Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 12:22 am ...it is bloody hard work being as it is devoid of supernatural help.

That's why the road doesn't stop with mere admiration for Jesus Christ as a historical figure and moral example. We need much more than just that. We need actual help. Unless we get it, there's no point in being shown a model only; it only reminds us of what we're not.

...turns into a secular one.

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:42 pm Science and religion often clash because religious teachings has some statements about the world which scientists cannot observe,

Within scientific teachings there are also some statements about the 'world'/Universe which scientists cannot observe. For example, the Universe began/in the beginning.

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:42 pm actually scientists can tell that a lot of the claims in the religious teachings are false.

Will you provide some examples so that we could, at least, have a LOOK AT them and DISCUSS them.

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:42 pm There are a lot of problems with religious teachings:

First of all, there is the scientific problem:
The Bible states the world is 6000 years old and was created in three days.

What does the word 'world' here relate EXACTLY?

The word 'world' is NOT the word 'Universe'.

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:42 pm A year 2000 years ago still meant a year - 365 days and a day is still the same today as when the Bible was written.

But before then it could be COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, correct?

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:42 pm That means you cannot argue why a year in biblical terms maybe equivalent to billions years.
A year is a year and a day is a day. They are aproximately the same today as in ancient times.

But some of what was written are just stories told over and over again. And when some of them are LOOKED AT from a Truly OPEN perspective, then they make far more sense.

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:42 pm Secondly, there is the logical problem:

God is said to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Yet, disease and earthquakes has always made life a hell on earth

For 'who', EXACTLY?

'you', human beings, can be so self-centered that you actually BELIEVE 'Life', Itself, should be revolving around 'you'.

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:42 pm - even for good people of faith in God.

When people KNOW who AND what 'God' IS, EXACTLY, then they KNOW how to differentiate the MISTAKES, which you are writing and exposing here, from what IS, ACTUALLY True and Right.

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:42 pm And the omnipotence would create a logical paradox: God should be able to create a rock so heavy He cannot carry it.

If one proposes this, then this is A SIGN that they still have a LOT more to LEARN and UNDERSTAND here.

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:42 pm If God cannot carry the rock, He is not omnipotent.

Like most, so called, "paradoxes" they are just written in a way that uses words to DECEIVE and FOOL.

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:42 pm Thirdly there is the scriptural problem:

Religious teachings have been written over decades and centuries by many different scribes.
It is important to keep in mind when reading the Bible that the scribes are not only choosing which scriptures or teachings to write, but they also choose which to edit.

Less than 2 % of people could write 2000 years ago. It was a privilege of the elite, and they are telling the stories from the perspective of that elite of the community ie. ancient israelites who would later become the jews.

When you get to the secdond and third century AD, more people could read and write, which is also reflected in the religious teachings, speaking more to the common people (ie. Jesus' teachings begins to get written down and copied into various gospels).

But still, people are choosing which gospels to copy and which to edit - and which to burn.

EXACTLY LIKE YOU DO, and are doing here now.

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:42 pm In other words, we cannot trust the religious teachings to be the words of God. Rather, they are the words of men.

When, and IF, you LEARN thee REAL and ACTUAL Truth, then you will also SEE the ALWAYS OBVIOUS FACT of this statement.

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:42 pm Yet, there is some truth to their teachings nonetheless, philosophically speaking.

This is because ONLY thee ACTUAL Truth is what comes from God, Itself, DIRECTLY.

So, if 'you' KNOW 'there is some true' to their teachings, then WHERE do you suspect this KNOWING comes from EXACTLY?

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:42 pm For example caring for the weak, sick and poor. It's not a unique thing for religious people, but if true rationality and atheism were to run wild, we would exterminate the weak, and spend all ressources colonizing space leaving no room for weakness, disabilities or any kind of leisure time at all, because there are no rational or scientific reasons why we should keep people alive who are more a burden to society and it's aim to Colonize The Universe. Neither is there any scientific arguments why we should produce music, art or watch fictional movies.

WHY do 'you', personally, have 'an aim' to "Colonize The Universe" (in capital letters)? Or, WHY do 'you' BELIEVE that 'you', human beings, have 'some aim' to, again, "Colonize The Universe"?

What could the possible reasons be fore "Colonizing" and what does the word 'Colonize' ACTUALLY MEAN, to 'you'.

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:42 pm Irrationality is what created religion. But irrationality also made life worth living. Of course, everything in moderation...

Just because some 'thing' might seem "irrational" to some people, at some particular moment, does NOT necessarily mean that 'it' is ACTUALLY 'irrational' at all. This is because human beings have a huge tendency for MISINTERPRETATION, itself.

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:42 pm Perhaps it is time to view God not as an omnipotent being, but rather as a personification of everything good about humankind, which we should strive to achieve one day.

'God', Itself, can be viewed, COMPLETELY RATIONALLY, in BOTH ways.

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:42 pm Instead of placing God above the universe/multiverse, maybe God should simply be a collection of all the good virtues that makes society and life worth living?

WHO and WHY would ANY one even 'try to' place God somewhere where It OBVIOUSLY could NOT be?

And, WHO and WHY would ANY one even conceive that God is NOT simply just a collection of ALL the GOOD VIRTUES, which makes Life, Itself, REALLY 'worth living'?

Discover, or learn, and understand what 'God' IS, EXACTLY, or what that word refers to EXACTLY, then you would NOT (have to) ask the questions that you have here.

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 7:22 pm

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:42 pm Perhaps it is time to view God not as an omnipotent being, but rather as a personification of everything good about humankind, which we should strive to achieve one day. Instead of placing God above the universe/multiverse, maybe God should simply be a collection of all the good virtues that makes society and life worth living?

Okay.

Now all you have to do...

(without relying on the absurd notion that the blind and mindless processes of “chance’ did it)

...is explain how “...a collection of all the good virtues that makes society and life worth living...” was somehow able to grasp the fabric of reality and shape it into the unfathomable order of the billions of galaxies of the universe.
_______

WHY could ALL-OF-THIS NOT have happened by 'chance', to 'you'?

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 8:28 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 7:22 pm

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:42 pm Perhaps it is time to view God not as an omnipotent being, but rather as a personification of everything good about humankind, which we should strive to achieve one day. Instead of placing God above the universe/multiverse, maybe God should simply be a collection of all the good virtues that makes society and life worth living?

Okay.

Now all you have to do...

(without relying on the absurd notion that the blind and mindless processes of “chance’ did it)

...is explain how “...a collection of all the good virtues that makes society and life worth living...” was somehow able to grasp the fabric of reality and shape it into the unfathomable order of the billions of galaxies of the universe.
_______

Either the blind and mindless processes of "chance" did it - it's not an absurd notion.

Or:

The fabric of reality shaped it into the order of billions of galaxies of the universe we see today, and we just happen to have the collection of the good virtues because they are a product of cause-and-effect in a single universe.

How, EXACTLY, is this different from 'chance'?

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 8:28 pm In either option, there's a blind and mindless process of it. Whether it be "chance" - or determinism.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 8:59 pm

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:42 pm
First of all, there is the scientific problem:
The Bible states the world is 6000 years old and was created in three days. A year 2000 years ago still meant a year - 365 days and a day is still the same today as when the Bible was written.

Well, that's controversial. It's by no means clear that "days" means "24-hour periods," particularly when there was no Sun, Moon or Stars to assess such a thing by. So you'd have be not just a strict literalist, but beyond that, a willful readier-into the narrative to insist on that.

Secondly, there is the logical problem:
God is said to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Yet, disease and earthquakes has always made life a hell on earth - even for good people of faith in God.

That's actually not a significant problem. The objection assumes that God can have no sufficient reason for the allowing of the possibility of evil. That's been show to be a dubious proposition, to say the least. In fact, it seems impossible to conceive how a world without any evil could include things like humans with their own volition.

There was NO ACTUAL 'evil' in the 'world', UNTIL human beings came along and THEY conceived up the idea of 'evil'.

'Evil' exists in human conception only. Therefore, if the word 'evil' relates to only 'that' what human beings do or to ANY thing else, then this is just a matter of discussing and sorting out.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 8:59 pm

And the omnipotence would create a logical paradox: God should be able to create a rock so heavy He cannot carry it.
If God cannot carry the rock, He is not omnipotent.

Well, sorry, but that one's actually silly, and has been asked-and-answered repeatedly. To summarize briefly, your there premise is self-contradicting, and nonsensical. As C.S. Lewis pointed out in his longer refutation of this old saw, "Nonsense is still nonsense, even when you try to apply it to God."

Thirdly there is the scriptural problem:

Less than 2 % of people could write 2000 years ago.

However, literacy was much higher among the Jews, who had a long-standing tradition of very rigorous scribing, actually. Literacy rates in "barbarian" regions, in contrast, were often 0%.

The neat thing about written documents is that they remain what they are. When you write something down, it doesn't move. And it can be compared to other manuscripts, which can be analyzed for antiquity and stability, so any redactions can be detected. All you need is a significant manuscript tradition, which we do, in fact, have in the case of the Bible. It's the most-studied book in human history. The manuscript tradition of just the New Testament, not including the Old, includes: 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts catalogued, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian. That's a pretty good starting point for comparative analysis, wouldn't you say?

Yet, there is some truth to their teachings nonetheless, philosophically speaking. For example caring for the weak, sick and poor.

I'm interested: how do you determine that this is so? As you point out, plenty of people have thought it's not. Nietzsche had contempt for the weak. If we take Darwin seriously, the weak need to die in order for the strong to triumph. And certainly Rand had no pity on the weak. Even today, plenty of people have a devil-take-the-hindmost attitude to others.

So what line of reasoning has brought you to the conclusion that they were all wrong, and we still owe it to "care for the weak, sick and poor"?

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:25 pm Immanuel Can wrote:

That's actually not a significant problem. The objection assumes that God can have no sufficient reason for the allowing of the possibility of evil. That's been show to be a dubious proposition, to say the least. In fact, it seems impossible to conceive how a world without any evil could include things like humans with their own volition.

According to your reasoning, God is justified in causing /permitting atrocities.

How do 'you' propose God caused/causes 'atrocities'?

Also, God is COMPLETELY and ABSOLUTELY justified in permitting 'atrocities'. Do not forget that ONLY 'you', adult human beings, cause/create 'atrocities'.

But, then again do not forget that 'you' and 'I' LOOK AT and SEE 'things' VERY DIFFERENTLY.

Which can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN absolutely True.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 8:59 pm It is impossible for me to worship such a bloodstained deity.

'you', "yourself", permit 'atrocities', and, do 'you' worship "yourself"?

If no, then WHY NOT?

And, if 'you' do NOT worship "yourself", then WHY NOT?

In fact, by your OWN behaviors 'you' are not just permitting 'atrocities' but 'you' are also causing 'atrocities'. So, if 'you' do worship "yourself", then that is VERY SAD, but if 'you' do NOT worship "yourself", then that is VERY REASONABLE and VERY UNDERSTANDABLE.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 8:59 pm What will He do when the Apocalypse comes? Laugh, or say "I warned you!" ?

Laughter is occurring NOW, ALREADY.

NO human being was harmed NOR injured in 'apocalypse' so there was NO 'need' for "I warned you".

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:26 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 8:59 pm Well, that's controversial. It's by no means clear that "days" means "24-hour periods," particularly when there was no Sun, Moon or Stars to assess such a thing by. So you'd have be not just a strict literalist, but beyond that, a willful readier-into the narrative to insist on that.

As I said, the Bible is written by humans. When Humans record something by "days" or "years", there's no reason to suggest they meant something else than "24 hour periods" - they would've said so in the texts they were about to write, whether the words came from "god" or what else.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 8:59 pm That's actually not a significant problem. The objection assumes that God can have no sufficient reason for the allowing of the possibility of evil. That's been show to be a dubious proposition, to say the least. In fact, it seems impossible to conceive how a world without any evil could include things like humans with their own volition.

I know of the free-will argument as a case for a benevolent deity who - because said deity allows for free will must also allow for evil committed by free-will-beings.

(Though - I disagree we have any free will, but that's for another topic already discussed).

But you're missing the point. I deliberately chose earthquakes and diseases exactly because I wanted to avoid free-will-caused evil.

How do 'you' define the word 'evil'?

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:26 pm Earthquakes is something we have no control of whatsoever. Why would an omnibenevolent deity allow for such an evil?

'you', human beings, would NOT even exist if it was not for earthquakes, so are you suggesting that these earthquakes, which caused/help create 'you', human beings also a, so called, 'evil'?

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:26 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 8:59 pm

And the omnipotence would create a logical paradox: God should be able to create a rock so heavy He cannot carry it.
If God cannot carry the rock, He is not omnipotent.

Well, sorry, but that one's actually silly, and has been asked-and-answered repeatedly. To summarize briefly, your there premise is self-contradicting, and nonsensical. As C.S. Lewis pointed out in his longer refutation of this old saw, "Nonsense is still nonsense, even when you try to apply it to God."

But then God cannot make a rock so heavy He cannot carry it.

Is it possible for human beings to say and claim 'things' that are so ABSURD and RIDICULOUS as to FOOL and DECEIVE "themselves"?

Now put that Truthful ANSWER in relation to what you just said and claimed here.

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:26 pm That's the limit of his omnipotence. And hence, God is not omnipotent.

Do you KNOW WHY 'you', human beings, even thousands upon thousands of years LATER, STILL call, and MISINTERPRET, God as a "he"?

Also, HOW do 'you' KNOW, for sure and without ANY doubt that 'God' is, hence, absolutely NOT 'omnipotent'?

By the way, what IS 'God'?

philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:26 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 8:59 pm The neat thing about written documents is that they remain what they are. When you write something down, it doesn't move. And it can be compared to other manuscripts, which can be analyzed for antiquity and stability, so any redactions can be detected. All you need is a significant manuscript tradition, which we do, in fact, have in the case of the Bible. It's the most-studied book in human history. The manuscript tradition of just the New Testament, not including the Old, includes: 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts catalogued, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian. That's a pretty good starting point for comparative analysis, wouldn't you say?

Scholars have found vast amounts of editing and censorship amongst those manuscripts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 8:59 pm I'm interested: how do you determine that this is so? As you point out, plenty of people have thought it's not. Nietzsche had contempt for the weak. If we take Darwin seriously, the weak need to die in order for the strong to triumph. And certainly Rand had no pity on the weak. Even today, plenty of people have a devil-take-the-hindmost attitude to others.

So what line of reasoning has brought you to the conclusion that they were all wrong, and we still owe it to "care for the weak, sick and poor"?

Because of personal experience of being weak and in need for help.

I'm selfish. So are you and every other living creature. We all want help when we need it. So better take the position of helping those in need, because - one day - some way or the other - you too and everyone else for that matter - will experience being weak and in need for help. It's a lot easier to get help if the society we live in steps in as a matter of course to help those in need.

Think of it as a kind of buying an insurance coverage.

But doing things for 'selfish' reasons is NOT doing things for the Right reasons.

What you are saying here is if you KNEW that you would NOT get help in return, then you would NOT help "others", correct?