An Argument for God (cont.)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-04-2013, 10:46 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(04-04-2013 10:36 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Do I think God would give humanity challenges? Yes, I believe He would.

Just curious, but why do you believe a deity would bother?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 10:54 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(04-04-2013 10:46 PM)Logisch Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 10:36 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Do I think God would give humanity challenges? Yes, I believe He would.

Just curious, but why do you believe a deity would bother?

A deity creates in order to know. In order to know about pink unicorns they have to exist. Now you can imagine pink unicorns but then you could only say you know about the concept of pink unicorns. In order to know about existing pink unicorns, then pink unicorns have to exist.

If God is to know about human suffering then humans must suffer. Otherwise God can only know about the concept of human suffering.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 10:58 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
So you're proposing a deity that is not all knowing? At least, that's what it sounds like? I'm just trying to ensure I understand the perspective you are talking about.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logisch's post
04-04-2013, 10:59 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(04-04-2013 10:38 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 12:17 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Taken to its logical conclusion your argument dictates that we should...

Suffer an infant to starve, so that he appreciates the food we give him.

Force children to sleep in the cold so that they appreciate the warmth and comfort of their beds.

Allow our children to suffer infections and injury so as to increase their appreciation of health.

Deprive our children of compassion and empathy so that they will better appreciate the same.


The above is a list of ingredients needed for the creation of a psychopath. This is what you advocate.
I haven't advocated any of those things. Your just making stuff up in lieu of an argument.

What I said was, "taken to its logical conclusion, your argument dictates".

That doesn't mean I am putting words in your mouth or accusing you of advocating those things... purposefully. It's simply applying your logic to another scenario. I don't think you would advocate those things but by arguing that suffering is good because it makes us appreciate pleasure, that's exactly what you did... albeit unwittingly.

And that IS my argument. IF we follow your claim and we want to ensure that our children receive the maximum amount of pleasure, that's what we would do.

It's just logic, it's not an insult.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 11:02 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(04-04-2013 10:58 PM)Logisch Wrote:  So you're proposing a deity that is not all knowing? At least, that's what it sounds like? I'm just trying to ensure I understand the perspective you are talking about.

I've always considered "all knowing" to mean knowing all that is knowable....or knowing all things. Which means for God to know about it He must first create it or it must otherwise be in existence.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 11:04 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(04-04-2013 10:59 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 10:38 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I haven't advocated any of those things. Your just making stuff up in lieu of an argument.

What I said was, "taken to its logical conclusion, your argument dictates".

That doesn't mean I am putting words in your mouth or accusing you of advocating those things... purposefully. It's simply applying your logic to another scenario. I don't think you would advocate those things but by arguing that suffering is good because it makes us appreciate pleasure, that's exactly what you did... albeit unwittingly.

And that IS my argument. IF we follow your claim and we want to ensure that our children receive the maximum amount of pleasure, that's what we would do.

It's just logic, it's not an insult.

I would say some suffering is good....wouldn't you?

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 11:05 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(04-04-2013 11:02 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 10:58 PM)Logisch Wrote:  So you're proposing a deity that is not all knowing? At least, that's what it sounds like? I'm just trying to ensure I understand the perspective you are talking about.

I've always considered "all knowing" to mean knowing all that is knowable....or knowing all things. Which means for God to know about it He must first create it or it must otherwise be in existence.

Interesting. First time I've actually heard that perspective (not kidding). My next question would be that if such a deity exists, where did it get its knowledge to understand the things necessary to give challenges to things in the first place? For instance, if such a deity exists to challenge or do things to learn... where would such a deity start with some form of knowledge in the first place? And, where did that knowledge come from?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 11:17 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(04-04-2013 11:05 PM)Logisch Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 11:02 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I've always considered "all knowing" to mean knowing all that is knowable....or knowing all things. Which means for God to know about it He must first create it or it must otherwise be in existence.

Interesting. First time I've actually heard that perspective (not kidding). My next question would be that if such a deity exists, where did it get its knowledge to understand the things necessary to give challenges to things in the first place? For instance, if such a deity exists to challenge or do things to learn... where would such a deity start with some form of knowledge in the first place? And, where did that knowledge come from?

I don't know.

I tend to think of God as something emergent, but eternally so.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 11:25 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(04-04-2013 11:17 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I don't know.

I tend to think of God as something emergent, but eternally so.

But if something must exist at an infancy or lack of knowledge, it too would have a point of ignorance. If something capable of the creation of the universe (assuming your belief is that said deity is responsible for the creation of the universe, however, if this is not the case, I apologize, please clarify) then how would such a thing have such a great knowledge of things such as physics and the laws of nature (black holes, stars, gravity, planets, eco systems, biology, etc) but not an understanding of something such as... man?

I mean I can understand and follow the logic of: "If something doesn't actually exist, we can only understand the concept of something." but I'm still not following how such a thing would be capable of even more complex things (like a universe) but not things such as psychology.

I do at least appreciate that you are honest enough with the answer of, "I do not know" - however, it still makes me ponder how you came to the conclusion of something emergent and eternal in the first place.

No beef with you, just a different through process so I'm curious.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 11:29 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(04-04-2013 11:04 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 10:59 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  What I said was, "taken to its logical conclusion, your argument dictates".

That doesn't mean I am putting words in your mouth or accusing you of advocating those things... purposefully. It's simply applying your logic to another scenario. I don't think you would advocate those things but by arguing that suffering is good because it makes us appreciate pleasure, that's exactly what you did... albeit unwittingly.

And that IS my argument. IF we follow your claim and we want to ensure that our children receive the maximum amount of pleasure, that's what we would do.

It's just logic, it's not an insult.

I would say some suffering is good....wouldn't you?

Not in such a general manner, no. For instance, I suffered a gunshot wound to the foot when I was twelve years old. I not only suffered the immediate and semi-long term pain of the injury, but I also lost the opportunity to race BMX bicycles forever. And, I was ranked 51 in the nation so I had a pretty good chance of a lucrative career. What benefit did I receive by not being able to do what I (at the time) lived for? What was made better? In short, what was good about that suffering?

Suffering can be beneficial, however, but still that's not to say it's good, because what would be good would be for the event that caused the suffering to never happen. Let's look at rape. Should a rapist suffer? Well, he should certainly be made to pay restitution to his victim, which is a necessary but not sufficient means of remuneration but in the case of rape there is no true restitution possible. So I think we can agree that a rapist should suffer the consequences of his act, although I'm sure we won't agree on what that suffering entails. You might agitate for the death penalty, some sort of torture or maybe all of the above. I would not.

Assuming my guess is correct in your case, what good comes of torturing and or killing the rapist? Do any of those things return the victim to her prior status? Do any of those things help the victim financially while she is unable to work due to the trauma she is dealing with? What possible good can come from rape?

How about an abused child? Does being beaten, neglected or verbally abused as a child result in some sort of benefit to the future adult? Does trauma make one appreciate non violence more? Again, what possible good can come from abusing a child?

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: