Philosophy Discussion Forums

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 13th, 2022, 2:30 pmNot only does God lack a body, it also lacks will, reacting mechanistically to goodness and sin alike. So, if you behave like X, God has no choice but to send you to heaven and if you behave like Y (regardless of extenuating circumstances) then you are thrown into hell. Basically, God is operating like everything else in nature, since God is part of nature (being present in our evolved brain structure), not the other way around.

Theists might reply that God decides freely who is sent to heaven and who is thrown into hell. If he wanted, he could send a sinner to heaven. But then the question is why he never does so. (Well, who knows?) If the theists reply that he never sends sinners to heaven because it would be morally wrong to do so, then God is bound by moral law and unfree in this respect. If God is essentially all-good or all-virtuous, then he is unable to act immorally, such that it is impossible for him to send sinners to heaven even if he wanted to do so.

Consul wrote: ↑November 13th, 2022, 2:55 pm If God is essentially all-good or all-virtuous, then he is unable to act immorally, such that it is impossible for him to send sinners to heaven even if he wanted to do so.

Theists will argue that divine omnipotence doesn't require that God be able to do what is incompatible with his essence or nature.

Consul wrote: ↑November 13th, 2022, 3:01 pm

Consul wrote: ↑November 13th, 2022, 2:55 pm If God is essentially all-good or all-virtuous, then he is unable to act immorally, such that it is impossible for him to send sinners to heaven even if he wanted to do so.

Theists will argue that divine omnipotence doesn't require that God be able to do what is incompatible with his essence or nature.

The definition of God is one and only essence. All else is contingent not essential.

Ability and disability are relative qualities that do not pertain to essence. Morality and immorality are relative qualities that do not pertain to essence.

Consul

Re: your two posts above.

Yes, God has no freedom, no agency. The rules are the rules. So, for instance, suicides go to hell. God cannot be flexible, even if the person was badly traumatised, deeply depressed due to brain chemical imbalances and suffer with a terminal illness. Off to the ovens with you, sinner!

Even judges hamstrung by precedent have more volition, capable of adjusting the length of a sentence, and some systems allow considerable judicial autonomy, eg. in France. That's the point of judgement - to consider circumstances, not to issue a ticket like a parking cop, uninterested in excuses.

If one cannot act outside of one's nature, then one is not omnipotent, just another animal like everyone else. And God exists in the brain structure of a particular primate.

The deeper issue to me is where value lies. Consider how Christian invaders/colonisers considered indigenous people's ideas to be ridiculous superstition. We didn't listen to them and railroaded their cultures, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Enormous amounts of knowledge of local environments were lost forever, and it could be argued that the loss of this traditional knowledge has been catastrophic, with mindless destruction of key ecosystems. The destruction of the Aral Sea is the best example, now dried and turned into toxic desert, causing great dust storms that blew tonnes of dried salt, fertiliser and insecticides over dwellings and the southerly cottonfields, whose water supply killed the Aral. One natural imbalance causes a cascade of impacts.

So now I wonder if there is a "baby" in theistic "bathwater". My feeling is that its lessons have already been largely absorbed, and forgotten again, by secular society - and that includes theists. If the Prosperity Gospel paints the rich as righteous and the poor as sinners deserving of their suffering, then the gospels in that denomination are irrelevant, because their ideology is simply the survival of the fittest.

Certainly, if religion is marginalised, fewer psychopaths and narcissist criminals will be able to use its bounds to temper. These are the kinds of people who believe that, if there is no God, then it only makes sense to go on violent sprees of murder, rape and theft. The idea of living peacefully and cooperatively with others simply because one feels empathy for others does not register, and societies greatly benefit from religion taming such "beasts".

I love science, but religion does offer boundaries, communion and opportunities for transcendent experiences (though the former two benefits are far more prevalent in theists). How do people deal with the emptiness and absurdity of existence in a vast uncaring universe? How can there be broad temperance of the masses' behaviour in an overpopulated world without belief in obvious nonsense or tyranny? I'm thinking that's a rhetorical question.

Belindi wrote: ↑November 12th, 2022, 7:04 am
Same here. I was a Christian and in sense still am, and am not a trained theologian.
I don't know if the historical Jesus intended to atone for anyone's sins.

The Jesus Christ of faith did intend to atone for sins.

The actions of good people go towards atoning for the cruelties committed by bad people, and God 's grace forgives all.

Maybe try searching for One single greatest purpose for God to create the universe and life.

The following is just a collection of words to challenge the mind to think. If you choose to read further, then search for something greater.

Could God love each and every one of us as he loves himself?

Here is a childlike and yet profound way to challenge the power of the greatest commandments; when looking for one single purpose that might impel God to create the universe and life. Before the creation of the universe began, imagine God looking out into the vast empty void of space. He might think, I have the power to create anything I want, what is the greatest good thing I can create?

God could create all the stars and planets and be the supreme builder. He could create plants; and be the finest gardener. God could create the animal kingdom; and be the complete farmer. God could create children in his own image, making God the greatest Father. Can God create anything greater than children in his own image?

God could love each and everyone of his children as he loves himself. Can there be any greater reason to have children? Could God love us more than he loves himself? In a way, God loves us more than he loves himself, because he was willing to send his Son to die for us. In a contradicting way, God knows that he is the greatest being in the universe and retains the power of heaven or hell over us.
Could there be any greater purpose for God to create the universe and life?

What greatest purpose could God set mankind?
We cannot love God as we love ourselves, because that would bring God down to our level, so we have the greatest commandment to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. If God loves everyone as he loves himself, we are given the second greatest commandment to love everyone as we love ourselves, because God first loves us..
Did the greatest commandments have a greatest meaning for God first, before he gave them to us?
When you ask the question; why did Christ say they are the greatest commandment, can it possibly be because Jesus - God cannot do anything greater? The freedom to love, also gives us the freedom to do evil, our choice.

We can marvel at the great attention to detail that is evident in everything from the microscopic cells of life and right up to the giant structures of galaxies. Can you find any greater single purpose for all this to exist? Challenge the above statements in your mind in an honest way, test them against any religious beliefs, and test them against any form of logic.

This is only a collection of words to challenge the mind to think, I do not pretend to understand the meaning, or to make any claims of truth from these words. They are written without any qualifications, authority, or any conscious revelations from God.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 13th, 2022, 3:30 pm The deeper issue to me is where value lies. Consider how Christian invaders/colonisers considered indigenous people's ideas to be ridiculous superstition.

We both hate the same thing about religion. Jesus seemed more anti religious than we are. He said, the priests are a bunch of vipers, hypocrites, they take the place of honour and place a burden on the poor. It was the Pharisees and Sadducees who condemned Jesus to death because he corrected them. As Christians, we can do nothing greater than to love God and our neighbours, we are asked to love and pray for our enemies and to forgive.

If the Prosperity Gospel paints the rich as righteous and the poor as sinners deserving of their suffering, then the gospels in that denomination are irrelevant, because their ideology is simply the survival of the fittest.

I agree with you. Jesus came to serve, he was a nomad, yet bishops live in a palace and the pope has the Vatican. This is not how I read the Gospels.

EricPH wrote: ↑November 21st, 2022, 6:12 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 13th, 2022, 3:30 pm The deeper issue to me is where value lies. Consider how Christian invaders/colonisers considered indigenous people's ideas to be ridiculous superstition.

We both hate the same thing about religion. Jesus seemed more anti religious than we are. He said, the priests are a bunch of vipers, hypocrites, they take the place of honour and place a burden on the poor. It was the Pharisees and Sadducees who condemned Jesus to death because he corrected them. As Christians, we can do nothing greater than to love God and our neighbours, we are asked to love and pray for our enemies and to forgive.

If the Prosperity Gospel paints the rich as righteous and the poor as sinners deserving of their suffering, then the gospels in that denomination are irrelevant, because their ideology is simply the survival of the fittest.

I agree with you. Jesus came to serve, he was a nomad, yet bishops live in a palace and the pope has the Vatican. This is not how I read the Gospels.

Pope Francis (Wikipedia)

Francis is an outspoken critic of unbridled capitalism and free market economics, consumerism, and overdevelopment;[2] he advocates taking action on climate change,[3] a focus of his papacy with the promulgation of Laudato si'. In international diplomacy, he helped to restore full diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba, supported the cause of refugees during the European and Central American migrant crises, and made a deal with the People's Republic of China to define how much influence the nation has in appointing their Catholic bishops. He has faced criticism from theological conservatives on many questions, especially what some interpret as his suggestion in a footnote of Amoris Laetitia that divorced and remarried Catholics may be admitted to receive the Eucharist

.[4]

There is more than a chink of light.Liberals come in several forms including the top man of the traditionally conservative RC sect. But let's not glorify poverty and suffering as if those were standalone aims of the good Christian.

I agree with Eric's support for service as a Xian virtue, but I find nothing I can agree with in Eric's anthropomorphic argument for the existence and character of God.

If God were like a very good Person He would have inspired the national representatives at COP27 to agree on action to save the living world from human folly.

What inside your mind tells you what is right or wrong? Killing a person for no other reason but performing the act is considered wrong. Why? If no consequence to the action, would you still think it's wrong? What is the conscious derived from? Why does the body know what it takes to be alive without thought? God is not a myth, but an entity and motivation for believers to emulate so that we know subconsciously right from wrong on even a basic level.

Spectrum wrote: ↑October 17th, 2017, 10:09 pm Here is an argument, Why God is an Impossibility.

There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.

• 1. Relative perfection
  2. Absolute perfection

1. Relative perfection
If one's answers in an objective tests are ALL correct that is a 100% perfect score.
Perfect scores 10/10 or 7/7 used to be given to extra-ordinary performance in diving, gymnastics, skating, and the likes. So perfection from the relative perspective can happen and exist within man-made systems of empirically-based measurements.

2. Absolute perfection
Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from reason and never the empirical at all.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.
Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.

Generally, perfection is attributed to God. Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god. As such, God has to be absolutely perfect which is the ontological god, i.e. god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived.

So,

• Absolute perfection is an impossibility
  God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
  Therefore God is an impossibility.

Can any theists counter the above?

That could be "perfect".

Perhaps the most common attributes of perfection people have associated with God are his power, love and overall character. The Bible confirms He has perfect power, which means he can do anything he wills (Luke 1:37). Additionally, the existence of God is a living definition of selfless and flawless love (1John 4:8, 5:20).

Scripture also supports the belief that God embodies perfect holiness which will never change (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17).
The AMG Concise Bible Dictionary states, "the unchangeability of God means that . . . there is no way in which any of his attributes can become greater or less. They cannot change . . . (He) can neither increase nor decrease in knowledge, love, righteousness . . ." The Tyndale Bible Dictionary declares that God is so perfect that he "undergoes no change from within or from anything outside himself."

Whenever theists claim that everyone would run around killing, raping and stealing without God, it tells me that they personally would like to do those things. Thankfully, it seems, their religion keeps them in check.

So, yes, it's best if religion constrains the behaviour of psychopaths. The rest of us will just continue being ordinary socialised human beings with ordinary levels of empathy and goodwill, which of course precludes even the thought of killing, raping or stealing. We have better things to do with our lives that cause harm, or treat ancient metaphorical mythology and literal truth.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2022, 1:36 am Whenever theists claim that everyone would run around killing, raping and stealing without God, it tells me that they personally would like to do those things. Thankfully, it seems, their religion keeps them in check.

So, yes, it's best if religion constrains the behaviour of psychopaths. The rest of us will just continue being ordinary socialised human beings with ordinary levels of empathy and goodwill, which of course precludes even the thought of killing, raping or stealing. We have better things to do with our lives that cause harm, or treat ancient metaphorical mythology and literal truth.

Define an ordinary socialized human being.
I don't think Religion is the same as believing in God. Take Islam or radical Muslim faith- it says to kill others and that righteous suicide will allow them to go to heaven and have 10 virgin wives. That is Religion. Believing in God is something that is felt by the individual.
I am medically diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder with Psychotic features. Psychotic- paranoia, fear of someone trying to hurt me, will hurt someone else if I feel threatened, suicidal ideation
Psychopaths are not constrained by Religion.

Mounce574 wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2022, 4:35 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2022, 1:36 am Whenever theists claim that everyone would run around killing, raping and stealing without God, it tells me that they personally would like to do those things. Thankfully, it seems, their religion keeps them in check.

So, yes, it's best if religion constrains the behaviour of psychopaths. The rest of us will just continue being ordinary socialised human beings with ordinary levels of empathy and goodwill, which of course precludes even the thought of killing, raping or stealing. We have better things to do with our lives that cause harm, or treat ancient metaphorical mythology and literal truth.

Define an ordinary socialized human being.
I don't think Religion is the same as believing in God. Take Islam or radical Muslim faith- it says to kill others and that righteous suicide will allow them to go to heaven and have 10 virgin wives. That is Religion. Believing in God is something that is felt by the individual.
I am medically diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder with Psychotic features. Psychotic- paranoia, fear of someone trying to hurt me, will hurt someone else if I feel threatened, suicidal ideation
Psychopaths are not constrained by Religion.

If your beliefs help with your depression, more power to you.

There are many criminals who turned around after finding religion. That is, if not for religion, they would harm others. Psychopaths can indeed be constrained by religion. That way, they can avoid trouble in their lives without needing to feel empathy, just as long as they follow the rules.

Belindi wrote: ↑November 21st, 2022, 6:43 am I agree with Eric's support for service as a Xian virtue, but I find nothing I can agree with in Eric's anthropomorphic argument for the existence and character of God.

If, and only if God exists, what could be the greatest good reason to create the universe and life? Could we be created in the image, likeness and nature of God? Could God love each and everyone of us as he loves himself? Could God love us more than he loves himself?

If God were like a very good Person He would have inspired the national representatives at COP27 to agree on action to save the living world from human folly.

We all want freedom to do as we choose, and we have the freedom from God to do as we choose. We have commandments, but we are all free to break them. At what point should God intervene to prevent human folly, you only mention COP27, there are probably millions of criminal activities daily in this world.

We will all die at some point, but God has the power to raise us up to a greater good life after death.

EricPH wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2022, 8:57 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑November 21st, 2022, 6:43 am I agree with Eric's support for service as a Xian virtue, but I find nothing I can agree with in Eric's anthropomorphic argument for the existence and character of God.

If, and only if God exists, what could be the greatest good reason to create the universe and life? Could we be created in the image, likeness and nature of God? Could God love each and everyone of us as he loves himself? Could God love us more than he loves himself?

If God were like a very good Person He would have inspired the national representatives at COP27 to agree on action to save the living world from human folly.

We all want freedom to do as we choose, and we have the freedom from God to do as we choose. We have commandments, but we are all free to break them. At what point should God intervene to prevent human folly, you only mention COP27, there are probably millions of criminal activities daily in this world.

We will all die at some point, but God has the power to raise us up to a greater good life after death.

I dont know how a God could have created us in his image. Evolution is too random. Any herd speciies with hands connected to a brain could be us. But I think you are asking the right question, what motive would a God have to create intelligent life? I think the answer is that the rest of creation is an automated machine. Intelligent life has the ability to act independently of a Creator, and that would be the motive for it. That to me is the starting point of reasoning what a God is, if one exists, independent of any religious doctrine.