A Scientific Religion

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

First, you should know that the term "omnipotence" is entirely outside of the Bible. The Bible says God never does anything that is not consonant with His character -- lie, break promises, fail, betray, and so on. But secondly, your question has a self-contradiction in it, as Lewis points out. And another thing God does not do is the nonsensical.

I can trust God if He is omnibenevolent and omniscient, but not omnipotent.

[philosopher]

Well, all morality is obligation. The word "ought" is actually a contraction of the expression "owe it." So to say somebody (morally) "ought" to do something is to say they morally "owe it" to do it.

You say that people may "help" each other. But you want to say they don't "owe it" to do that. It's merely a strategic move, a hoping that one may get back some reciprocation from others, a reciprocation, though, that they do not objectively "owe" you anyway. They may, they may not; and if they don't think they "owe" you anything in return, they simply don't "owe" it.

I'm just trying to see if you really believe that. Do you?

If I sympathize/empathize with someone, that feel sorry for whatever situation they are in, of course I'd do what I can to help.
There's no rationality behind it. I guess it's just biology - those who's genes allowed for that behavior, were the ones people with similar genes and behavioral traits were to come to their rescue and return the favor, so to speak. That's why there's a not insignificant minority of good people on this planet who - despite being bad by nature - may also contain something good in them.

I sure hope I'm not 100 % wicked anyway...

But I doubt there's a divine master behind that. It's biology and can be explained by darwinian/evolutionary biology (Science).

"Bad and selfish"? Where do you get these moral judgments from, if you don't believe in "oughtness"? They "ought" not to be anything other than they are -- and if that means "selfish," then that's not in any sense you've explained "bad." It's just what IS. And what makes these "some few" any better than the selfish ones, since, according to your reckoning, "oughtness," or moral obligation, simply does not exist?

It seems to me also evident that to calculate that you will only "help" people in the expectation they may (but are not obliged to) later "help" you is the very paradigm of "selfishness." Indeed, it makes "selfishness" the basic motive of reckoning. So are you now calling your own manner of reckoning "evil"?

There's a bit of sorting out necessary there, no?

There are some things which we value differently as individuals. One may find that gold counts for more than silver. Another individual that caring for your loved ones, is more important than material wealth.

There need not be any divine master "layout" of which values to prefer above other values.
But what we do have, is certain features being valued more highly than other features by a large part of some species.
This can be explained by pure evolution in darwinian terms, as explained above.

Some people - me included - just happens to find certain "non-wealth features" - like compassion etc. to count for more.
I need no God to tell me that I should love my family. I can figure this out on my own.

There's perhaps a place for God, I haven't excluded the divine entirely. But I prefer god above God, and down on the ground instead of in the sky.
I prefer a kind - omnibenevolent divinity, even if that means excluding divine omnipotence and omniscience.

[philosopher]

Immanuel Can wrote:

First, you should know that the term "omnipotence" is entirely outside of the Bible. The Bible says God never does anything that is not consonant with His character -- lie, break promises, fail, betray, and so on. But secondly, your question has a self-contradiction in it, as Lewis points out. And another thing God does not do is the nonsensical.

I can trust God if He is omnibenevolent and omniscient, but not omnipotent.

For me, god is omnibenevolent only. While god may know something we don't, I doubt omniscience.

God is weak. That's why humans need to 'fight' for the cause.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, all morality is obligation. The word "ought" is actually a contraction of the expression "owe it." So to say somebody (morally) "ought" to do something is to say they morally "owe it" to do it.

You say that people may "help" each other. But you want to say they don't "owe it" to do that. It's merely a strategic move, a hoping that one may get back some reciprocation from others, a reciprocation, though, that they do not objectively "owe" you anyway. They may, they may not; and if they don't think they "owe" you anything in return, they simply don't "owe" it.

I'm just trying to see if you really believe that. Do you?

If I sympathize/empathize with someone, that feel sorry for whatever situation they are in, of course I'd do what I can to help.
There's no rationality behind it.

So you're not duty-bound or morally-obligated to do it, if you want to do the right thing? It's totally an indifferent matter whether you do or you don't, and depends on how you "feel" that day?

I sure hope I'm not 100 % wicked anyway...

I suspect if you were, you wouldn't worry about it.

There need not be any divine master "layout" of which values to prefer above other values. But what we do have, is certain features being valued more highly than other features by a large part of some species. This can be explained by pure evolution in darwinian terms, as explained above.

If that's the whole story, then it's totally contingent, though. Moreover, then it's just a matter of what the majority thinks.

But the majority has been wrong before, and the majority has been outright immoral before. The majority of people in the world once thought the earth was flat. And to this day, the majority of people (on a world scale) think such things as that there are two sexes, and that females are of lower value than males.

So if you're right, does this mean that the world was once flat? And does it mean that women really are of lower value than men?

The point is that whatever "standard" there is needs to transcend the contingencies of human mistakes...especially when the majority makes a really bone-headed mistake.

I prefer a kind - omnibenevolent divinity, even if that means excluding divine omnipotence and omniscience.

Heh. A kind of inept demi-god, eh? A cosmic grandparent, slipping into his dotage and handing out candy at inappropriate times, perhaps.

We all might at first think that's what we want -- just as children sometimes think that all they want from their parents is indulgence. But it turns out that such a thing is really not good at all.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

First, you should know that the term "omnipotence" is entirely outside of the Bible. The Bible says God never does anything that is not consonant with His character -- lie, break promises, fail, betray, and so on. But secondly, your question has a self-contradiction in it, as Lewis points out. And another thing God does not do is the nonsensical.

I can trust God if He is omnibenevolent and omniscient, but not omnipotent.

For me, god is omnibenevolent only. While god may know something we don't, I doubt omniscience.

God is weak. That's why humans need to 'fight' for the cause.

I include omniscient because to know all is to forgive all.

[Immanuel Can]

I include omniscient because to know all is to forgive all.

That doesn't seem obvious.

A person may know you have committed a crime. The fact that she knows does not mean you're forgiven. It might well mean that she calls for justice. And it might be that she has a right to. And she might even get it.

[Belinda]

I include omniscient because to know all is to forgive all.

That doesn't seem obvious.

A person may know you have committed a crime. The fact that she knows does not mean you're forgiven. It might well mean that she calls for justice. And it might be that she has a right to. And she might even get it.

But if I were God and knew all that caused and causes the criminal to act as she did I will know that extenuating circumstances are infinite.

'Extenuating circumstances' is a phrase normally used in connection with judicial verdicts. Judicial verdicts are made by men, very clever men but mere men whose knowledge and justice is finite. By comparison God's omniscience is infinite.

[attofishpi]

A Scientific Religion

U fukin wanka.


U start off with stating bible quotes when ALL along it is obvious from the OUTSET ,..........that IT IS NOT BASED ON SCIENCE.

...but perhaps on metaphorical reasoning. should we buy bull?


WOT DO WE HAVE?

A MAN FLOATING IN SPACE.. STATING - " Let there be light..."

U FUKIN SHORT SIGHTED MUPPET.

[philosopher]

I include omniscient because to know all is to forgive all.

That's not my point. My point is to be realistic about God. Sure, why not an omniscient and benevolent deity? We'd all like that. Add some actual "power" of that deity (without being omnipotent) and we'd have the perfect deity.

But since omnipotence and omniscience is impossible by the laws of logic (proven by Kurt Gödel and others) - with logic being above everything else in the universe/multiverse, I prefer the "safe bet" - a weak benevolent deity arising as a shared idea of all the purest goodness amongst those who agree on that concept - including agreeing to what "goodness" means (it seems people have different opinions on what is "good" and "bad").

[philosopher]

A Scientific Religion

U fukin wanka.


U start off with stating bible quotes when ALL along it is obvious from the OUTSET ,..........that IT IS NOT BASED ON SCIENCE.

...but perhaps on metaphorical reasoning. should we buy bull?


WOT DO WE HAVE?

A MAN FLOATING IN SPACE.. STATING - " Let there be light..."

U FUKIN SHORT SIGHTED MUPPET.

You clearly haven't even read my OP.
If you had, you wouldn't write that shit.

Take your quote for a start:

A man floating in space stating "Let there be light..."

I actually refuted that position.

You're definitely a short sighted - or rather narrow sighted idiot, when replying to a post you haven't even read.

[attofishpi]

A Scientific Religion

U fukin wanka.


U start off with stating bible quotes when ALL along it is obvious from the OUTSET ,..........that IT IS NOT BASED ON SCIENCE.

...but perhaps on metaphorical reasoning. should we buy bull?


WOT DO WE HAVE?

A MAN FLOATING IN SPACE.. STATING - " Let there be light..."

U FUKIN SHORT SIGHTED MUPPET.

You clearly haven't even read my OP.
If you had, you wouldn't write that shit.

Take your quote for a start:

A man floating in space stating "Let there be light..."

I actually refuted that position.

You're definitely a short sighted - or rather narrow sighted idiot, when replying to a post you haven't even read.

Well then, clearly I must pay closer attention.


...care to re clarify your position?

[philosopher]

Well then, clearly I must pay closer attention.


...care to re clarify your position?

My position is that God should not be seen as a kind of old man with a white beard, rather God is a concept of shared ideals that is being personified - as a psychological tool (kind of like a symbol, a logo, or a meaning) - with the before mentioned 'shared ideals' be goodness.

Now, "what is goodness" one may ask. It seems people have different perspectives/opinions on what is "good" and "bad"/"evil".

So I suggest we pick the features that makes humans... humans, and what differentiates us from other animals:

* The capacity for compassion.
* The capacity for abstract thought.
* The capacity for turning compassion into actual deeds and even laws in society.
* The capacity for turning abstract thought into advanced technology.

And finally:
Turning compassion and abstract thought into one unified ideal - a set which we can call God.

I also told Immanuel_Can that our ability to compassion etc. is due to biology - natural selection of features which happens to include compassion for the weak and helping those in need.

It just happens that those who had "comassion genes" and who helped other members of the specie, had better chances of finding similar members with similar genes, to help each other (so the group as a whole became stronger despite individual weaknesses) and over the course of millions of years of evolution made some compassionate humans.

You could think of my idea of God as a new/different kind of Social Darwinism, emphasizing compassion rather than pure physical strength (like traditional Social Darwinian thought) as a goal for society.

[attofishpi]

Well then, clearly I must pay closer attention.


...care to re clarify your position?

My position is that God should not be seen as a kind of old man with a white beard, rather G00000000od is a concept of shared ideals that is being personified - as a psychological tool (kind of like a symbol, a logo, or a meaning) - with the before mentioned 'shared ideals' be goodness.

Now, "what is goodness" one may ask. It seems people have different perspectives/opinions on what is "good" and "bad"/"evil".

So I suggest we pick the features that makes humans... humans, and what differentiates us from other animals:

* The capacity for compassion.
* The capacity for abstract thought.
* The capacity for turning compassion into actual deeds and even laws in society.
* The capacity for turning abstract thought into advanced technology.

And finally:
Turning compassion and abstract thought into one unified ideal - a set which we can call God.

I also told Immanuel_Can that our ability to compassion etc. is due to biology - natural selection of features which happens to include compassion for the weak and helping those in need.

It just happens that those who had "comassion genes" and who helped other members of the specie, had better chances of finding similar members with similar genes, to help each other (so the group as a whole became stronger despite individual weaknesses) and over the course of millions of years of evolution made some compassionate humans.

OK. So here I must insist on an interlude for a physics rather than a geology or biology break, OUI?

You could think of my idea of God as a new/different kind of Social Darwinism, emphasizing compassion rather than pure physical strength (like traditional Social Darwinian thought) as a goal for society.

Sorry I actually got U mixed up with the twat that calls itself Veritas Aequitas.

[Immanuel Can]

But if I were God and knew all that caused and causes the criminal to act as she did I will know that extenuating circumstances are infinite.

Well, the Bible points to a different characteristic of God: not merely his knowledge, but also the fact of His being absolutely just. Pair those together, and you have quite a different story than the one you're suggesting:

"I will not acquit the guilty." (Exodus 23:7)

"For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every person according to his deeds." (Matthew 16:27)

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them." (Romans 1:18-19)

"...the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God, and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These people will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power..." (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9)

[Belinda]

I include omniscient because to know all is to forgive all.

That's not my point. My point is to be realistic about God. Sure, why not an omniscient and benevolent deity? We'd all like that. Add some actual "power" of that deity (without being omnipotent) and we'd have the perfect deity.

But since omnipotence and omniscience is impossible by the laws of logic (proven by Kurt Gödel and others) - with logic being above everything else in the universe/multiverse, I prefer the "safe bet" - a weak benevolent deity arising as a shared idea of all the purest goodness amongst those who agree on that concept - including agreeing to what "goodness" means (it seems people have different opinions on what is "good" and "bad").

If you omit omnipotence from the trio of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, you have consistent attributes. If you omit omnibenevolence you have consistent attributes. The trio is inconsistent. No well meaning person want to worship a god who is not benevolent, so omit omnipotence.

The laws of logic are a human measuring tool and are encompassed by the deity .

I agree with your preference for

a weak benevolent deity arising as a shared idea of all the purest goodness amongst those who agree on that concept -

but that is not a safe bet, it is bloody hard work being as it is devoid of supernatural help.