Which would you choose?
-
- Posts: 8460
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Which would you choose?
Let's pretend for a moment that it was discovered without any possible doubt that there is no God in the world. What has been gained and what has been lost?
Lost: The possibility of divine justice, divine intervention, divine providence.
Gained: We (as a frail and imperfect species) become more responsible for justice, more vulnerable and our fates are more uncertain in the face of an uncaring world.
Now, I realize it would seem that there is something called the truth that doesn't care one way or the other what our preferences are. According to this thing Truth, there is a God or there is not a God. and only one of those propositions is "true." However, let's pretend for a moment that you and I had a choice as to which is true.
My question is:
Which truth would be more appealing to you: the truth that there is a God or the truth that there is not a God? Or (in other words) if you could magically cause one of those two propositions to be true or to be the case, which one would you choose to be true? Also, why would you choose it to be true?
My answer: Personally, I think I would choose for there to be a God. The reason for that is that I want there to be divine justice. I don't think I trust human justice to truly be justice. And I feel like I want there to be justice in the world.
Lost: The possibility of divine justice, divine intervention, divine providence.
Gained: We (as a frail and imperfect species) become more responsible for justice, more vulnerable and our fates are more uncertain in the face of an uncaring world.
Now, I realize it would seem that there is something called the truth that doesn't care one way or the other what our preferences are. According to this thing Truth, there is a God or there is not a God. and only one of those propositions is "true." However, let's pretend for a moment that you and I had a choice as to which is true.
My question is:
Which truth would be more appealing to you: the truth that there is a God or the truth that there is not a God? Or (in other words) if you could magically cause one of those two propositions to be true or to be the case, which one would you choose to be true? Also, why would you choose it to be true?
My answer: Personally, I think I would choose for there to be a God. The reason for that is that I want there to be divine justice. I don't think I trust human justice to truly be justice. And I feel like I want there to be justice in the world.
Re: Which would you choose?
Be careful what you wish for, Gary, because I have to ask, does that divine justice also include the justice administered to the members of imperialistic societies (such as America, for example) who allow their leaders and armed thugs to torture and murder thousands (if not millions) of humans all over the world in order to gain access to their resources for the benefit of said members?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:01 pm My question is:
Which truth would be more appealing to you: the truth that there is a God or the truth that there is not a God? Or (in other words) if you could magically cause one of those two propositions to be true or to be the case, which one would you choose to be true? Also, why would you choose it to be true?
My answer: Personally, I think I would choose for there to be a God. The reason for that is that I want there to be divine justice. I don't think I trust human justice to truly be justice. And I feel like I want there to be justice in the world.
Have you ever wondered what the Biblical injunction...
...actually means?"...Judge not lest ye be judged..."
Again, Gary, be careful what you wish for.
_______
-
- Posts: 8460
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: Which would you choose?
Yes. I know. What is the alternative, however? That we get away with our crimes? Or, to put it another way, the first one to get away with their crimes wins?seeds wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 7:21 pmBe careful what you wish for, Gary, because I have to ask, does that divine justice also include the justice administered to the members of imperialistic societies (such as America, for example) who allow their leaders and armed thugs to torture and murder thousands (if not millions) of humans all over the world in order to gain access to their resources for the benefit of said members?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:01 pm My question is:
Which truth would be more appealing to you: the truth that there is a God or the truth that there is not a God? Or (in other words) if you could magically cause one of those two propositions to be true or to be the case, which one would you choose to be true? Also, why would you choose it to be true?
My answer: Personally, I think I would choose for there to be a God. The reason for that is that I want there to be divine justice. I don't think I trust human justice to truly be justice. And I feel like I want there to be justice in the world.
Have you ever wondered what the Biblical injunction......actually means?"...Judge not lest ye be judged..."
Again, Gary, be careful what you wish for.
_______
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22750
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Which would you choose?
Actually, this is untrue. What the implication is, is that we are in an indifferent universe in which nobody has any duty to do a thing called "justice," so nobody's responsible for it.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:01 pm Gained: We (as a frail and imperfect species) become more responsible for justice
I see you have intuited this. No God, no justice. If human beings are in charge, not only is justice imperiled, but "justice" as a whole concept, is simply imaginary.I don't think I trust human justice to truly be justice. And I feel like I want there to be justice in the world.
-
- Posts: 8460
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: Which would you choose?
I think this may beg the question of whether there is a God or not. If it is/were the case there is no God and we humans have a concept in our minds called justice (that we apply to our environment) regardless of there not being a God, then it's something that we have in our minds and try to impose upon the world around us. Are you assuming that a concept of "justice" could not come into being within a particular species' mind if there is no God?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 7:53 pmActually, this is untrue. What the implication is, is that we are in an indifferent universe in which nobody has any duty to do a thing called "justice," so nobody's responsible for it.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:01 pm Gained: We (as a frail and imperfect species) become more responsible for justice
I don't know that justice would be "imaginary" any more than time itself is imaginary. We produce a pocket watch based upon mental concepts of time and we produce justice (courts, pages with laws written on them) based on mental concepts of preventing mayhem. Is it necessarily the case that a God is required for there to be time? Evolutionary theorists might disagree with that. I mean, I don't know the answer. Just pointing that out.I see you have intuited this. No God, no justice. If human beings are in charge, not only is justice imperiled, but "justice" as a whole concept, is simply imaginary.I don't think I trust human justice to truly be justice. And I feel like I want there to be justice in the world.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22750
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Which would you choose?
No, but it's pretty clear that however it "got into our minds," there's nothing to it, if there's no basis for justice.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 8:08 pm ...it's something that we have in our minds and try to impose upon the world around us. Are you assuming that a concept of "justice" could not come into being within a particular species' mind if there is no God?
Put it this way: gazelles are graceful, beautiful animals, no? But lions kill them. Worse than that is being a wildebeest -- not only lions, but everything else on the Serengeti eats them...crocs, bots flies, lions, leopards, wild dogs...they only continue as a species by reproducing in extraordinary amounts.
What's justice on the Serengeti? And if a wildebeest got an idea in his head that lions owed him not to eat him, what does the lion care? Naivete and meditative spirit would be just one more thing that makes it easier for a wildebeest to get eaten.
So what if humans -- well, only some of them, and they all differ on it -- but what if humans have an idea called "justice"? How does that translate into a duty for others not to take advantage of them? After all...with no God, we're all just animals. And this is the Serengeti, or the human equivalent thereof.
Is it necessarily the case that a God is required for there to be pocket watches?
Yes. Directly, what's required is a man. But man is not a self-created being.
So yes, in order for there to be pocket watches, there must be a God. Nothing so complex as a pocket watch is going to happen without intelligence -- you can try, by just placing some random pieces of metal in your back yard, and waiting for them to assemble, but I think you'll wait a loooooong time -- and nothing so complex as intelligence is going to have happened without God.
-
- Posts: 8460
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: Which would you choose?
OK. Anyway, I take it you're not interested in the question I originally posed because you believe that there is no choice but for there to be a God. I mean, it's possible there could be a God. I hope so. But I am agnostic about it.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 8:17 pmNo, but it's pretty clear that however it "got into our minds," there's nothing to it, if there's no basis for justice.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 8:08 pm ...it's something that we have in our minds and try to impose upon the world around us. Are you assuming that a concept of "justice" could not come into being within a particular species' mind if there is no God?
Put it this way: gazelles are graceful, beautiful animals, no? But lions kill them. Worse than that is being a wildebeest -- not only lions, but everything else on the Serengeti eats them...crocs, bots flies, lions, leopards, wild dogs...they only continue as a species by reproducing in extraordinary amounts.
What's justice on the Serengeti? And if a wildebeest got an idea in his head that lions owed him not to eat him, what does the lion care? Naivete and meditative spirit would be just one more thing that makes it easier for a wildebeest to get eaten.
So what if humans -- well, only some of them, and they all differ on it -- but what if humans have an idea called "justice"? How does that translate into a duty for others not to take advantage of them? After all...with no God, we're all just animals. And this is the Serengeti, or the human equivalent thereof.
Is it necessarily the case that a God is required for there to be pocket watches?
Yes. Directly, what's required is a man. But man is not a self-created being.
So yes, in order for there to be pocket watches, there must be a God. Nothing so complex as a pocket watch is going to happen without intelligence -- you can try, by just placing some random pieces of metal in your back yard, and waiting for them to assemble, but I think you'll wait a loooooong time -- and nothing so complex as intelligence is going to have happened without God.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22750
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Which would you choose?
Actually, I was responding to your original post, Gary. But you're right to say I think...Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 8:26 pmOK. Anyway, I take it you're not interested in the questionImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 8:17 pmNo, but it's pretty clear that however it "got into our minds," there's nothing to it, if there's no basis for justice.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 8:08 pm ...it's something that we have in our minds and try to impose upon the world around us. Are you assuming that a concept of "justice" could not come into being within a particular species' mind if there is no God?
Put it this way: gazelles are graceful, beautiful animals, no? But lions kill them. Worse than that is being a wildebeest -- not only lions, but everything else on the Serengeti eats them...crocs, bots flies, lions, leopards, wild dogs...they only continue as a species by reproducing in extraordinary amounts.
What's justice on the Serengeti? And if a wildebeest got an idea in his head that lions owed him not to eat him, what does the lion care? Naivete and meditative spirit would be just one more thing that makes it easier for a wildebeest to get eaten.
So what if humans -- well, only some of them, and they all differ on it -- but what if humans have an idea called "justice"? How does that translate into a duty for others not to take advantage of them? After all...with no God, we're all just animals. And this is the Serengeti, or the human equivalent thereof.
Is it necessarily the case that a God is required for there to be pocket watches?
Yes. Directly, what's required is a man. But man is not a self-created being.
So yes, in order for there to be pocket watches, there must be a God. Nothing so complex as a pocket watch is going to happen without intelligence -- you can try, by just placing some random pieces of metal in your back yard, and waiting for them to assemble, but I think you'll wait a loooooong time -- and nothing so complex as intelligence is going to have happened without God.
However, it does not follow that people who don't believe in a God are obligated to believe in justice. That's got to be fairly obvious, too....there is no choice but for there to be a God...
-
- Posts: 8460
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: Which would you choose?
OK. Fair point. I misinterpreted your reply. I do that a lot anymore. My reading comprehension has declined significantly with my attention span in the past few years. I admit.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 8:45 pmActually, I was responding to your original post, Gary. But you're right to say I think...Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 8:26 pmOK. Anyway, I take it you're not interested in the questionImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 8:17 pm
No, but it's pretty clear that however it "got into our minds," there's nothing to it, if there's no basis for justice.
Put it this way: gazelles are graceful, beautiful animals, no? But lions kill them. Worse than that is being a wildebeest -- not only lions, but everything else on the Serengeti eats them...crocs, bots flies, lions, leopards, wild dogs...they only continue as a species by reproducing in extraordinary amounts.
What's justice on the Serengeti? And if a wildebeest got an idea in his head that lions owed him not to eat him, what does the lion care? Naivete and meditative spirit would be just one more thing that makes it easier for a wildebeest to get eaten.
So what if humans -- well, only some of them, and they all differ on it -- but what if humans have an idea called "justice"? How does that translate into a duty for others not to take advantage of them? After all...with no God, we're all just animals. And this is the Serengeti, or the human equivalent thereof.
Yes. Directly, what's required is a man. But man is not a self-created being.
So yes, in order for there to be pocket watches, there must be a God. Nothing so complex as a pocket watch is going to happen without intelligence -- you can try, by just placing some random pieces of metal in your back yard, and waiting for them to assemble, but I think you'll wait a loooooong time -- and nothing so complex as intelligence is going to have happened without God.
Well, that's a good point. That's kind of why I think there needs to be a God. I mean, I suppose justice could still prevail if people were all "programmed" by nature to seek the same definition of it but I suppose that's a big if too.However, it does not follow that people who don't believe in a God are obligated to believe in justice. That's got to be fairly obvious, too....there is no choice but for there to be a God...
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Which would you choose?
False and baseless premise.
Speak for yourself, if you like, but I hardly think you should decide what the rest of humanity is.
-
- Posts: 8460
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: Which would you choose?
Sorry, didn't know you were immortal and perfect. You must be God.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 9:33 pmFalse and baseless premise.
Speak for yourself, if you like, but I hardly think you should decide what the rest of humanity is.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Which would you choose?
Since when are Christians interested in, "justice." Christians don't want justice, they want, "forgiveness."Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 7:53 pm I see you have intuited this. No God, no justice. If human beings are in charge, not only is justice imperiled, but "justice" as a whole concept, is simply imaginary.
What's wrong with that whole view is that idea that someone is supposed to be, "in charge." There is no one else in charge, no one else responsible for the consequences of one's own life. All that one is and suffers or enjoys in this world is the consequence of their own chosen thoughts and actions, and there is no forgiveness for making the wrong choices.
There is no forgiveness. That's justice, and why most people hate true justice.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Which would you choose?
Nothing is immortal. That is hardly perfection. I have no idea what you think, "perfect," means, but it does not mean omniscient or infallible. Hoever, "imperfect," you think human beings are, they certainly aren't frail. What's your standard of frailty?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 9:35 pmSorry, didn't know you were immortal and perfect. You must be God.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 9:33 pmFalse and baseless premise.
Speak for yourself, if you like, but I hardly think you should decide what the rest of humanity is.
I do not think you are going discover anything true about humanity when your premise is that they are defective to begin with.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22750
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Which would you choose?
Actually, Christians recognize both the necessity of justice and the necessity of forgiveness. In fact, the latter is necessary because the former is ultimately certain.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 9:50 pmSince when are Christians interested in, "justice." Christians don't want justice, they want, "forgiveness."Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 7:53 pm I see you have intuited this. No God, no justice. If human beings are in charge, not only is justice imperiled, but "justice" as a whole concept, is simply imaginary.
Who would want a God who was permanently permissive of evil? And who would want a God who knew only judgment, but not mercy? In either case, mankind would be in serious trouble.
Were that true, what a ghastly world it would make....there is no forgiveness for making the wrong choices...
If anybody has a realistic assessment of all the choices they've ever made, then who really would want to reap what they have sown?
No wonder the Bible says, "If You, Lord, should count iniquities, O Lord, who could stand? But there is forgiveness with You, that you may be revered."
-
- Posts: 8460
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: Which would you choose?
Supposedly God is immortal and perfect. People aren't. That's all I'm saying.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 9:59 pmNothing is immortal. That is hardly perfection. I have no idea what you think, "perfect," means, but it does not mean omniscient or infallible. Hoever, "imperfect," you think human beings are, they certainly aren't frail. What's your standard of frailty?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 9:35 pmSorry, didn't know you were immortal and perfect. You must be God.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 9:33 pm
False and baseless premise.
Speak for yourself, if you like, but I hardly think you should decide what the rest of humanity is.
I do not think you are going discover anything true about humanity when your premise is that they are defective to begin with.