About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-10-2013, 05:19 AM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(29-10-2013 01:11 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(28-10-2013 03:49 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  Hey guys I'm pretty sure there is a planet out there in the universe and that has unicorns. You can also literally taste skittles in the rainbow on that planet. I don't have any proof or facts. But I have pretty good argument for my belief which is; you can't prove me wrong nana nana boo boo!
Let the debate begin!

The planet of the poisonous intelligent socks ate the unicorn planet a few years ago Sad

And they grow stronger. Every day.

Through the whirling hot portals we have provided, they recruit disaffected socks.

They detest paired socks as it is homosoxuality - an abomination unto them.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Chas's post
29-10-2013, 05:38 AM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(29-10-2013 05:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  They detest paired socks as it is homosoxuality - an abomination unto them.

Yea, and any sock that doeth this abominable thing is unclean, and must be cleansed of its homo with OMO...

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
29-10-2013, 06:01 AM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
So let's follow your logic through, Heywood.
1. An omniscient god exists.
2. Therefore, every possible universe exists
3. Therefore, ours is not necessarily the best possible universe. It is a universe that was necessary for God to create and/or model along the way to creating the best possible universe.
4. Therefore, suffering exists because God is still fine-tuning, hasn't cut his losses yet, and still thinks this universe may be the best possible one. God can't tell whether this universe is the best possible one yet, or is running all simulations simultaneously - thus isn't able to stop this one no matter how bad it is.
5. Therefore universes with at least this level of suffering exist
6. Therefore, god is prepared to create great levels of suffering in search of his perfect universe. Possibly in creating his perfectly good world he inevitably creates a perfectly evil world.
7. Therefore god's morality no matter how good doesn't necessarily apply to us. In seeking out the perfect universe he's willing to let the optimum slide for these little side-universes. Even his direct interactions with each universe are likely to be somewhat random and chaotic in nature reflecting alternative ways to nudge a universe towards some optimal point rather than being "good" or aligned to his morality in any fundamental way.
8. Therefore, divine command theory is a sham.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
29-10-2013, 11:18 AM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(28-10-2013 02:47 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  
(28-10-2013 12:11 PM)kim Wrote:  ...Although some buddhist sects might address a god concept, basic buddhism as taught by the Buddha, does not. Buddhists do not believe in god. In fact, a god concept very often opposes the basic buddhist teachings.
...

Well....that depends on how you look at it. I agree, "basic buddhism, as taught by the Buddha, does not" bother with the "god" concept. It even addresses it as a distraction from the path to enlightenment. Though "the Buddha" would have also allowed it, if that's the path you needed to take. So even "the Buddha" was not against it per say, just didn't feel the need to be bothered with it.

But that's "the Buddha". In actual practice, as with any religion, it varies greatly from it's origin. A modern day Buddhist may very well not believe in "God" or "gods", but a great number, arguably do. Many explicitly so.

I agree, it goes against the Buddhist doctrine, but in the same way, Christian's only believe in one "god" but still justify having three main "gods", at least one near comparable "god", a host of subordinate "gods" and lesser "gods" or "demigods", such as Yahweh, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Satan, all the angels, and demons, and the saints, if you count those in your religion, yet they still claim to believe in only one "god", dispite the fact that if it were any other religion it would be viewed as having a whole panthon of "gods".

In the same way many Christians claim only one "god" but justify having many, so do many Buddhist claim having no "gods" but worship many in a way that if it were any other religion, they would be referred to as "gods".

But of course, it's not a tenent of Buddhism in general, so there are a great number who honestly don't believe in "gods". But that's not to say there aren't many who do treat Buddha, or any of the lamas, in the same fashion as other religions treat their "gods".
I get the point you are making, but I believe kim is correct. While some Buddhists may believe in a god, that would be something those people are just doing of their own accord. It is not part of Buddhism itself. It's more like some Catholics who decide that confession isn't really necessary even though the Catholic faith says it is. Those people may believe something different, but that aspect is not Catholicism anymore than believing in a god is Buddhism.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2013, 12:35 PM (This post was last modified: 29-10-2013 12:55 PM by Raptor Jesus.)
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(29-10-2013 11:18 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(28-10-2013 02:47 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  Well....that depends on how you look at it. I agree, "basic buddhism, as taught by the Buddha, does not" bother with the "god" concept. It even addresses it as a distraction from the path to enlightenment. Though "the Buddha" would have also allowed it, if that's the path you needed to take. So even "the Buddha" was not against it per say, just didn't feel the need to be bothered with it.

But that's "the Buddha". In actual practice, as with any religion, it varies greatly from it's origin. A modern day Buddhist may very well not believe in "God" or "gods", but a great number, arguably do. Many explicitly so.

I agree, it goes against the Buddhist doctrine, but in the same way, Christian's only believe in one "god" but still justify having three main "gods", at least one near comparable "god", a host of subordinate "gods" and lesser "gods" or "demigods", such as Yahweh, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Satan, all the angels, and demons, and the saints, if you count those in your religion, yet they still claim to believe in only one "god", dispite the fact that if it were any other religion it would be viewed as having a whole panthon of "gods".

In the same way many Christians claim only one "god" but justify having many, so do many Buddhist claim having no "gods" but worship many in a way that if it were any other religion, they would be referred to as "gods".

But of course, it's not a tenent of Buddhism in general, so there are a great number who honestly don't believe in "gods". But that's not to say there aren't many who do treat Buddha, or any of the lamas, in the same fashion as other religions treat their "gods".
I get the point you are making, but I believe kim is correct. While some Buddhists may believe in a god, that would be something those people are just doing of their own accord. It is not part of Buddhism itself. It's more like some Catholics who decide that confession isn't really necessary even though the Catholic faith says it is. Those people may believe something different, but that aspect is not Catholicism anymore than believing in a god is Buddhism.

I think it's more apt to say it's like Catholics who believe in saints, but don't count them as "demigods", which is what they would be considered in any other religion. But because they simply don't call them that, they aren't?

But they are part of Catholic doctrine, in the same way that some Buddhist, not some individual Buddhist, but some Buddhist groups of practitioners, do in fact have, as part of their doctrine, reverence for past Buddhas, and Lamas, that rival "god" worship. There are more Buddhist religious groups than just one. There is a tendency to think of Buddhism as somehow having one core doctrine, and individuals varying away from it, but as with Christianity, there are many different forms of Buddhism too. For those Buddhist groups that practice it, it is part of their religious practices, as part of their practice, not separate from it.

I do agree, the level of worship of is not the same as worship of the Christian "god", but it diffidently boarders on the degree of worship other religions devote to their "gods" such a paganism or Hinduism, for example. Hindus, for example, do not worship their “gods” in the same way Christians worship the Christian concept of “god”. They more revere and honor their “gods” and worship them in a more subdued way, compared to “Yahweh”. But it is still, very much, “god” worship.

It’s really just semantics, is my point. They don’t have to call it “god” worship if they don’t want, but I don’t see the difference in practice, only in attribution.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2013, 01:20 PM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(29-10-2013 12:35 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  
(29-10-2013 11:18 AM)Impulse Wrote:  I get the point you are making, but I believe kim is correct. While some Buddhists may believe in a god, that would be something those people are just doing of their own accord. It is not part of Buddhism itself. It's more like some Catholics who decide that confession isn't really necessary even though the Catholic faith says it is. Those people may believe something different, but that aspect is not Catholicism anymore than believing in a god is Buddhism.

I think it's more apt to say it's like Catholics who believe in saints, but don't count them as "demigods", which is what they would be considered in any other religion. But because they simply don't call them that, they aren't?

But they are part of Catholic doctrine, in the same way that some Buddhist, not some individual Buddhist, but some Buddhist groups of practitioners, do in fact have, as part of their doctrine, reverence for past Buddhas, and Lamas, that rival "god" worship. There are more Buddhist religious groups than just one. There is a tendency to think of Buddhism as somehow having one core doctrine, and individuals varying away from it, but as with Christianity, there are many different forms of Buddhism too. For those Buddhist groups that practice it, it is part of their religious practices, as part of their practice, not separate from it.

I do agree, the level of worship of is not the same as worship of the Christian "god", but it diffidently boarders on the degree of worship other religions devote to their "gods" such a paganism or Hinduism, for example. Hindus, for example, do not worship their “gods” in the same way Christians worship the Christian concept of “god”. They more revere and honor their “gods” and worship them in a more subdued way, compared to “Yahweh”. But it is still, very much, “god” worship.

It’s really just semantics, is my point. They don’t have to call it “god” worship if they don’t want, but I don’t see the difference in practice, only in attribution.
There may also be more to some variations of Buddhism than I realize. I'm really referring to the original Buddhism. I suppose the variations would be a lot like the Protestant offshoots from Catholicism - having many similarities to the original, but with some significant differences. I'm certainly no expert in Buddhism, but I do know the original had no god worship or anything resembling it. It did have a revered leader who was recognized as being human.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2013, 01:29 PM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(29-10-2013 06:01 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  So let's follow your logic through, Heywood.
1. An omniscient god exists.
2. Therefore, every possible universe exists
3. Therefore, ours is not necessarily the best possible universe. It is a universe that was necessary for God to create and/or model along the way to creating the best possible universe.
4. Therefore, suffering exists because God is still fine-tuning, hasn't cut his losses yet, and still thinks this universe may be the best possible one. God can't tell whether this universe is the best possible one yet, or is running all simulations simultaneously - thus isn't able to stop this one no matter how bad it is.
5. Therefore universes with at least this level of suffering exist
6. Therefore, god is prepared to create great levels of suffering in search of his perfect universe. Possibly in creating his perfectly good world he inevitably creates a perfectly evil world.
7. Therefore god's morality no matter how good doesn't necessarily apply to us. In seeking out the perfect universe he's willing to let the optimum slide for these little side-universes. Even his direct interactions with each universe are likely to be somewhat random and chaotic in nature reflecting alternative ways to nudge a universe towards some optimal point rather than being "good" or aligned to his morality in any fundamental way.
8. Therefore, divine command theory is a sham.

Your argumentation is a sham. I never talked about God's morality or some quest to create the perfect universe. What is the point in having a conversation with you if you just make stuff up? Come back when you decide to be intellectually honest.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2013, 01:55 PM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(29-10-2013 01:29 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(29-10-2013 06:01 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  So let's follow your logic through, Heywood.
1. An omniscient god exists.
2. Therefore, every possible universe exists
3. Therefore, ours is not necessarily the best possible universe. It is a universe that was necessary for God to create and/or model along the way to creating the best possible universe.
4. Therefore, suffering exists because God is still fine-tuning, hasn't cut his losses yet, and still thinks this universe may be the best possible one. God can't tell whether this universe is the best possible one yet, or is running all simulations simultaneously - thus isn't able to stop this one no matter how bad it is.
5. Therefore universes with at least this level of suffering exist
6. Therefore, god is prepared to create great levels of suffering in search of his perfect universe. Possibly in creating his perfectly good world he inevitably creates a perfectly evil world.
7. Therefore god's morality no matter how good doesn't necessarily apply to us. In seeking out the perfect universe he's willing to let the optimum slide for these little side-universes. Even his direct interactions with each universe are likely to be somewhat random and chaotic in nature reflecting alternative ways to nudge a universe towards some optimal point rather than being "good" or aligned to his morality in any fundamental way.
8. Therefore, divine command theory is a sham.

Your argumentation is a sham. I never talked about God's morality or some quest to create the perfect universe. What is the point in having a conversation with you if you just make stuff up? Come back when you decide to be intellectually honest.

Lol. Your argument is a sham too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2013, 03:15 PM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(29-10-2013 01:29 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Come back when you decide to be intellectually honest.

How about you take your own advice.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
29-10-2013, 11:24 PM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
Heywood, I understand that you're trying to run another "thought experiment" here. They are fun and all, but this one seems to have run ashore.

I got a question for you. No thought experiment, but seriously....do you believe that your God is omniscient?

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: