipping we need to make it all by ourselves . The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights , anyone?

Can't be done. This is the same UN that dumped the Jews on the Palestinians.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 12:25 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 11:16 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 8:15 am
Any God worth His salt has been doing infinity forever. And takes full responsibility for all of it. Transcending every cloven worm. Otherwise He's pitifully, despicably inadequate and needs to beg our forgiveness.

He can't because He does not exist. If we want a God worth worshipping we need to make it all by ourselves . The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights , anyone?

Can't be done. This is the same UN that dumped the Jews on the Palestinians.

The UN is simply people who ,unlike supernatural Perfection , are prone to error. Israel is at this time a criminal nation. The UN did not support Israel's crimes against humanity.
There is no supernatural God, and politicised religion is politics not religion.

The UN is the best hope we have , imperfect as it is.

Such God as we have is a journey not a destination.

Duplicate

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 7:08 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 2:59 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 1:24 am




And this has exactly what to do with those of your ilk demonstrating to us how an omniscient God would not be an embodiment of determinism?

It's already obvious. Knowlege does not make things happen. Omniscience is a claim about God's knowledge, not about his making of things to do this or that. Thus, omniscience does not at all entail Determinism.

So the burden is on you to make the countercase, if you think you can.

Okay, just out of curiosity then, how does that work here:

If you were tracking the conversation at all, you would already be aware that I finished up my last message to Belinda with a note about the important difference between human and “natural” evils, and with a willingness to address both.

But you were asleep, apparently.

However, as soon as you justify your own claim, instead of trying to deflect to a new problem you would foist on me, if you could, I’ll even include you in my answer to her. I can’t be more fair than that.

Now meet your burden of proof, and justify your belief that God is Deterministic.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 4:25 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 12:25 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 11:16 am
He can't because He does not exist. If we want a God worth worshipping we need to make it all by ourselves . The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights , anyone?

Can't be done. This is the same UN that dumped the Jews on the Palestinians.

The UN is simply people who ,unlike supernatural Perfection , are prone to error. Israel is at this time a criminal nation. The UN did not support Israel's crimes against humanity.
There is no supernatural God, and politicised religion is politics not religion.

The UN is the best hope we have , imperfect as it is.

Such God as we have is a journey not a destination.

The UN is an all but meaningless symbol, having no effect whatsoever on impunity, whether the US-Israel axis of evil or Putin & pals. China has crushed the Uighurs. Again. Afghanistan is in the C7th. Again. Europe has to sacrifice social justice for defense for another 10-15 years till Putin ages out. At least. There is no hope but for the moral arc that lags way behind the now glacial if not stagnant socio-economic. Etc, etc. Etc. Israel will always be a criminal nation by your standards, not its own, and will only suffer consequences by its lapses of security. The UN's meaningless non-support is noted. Machiavellian Machtpolitik rules unfettered now. We minority liberal minded folk are... history.

I believe we liberally minded folk are a larger minority than you claim. My theory is that the great majority aim simply to rear their families in safety, peace, and quiet. True, Kafkaesque lives are the majority and the trend continues. With Trumped up promises of beer and circuses some people don't even know what is happening. But they will.

When the immorality becomes intolerable people will turn en masse.

ChatGPT

Comparison Table
Actor / Group Status Non‑Zionist Position
Hadash Knesset party Anti-Zionist alliance of Jews and Arabs
Maki Component of Hadash Explicitly Marxist‑Leninist and anti‑Zionist
Ayman Odeh MK (Hadash leader) Advocates binational equality and end to Zionism
Ofer Cassif MK (Hadash) Suspended for anti‑Zionist rhetoric; supports one‑state
Avraham Burg Former Labor/PM Rejects Jewish-state ideology; favors one‑state/binational
Moshé Machover Academic/activist Co‑founder of Matzpen; critiques Zionism as colonialism
Standing Together Activist network Jewish–Arab socialist activism; non‑Zionist ethos
Ita Segev Individual activist Trans, anti‑Zionist artist supporting BDS

Broader Context
Anti‑Zionist left in Israel is a minority but persistent force, significantly represented by Matzpen historically and now upheld via Hadash, Balad, and activist networks
reddit.com
+4
en.wikipedia.org
+4
en.wikipedia.org
+4
reddit.com
en.wikipedia.org
+10
leftvoice.org
+10
commentary.org
+10
newyorker.com
+3
tabletmag.com
+3
en.wikipedia.org
+3
them.us
.

While the Zionist left (Labor, Meretz) remains dominant, these non‑Zionist currents form a parallel ideological stream pushing for equality, binationalism, or outright abolition of the Jewish state model
commentary.org
.

Final Take
These voices reject Zionism not necessarily out of hatred for Israel, but because they see its national ideology as inherently unequal and colonial. Instead, they propose:

A binational or one‑state alternative, offering equal rights regardless of ethnicity or religion.

Jewish–Arab socialist solidarity, grounded in shared struggle.

Structural transformation away from ethno‑national definitions toward universal civic equality.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 6:30 pm When the immorality becomes intolerable people will turn en masse.

This is exactly what happened in Germany between the wars. The immorality of the cabaret culture and the incompetence and agitation of the Communists made things intolerable, and the people turned, en masse…

…to Fascism.

Be careful for what you turn to. A disappointed liberal turns all too readily to one form or another of totalitarianism.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 6:35 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 6:30 pm When the immorality becomes intolerable people will turn en masse.

This is exactly what happened in Germany between the wars. The immorality of the cabaret culture and the incompetence and agitation of the Communists made things intolerable, and the people turned, en masse…

…to Fascism.

Be careful for what you turn to. A disappointed liberal turns all too readily to one form or another of totalitarianism.

"Be careful what you turn to" is true.
However your take on 'immorality' is trivial.
Fascists became strong because people were desperate from the poverty of extreme economic inflation and grabbed at strong dictatorship and a new nationalist myth.
Your proposed solution , the authority of Christian hierarchy , is based on an outworn medieval worldview. The time for that worldview is over and its geni won't go back into the bottle.

My proposal is a reasonable religion that includes the best of the old tradition: universality, and faith in charity. Some socialists politicians and others do actually espouse such a belief. Marx for instance.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 6:59 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 6:35 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 6:30 pm When the immorality becomes intolerable people will turn en masse.

This is exactly what happened in Germany between the wars. The immorality of the cabaret culture and the incompetence and agitation of the Communists made things intolerable, and the people turned, en masse…

…to Fascism.

Be careful for what you turn to. A disappointed liberal turns all too readily to one form or another of totalitarianism.

"Be careful what you turn to" is true.
However your take on 'immorality' is trivial.

Really? You’re having trouble recognizing the cabaret culture as immoral?

Fascists became strong because people were desperate from the poverty of extreme economic inflation and grabbed at strong and a new nationalist myth.

Yes, they were. But that wasn’t all, obviously. Plenty of countries have had that.

Your proposed solution ,

I didn’t propose one. Don’t you think you’d better wait to hear what I actually say, before you tell me what you imagine I should be about to say?

My proposal is a reasonable religion that includes the best of the old tradition: universality, and faith in charity. Some socialists politicians and others do actually espouse such a belief. Marx for instance.

I’ve run into this before, B…people who imagine that Marx was some kind of altruist and good-hearted sort. As soon as they say it, we have proof positive they’ve never read ANY biography of Marx, and that they know absolutely nothing about the man. He was about as hateful and selfish a character as the world has yet known; he may well, in fact, be the most evil-minded sort of man who’s ever lived. He was an ardent Satanist, in fact, a man whom his own father called “my dear devil,” and as lazy and indolent a character as you’ll ever find. His mother said of him, “Karl writes a lot about capital; I wish he’d make some.” But he didn’t. He sponged off others his entire life, and left his family so destitute that two of his children killed themselves. And those are just facts that every biographer of Marx knows.

To good-hearted liberals, one of which I take you to be, Socialism looks kind and gentle. But to the rest of the world, the hard facts come home; Socialism kills people. It’s the favourite system of every totalitarian despot, as well. And all those soft-hearted well-wishes didn’t prevent Socialism from killing well over 140 million people in the last century alone.

So again, before you put your trust in “universality,” (whatever nonsense that means) and “charity,” you’d better redirect it away from Socialism. Because Socialists, whether or the Marxist or the Nationalist brand, only kill people.

Sad facts, but historically inescapable.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 6:30 pm I believe we liberally minded folk are a larger minority than you claim. My theory is that the great majority aim simply to rear their families in safety, peace, and quiet. True, Kafkaesque lives are the majority and the trend continues. With Trumped up promises of beer and circuses some people don't even know what is happening. But they will.

When the immorality becomes intolerable people will turn en masse.

ChatGPT

Comparison Table
Actor / Group Status Non‑Zionist Position
Hadash Knesset party Anti-Zionist alliance of Jews and Arabs
Maki Component of Hadash Explicitly Marxist‑Leninist and anti‑Zionist
Ayman Odeh MK (Hadash leader) Advocates binational equality and end to Zionism
Ofer Cassif MK (Hadash) Suspended for anti‑Zionist rhetoric; supports one‑state
Avraham Burg Former Labor/PM Rejects Jewish-state ideology; favors one‑state/binational
Moshé Machover Academic/activist Co‑founder of Matzpen; critiques Zionism as colonialism
Standing Together Activist network Jewish–Arab socialist activism; non‑Zionist ethos
Ita Segev Individual activist Trans, anti‑Zionist artist supporting BDS

Broader Context
Anti‑Zionist left in Israel is a minority but persistent force, significantly represented by Matzpen historically and now upheld via Hadash, Balad, and activist networks
reddit.com
+4
en.wikipedia.org
+4
en.wikipedia.org
+4
reddit.com
en.wikipedia.org
+10
leftvoice.org
+10
commentary.org
+10
newyorker.com
+3
tabletmag.com
+3
en.wikipedia.org
+3
them.us
.

While the Zionist left (Labor, Meretz) remains dominant, these non‑Zionist currents form a parallel ideological stream pushing for equality, binationalism, or outright abolition of the Jewish state model
commentary.org
.

Final Take
These voices reject Zionism not necessarily out of hatred for Israel, but because they see its national ideology as inherently unequal and colonial. Instead, they propose:

A binational or one‑state alternative, offering equal rights regardless of ethnicity or religion.

Jewish–Arab socialist solidarity, grounded in shared struggle.

Structural transformation away from ethno‑national definitions toward universal civic equality.

Pure fantasy. Not until the next deferred ice age when there's a common enemy. And even then. They don't know that they need each other.

The care & fair only minority is 20% at best.