Philosophy Now Forum

In the following discussion, I noted there is an alternative to theism, i.e.
believing in a supposed God but intellectually honest to accept that the supposed God is an illusion, i.e. do not exists as real.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 3:36 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 6:51 am ...equivocating humans with 'robots'.

You're not familiar with the metaphorical use of the word "robot" to designate an entity that is mobile/function-performing but devoid of volition? Well, now you know it.

Understanding the metaphor now, would you think it was better for God to make entities that, like humans, possess volition, or like robots, that merely move and function but do not possess any volition?

I disagree with the metaphor of 'robot' to be used for humans especially in this case, which is merely rhetorical and deceptive.

I insist, logically a supposed omnipotent God with omnibenevolence will spontaneously and naturally produce humans with volition but with the exception the humans do not commit evil at all, such that your supposed God do not go against its benevolent nature.

The point is your supposed God when claimed to be benevolent, that is a limiting factor which must be complied with.
Otherwise your supposed God should not claimed to be omnibenevolent.
But because your supposed God must be an ontological God, it must be omnibenevolent.

Point is your supposed God is such a logical mess is because your supposed God was never real in the first place.

The reason and fact why the idea of God [illusory] emerged to the theists consciousness is for the purpose as a consonance [a very effective one] to deal with the inherent existential dissonance.

As such, if you are a rational person, it is critical you understand the above fact within your psychological being,
then you don't have to waste time and being in a state of anxiety [subliminally] to twist and turn with all sort of excuses to justify a logical impossibility that your supposed God is real.

You can still be a theist in believing in your supposed God to deal with the existential dissonance, but you have to be intellectually honest, your supposed God is an illusion [fantasy], not a real entity.

Btw, illusions and fantasy are useful to humans for various psychological reasons, e.g. a sexual fantasy is useful to enhance sex, fantasies are useful as a creative tool, etc. So the idea of God recognized as useful illusion is no shame.

However there are many alternatives [spiritual, religious, self-development programs] to soothing the inherent existence dissonance without having to resort to illusions nor fantasies, but rather addressing the existential dissonance direct and rationally.

deism

Veritas, just how are you connecting logic with assessments of whether one set of behaviors versus another is "more benevolent"? Can you give the details of how that would work?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 3:07 pm Veritas, just how are you connecting logic with assessments of whether one set of behaviors versus another is "more benevolent"? Can you give the details of how that would work?

Veritas works like this...he gets shat on logically in one thread he started, so he starts anuva.

"An alternative"? There's always one of those.

The alternative to science is magic.
The alternative to cosmology is astrology.
The alternative to medicine is homeopathy.
The alternative to psychology is phrenology.
The alternative to education is indoctrination.
The alternative to health is sickness.
The alternative to life is death.
And the alternative to truth is falsehood.

The merits of an "alternative" are not in that it is "another option." It's only in it's being a good option.