Philosophy Discussion Forums

So it's really just selfishness for your own expended efforts. Their well being is just a measurement by which you gauge the efficacy of your efforts. It's quite ugly once you understand it better.

In a free country you are free to cherry-pick The Bible. Allegories are fables of abstractions, neither intended as history nor to be taken for history.

Increasing numbers of people think God is a human aim that is still undergoing becoming and probably never will be absolutely manifested. Now and again some hope breaks through like 'peak experiences' , and good work, and the artists and scientists of past times.

Belindi wrote: ↑November 13th, 2019, 6:48 am In a free country you are free to cherry-pick The Bible. Allegories are fables of abstractions, neither intended as history nor to be taken for history.

Increasing numbers of people think God is a human aim that is still undergoing becoming and probably never will be absolutely manifested. Now and again some hope breaks through like 'peak experiences' , and good work, and the artists and scientists of past times.

Its not a matter of freedom. Its all about being intellectually honest to our selves and others.
Cherry picking or any argument by selective observation is logical fallacy and a good way to increase the possibilities of being wrong.

Nick, I think we have a problem about what the words and phrases mean e.g 'cherry -picking'. Otherwise I agree with you.

Belindi wrote: ↑November 13th, 2019, 10:39 am Nick, I think we have a problem about what the words and phrases mean e.g 'cherry -picking'. Otherwise I agree with you.

I understand that words don't have intrinsic meaning but common usages but as far as I know there is only one usage for this one. Maybe I 'm missing something

NickGaspar wrote: ↑November 14th, 2019, 4:04 am

Belindi wrote: ↑November 13th, 2019, 10:39 am Nick, I think we have a problem about what the words and phrases mean e.g 'cherry -picking'. Otherwise I agree with you.

I understand that words don't have intrinsic meaning but common usages but as far as I know there is only one usage for this one. Maybe I 'm missing something

I do sometimes choose the wrong phrase. By "cherry-picking" The Bible I meant seeking ideas, goodness, and wisdom wherever I can, in the absence of any respect for The Bible as supernatural authority.
The Bible is part of my literary heritage.

Belindi wrote: ↑November 14th, 2019, 6:56 am

NickGaspar wrote: ↑November 14th, 2019, 4:04 am

I understand that words don't have intrinsic meaning but common usages but as far as I know there is only one usage for this one. Maybe I 'm missing something

I do sometimes choose the wrong phrase. By "cherry-picking" The Bible I meant seeking ideas, goodness, and wisdom wherever I can, in the absence of any respect for The Bible as supernatural authority.
The Bible is part of my literary heritage.

On that case I am forced to update the definition I hold for that phrase for a good reason.
You are indeed cherry-picking but without the intention to validate the supernatural claims of the book.
In essence you are trying to record any useful claim in that book. I get it, that is not a fallacy !

Then the relevant question becomes: Why? The bible is part of your anthropological heritage and I accept it, but why is it useful to check an iron age book for wisdom and moral values and more importantly, with what principles are we going to distinguish them from the immoral and unwise claims included in that same book?
I mean, if you are not a biblical scholar and you are already in a position to recognize a moral and wise claim from immoral and unethical ones, what is the value of such an activity(outside of an anthropological study)!
Do you think that our philosophy and secular morality , after ~1.500 of study,might have missed important ideas of those books?
I my self took an online course on the anthological value of the old testament, so I can see why people are interested in the book, but I can not see why one might expect to gain wisdom and moral values from a 2000 years old document.
We have challenged, discharged or refined most if not all of our ancient declarations on wisdom and morality through actual systems which can provide objective evaluations for both of those branches of philosophy!

Deductive reasoning is structured basically as :
Premise 1: God is love (A = B)
Premise 2: love exists (B = C)
Conclusion : therefore God exists (A = C)

The form is correct. However, as many have pointed out, you have shown neither premise 1 nor premise 2 to be true.

How do you demonstrate that love exists? What definition of love are you working with? And is that your definition? (A common problem that arises with these "proofs" is that once the proof has been shown to be valid, the believer rejects their own definition of God and /or shifts it to some unrelated definition.)

Let's look at premise 1. Why should the Bible be the source of the definition of God as opposed to any other source? What basis is there to assume that the Bible contains any truth about God?

There's an interesting byproduct of taking the biblical definition of God, and specifically this one in 1 John, to prove that God exists, in that in can just as easily be used to prove that God doesn't exist :
1 John 4: 8 God is love
Exodus 34: 14 God is jealous
1 Corinthians 13: 4 love is not jealous
Therefore God is self contradictory and cannot possibly exist, based on the biblical definitions. The logic is just as sound.

An interesting thing I've noticed about discussions on which theists present arguments in an effort to prove that God exists is that they become dissatisfied with their own definition of God and invariably abandon the proof they worked so hard to demonstrate. No theist wants to believe in a God that can be proven to exist. Such a God can be defined in clear, concise and realistic terms, and while the proof may be air tight, the theist demonstrating the proof becomes disappointed with limits God must be constrained by in order to exist.

And that's the rub. Existence in reality is in itself a limit. And it's a limit theists refuse to impose on God. The very claim that God exists creates a paradox for logical theists (nothing that cognitive dissonance can't resolve, though). Claims about God imply both that the claimant knows something about God, and that God can be be defined by these claims. And again, theists are uncomfortable with the idea that God can be known and defined.

It would be actually in the best interest of theists to stop making claims about God, including claims that God exist, and attempt to follow those claims logically. It never ends well. Making claims and then running with no intention to support those claims is a better tactic. But bear in mind that claims that are asserted without reason can be likewise rejected without reason.