Selfish God
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:29 am
How a God who is Love, fully self giving, could wish that everybody should Love him more than the amount you love others?
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
Your comment is void of any arguments. Religious people always says that, it's a (too) convenient way of dismissing any criticism of the belief in God.commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:11 pmGod’s plan(s) cannot be understood by humans. This explains the premise of the question.
If God does not exist, there can be no plan of God’s.philosopher wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2019 10:38 pmYour comment is void of any arguments. Religious people always says that, it's a (too) convenient way of dismissing any criticism of the belief in God.commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:11 pmGod’s plan(s) cannot be understood by humans. This explains the premise of the question.
Why? Why can't God's plan not be understood by humans?commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2019 11:55 pm If God exists, God could have a plan. (a priori)
If God has a plan, it could not be understood by a human. (a priori)
If God exists or not, there can be no plan that a human could understand.
God’s plan cannot be understood by humans.
A priori.philosopher wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 3:53 pmWhy? Why can't God's plan not be understood by humans?commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2019 11:55 pm If God exists, God could have a plan. (a priori)
If God has a plan, it could not be understood by a human. (a priori)
If God exists or not, there can be no plan that a human could understand.
God’s plan cannot be understood by humans.
What/who is crom?
How? Why? Explain! You haven't explained ANYTHING so far. "A priori", you say, but you haven't provided any theoretical deduction whatsoever.commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 2:14 amA priori.philosopher wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 3:53 pmWhy? Why can't God's plan not be understood by humans?commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2019 11:55 pm If God exists, God could have a plan. (a priori)
If God has a plan, it could not be understood by a human. (a priori)
If God exists or not, there can be no plan that a human could understand.
God’s plan cannot be understood by humans.
FUCK IT - I know (of) this entity...and I'll say it:-
A priori is a claim that has been accepted by previous consensus. I have often heard in the common vernacular that God’s plan cannot be understood by mortal man. This lead me to believe that the claim that humans cannot understand God’s plan has been widely regarded as a given. I didn’t think I would have to explain or deduce an a priori assumption.philosopher wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:17 amHow? Why? Explain! You haven't explained ANYTHING so far. "A priori", you say, but you haven't provided any theoretical deduction whatsoever.
This is what we describe as Argumentum ad Populum - argument from consensus/popularity.commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:35 pmA priori is a claim that has been accepted by previous consensus. I have often heard in the common vernacular that God’s plan cannot be understood by mortal man. This lead me to believe that the claim that humans cannot understand God’s plan has been widely regarded as a given. I didn’t think I would have to explain or deduce an a priori assumption.philosopher wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:17 amHow? Why? Explain! You haven't explained ANYTHING so far. "A priori", you say, but you haven't provided any theoretical deduction whatsoever.
If it isn't right, nothing that follows can be false, no?philosopher wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:37 pmThis is what we describe as Argumentum ad Populum - argument from consensus/popularity.commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:35 pmA priori is a claim that has been accepted by previous consensus. I have often heard in the common vernacular that God’s plan cannot be understood by mortal man. This lead me to believe that the claim that humans cannot understand God’s plan has been widely regarded as a given. I didn’t think I would have to explain or deduce an a priori assumption.philosopher wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:17 am
How? Why? Explain! You haven't explained ANYTHING so far. "A priori", you say, but you haven't provided any theoretical deduction whatsoever.
Or Argumentum ad Antiquitatem - appeal to tradition.
It is a fallacy.
Just because there is a consensus doesn't mean that it is right. You have to investigate the reasoning BEHIND the consensus.
You have provided none of that.