Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5144
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

I actually -- and very recently -- met a man whose name was Modus Tollens. Maybe he was an Avatara?

This is getting weird. Synchronicities are piling up!

Image
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9557
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Harry Baird wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 12:29 pm
Harbal wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:38 pm The burden of explanation always seems to be put on science, but no one ever seems to feel it necessary to explain exactly how God does what he does. :?
In some cases (including the one you brought up), the burden [ETA: of explaining how God does what he does] might equally be on science there too...

In others, we simply wouldn't expect to be able to explain, 'cos - well, we're not gods ourselves, and for better or worse simply lack access (while down here, at least) to divinity's understanding of divine power.
Anyone is at liberty to attribute whatever fantastic ability or quality to God that he likes, and he doesn't have to explain how it could even be possible, let alone provide proof that it is the case. It's hardly any wonder, then, that God turns out to be omnipotent.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Belinda »

Harry Baird wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 12:35 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 9:38 pm
Harry Baird wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 11:47 am

There's not really that much thinking necessary to realise that the statement is wrong - or, at least, conditional on the qualities and properties that one ascribes to God.
It's normal to ascribe justice to God. Whimsical intervention in lives is unjust. All miraculous supposed interventions are unjust for the simple reason that that miracles are not to be relied upon. The God of Abraham is 100% reliable, and therefore He is not whimsical and so He will alleviate all suffering or none.

The God of Abraham clearly does not intervene to alleviate all suffering, therefore He does not intervene.
Great - an actual argument, stated clearly enough to be able to semi-formalise:
  1. God is just (premise).
  2. Whimsical intervention is unjust (premise).
  3. If God intervenes in this world, God intervenes whimsically (premise).
  4. If God intervenes in this world, God is unjust (inference from #2 and #3).
  5. God does not intervene in this world (conclusion, from #4 and #1 by modus tollens).
Please correct me if you don't think that that's an accurate rendering.

It seems valid to me. I don't think that it's sound for all conceptions of God and reality though. Here are a couple of examples, starting with the Christian conception of God, to which you refer:

On this conception of God, premise one is only nominally true, but actually false. That is, God is said to be just on Christianity, but actually isn't. Two examples of His actual injustice are (1) damning to eternal, unimaginable torment those people who, despite otherwise committing only minor, finite wrongs, fail to accept Jesus Christ as their saviour prior to their deaths, and (2) wreaking ghastly, totally undeserved torment, suffering, and punishment upon Job simply to prove some point that He didn't even need to prove to some wicked entity who didn't deserve any demonstrations from God anyhow.

Premise one, then, is actually false on the Christian conception of God, and, given that it is an essential premise in the argument, on this conception the argument then is unsound.

I think that the Christian conception of God is indefensible anyhow, so that example isn't especially relevant to my own views. Here's an example that's much more relevant, riffing off the idea I briefly alluded to in a recent post:

For this example, God is conceived of as very powerful but not omnipotent, and very knowledgeable and prescient but not omniscient. God on this conception lacks omniscience to the extent that God is not capable prior to Creation of seeing all possible worlds so as to be capable of actualising one of the perfect possible worlds in which all beings freely choose to do good, and thus of actualising a world in which there is no suffering.

In this example, God is also conceived of as being capable only of creating conscious beings who have radical free will - radical in the sense that it supports the choice of both good and evil to any degree (that is, God is incapable of creating conscious automatons aka puppets aka subjects of hard determinism). Too, God is moral to the extent of refusing to simply kill (which in God's view would be murder) any being who desires to continue living, even when that being is choosing evil. Thus, on this conception, God must devise a way to minimise suffering and evil in a reality the inhabitants of which can choose it without being liable to being destroyed for that choice.

Here's one such (reasonable, in my view) way that God might devise:

God separates reality as a whole into a hierarchy of component realities. At the highest level is the preferred reality: one in which all of its inhabitants universally love and care for one another; there is generally no harm, suffering, or evil at this level. However, if any inhabitant at this level of reality does begin to make choices which harm others, then God offers that inhabitant a choice between various alternatives, including (others are possible):
  1. Annihilation (final, ultimate death).
  2. Entry into a virtual reality in which there are no others to harm, just mindless automatons which realistically mimic conscious beings. God might further offer the sub-choice of having one's memory erased to the extent that one forgets that this reality is only virtual, and believes that the avatars in it are real people, optionally offering for one to be reminded at various intervals in case one wants the opportunity of changing one's choice after experiencing this reality.
  3. Descent into a lower reality in which others who had also begun to make other-harming choices had also descended, the point of which is to experience how bad it is to live in such a reality, and thus to learn by experience the need to love others. Should this lesson not be learnt, further descent might occur, up to a point: God doesn't want suffering to exist, God only tolerates the presence of (consented-to) suffering for didactic purposes, so God would limit the extent to which a lower reality could become evil (perhaps by limiting the next choice to one between #1 and #2 above).
Now, given that the purpose of lower levels of reality is to teach souls - who have freely chosen to subject themselves to this teaching by this method as opposed to choosing annihilation or some other option - to reject harmful choices and to become unvaryingly loving, God might intervene into such a reality to help to facilitate that learning. God would not intervene in controlling ways that abrogated free will, not least because that would risk the target resenting and rebelling against the obvious intervention, delaying the learning of the lesson, but in (often subtle) careful, respectful ways which genuinely contributed, without force, to the being's learning.

Having set the scene, here's why I think that your argument fails in this scenario: because premise three is false. The justification that you've offered for premise three is that only universal, unconditional alleviation of suffering by intervention is just, and since suffering has not been universally eradicated in this reality, then any interventions that God has made have been exceptional and thus unjust.

In the scenario I've outlined, though, we don't expect suffering to be universally alleviated, and nor do we expect to be able to understand precisely why God selectively intervenes in any given case, because God has a much, much better, and fuller understanding than us of which beings are in a position to learn based on that selective, carefully-calibrated intervention (and so God intervenes wherever this is possible, for all beings in this lower reality, not just in isolated exceptional cases).

Because on this conception of God, premise three is false, and because premise three, too, is an essential premise in the argument, on this conception the argument is again unsound.

Finally, your argument seems for the most part to be intended to apply to minor rule-bending by God, rather than changing wholesale the laws governing reality or at least radically remodelling that reality - but in scenarios like the above, it might be perfectly reasonable for God to intervene to that more extreme extent. For example, God might offer "descending" souls the choice to enter a lower reality in which the overall rule is "Once the collective reaches - without exception - a sufficiently loving state, the world and its natural systems will be reformed and remodelled such that it is not just *feasible* but *natural* for 'the lamb to lie with the lion', because in that case it would have *become* a (new) highest-level reality, and its natural laws and systems would need to reflect that."

All of this is expressed off the top of my head, and there might be the odd mistake or oversight in it, but I think that at the least it shows that plausible conceptions of God in which your argument is successfully defeated are *possible*.
I am sorry that your scenario fails at the first premise. The premise fails because suffering is not always caused voluntarily by "souls" but is predominantly caused by natural events such as earthquakes, genetic abnormalites, plagues, and pestilences.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5144
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Belinda wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:21 pm I am sorry that your scenario fails at the first premise. The premise fails because suffering is not always caused voluntarily by "souls" but is predominantly caused by natural events such as earthquakes, genetic abnormalities, plagues, and pestilences.
Interesting. I was also going to focus on premise No 1.

If we are even going to talk about ‘god’ we are going to have to start over completely. From our perspective the real god cannot be ‘good’. So then god is also (sorry) something of a devil, too. Hesse worked this out in his novels to an Abraxian figure, a revision of an old emblem.

Starting point: we have no idea what god, being and existence are nor what they mean. Everything is up in the air (once again).

Yet we have an extensive library, or graveyard, overfilling with myriad conception structures. A burden that must be jettisoned? Or a hidden ‘treasure’ that can be mined?
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by attofishpi »

Gary Childress wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 1:50 pm All you want is brownie points with God. So you'll defend the likes of Yahweh. Sell me out. Why not? I can't do anything for you. That's fine. Feel free to go shove a crucifix up your ass. Or don't. Either way, get lost.
Brownie points with God ya think! God is a weird fukka. When I started my journey in India, leaving an overnight stay on arrival to meet my cousin I was told "You're in heaven". Ah, good. On leaving to go to airport for return journey "You're in hell." - and I sneezed my way home on a plane, while being teased continuously and telling God he/it is a evil piece of pig shit. I just spent 3 days with a fever in bed - maybe covid dunno.
God is weird...and trust me nothing I do here is for points with that Jew.

Na, just pointing out that your statement wasn't quite painting an accurate picture of the situation where you gave your money away!
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by attofishpi »

Also, I'd just like to point out re the Xinaity\Xian thang...

Everyone insisted that Christ wouldn't be offended by it... SO WHAT??

The point was not whether Christ is or isn't offended. Like I stated at the outset, I find it offensive and I reserve my right to be offended!
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Belinda »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:52 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:21 pm I am sorry that your scenario fails at the first premise. The premise fails because suffering is not always caused voluntarily by "souls" but is predominantly caused by natural events such as earthquakes, genetic abnormalities, plagues, and pestilences.
Interesting. I was also going to focus on premise No 1.

If we are even going to talk about ‘god’ we are going to have to start over completely. From our perspective the real god cannot be ‘good’. So then god is also (sorry) something of a devil, too. Hesse worked this out in his novels to an Abraxian figure, a revision of an old emblem.

Starting point: we have no idea what god, being and existence are nor what they mean. Everything is up in the air (once again).

Yet we have an extensive library, or graveyard, overfilling with myriad conception structures. A burden that must be jettisoned? Or a hidden ‘treasure’ that can be mined?
The treasure, Alexis, is man's search for deity.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Christianity

Post by Gary Childress »

Belinda wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 11:22 am
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:52 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:21 pm I am sorry that your scenario fails at the first premise. The premise fails because suffering is not always caused voluntarily by "souls" but is predominantly caused by natural events such as earthquakes, genetic abnormalities, plagues, and pestilences.
Interesting. I was also going to focus on premise No 1.

If we are even going to talk about ‘god’ we are going to have to start over completely. From our perspective the real god cannot be ‘good’. So then god is also (sorry) something of a devil, too. Hesse worked this out in his novels to an Abraxian figure, a revision of an old emblem.

Starting point: we have no idea what god, being and existence are nor what they mean. Everything is up in the air (once again).

Yet we have an extensive library, or graveyard, overfilling with myriad conception structures. A burden that must be jettisoned? Or a hidden ‘treasure’ that can be mined?
The treasure, Alexis, is man's search for deity.
Searching for a diety is a waste of time. If there is one, there is not a shred of evidence to think it cares anything for any of the beings living in its world. Few beings can exist without destroying other beings for nourishment. Even bacteria, feast off of other cells, crippling or mutilating humans and higher organisms on the macro scale. Asteroids have pummelled the Earth extinguishing life in the past. There's no reason to think it won't happen again someday--our entire species horribly and completely wiped out in an instant. No. At best, the creator of this universe is callous and indifferent, to think otherwise is deluding oneself. The best fate that can befall any human is to have never been born. No living being is fortunate to be so.
promethean75
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by promethean75 »

and what's obscene is not that nature is so violent. that's just an unfortunate fact for living creatures. what's obscene is trying to argue that an intelligent god is responsible for this shit.  that's when it becomes offensive. it's not nature that's offensive but people claiming that nature is violent on purpose, that are offensive. it's like openly praising a sadist, and if i ever hear some nitwit thankin the lord for getting an extra cheeseburger by accident in their order or their favorite team winning a curling match... while some poor bastard is dying of a flesh eating bacteria somewhere, imma smack the shit out of em.
promethean75
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by promethean75 »

Actually the christian thing to do would be to return the cheeseburger, in which case the nitwit wouldn't be thankin god for getting it. So scratch that one. Bad example.
promethean75
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by promethean75 »

but how many christians really would return the cheeseburger? thus Nietzsche writes (my italics):

"the everyday Christian. -- If the Christian dogmas of a revengeful God, universal sinfulness, election by divine grace and the danger of eternal damnation were true, it would be a sign of weak-mindedness and lack of character not to return the cheeseburger, become a priest, apostle or hermit and, in fear and trembling, to work solely on one's own salvation; it would be senseless to lose sight of ones eternal advantage for the sake of an extra cheeseburger. If we may assume that these things are at any rate believed true, then the everyday Christian cuts a miserable figure; he is a man who really cannot count to three, and who precisely on account of his spiritual imbecility does not deserve to be punished so harshly as Christianity promises to punish him."
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5144
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

All this could’ve been avoided had you assholes subscribed to my 10 Week Transmuting Nihilism Email Course®

In subsection 6 we actually spend a day examining this scene meta-culinarily and metaphysically.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5144
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Gary, comments?
The bird fights its way out of the egg. The egg is the world. Who would be born must first destroy a world. The bird flies to God. That God's name is Abraxas.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Christianity

Post by Gary Childress »

promethean75 wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 1:06 am but how many christians really would return the cheeseburger? thus Nietzsche writes (my italics):

"the everyday Christian. -- If the Christian dogmas of a revengeful God, universal sinfulness, election by divine grace and the danger of eternal damnation were true, it would be a sign of weak-mindedness and lack of character not to return the cheeseburger, become a priest, apostle or hermit and, in fear and trembling, to work solely on one's own salvation; it would be senseless to lose sight of ones eternal advantage for the sake of an extra cheeseburger. If we may assume that these things are at any rate believed true, then the everyday Christian cuts a miserable figure; he is a man who really cannot count to three, and who precisely on account of his spiritual imbecility does not deserve to be punished so harshly as Christianity promises to punish him."
I've offered to return items in such situations. In some cases, they will take them back, in others, they will say, "just keep it, what's done is done, we just have to throw it away anyway and that does no one any good". If you want to bank on the existence of heaven and hell to set things right (and worry that God's going to punish you for snatching an extra cheeseburger as much as inflicting pain on a cat, or whatever else an angry person can come up with), then good luck. I can't stand living in this world where every expression of my romantic love is met with scorn or else ignored, all the while I watch other couples frolicking about. I just want out. I'm not going to spend the rest of my life drooling over what other people get to experience in life. And I'm not going to do anything harmful about it. I'm not going to go on a shooting spree with a submachine pistol or something.

The point I made is that there's no evidence of there being a benevolent God. At BEST, if there is a God, then God doesn't care one way or the other. People can worship until their palms turn red or abstain from indulgences until their stomachs ache in hunger, if the only purpose in that is to go to heaven as opposed to hell, then I can't think of a better way for an emperor to employ priests to enslave his servants to his every whim. Christianity is little more than tyrannical. The Christian God is a tyrant, and probably the codification of the delusion of tyrannical people to begin with.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5144
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Here’s a possible route that may open up for all of us: ask ChatGTP.

Atto, please, you have some background here. ChatGPT knows you. Set up the interrogation and report back ASAP.
Post Reply