How believing in God can resolve moral conflict?

[Immanuel Can]

...the regress in creation of time.

There isn't one. "Time" does not exist in nihilo, in nothing.

In order to have "time," you have to have two points in space or sequence. In "nothing" there are no "points."

No time, no such problem.

What do you mean?

I mean that "God" is not perishable things.

That is in fact the property of mind.

Nope.

Ok, I am not going to discuss Hindusim and Buddhism with you (off-topic).

You should.

They clearly saw the problem that you don't see. They could give you a clue as to what you're missing from your thinking on that.

Ok. What do you want to discuss?

Exactly what I said, back two messages ago.

No, the mind interprets the stimuli, translating them into qualia. You've missed a step there.

No, mind does not interprets, instead, it does a process on the input depending on its all experiences.

Yeah...that's just wrong, and evidently so. Sorry.

Ok, we all know that mind needs input in order to think.

Now you've got it!

And from what do those "inputs" come?

Are you looking for a definition of good?

No. I'm looking for what set of values, criteria, or standards of grading you are referring to when you label something "good." What makes a thing objectively "good"?

I already defined what good means to me by giving you examples.

No. Criteria. Not "examples." "Examples" you can manufacture endlessly without having any criteria you even consciously know.

Am I speaking Swahili here?

I mean you take that God is good for granted without providing a justification for it while God could be neutral or evil.

And I point out that you've given no criteria for how you can locate either good, evil or neutrality. So I can't possibly know what justification you think you have for calling anything any of them.

I suspect now that you have none. But I'll wait a bit, just to see.

[bahman]

...the regress in creation of time.

There isn't one. "Time" does not exist in nihilo, in nothing.

In order to have "time," you have to have two points in space or sequence. In "nothing" there are no "points."

No time, no such problem.

No time a problem. Remember any act has an after and a before therefore to perform any act you need time.

I mean that "God" is not perishable things.

That is in fact the property of mind.

Nope.

That is simple to prove. Mind is needed for any change (I have an argument for that). Mind cannot be subject to change since otherwise there is a regress. Therefore mind is unchanging. Mind exists since change exists. Mind exists and is unchanging therefore mind is immortal.

You should.

They clearly saw the problem that you don't see. They could give you a clue as to what you're missing from your thinking on that.

Ok. What do you want to discuss?

Exactly what I said, back two messages ago.

That I totally disagree with it. Life is good and evil.

No, the mind interprets the stimuli, translating them into qualia. You've missed a step there.

No, mind does not interprets, instead, it does a process on the input depending on its all experiences.

Yeah...that's just wrong, and evidently so. Sorry.

Then you don't know how mind works.

Ok, we all know that mind needs input in order to think.

Now you've got it!

I knew it.

And from what do those "inputs" come?

Other minds.

No. I'm looking for what set of values, criteria, or standards of grading you are referring to when you label something "good." What makes a thing objectively "good"?

I already defined what good means to me by giving you examples.

No. Criteria. Not "examples." "Examples" you can manufacture endlessly without having any criteria you even consciously know.

Am I speaking Swahili here?

There is no such thing as the criteria for good, neutral, or evil. Doing good, neutral, or evil is a matter of the situation. Now it is your turn. You think that God is good. Then provide criteria for good. Please do not say that that is God's character and wishes.

I mean you take that God is good for granted without providing a justification for it while God could be neutral or evil.

And I point out that you've given no criteria for how you can locate either good, evil or neutrality. So I can't possibly know what justification you think you have for calling anything any of them.

I suspect now that you have none. But I'll wait a bit, just to see.

I did it.

[Immanuel Can]

...the regress in creation of time.

There isn't one. "Time" does not exist in nihilo, in nothing.

In order to have "time," you have to have two points in space or sequence. In "nothing" there are no "points."

No time, no such problem.

No time a problem. Remember any act has an after and a before therefore to perform any act you need time.

Any "act," like any "time," presupposes a universe already existing.

Your problem is really that you are trying to use categories from post-Creation to insist that the same conditions must have pertained before Creation itself. That's not logical or possible.

But I guess if you can't see that, you can't see that.

That is in fact the property of mind.

Nope.

That is simple to prove. Mind is needed for any change (I have an argument for that).

No, that's not so.

Changes in the natural world happen all the time, with no "mind" implicated. What "mind" is involved in an avalanche or a wind storm? And yet, they "change" things.

Ok. What do you want to discuss?

Exactly what I said, back two messages ago.

That I totally disagree with it. Life is good and evil.

As defined by what criteria?

And from what do those "inputs" come?

Other minds.

No, that natural world OR the activities of other minds, mediated through that natural world. That's obvious.

There is no such thing as the criteria for good, neutral, or evil.

In that case, you have no way of saying, in a non-arbitrary and unbinding way, what "good," "evil" or "neutrality" even are. So you're in no position to ask any questions that involve those terms.

Those are value-assuming terms. But unless you can justify your assumption that those terms apply to a particular thing, why should anyone believe they do?

So you say, "Prove God is good." But you may as well be saying, "Prove God is mxtpdl." Because your term "good" has no content you can supply to it, and no criteria that should make anyone believe you know what it even is.

That's your basic problem. And until you deal with it, and show you have content to the terms "good," "evil" or "neutral" that should make others agree with you, your question isn't even intelligible.

[bahman]

There isn't one. "Time" does not exist in nihilo, in nothing.

In order to have "time," you have to have two points in space or sequence. In "nothing" there are no "points."

No time, no such problem.

No time a problem. Remember any act has an after and a before therefore to perform any act you need time.

Any "act," like any "time," presupposes a universe already existing.

Your problem is really that you are trying to use categories from post-Creation to insist that the same conditions must have pertained before Creation itself. That's not logical or possible.

But I guess if you can't see that, you can't see that.

No, the act of creation of out nothing also has a before, nothing, and an after, something. That is you that you cannot see the obvious.

Nope.

That is simple to prove. Mind is needed for any change (I have an argument for that).

No, that's not so.

Changes in the natural world happen all the time, with no "mind" implicated. What "mind" is involved in an avalanche or a wind storm? And yet, they "change" things.

That I argue it here.

Exactly what I said, back two messages ago.

That I totally disagree with it. Life is good and evil.

As defined by what criteria?

You don't need criteria for that. You need a definition of good and evil.

And from what do those "inputs" come?

Other minds.

No, that natural world OR the activities of other minds, mediated through that natural world. That's obvious.

What mediates between two minds is qualia, not the natural world.

There is no such thing as the criteria for good, neutral, or evil.

In that case, you have no way of saying, in a non-arbitrary and unbinding way, what "good," "evil" or "neutrality" even are. So you're in no position to ask any questions that involve those terms.

Those are value-assuming terms. But unless you can justify your assumption that those terms apply to a particular thing, why should anyone believe they do?

So you say, "Prove God is good." But you may as well be saying, "Prove God is mxtpdl." Because your term "good" has no content you can supply to it, and no criteria that should make anyone believe you know what it even is.

That's your basic problem. And until you deal with it, and show you have content to the terms "good," "evil" or "neutral" that should make others agree with you, your question isn't even intelligible.

It seems that you forgot what you owe. You need to prove that God is good. For that, you need a definition for good, not crietria.

[Immanuel Can]

It seems that you forgot what you owe. You need to prove that God is good. For that, you need a definition for good, not crietria.

I "owe" nothing, because you have asked nothing...because for you, "good" means nothing, because you have no criteria to help you decide what makes one thing "good" and another not.

I cannot "prove" that which has no meaning.

But if you have criteria, I'll listen, and then answer accordingly.

[bahman]

It seems that you forgot what you owe. You need to prove that God is good. For that, you need a definition for good, not crietria.

I "owe" nothing, because you have asked nothing...because for you, "good" means nothing, because you have no criteria to help you decide what makes one thing "good" and another not.

I cannot "prove" that which has no meaning.

But if you have criteria, I'll listen, and then answer accordingly.

Don't you believe that God is good?

[Immanuel Can]

It seems that you forgot what you owe. You need to prove that God is good. For that, you need a definition for good, not crietria.

I "owe" nothing, because you have asked nothing...because for you, "good" means nothing, because you have no criteria to help you decide what makes one thing "good" and another not.

I cannot "prove" that which has no meaning.

But if you have criteria, I'll listen, and then answer accordingly.

Don't you believe that God is good?

I believe you don't know what "good" means...because you can't seem to describe what criteria you're looking for at all.

[bahman]

I "owe" nothing, because you have asked nothing...because for you, "good" means nothing, because you have no criteria to help you decide what makes one thing "good" and another not.

I cannot "prove" that which has no meaning.

But if you have criteria, I'll listen, and then answer accordingly.

Don't you believe that God is good?

I believe you don't know what "good" means...because you can't seem to describe what criteria you're looking for at all.

Criteria is different from meaning.

[Immanuel Can]

Don't you believe that God is good?

I believe you don't know what "good" means...because you can't seem to describe what criteria you're looking for at all.

Criteria is different from meaning.

Criteria are essential for making any value judgment.

You're asking for a value judgment.

But you offer no criteria.

So you can't compel the judgment. Nobody can know, from what you've provided, what you mean by "good."

[bahman]

I believe you don't know what "good" means...because you can't seem to describe what criteria you're looking for at all.

Criteria is different from meaning.

Criteria are essential for making any value judgment.

I know how do you think. To you the criterion is God. Whatever that God permits is good and what prohibits is evil.

You're asking for a value judgment.

No, I am asking to prove that God is good given my definition of good or your definition of good if you have any definition at all.

But you offer no criteria.

Again to prove that God is good you need to do two things: First, prove that your God is real and define good.

So you can't compel the judgment. Nobody can know, from what you've provided, what you mean by "good."

I already defined good. You are free to define it too if you have any different meaning.

[Immanuel Can]

Criteria is different from meaning.

Criteria are essential for making any value judgment.

I know how do you think.

Apparently, you don't.

But I'm trying to figure out how you think. Because you say you know what "good" is, but you have no criteria for that judgment.

You're asking for a value judgment.

No, I am asking to prove that God is good given my definition of good

I don't have your definition of "good." You never gave me one.

Instead, you tried to use "examples," as if examples were self-justifying. They're not. Like any other examples, they also require criteria to show that they constitute examples of "good."

So give me your criteria for "good," and I'll respond.

Sheesh. This isn't rocket science. Just tell me how you know when something is "good".

[bahman]

Criteria are essential for making any value judgment.

I know how do you think.

Apparently, you don't.

But I'm trying to figure out how you think. Because you say you know what "good" is, but you have no criteria for that judgment.

You're asking for a value judgment.

No, I am asking to prove that God is good given my definition of good

I don't have your definition of "good." You never gave me one.

Instead, you tried to use "examples," as if examples were self-justifying. They're not. Like any other examples, they also require criteria to show that they constitute examples of "good."

So give me your criteria for "good," and I'll respond.

Sheesh. This isn't rocket science. Just tell me how you know when something is "good".

How do I know that something is good? When it is pleasing to me, opposite of suffering which is evil. I don't know what else you are looking for!

You said that your God has character. What do you mean by this character? It is good, evil, etc.?

[Immanuel Can]

How do I know that something is good? When it is pleasing to me,

So your definition of "good," is "that which is pleasing to Bahman"?

I just want to check first. I'm asking, to confirm your criterion.

Because if that's what you mean, then your question translates to, "Why is God not pleasing to Bahman?"

Is that it? And do you really think you can ask me to answer for you?

[Belinda]

Nobody can produce criteria for absolute good because absolute good transcends language and art.

Jesus Christ his life and work is definitive for Christians of absolute good, but is not himself absolute good.

With the help of JC and other heroes we try to define good as we live our lives but we can never be absolute good.

It's a surrender to laziness or fear to accept that one holy book is sufficient to direct us to absolute good: we also need to put some active mental work into the quest.

True, some religions and sects are more about actions, e.g. religious devotions ,and less about beliefs than is Xianity.

[bahman]

How do I know that something is good? When it is pleasing to me,

So your definition of "good," is "that which is pleasing to Bahman"?

I just want to check first. I'm asking, to confirm your criterion.

Because if that's what you mean, then your question translates to, "Why is God not pleasing to Bahman?"

Is that it? And do you really think you can ask me to answer for you?

You are evading answering my question by asking questions. Where is your proof that God is good?