Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Post by uwot »

seeds wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 6:01 pm
uwot wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 3:34 pmAs I never tire of saying, with the right premises you can logically deduce anything. The trick is not to assume that a valid argument is a sound one.
By "sound argument," do you mean something that is provable or irrefutable?
Not necessarily. A sound argument is a valid argument that has premises which are true so that the conclusion must be true.
seeds wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 6:01 pmIf so, then how can one produce a "sound argument" for the existence of a designer of the universe if, for the sake of maintaining the integrity and viability of the design, the designer...(as in the one who is in control of the parameters of the design)...wants (needs) his existence to remain hidden and unprovable?
Ah well, there's the rub. Pretty much by definition metaphysics is anything that is beyond a physical test. Absolutely anything that cannot be proven false could be true. So if some designer has fixed it so there is no way to prove their existence, he/she/it could very well be the subject of a sound argument, but by design she has fixed it so that we can't know.
seeds wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 6:01 pmNow although I don't see a huge difference between "sound" and "valid,"...
There's no difference in structure, that's what makes it so easy to assume that they are equivalent. People aren't very good at distinguishing a coherent story with a true one. That's how Fox News makes it's money; they're basically writing a soap opera for hard of thinking couch potatoes.
seeds wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 6:01 pm...is that at least a "valid" argument?
In argument form, what you are saying is:
The world is designed.
The invisibility of the designer is part of the design.
Therefore we can't see the designer.
Which is valid.
seeds wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 11:10 pmHow is the pretty much "standard" metaphysical notion of there being a transcendent context of reality that exists above and outside of this one - "...quite a premise..."? - (as if shocking and unheard of)?
Seems quite perennial to me.
Age is no guarantee of wisdom. Yes there have been notions of transcendence for donkey's years; Plato's allegory of the cave being a famous example. And yea though I remember singing
Immortal, invisible, God only wise,
In light inaccessible hid from our eyes,
the idea is actually heretical to christianity, the whole premise of which is that god not only revealed himself, but walked amongst us.
seeds wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 6:01 pmBut isn't that the nature of the game that humans have been playing for millennia? - where those who cannot recognize the illusory nature of reality are convinced that those who say they can are lunatics?
Well yeah, some of them are clearly bonkers. Those that aren't may well be on to something, and for all I know, your story is on the money.
seeds wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 6:01 pmNow how about using that extremely intelligent and creative mind of yours to meet that "challenge" I offered up earlier and try to come up with something better than suns and planets when it comes to producing a setting for the awakening of new human souls into existence.
Well, it's just like your picture, except it rains beer and hangovers don't exist.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Post by seeds »

Belinda wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 9:37 pm Seeds, that pretty scene leaves out much that is not so pretty. The farm labourers who once ploughed the pretty pasture were made homeless when they were no longer employed by the farmer who owned their tied cottages.

In that very field a magpie killed and ate a newly fledged blackbird.

The crops that preceded the pasture were dusted with chemicals that killed bees and other pollinating insects.

Nature is very cruel, and men are part of nature.
Belinda, what does any of that have to do with my perennial argument with uwot in which I claim it to be utterly absurd to think that this highly ordered and richly detailed scene...

Image

...is the result of random bits of mindless (post Bang) quantum phenomena, blindly "collapsing and fusing" together in some primordial context without the slightest hint of guidance, nor any possible way of "knowing" what it was actually creating until consciousness arrived on the scene...

(allegedly billions of years later)

...to see, feel, hear, taste, and smell what up to that point was just nebulous (superpositioned) waves (or fields) of information*?

*(At least according to certain interpretations of quantum theory that suggest that consciousness may be involved [necessary] in the collapse of the wavefunction.)

Nevertheless, setting all of that aside, you have listed a few negative features of the universe, to which I, in return, feel compelled to ask you that if you were the designer of the universe...

(in other words, if you were God)

...what would you do differently?
_______
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Post by Belinda »

seeds wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 5:06 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 9:37 pm Seeds, that pretty scene leaves out much that is not so pretty. The farm labourers who once ploughed the pretty pasture were made homeless when they were no longer employed by the farmer who owned their tied cottages.

In that very field a magpie killed and ate a newly fledged blackbird.

The crops that preceded the pasture were dusted with chemicals that killed bees and other pollinating insects.

Nature is very cruel, and men are part of nature.
Belinda, what does any of that have to do with my perennial argument with uwot in which I claim it to be utterly absurd to think that this highly ordered and richly detailed scene...

Image

...is the result of random bits of mindless (post Bang) quantum phenomena, blindly "collapsing and fusing" together in some primordial context without the slightest hint of guidance, nor any possible way of "knowing" what it was actually creating until consciousness arrived on the scene...

(allegedly billions of years later)

...to see, feel, hear, taste, and smell what up to that point was just nebulous (superpositioned) waves (or fields) of information*?

*(At least according to certain interpretations of quantum theory that suggest that consciousness may be involved [necessary] in the collapse of the wavefunction.)

Nevertheless, setting all of that aside, you have listed a few negative features of the universe, to which I, in return, feel compelled to ask you that if you were the designer of the universe...

(in other words, if you were God)

...what would you do differently?
_______
An picture of nature that selects only what is pleasant and harmless is not evidence that God exists.
The designer of the universe, including consciousness, is nature and nature's laws.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Post by seeds »

seeds wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 6:01 pm ...is that at least a "valid" argument?
uwot wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 12:05 pm In argument form, what you are saying is:
The world is designed.
The invisibility of the designer is part of the design.
Therefore we can't see the designer.
Which is valid.
Yes, that is indeed what I am saying.

However, you mustn't exclude the most important feature of my argument where I suggest that if the designer doesn't intentionally hide herself...

(along with the truth of our ultimate and eternal destiny)

...then one of the main reasons for creating the universe in the first place could be placed in jeopardy, perhaps even nullified.
seeds wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 6:01 pm How is the pretty much "standard" metaphysical notion of there being a transcendent context of reality that exists above and outside of this one - "...quite a premise..."? - (as if shocking and unheard of)?
Seems quite perennial to me.
uwot wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 12:05 pm Age is no guarantee of wisdom. Yes there have been notions of transcendence for donkey's years; Plato's allegory of the cave being a famous example. And yea though I remember singing
Immortal, invisible, God only wise,
In light inaccessible hid from our eyes,
the idea is actually heretical to christianity, the whole premise of which is that god not only revealed himself, but walked amongst us.
Well, if you have been paying the slightest bit of attention to my incessant blatherings over the years, then you should know that I have been proclaiming that we are in desperate need of a "new spiritual paradigm" that can supersede the mythological (and divisive) nonsense handed down to us in the world's religions.

And furthermore, the "new paradigm" doesn't even have to be true. No, it just needs to make more sense than the old paradigm.

And to me, the only way it's even going to come close to achieving that goal is if it can somehow be shown to be compatible with our modern understanding of physics and cosmology, along with the other sciences in general.

Now of course there are other criteria that must be met for a new spiritual paradigm to take hold, but that would at least be a good start.
seeds wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 6:01 pm Now how about using that extremely intelligent and creative mind of yours to meet that "challenge" I offered up earlier and try to come up with something better than suns and planets when it comes to producing a setting for the awakening of new human souls into existence.
uwot wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 12:05 pm Well, it's just like your picture, except it rains beer and hangovers don't exist.
Ha! Okay.

However, you keep ignoring the rules of the challenge, because my picture contains a sun and a planet, whereas you were supposed to come up with a (logical-appearing) setting for the creation of humans that doesn't use those things.

And the point I was trying to make is that the universe isn't comprised of suns and planets because of some fluke of chance making it this way, no, it is (intentionally) comprised of suns and planets because suns and planets represent the absolute best (as in most logical and believable) means and setting for, again, awakening new souls into existence.
_______
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Post by seeds »

Belinda wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 5:14 pm An picture of nature that selects only what is pleasant and harmless is not evidence that God exists.
The designer of the universe, including consciousness, is nature and nature's laws.
Belinda, as I have pointed out many times before, the word "nature" is nothing more than the word "chance" dressed up in a mother's apron.

Image

So if you can clearly and logically explain how the blind and mindless processes of "chance" took hold of the fabric of reality and shaped it into a context of order that defies our comprehension, then I'm listening.
_______
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Post by uwot »

seeds wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 10:06 pm...you mustn't exclude the most important feature of my argument where I suggest that if the designer doesn't intentionally hide herself...(along with the truth of our ultimate and eternal destiny)...then one of the main reasons for creating the universe in the first place could be placed in jeopardy, perhaps even nullified.
As we say on this side of the pond, if my auntie had balls, she'd be my uncle.
seeds wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 6:01 pm...if you have been paying the slightest bit of attention to my incessant blatherings over the years, then you should know that I have been proclaiming that we are in desperate need of a "new spiritual paradigm" that can supersede the mythological (and divisive) nonsense handed down to us in the world's religions.
And furthermore, the "new paradigm" doesn't even have to be true. No, it just needs to make more sense than the old paradigm.
Well, the original purpose of organised christianity was to be precisely the sort of "new paradigm" you think so necessary. Catholic means 'for everyone'; one god to replace all the tribal gods. You only need to look at the number of saints in catholicism, and the huge range of post reformation churches to see the scope of special interests christianity is already accommodating and the 'sense' that people can make of dubious premises.
seeds wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 10:06 pmAnd to me, the only way it's even going to come close to achieving that goal is if it can somehow be shown to be compatible with our modern understanding of physics and cosmology, along with the other sciences in general.
What the last couple of years has taught us is the fervour with which people will reject science for the sake of their beliefs.
seeds wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 10:06 pm...you keep ignoring the rules of the challenge...
It's a loaded question. You've already assumed that the universe exists for
seeds wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 10:06 pm...awakening new souls into existence.
Souls for which this reality was specifically designed. Given those conditions I grant you no better universe could be designed. If you can demonstrate that really is the case, I'll have a stab at explaining it.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Post by Belinda »

seeds wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 10:07 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 5:14 pm An picture of nature that selects only what is pleasant and harmless is not evidence that God exists.
The designer of the universe, including consciousness, is nature and nature's laws.
Belinda, as I have pointed out many times before, the word "nature" is nothing more than the word "chance" dressed up in a mother's apron.

Image

So if you can clearly and logically explain how the blind and mindless processes of "chance" took hold of the fabric of reality and shaped it into a context of order that defies our comprehension, then I'm listening.
_______
Chance is what people say about an event or events that have no known cause.
By 'nature' I mean all that exists, plus how all that exists is an ordered system. In an ordered system everything that happens necessarily happens and can't be otherwise than it was.

You invite me or challenge me to explain all the workings of nature. I can't do so, but I have faith that nature is an orderly system in which causes and their effects operate constantly.
Nature itself is not caused but, like God, is the cause of itself.

Where you and I most differ is that you posit a God Who is both all powerful and all loving. This is a great problem which is called the problem of evil, and your model of the sunlit pasture fails to address the problem of evil.

Your cartoon , above, is about the problem of evil. Why does a good God not stop evil if He is also all-powerful to do so?
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Post by seeds »

Belinda wrote: Sat Nov 06, 2021 10:49 am Chance is what people say about an event or events that have no known cause.
By 'nature' I mean all that exists, plus how all that exists is an ordered system.
Are you implying that there is a "known cause" as to why nature appears to be an "ordered system"?

Look, B, I respect the fact that you are a fan of the Spinozan approach to this issue, where the workings of the universe are simply the result of "natura naturans" (nature naturing).

However, to me that is no different than saying "chance chancing."

And I just ain't buying it, B, and neither should anyone else.
Belinda wrote: Sat Nov 06, 2021 10:49 am You invite me or challenge me to explain all the workings of nature.
That's not my intent.

No, B, my goal is to get you to realize how utterly ridiculous it is to believe that the blind and mindless processes of gravity and thermodynamics...

(without any way of consciously knowing what they were creating)

...could have reached into this...

Image

(which is a metaphorical representation of the random and chaotically dispersed quantum gibberish that emerged from an alleged Big Bang beginning of the universe)

...and then somehow caused that gibberish to magically arrange itself into highly correlated patterns of information that underpin the near infinite array of unique and individuated ingredients that went into creating the mind-blowing order implicit in this image,...

Image

...of which when you jump down onto the surface of that blue orb, you are greeted with this scene...

Image

...where the intricate order and beauty of it all becomes even more rich and detailed. So much so that it fools many into believing that this amazing order is a product of serendipitous processes (which is precisely what it is meant to do).
Belinda wrote: Sat Nov 06, 2021 10:49 am Where you and I most differ is that you posit a God Who is both all powerful and all loving.
Belinda, I posit no such thing.

The only thing that I speculatively suggest is that our minds are the "semi"-conscious "embryos" of a higher (incorporeal) mind who has been alive long enough in a state of "full"-consciousness to where the owner (agent) of said mind has managed to evolve to a point where it is able to shape its own holographic-like mental substances into the unfathomable order that we are momentarily immersed in.

I'm talking about a living Entity who (in the context of the necessary amount of time) has not only evolved to the point of being able to create a universe of suns and planets out of its own personal mental holography, as is depicted in one of my oft used illustrations,...

Image

..but has also figured out how to replicate itself (and all of its creative abilities) by conceiving its own literal offspring (us) within the inner-dimension of its very own being (or, in other words, within the "cosmic viscera" of its "spirit body," so to speak).

As I keep stating over and over again, I may indeed be wrong about all of this, but I can't imagine a more "natural" and "organic" vision of what the truth of reality may actually be.

Anyway, that's basically the only claim I am making, B, wherein I make no additional claims of God being "all-loving," or any of the other "all-this" and "all-that" assumptions that you are mistakenly attributing to me.
Belinda wrote: Sat Nov 06, 2021 10:49 am This is a great problem which is called the problem of evil, and your model of the sunlit pasture fails to address the problem of evil.
There is no "problem of evil," B.

And that's because from the perspective of the theory I am promoting,...

(which is a theory wherein God is intentionally trying to remain hidden from us so as not to breach the integrity of this amazing illusion he has created)

...the evil appearing aspects of the universe are precisely what helps to reinforce the belief that God may not exist.

Indeed, your very comments are an example of its efficacy.

You are too focused on your false assumption of what "all-loving" is supposed to mean.
_______
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Post by uwot »

seeds wrote: Sun Nov 07, 2021 12:30 amThere is no "problem of evil," B. And that's because from the perspective of the theory I am promoting,...(which is a theory wherein God is intentionally trying to remain hidden from us so as not to breach the integrity of this amazing illusion he has created)...the evil appearing aspects of the universe are precisely what helps to reinforce the belief that God may not exist.
The problem of evil isn't so much that it exists, it's more that we are meant to believe that a being with the creative panache to design an entire universe couldn't think of a better way to remain hidden.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Post by Belinda »

Seeds wrote;
No, B, my goal is to get you to realize how utterly ridiculous it is to believe that the blind and mindless processes of gravity and thermodynamics...

(without any way of consciously knowing what they were creating)

...could have reached into this...

Image

(which is a metaphorical representation of the random and chaotically dispersed quantum gibberish that emerged from an alleged Big Bang beginning of the universe)

...and then somehow caused that gibberish to magically arrange itself into highly correlated patterns of information that underpin the near infinite array of unique and individuated ingredients that went into creating the mind-blowing order implicit in this image,...

Image

...of which when you jump down onto the surface of that blue orb, you are greeted with this scene...

Image

...where the intricate order and beauty of it all becomes even more rich and detailed. So much so that it fools many into believing that this amazing order is a product of serendipitous processes (which is precisely what it is meant to do).

Our minds make order out of chaos. You probably know that a man's mind selects what to pay attention to. In order to stay alive a man must select which of what impinges on his senses is relevant to him. There is no randomness or serendipity about how a man chooses.
Atheists and pantheists are every bit as much as theists in awe of beauty. Indeed awe towards natural beauty may help us avoid total climate disaster.
It is wrong and foolish of God- believers to claim for themselves either natural beauty, or works of art and literature such as The Bible!
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Post by seeds »

uwot wrote: Wed Nov 10, 2021 8:38 am
seeds wrote: Sun Nov 07, 2021 12:30 amThere is no "problem of evil," B. And that's because from the perspective of the theory I am promoting,...(which is a theory wherein God is intentionally trying to remain hidden from us so as not to breach the integrity of this amazing illusion he has created)...the evil appearing aspects of the universe are precisely what helps to reinforce the belief that God may not exist.
The problem of evil isn't so much that it exists, it's more that we are meant to believe that a being with the creative panache to design an entire universe couldn't think of a better way to remain hidden.
First, let me address one of your earlier statements in a prior post:
uwot wrote: Sat Nov 06, 2021 8:27 am As we say on this side of the pond, if my auntie had balls, she'd be my uncle.
Are you sure she doesn't? Have you checked? :D

Now, back to more recent issues...

Try to imagine the ontological status of a conscious entity who is in possession of the "creative panache" to actually pull-off the creation of this universe...

(created out of the living mental fabric of its very own being, no less)

...and then tell me why you seem to be assuming that a being who has ascended to such an unthinkable level of intelligence would be so lacking in any understanding of the necessary conditions for keeping itself hidden from us?

Again (and in tandem with the unfathomable size of the universe), isn't the fact that there is evil in the world precisely what makes humans doubt the existence of God?

And the point is that the presence of what we call "evil" seems to be one of the aforementioned "necessary conditions" for helping to maintain the integrity of this mentally created ("dream-like") illusion we are momentarily immersed in.

That being said, how about you (and Belinda) give me some examples of what you (and she) would do differently to make the universe seem less evil.
_______
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Post by uwot »

seeds wrote: Wed Nov 10, 2021 6:50 pm
uwot wrote: Sat Nov 06, 2021 8:27 am As we say on this side of the pond, if my auntie had balls, she'd be my uncle.
Are you sure she doesn't? Have you checked? :D
seeds, behave!
seeds wrote: Wed Nov 10, 2021 6:50 pmNow, back to more recent issues...Try to imagine the ontological status of a conscious entity who is in possession of the "creative panache" to actually pull-off the creation of this universe...
That's easy enough; it exists or it doesn't, either of which I am happy to entertain.
seeds wrote: Wed Nov 10, 2021 6:50 pm(created out of the living mental fabric of its very own being, no less)
Yep, pantheism is an option.
seeds wrote: Wed Nov 10, 2021 6:50 pm...and then tell me why you seem to be assuming that a being who has ascended to such an unthinkable level of intelligence would be so lacking in any understanding of the necessary conditions for keeping itself hidden from us?
What are those "necessary conditions"?
seeds wrote: Wed Nov 10, 2021 6:50 pmAgain (and in tandem with the unfathomable size of the universe), isn't the fact that there is evil in the world precisely what makes humans doubt the existence of God?
I can't speak for everyone, but in my case it's the utter lack of any but circumstantial evidence.
seeds wrote: Wed Nov 10, 2021 6:50 pmAnd the point is that the presence of what we call "evil" seems to be one of the aforementioned "necessary conditions" for helping to maintain the integrity of this mentally created ("dream-like") illusion we are momentarily immersed in.
seeds, yer don't get to say 'necessary conditions' are a real thing simply because you have mentioned them before.
seeds wrote: Wed Nov 10, 2021 6:50 pmThat being said, how about you (and Belinda) give me some examples of what you (and she) would do differently to make the universe seem less evil.
Well, it's a long list but I might start with uninventing liver flukes.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Post by seeds »

uwot wrote: Wed Nov 10, 2021 10:57 pm
seeds wrote: Wed Nov 10, 2021 6:50 pm
uwot wrote: Sat Nov 06, 2021 8:27 am As we say on this side of the pond, if my auntie had balls, she'd be my uncle.
Are you sure she doesn't? Have you checked? :D
seeds, behave!
Hey, you're the one fantasizing about your auntie's private parts, not me. Does she know about this? Shame on you!
seeds wrote: Wed Nov 10, 2021 6:50 pm Now, back to more recent issues...

Try to imagine the ontological status of a conscious entity who is in possession of the "creative panache" to actually pull-off the creation of this universe...

(created out of the living mental fabric of its very own being, no less)
uwot wrote: Wed Nov 10, 2021 10:57 pm Yep, pantheism is an option.
Nah, not pantheism, for pantheism suggests a universe that was created via the blind and mindless processes of "chance," for it has no conscious designer with a personal identity (as in no "I Am-ness").

However, "panentheism" is a different story...

Image

If my theory is correct, then we each have a precise model of a panentheistic entity right within our own skulls.

Not that I expect you to accept the veracity of any of the vague hints and clues offered to us in Biblical metaphysics, but if it were true, then what do you think being "created in the image of God" actually means?

Furthermore, if we are indeed "created in the image of God," then logic dictates that all we have to do is take a good hard look at ourselves (more specifically, at our minds) and we will be witnessing (in a general sense) a representation of what God is.

(Yeah, yeah, I know, there's that "if" word again.)
seeds wrote: Wed Nov 10, 2021 6:50 pm Again (and in tandem with the unfathomable size of the universe), isn't the fact that there is evil in the world precisely what makes humans doubt the existence of God?
uwot wrote: Wed Nov 10, 2021 10:57 pm I can't speak for everyone, but in my case it's the utter lack of any but circumstantial evidence.
I realize that it's just a theory, but what is it that you don't seem to understand about the theory's proposal that any form of irrefutable evidence (as in hard proof) for the existence of God could be detrimental to our very existence?
seeds wrote: Wed Nov 10, 2021 6:50 pm That being said, how about you (and Belinda) give me some examples of what you (and she) would do differently to make the universe seem less evil.
uwot wrote: Wed Nov 10, 2021 10:57 pm Well, it's a long list but I might start with uninventing liver flukes.
I suggest that you stop presuming that the designer of the universe purposely "invented" such things as liver flukes, and instead consider the possibility that he (she/it) simply allowed the processes of evolution to do its thing over millions of years while he (she/it) was off tending to other issues in her vast universe.

However, if you are going to introduce all of the unpleasant ("evil") lifeforms that evolution has brought-forth, then you're certainly right about the list being quite long.

For example, how about those dang mosquitos and fleas? Or how about tapeworms, ringworms, viruses, and harmful bacterias? Or how about poisonous snakes, spiders, and scorpions? Or how about ferocious predators such as lions and tigers with flesh-rending fangs and claws? Or how about earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, droughts, famines, pestilence, wars, cancer, car accidents, etc., etc., all the way up to physical death itself?

And the question is, which of those seemingly "evil" features of life on earth would you eliminate, and which would you allow?

I guess my point is that after you and Belinda have eliminated anything and everything considered to be "evil" on this planet, and thus turned this richly diverse (and yes, dangerous) dimension of reality into a safe and placid bowl of oatmeal,...

...then if he were still alive, would there be anything left for the (minor key) blues master B.B. King to sing about...

Image

...or would all songs be written in the major keys and major scales?
_______
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Post by uwot »

seeds wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 8:21 pm
uwot wrote: Wed Nov 10, 2021 10:57 pmYep, pantheism is an option.
Nah, not pantheism, for pantheism suggests a universe that was created via the blind and mindless processes of "chance," for it has no conscious designer with a personal identity (as in no "I Am-ness").
However, "panentheism" is a different story...
Yep, panentheism is also an option.
seeds wrote: Wed Nov 10, 2021 6:50 pm...what is it that you don't seem to understand about the theory's proposal that any form of irrefutable evidence (as in hard proof) for the existence of God could be detrimental to our very existence?
As I pointed out to my philosophy of religion professor, many moons ago, if an omnipotent god really exists, then it is quite possible that all the historical cosmological models were true, but the moment they were discovered, god seamlessly altered the fabric of the universe to put us off the scent. I meant it as a joke. Imagine my surprise when he took it seriously. I get your idea, it appears in many versions of Free Will and Greater Good defences of the problem of evil.
seeds wrote: Wed Nov 10, 2021 6:50 pmI suggest that you stop presuming that the designer of the universe purposely "invented" such things as liver flukes, and instead consider the possibility that he (she/it) simply allowed the processes of evolution to do its thing over millions of years while he (she/it) was off tending to other issues in her vast universe.
You mean some version of pandeism? Panendeism perhaps? Given the basic template of an invisible Almighty, anything is possible; so that when you ask:
seeds wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 8:21 pm...what do you think being "created in the image of God" actually means?
I suspect you have got it arse about tit and that gods are created in our image. Once more, as Xenophanes said:

But mortals suppose gods are born,
Wear their own clothes and have a voice and body.
The Ethiopians say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,
While Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.
Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods
Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each would shape
Bodies of gods in the likeness, each of their own kind.

seeds wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 8:21 pmI guess my point is that after you and Belinda have eliminated anything and everything considered to be "evil" on this planet, and thus turned this richly diverse (and yes, dangerous) dimension of reality into a safe and placid bowl of oatmeal,...
...then if he were still alive, would there be anything left for the (minor key) blues master B.B. King to sing about...
...or would all songs be written in the major keys and major scales?
Ah, the greater good. Better yet if Howlin' Wolf were still around.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Post by Belinda »

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 8:21 pm
I guess my point is that after you and Belinda have eliminated anything and everything considered to be "evil" on this planet, and thus turned this richly diverse (and yes, dangerous) dimension of reality into a safe and placid bowl of oatmeal,...
...then if he were still alive, would there be anything left for the (minor key) blues master B.B. King to sing about...
...or would all songs be written in the major keys and major scales?
If God intended to create evil in order to hide His nature from us, He did not have to create such an enormity of evil, as a smaller amount of evil would serve.
Post Reply