The nature of God

[Nyx]

Well God forbid anybody do that!

Well, the funny thing is God forbids nothing. You can do whatever you want, but that does not mean it is true. Deception can easily lead a person into an existence dense with false pretenses.

EDIT: "The truth is, of course, that the curtness of the Ten Commandments is an evidence, not of the gloom and narrowness of a religion, but, on the contrary, of its liberality and humanity. It is shorter to state the things forbidden than the things permitted: precisely because most things are permitted, and only a few things are forbidden."

Thanks again, Mr. Chesterton

In this light God lets you will your path, however the Commandments stand in place for the reason of avoiding mortal sin, thus separation from God.

 

[Ginkgo]

Okay, now show me objectively that your idea of God actually reflects reality.

Your sensual appeal is not objective. It is subjective. To "prove" God would claim objectivity, which a human cannot.

 

[Nyx]

Okay, now show me objectively that your idea of God actually reflects reality.

Try reading the Summa Theologica for starters. I don't think I could communicate these ideas with you because I believe we are of different mindsets.

Summa Theologica Index

Good luck though, the version selling on Amazon at the moment is over 3,000 pages.

 

[simulatedworld]

Well, the funny thing is God forbids nothing. You can do whatever you want, but that does not mean it is true. Deception can easily lead a person into an existence dense with false pretenses.

Doesn't God forbid butt sex though??

 

[Venom]

I am well aware of Hitler's occult interest... and by definition asserts gnosis, or becoming God.

I would continue to answer objections here, but I will stop because doing so would take countless volumes and I simply do not have the time to do so. Also, I do not think anything I will say we be taken with any consideration and will be rejected immediately, consciously or subconsciously.

Unfortunately, some people will never see the light and live their lives in a vain attempt at affirming their personal truth as the answer, but what they do not realize is their logic is self-destructive. They are living in limbo, trying to reconcile their innate desire for Truth with their personal fatalistic beliefs.

EDIT: No, those people are not trying to "prove" metaphysical a priori. Proof is a product of human arrogance in regards to that... Proof is only useful and applicable in fields of empiric knowledge.

If they arent trying to prove synthetic a priori then they are at the least asserting them.

As for your positions being rejected without charity, I think you are projecting your perceptions of atheists onto people in the thread. My path (over years): catholic --> ignorant agnostic --> born again Christian --> strong atheist --> agnostic. You wont find me asserting empiricism or rationalism to an extreme. As Kant noted, "Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind". A consideration/synthesis of both are required. I leave room for faith. I dont think i'm being uncharitable by observing that personal metaphysical beliefs are as true as 2 + 2 = 4. The ability to share these personal metaphysical beliefs is what logic actually tends to pose problems for...though in some instances i believe its possible.

 

[simulatedworld]

Your sensual appeal is not objective. It is subjective. To "prove" God would claim objectivity, which a human cannot.

Which leaves us with a convenient little circular logic: "God exists because God exists." Solid.

 

[Venom]

Which leaves us with a convenient little circular logic: "God exists because God exists." Solid.

Its only invalid reasoning if there is an argument being reasoned through. Invalid reasoning doesn't prove that the conclusion is false. Having personal a priori synthetic is not inherently a fault in reasoning.

 

[simulatedworld]

Its only invalid reasoning if there is an argument being reasoned through. Invalid reasoning doesn't prove that the conclusion is false. Having personal a priori synthetic is not inherently a fault in reasoning.

Nope, just a fault in perception.

 

[Owl]

Not to derail this thread too far, but...

Can we deny moral normativity without denying epistemic normativity?

consider the following argument:

(1) A-->B
(2) A
-------
(3) B

Ought we to affirm the truth of (3) above? Sure, someone could deny, even given the truth of (1) and (2), that (3) is true, but should he? Or, is there some objective, mind independent feature of reality that guarantees the truth of (3) given the truth of (1) and (2), regardless of any agents' belief about (3)?

It seems that if we want to maintain any form of epistemic normativity, we must affirm that there are some mind-independent facts about reality; i.e., we must posit a form of objectivity. Further, if we are concerned with truth at all, it seems that we ought to be concerned with following these objective, epistemic norms.

Thus, if you want to believe that you ought to believe it true that there are no moral norms, that you have reasons to believe there are no moral norms, you've subscribed to a form of epistemic objectivity grounded in an assumed mind-independent reality.

Of course, you could always deny that you either ought to or ought not to believe anything, but then you've landed in silence.

Just food for thought.

Edit: it's late. Goodnight gentlemen.

 

[Venom]

Nope, just a fault in perception.

Your perception is just that though, your perception. We can compare the measured results of perceptions (our descriptions). We can't however truly share perceptions "as they are".

 

[Venom]

Thus, if you want to believe that you ought to believe it true that there are no moral norms, that you have reasons to believe there are no moral norms, you've subscribed to a form of epistemic objectivity grounded in an assumed mind-independent reality.

Assuming a mind-independent reality that can be analyzed without our own perceptions or own reasoning brings us back to empiricism vs rationals right?
"Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind".

Of course, you could always deny that you either ought to or ought not to believe anything, but then you've landed in silence.

recovering nihilist?

 

[simulatedworld]

Your perception is just that though, your perception. We can compare the measured results of perceptions (our descriptions). We can't however truly share perceptions "as they are".

I have a priori knowledge that you're completely wrong about this. pwned

 

[Venom]

I have a priori knowledge that you're completely wrong about this. pwned

... so you are admitting that you adhere to empiricism based on metaphysical a priori knowledge? you're no different than the religious folk you patronize...

 

[Hirsch63]

Is sin necessary because we are free, or is sin necessary because all things, including human free will (and angelic free will?) is subject to the ultimate Will of God?

Do you think that suffering will persist aveternally? I ask because if sin isn't evil, and sin is a result of being human, then sin will exist so long as we're human. (I'm assuming here that our identity is tied to our being human.) But if sin will always be with us, and suffering is a result of sin, then we'll be aveternally suffering.

Also, do you think God will judge people negatively for sinning?

I still don't see how, based on what you've written, free will is sufficient to explain the existence of evil. Why can't we freely, deliberately follow principles of beneficence and non-maleficence?

Recall the parable of the Master who went away and entrusted each of his servants with money to take care of?

My understanding that we are indeed part of God, not alien to. We find ourselves (our souls) prisoners of this world, trapped in bodies and some longing to return to the source of their being. Many will be blinded and absorbed into the vicissitudes of life and man-made demands upon their souls, bodies and minds. Any deity who would send down the Law clearly implies that this is the case. We are stewards of these souls, these divine sparks. This God knows that his creation with knowledge of themselves (ego) will need instruction.

I do not think of a God as the big jurist in the sky. If I err and then seek forgiveness from those I have harmed, my God, my self, an all knowing deity will see this and have an exact idea of who or what I am. Sin has been anticipated by the dispensation of the Law. If we are to be judged it may be for what we failed to achieve with our gifts rather than the anticipated errors that we have made upon our way through this sphere. We will stumble, we will fail...this was known.

The effects of evil ripple across humanity as stones in a pond; not only across the surface but through the depths. Evil begets evil often; some will never know that what they do now may last for generations. What sums up the Law? Do unto others, etc. Evil is powerful because we in possessing a divine spark are potent, invested, stewards. One has a hammer and sees nothing but nails, another takes the hammer and fashions matter into self amusements; yet another takes a hammer and beats out a plow upon the anvil.

What more than the ability to choose is necessary for Evil to exist? Did a God create evil to tempt and try us? Why give us Laws to avoid it then? Why send prophets to remind us that we are erring? Where are humans tortured? Where have their bodies been burned, mutilated, chained, starved and diseased? Why here of course, now as I write and you read. And who does these awful, evil deeds? Some scary red guy with horns and a pitchfork? Of course not; it is us. We make hell or we make heaven. We choose how to use the wealth we have been entrusted with.

I walk with imperfect knowledge of who or what caused me to dwell in this poverty. I have hands and I can think; however I achieved these attributes from a long evolution or a spontaneous creation I cannot absolutely say. I may take action and ohers may take action and we will affect each other and all that we produce. Even if I reject the idea of a divine creation, reason leads me to understand that the Law makes sense; that if we were all able to agree to live within its precepts we would come as close to a heaven as we could on this earth.

 

[sLiPpY]

I find it amusing all of the excuses people make for and characteristics attributed to god.

I have yet to see god post a reply in a forum. Therefore god is not relevant.

 

[simulatedworld]

... so you are admitting that you adhere to empiricism based on metaphysical a priori knowledge? you're no different than the religious folk you patronize...

hence the sarcasm.

 

[Nyx]

I find it amusing all of the excuses people make for and characteristics attributed to god.

I have yet to see god post a reply in a forum. Therefore god is not relevant.

Huh... Does anyone here understand the concept of God?

Again, I recommend the reading of the Summa Theologica... or at least trying to have a silent contemplation of the ideas brought forth by the concept of God. People are subconsciously humanizing Him as is typical of humans... an elementary mistake.

I doubt my words will be heeded as Jesus once said in Matthew 7:6 :"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

 

[swordpath]

"Free Will" is just as absurd of an idea to me. Why are we afforded free will? What could a god possibly want or need from us as expendable humans? Are we really given that much control on earth and then every last drop of it taken from us upon the end of mortal life? Not only that, but we're expected to understand/find "the bigger plan" and then be content with adopting it as valid? I'd say "maybe I'm just fucked up", but I know there's a billion other people like me. Hesitant to put trust in man's often times fallacious words and writings.

 

[Beorn]

"Free Will" is just as absurd of an idea to me. Why are we afforded free will? What could a god possibly want or need from us as expendable humans? Are we really given that much control and then every last drop of it taken from us upon the end of mortal life?

God does not need humans. He is self-sufficient. I don't know the precise reason why God afforded free will to adam and eve, all I know is that ultimately he did it for his own glorification. Because he is the penultimate being he is right to do things for his own glorification.

I believe our free will was corrupted when adam and eve disobeyed God. At that point the human will became fallen and did not ultimately desire God and what is good, but rather desired self and what is evil.

At death people are given what they desire. Either unity with God, or separation and hell.

 

[sLiPpY]

God demands ten percent of your income too.