I don't see how God could plausibly exist (Christian definition of God)

[Yeonhee]

It can't be a true choice if the answer is predetermined, and if God knows what is going to happen, then it has already been predetermined.

C'mon, what is this? 6th grade Bible school?



I don't argue for another man's religion.

God's foreknowledge does not entail necessity (because I know X, X will occur.), it remains only a logical possibility ("knowledge of everything that can be known") It does not coerce the event to occur. In this way, we are free by being free from coercion. Similarly, I can assume I know every logical possibility, but only one will remain true and the others false. I cannot change the future, but I can exercise my free will by changing what it could have been. Let's say I'm baking something, I can attempt to change how my baked cookies turn out, but I cannot change what it will be. It's a logical fallacy to assume that because I cannot change what will be, it cannot be changed from what it could be by my exercise of free will.

 

[Nicodemus]

Then I deduce that you do not consider simplistic thinking problematic?

Your deduction is more of a wild assumption. The 'problem' can be solved by simple logic, so there is no need for complex thinking. Complex thinking comes into play if you are unwilling to accept the conclusion.

 

[Zarathustra]

Your deduction is more of a wild assumption. The 'problem' can be solved by simple logic, so there is need for complex thinking. Complex thinking comes into play if you are unwilling to accept the conclusion.

The problem with the "Problem of Evil" is that it is based on assumptions, and it is simplistic thinking to believe that its assumptions are the assumptions that must be made when asking the question of whether or not there is a God.

As such, since you do not find the problem problematic, one can only deduce that you do not find simplistic thinking problematic.

The only other option would be that you do not understand why believing in the absolute primacy of its assumptions is simplistic thinking...

 

[Zarathustra]

God's foreknowledge does not entail necessity (because I know X, X will occur.), it remains only a logical possibility ("knowledge of everything that can be known") It does not coerce the event to occur. In this way, we are free by being free from coercion. Similarly, I can assume I know every logical possibility, but only one will remain true and the others false. I cannot change the future, but I can exercise my free will by changing what it could have been. Let's say I'm baking something, I can attempt to change how my baked cookies turn out, but I cannot change what it will be. It's a logical fallacy to assume that because I cannot change what will be, it cannot be changed from what it could be by my exercise of free will.

You're wrong.

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

From what I recall, man is free and chose to detach himself from God (If we are to assume that God represents all that is good.), which means it was 'self induced suffering'.

I forgot the part where I personally chose to eat of the fruit. Oops.

Again, where in the bible does it show God created evil? All that is given to us is that man was tempted and man chose to give in to his temptation. It's not exactly about placing a fruit in the Garden of Eden. The object itself wasn't evil, it was man's choice to go against God that was considered a sin.

If god created free-will, then he must have created evil, as our definition of this specific free-will NECESSITATES the existence of evil.

In the end I can imagine you're thinking, "Well, then why bother?" in terms of what Aquinas was referring to, God bothered because he could only accept authentic love. After all, God is all that is true and good. God does not need us, but if we are to assume that God is all that is true and good, why should we assume he would accept anything less? (However, I guess this is resolved in the new testament?) In the case of Christianity, we inevitably end up returning to the issue of choice and God's love. In order to know love and to love, you must first be conscious of this idea of love. Second, you must choose to believe and live by it. "Evil" is when Man, who is free, does not wish to be with God or know God (all that is good).

Mmkay.

If we consider evil as not some 'independent' thing that exists outside of Man, who taunts and haunts mankind, instead understanding the nature of freedom and choice we have with God, then perhaps things will start to make sense.

FYI: I'm not religious.

Mmm, no.

IDC if you're religious or not.

 

[Nicodemus]

The problem with the "Problem of Evil" is that it is based on assumptions, and it is simplistic thinking to believe that its assumptions are the assumptions that must be made when asking the question of whether or not there is a God.

The problem is composed of certain premises, certain assumptions. If you do not accept them, you do not accept the problem. Of course they do not have to be made when asking whether the is a god...

As such, since you do not find the problem problematic, one can only deduce that you do not find simplistic thinking problematic.

But if you do accept the problem (which is indeed simplistic), then complex thinking is not necessary to solve it.

The only other option would be that you do not understand why believing in the absolute primacy of its assumptions is simplistic thinking...

Are we going there already?

 

[Yeonhee]

I forgot the part where I personally chose to eat of the fruit. Oops.

Fruit in the bible =/= Fruit in your backyard. It doesn't matter if you weren't the one that ate the fruit, it's the act of not being with God that is the point. Fuck.

If god created free-will, then he must have created evil, as our definition of this specific free-will NECESSITATES the existence of evil.

If you assume free will exists, then what is this nonsense about "necessity"? Free will allows evil to be a possible consequence, not a necessary consequence.

 

[Zarathustra]

The problem is composed of certain premises, certain assumptions. If you do not accept them, you do not accept the problem.

True, true.

Of course they do not have to be made when asking whether the is a god...

OK, well if this is your belief, then we have common ground.

But if you do accept the problem (which is indeed simplistic), then complex thinking is not necessary to solve it.

Agreed. On both counts.

Are we going there already?

Well, considering you were willing to admit that the Problem of Evil is indeed simplistic, apparently there's no need to go there.

It was my mistake to not have given you the credit.

 

[Nicodemus]

I sometimes say to a friend of mine that, when we disagree, it is most likely because of a misunderstanding of words. We disagree a lot.

 

[KDude]

Not to split hairs but you just described a number of old testament stories involving God and described them as The Christian God, all those episodes where pre-Christ.

Are you a Gnostic? It's the same tradition. It doesn't matter if it's pre-Christ. Christ was a Jew, preached to Jews, and used a lot of examples for Jews, by Jews, and about Jews. He referenced "old testament stories", including Abraham and Noah, and so did, say, Paul or the anonymous author of Hebrews well after Christ's death. They considered it part of their tradition - or rather, they saw Christ as a continuation. Only that he brought a new covenant. The only people who would make a big distinction between the OT God and Christ were Gnostics. Christians only make a distinction between the Torah and the Gospel.

 

[Zarathustra]

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

God's foreknowledge does not entail necessity (because I know X, X will occur.), it remains only a logical possibility ("knowledge of everything that can be known") It does not coerce the event to occur. In this way, we are free by being free from coercion. Similarly, I can assume I know every logical possibility, but only one will remain true and the others false. I cannot change the future, but I can exercise my free will by changing what it could have been. Let's say I'm baking something, I can attempt to change how my baked cookies turn out, but I cannot change what it will be. It's a logical fallacy to assume that because I cannot change what will be, it cannot be changed from what it could be by my exercise of free will.

If you assume free will exists, then what is this nonsense about "necessity"? Free will allows evil to be a possible consequence, not a necessary consequence.

....

You win.

 

[Tamske]

Fruit in the bible =/= Fruit in your backyard. It doesn't matter if you weren't the one that ate the fruit, it's the act of not being with God that is the point. Fuck.

I've got more than one problem with that story.
So God creates humans with free will and puts them to a test. Actually he sets them up to fail. And is severely disappointed when the humans do fail. So disappointed that not only the culprits but also their children (who, at least according to modern(*) moral standards, are innocent) need to endure death and illness and all sorts of problems. Huh. Didn't he foresee that? Of did he WANT the humans to fail and be able to punish them? What a nice god.
The Tree of Knowlegde. If I was Eve I would eat the fruit straight away. I'm just curious like that. I'm a bit disappointed that the only knowledge they get is that they are naked. Mmmkay. Nothing about the shape of the earth, about the fuel the sun is using, even nothing about basic argiculture which they could certainly use after they're cast out of Eden.
Knowledge of Good and Evil, you say? Nothing scientific, only moral knowledge? There's a logical error in this. If Eve didn't know the difference between good and bad, she can't be bad when eating the fruit! The only thing which could stop her was God's warning. But, again, how could she know obeying God is good when she doesn't know the difference?? So not only the children, but also Eve and Adam are innocent.

(*) I know it's an ancient story and doesn't have to represent modern moral standards. But I also know there are people who take it as the literal truth. They have these problems. There are also people who claim they take their morals from the Bible (or other ancient holy book). Either they are lying and only take the nice bits (according to what? What else than modern morals?), or they have an appalling morality.

 

[Thalassa]

I'm a bit disappointed that the only knowledge they get is that they are naked.

It's not knowledge that they're naked, or moral knowledge of good and bad...it's fucking self-awareness. Eating from the tree of knowledge is what seperates humans from other animals.

I say this not as a religious person, but to clarify what this is all about. I suppose if we were obedient we'd still be mindlessly in tune with nature like lions or bunny rabbits.

So basically all this story does is make a myth for why we have more cerebral development than our mammalian cousins.

 

[Thalassa]

You win.

Actually she doesn't win...but she did make me realize something. Her argument is that evil is a possible consequence of free will, but it doesn't necessitate evil. Essentially she's saying that evil is a creation of man, not god?

Interesting...because in eating of the fruit of knowledge...that is, developing enough intellect to seperate ourselves from housecats and pigs...we (men) created the concept of evil to apply to perfectly natural things, like sex.

Awesome. Thanks for inadvertantly pointing out just how much the Bible self-negates. It's as though the secret message in the Bible is, "HELLO HUMAN INTELLECT MADE ALL THIS UP." It's all there in chapter one.

Suckers.

 

[Thalassa]

This is all making more and more sense to me...there's reason to all this. "God" is intellect...and the reason why intellect would put restraints on things like sexuality are pretty clear...because people who spend a lot of time reading and thinking tend to spend less time drinking and fucking. And if you don't have sex with more than one person, you don't get diseases...and that's smart in a primitive society. Not only that, but if you go all the way and are celebate and don't reproduce, you have all the more time to be scholarly.

So, yes, in that way ...controlling sex benefits the intellect.

It's why so many of the Jewish Old Testament laws are practical and can be applied to natural limitations and customs of the time period.

Religion was an early form of intellectualism. Like I've suspected before, it was an evolutionary step in human civilization.

Yes, yes.

 

[entropie]

I would blame it on the Ti, but the INFJs are so damn spiritually inclined...

Still, it might have to do with the positioning of the Ti...

I would assume the TPs are a highly atheistic bunch (possibly the most so of any group of four types)...

But, then again, I think I've read that INTJs are one of the three most likely (if not the single most likely) types to report being atheistic, so...

Well my Fe isnt very well educated, I'm like 80% secure when it comes to moving in society and following etiquette. This tho a thing one can learn. Then again when it comes to having emotions or noticing them, I think I'll never learn that. I am more like 30% enabled to use the Fe probably, but most things elude me.

So when Ti in the third position would be the key factor to be more prone to spirituality, wouldnt that be like a joke in which you kid yourself ? I mean, the weaker the Ti, the stronger the belief ?

I personally think that spirituality can only hardly be related to mbti, very faint maybe, but very hardly. To me it's more an educational thing. You'll see that most countries that are generally more spiritual have been so for decades. So it's more a thing that get passed on from generation to generation and if you see that a modern and enlightened country like America still has so many religious roots, you more and more can formulate the truth that being religious or not maybe isnt too much a thing of choice, but more a thing of education and how you learnt it.

I hope this doesnt sound disrespectful cause I did not intend to do that. I never intend to mock religious people, I can respect them for their belief, just not understand them.

I am no expert in history things but in Germany many years ago, there were 30 years of civil war. The believers of protestant religion from the North clashed with the catholic believers from the south and it took them 30 years of civil war to fight over which religion is the best. People ruined their lifes so much with this that they were left without homes, crops and anything + Black Death was making the round. When they reached the point of near extinction they decided to formulate a peace treaty at the Porta Westfalica which is about 30 miles from my place.

Since that time, we still have a strong religious south in Germany, which is mostly catholic but a very weak protestant north / west and east. Since that time too, religion was tolerated but not really believed in no more. And followed by a lots of political changes and philosophical insights a time of great innovation followed and transformed the country into a highly industrial nation. What followed then were two World Wars and you can argue a lot now if the distance to religion may have determined this to happen, I'ld say it played a pivotal role in this.

And now my point, I do not argue that many morales and life experiences from religion can help people very much. The image of living in an industrialized nation, where morales have gone down the hill, like the goblin capital in World of Warcraft is not what I want and I am glad idealistic people have gained a lot of influence in this country over the past 50 years. Many philosophical insights from the time before the WWs was possible because this country was secularized in a way where the military was primarily the state and then came a civil middle and then came long nothing and then religion. I wonder what would have happened if the 30 year long war never happened.

You can of course now say, if the people would have staied religious, it would have never gotten bad, then again religion was the cause the war happened at all, so I do not know if the means really outweigh the cause.

One thing is for sure tho, the definition of God is different for a guy who lives in Brazil, a guy who lives in America and a guy who lives in Europe and I therefore think religious people shouldnt go around waving a gun calling everyone an atheist who doesnt believe ion their definition of a God. I've said earlier that I am no atheist, I just dont like the christian religion. If I had to choose a religion, I'ld choose buddhism cause that's a religion I really like and I think it is necessary for a civilisation to survive to have some kind religion, or let's give it a more scientific name to have "some cause to believe in".

 

[Rex]

Im having a hard time believing in a God that does mistakes. A God that has to sacrifice a piece of himself to set things straight. But again, that might be our connection with him.

And whats the appropriate punishment for eternal life in eden? There is none, any punishment is insignificant. He must forgive us, he must be. so then.. why did he not just say that we would be forgiven for fuck ups in the beginning?

and so on, and so on i go.

Just some of my thoughts.

 

[KDude]

This is all making more and more sense to me...there's reason to all this. "God" is intellect...and the reason why intellect would put restraints on things like sexuality are pretty clear...because people who spend a lot of time reading and thinking tend to spend less time drinking and fucking. And if you don't have sex with more than one person, you don't get diseases...and that's smart in a primitive society. Not only that, but if you go all the way and are celebate and don't reproduce, you have all the more time to be scholarly.

So, yes, in that way ...controlling sex benefits the intellect.

It's why so many of the Jewish Old Testament laws are practical and can be applied to natural limitations and customs of the time period.

Religion was an early form of intellectualism. Like I've suspected before, it was an evolutionary step in human civilization.

Yes, yes.

I get the main point of what you're trying to say, but I don't think the word "intellectual" is the right one. The origins of religion weren't intellectual, but oral and ritual, and communal. Few were reading any of this per se, and much of it wasn't even compiled to resemble something close to a book until around the 5th century B.C.E. - and even then, the "intellectual" spin on things was the domain of priests and rabbis, while for everyone else it was a community oriented practice.

Genesis in particular is just a composite work anyways. And some of the stories contained (like the creation story) just seem to have the purpose of subverting an older tradition and putting it in a new light. If they have an intellectual agenda, it's the promotion of their own peculiar brand of monotheism. Putting a new spin on an old tale. Some of these myths were already known in various ways in the ancient Mesopotamian world (such as in Babylonian accounts), and I can imagine people were telling something like them for millenia over campfires or even situations as mundane as a child asking a parent how the world was created. There's nothing intellectual about that. They were just humans trying to understand things like you and I. And the accounts in genesis were just another take on it, and probably circulated themselves for years in the same way the original Babylonian accounts did, where they were transmitted and hashed out in larger social contexts long before they were put in writing. That all said, you're probably right that it's all "made up", but I don't think it's original purpose was control. That's definitely what religion can be about now, but it's more complicated when we go back 6/7000 years.

 

[Nicodemus]

I am no expert in history things [...]

That much is true, I am afraid.