Logic vs. Theism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-03-2017, 12:45 PM (This post was last modified: 06-03-2017 12:57 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 11:05 AM)fschmidt Wrote:  "I am who am" (actually "I will be who I will be") is not positive, but intentionally ambiguous, rejecting definition. The rest describe actions, not attributes. Here is more discussion on the topic:

It is not. It's a claim of BEING, the tense is not important. Nice try.
Moses was allowed to see his god, (or his butt anyway).
Moses asked to God’s glory, and God replies, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence, but you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live” (Exodus 33:19–20). God then puts “in a cleft in the rock” and "covered him with His hand as He passed by" (verse 22). “Then,” God promised, “I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen” (verse 23). They had basically different god than anyone else. He had a wife. There were all kinds of other "divine beings" in the "heavenly host", in Hebrew thought. Your god is not special. He was taken from Babylonian mythology.

Quote:Excuse me for independent thought. I realize that independent thought offends atheists, but (serious) theists have no problem with my view. In fact the only people who I can an intelligent conversation with conservative Mennonites, Muslims, and a few other people who follow the Old Testament.

You totally MISSED the point. YOU made a specific claim about the OT god. Scholars (which obviously you are not) know what the Hebrews thought about their gods. It's not up to YOU to cook up something new, and then say it's the way they thought. You have no clue what they thought. The fact is, they picked Yahweh precisely because he was an action god, who would help them in battle. He was different from other Canaanite deities in that he was not a weather or nature god. Clearly you know NOTHING about the ancient Near East, and their culture. That's fine. But stop lying about it.

Quote:This is actually common is rising cultures. The Roman Republic basically had the same rule.

Totally irrelevant. You said you liked the ethics in the OT. There you have some of them. You thinking killing disobedient children is a good ethic ? You think murdering infants of the people you conquer is a good ethic ? You think stoning prostitutes is a good ethic ? You think killing those caught having sex is a good ethic ? There is nothing in Hebrew culture than was any different or any better than in any surrounding ancient Near Eastern culture. It's where they GOT their ethics. Religion gave NOTHING to their culture. Their culture gave their religion it's contents.

Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
06-03-2017, 12:53 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 11:25 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Sorry, but that's a crock. Regulation implies at least tacit endorsement. When you set up rules for something you set up conditions under which it is permitted to take place and it's disingenuous to try to say that's not a form of endorsement.

It might be possible to argue that the OT does not promote slavery but, given the definitions of who you can enslave and how you can treat them, even that is a stretch.

America regulates tobacco. I don't see that as a tacit endorsement.

As much as modern people would like to believe that slavery ended because of enlightened morality, this is in fact nonsense. Slavery ended because of the industrial revolution which greatly reduced the need for manual labor. Before this, slavery was common all over the world.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 01:09 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 12:53 PM)fschmidt Wrote:  
(06-03-2017 11:25 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Sorry, but that's a crock. Regulation implies at least tacit endorsement. When you set up rules for something you set up conditions under which it is permitted to take place and it's disingenuous to try to say that's not a form of endorsement.

It might be possible to argue that the OT does not promote slavery but, given the definitions of who you can enslave and how you can treat them, even that is a stretch.

America regulates tobacco. I don't see that as a tacit endorsement.

I do. Regulating something means there are conditions under which it is condoned. That is effectively a tacit approval and a tacit endorsement of the activity in my book.

Quote:As much as modern people would like to believe that slavery ended because of enlightened morality, this is in fact nonsense. Slavery ended because of the industrial revolution which greatly reduced the need for manual labor. Before this, slavery was common all over the world.

So? Was I arguing anything about why slavery ended in some places? That has nothing to do with whether or not it was ethical or whether or not it was endorsed in the OT.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
06-03-2017, 01:11 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 11:38 AM)unfogged Wrote:  I think I can agree to much of that but the term "god" is typically used to refer to a conscious, thinking agent that is intentionally manipulating some aspect of the universe. If you don't mean that then your choice of terms (especially when you capitalize the word which further links it to a specific god image) is misleading and if you want to get your ideas across that's not a good place to start.

I can respect and be amazed by and stand in awe of the universe and the various forces that operate within it without seeing any need to personify them or to "worship" them in any way. Labeling them as "god" only serves to add mental associations with concepts that don't apply to the thing being labeled.

ETA: You mentioned that communication can only take place when minds resonate; if I understand what you are saying, your use of "god" for natural forces is setting up something of a very different frequency in my brain that it apparently does in yours. There is no effective communication because you are triggering words that do not have the same concepts attached for me. If you have a new god concept you probably need a new word. It seems to be vaguely pantheistic/panentheistic but you are not being at all clear.

It is critical to leave the definition of God open so that each person can view God according to his own mental abilities. For people of average intelligence, it is probably best that they personify God. I can have reasonable conversations with conservative Mennonites and Muslims even if our definition of God differs because we share the same basic values which are based on the God concept. I find it almost impossible to have a conversation with members of modern culture who are either secular or modern Christian (whose concept of God is complete nonsense).

One thing that the God label adds to the forces of nature is a recognition that these forces act on human history. This is critical, and something that modern liberal culture rejects.

If you have an open mind and sufficient intelligence, then you should eventually be able to understand what I am saying even if you don't agree with it. I do agree that no one here yet understands what I am saying.

I reject pantheism because God must be CAUSE to have meaning. The forces of nature are cause, but nature itself is not.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 01:14 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 12:19 PM)mordant Wrote:  No, you are not making an intellectually sound point as it's purposely vague and unfalsifiable. It is legitimate to ask what you even mean by "mental resonance" and how that would be functionally different from "whatever one can imagine that is pleasing". How is this epistemologically sound and in what way is it grounded in actual reality outside of your personal subjective experience?

This is not an effort to attack or insult, it is simply honest critique -- in a forum that you have voluntarily entered, that is designed specifically to discuss and debate ideas, which means you will be obliged to explain and defend your ideas at times.

I don't understand your question. Are you asking what "mental resonance" means, or are you asking about my subjective concept of truth? By "mental resonance" I just mean a means of producing similar thought patterns in another person's mind.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 01:18 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 12:24 PM)mordant Wrote:  A book that claims to be inspired could really impress by not always leading from behind. Since the Abrahamic deity is supposed to be omniscient and totally prescient, wouldn't it be great if the OT admonished the people of its era to rise to a much higher and enlightened standard, and foreswear human slavery as the evil it is, and to not participate in or tolerate it?

By contrast if all a book written 3,000 years ago does is "reflect its times" then it's evidence that it was simply written by men of the time, who could pat themselves on the backs for being relatively kindly owners of other humans and think it was Really Advanced of them to be so forward-thinking.

The Old Testament is, above all, practical. If it had rejected slavery, it would have been ignored. The Old Testament shows how to apply ethics in the most practical possible way given the circumstances. The laws in the Old Testament are just illustrations of practically applying ethical principles to a particular circumstance. So the laws are not universally applicable, but the underlying ethical principles are.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 01:19 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 11:18 AM)fschmidt Wrote:  
(06-03-2017 11:03 AM)unfogged Wrote:  So the thing you are calling "god" is not an agent, correct? It's just another label for natural forces and events?

That depends on how one defines "agent". If consciousness is not required, then natural forces qualify as agents.


Quote:If so, I fail to see the utility in attaching a label that carries so much additional baggage. It not only doesn't help clarify what you mean but rather serves to obfuscate it. I accept that the universe exists and that there are forces that operate within it but see no advantage to calling any of that "god".

The God concept has tremendous utility. What it says is that there are unified, consistent forces acting across time and space. This concept makes inductive reasoning the only valid means of finding truth about the world. And it means that one has to respect the consistency of forces even if one doesn't understand the details of the forces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology

That's all very swell. It's not how the Hebrews thought. They constantly ascribed intelligence and all sorts of other human emotions to their deities.

You find your personal concept of a god useful for yourself, that's just hunky dorey. If the concept of a god, which YOU ADMIT, can be described by the words "natural forces", then just call it "natural forces". There is no need to rename them "god" with all the baggage that word has.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
06-03-2017, 01:22 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 01:11 PM)fschmidt Wrote:  It is critical to leave the definition of God open so that each person can view God according to his own mental abilities.

One thing that the God label adds to the forces of nature is a recognition that these forces act on human history. This is critical, and something that modern liberal culture rejects.
It is inherently no one's place to "not leave open" the definition of god but that does not mean that any given definition either makes sense or has utility or is beyond being questioned or critiqued or must be accepted by all comers.

When discussing god with someone it is important to agree on a definition for purposes of the discussion. Your definition appears to be god = the forces of nature which you see as at the top of all causal chains and that it acts in some way on human history.

I would suggest that the forces of nature influence human history just like anything else. If a particularly nasty solar flare erupted exactly at Earth, it could influence human history by wiping humanity out, for example. That doesn't make it the finger of god however. I understand what you are calling god, but see no point in doing so. It is the forces of nature. I understand you are saying these forces influence human history, therefore god ... but I do not see that as drawing a warranted conclusion. You might as well say that the box of eggs in my refrigerator is god, because it influences human history. Because I'm going to scramble and eat those eggs and it's going to keep me alive for a couple more days. [shrug].
(06-03-2017 01:11 PM)fschmidt Wrote:  If you have an open mind and sufficient intelligence, then you should eventually be able to understand what I am saying even if you don't agree with it. I do agree that no one here yet understands what I am saying.
I understand what you are saying AND don't agree with it. Also, my mind is open, but only to things that can be substantiated and that make sense.
(06-03-2017 01:11 PM)fschmidt Wrote:  I reject pantheism because God must be CAUSE to have meaning. The forces of nature are cause, but nature itself is not.
Okay, again, I understand the position, but don't see the justification.

Maybe you could try to explain how you substantiate or rationalize this without making condescending remarks about how those who don't agree with you might lack for intelligence or healthy open-mindedness?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like mordant's post
06-03-2017, 01:23 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 01:11 PM)fschmidt Wrote:  I reject pantheism because God must be CAUSE to have meaning. The forces of nature are cause, but nature itself is not.

Nope. Any limiting descriptor of a deity is self-refuting.
If a god is "cause", and not something else, then Reality is larger, and remains unexplained. Any god worth it's salt has to at least at one point, had to encompass ALL of Reality or it's not Creator of all things.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
06-03-2017, 01:24 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 12:31 PM)mordant Wrote:  That doesn't require a "god concept", it just requires a scientific approach to and understanding of the behavior of reality. God adds zero to that, and your last sentence illustrates why. The forces do what they do, and have consistency, and claiming they come from some special capital-S Source you label as god does not change what the forces do or how consistent they are.

Modern culture rejects inductive reasoning. Only the God concept can fully support inductive reasoning. This can be seen best in the writing of Karl Popper who, in "The Logic of Scientific Discovery", desperately tried to show that science is not based on inductive reasoning. He also rejected the idea of consistent forces of history in "The Poverty of Historicism". This is clearly reflected in modern culture which ignores the fact that virtually all modern ethics are similar to those of declining cultures in history, which clearly shows that modern culture is wrong and doomed. Specifically liberalism and feminism are standard attributes of decaying cultures.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: