Total Posts:114|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Attributes of "God"

Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 6:00:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is broken off from a Comment discussion in the Debate section (http://www.debate.org...) with Kozu. I have had pretty much zero interaction with others regarding philosophical ideas, and I'd like to share some of them here. I have no qualms about being told or shown that I am wrong, just so long as it's explained why I'm wrong. I value the notion of getting as close as I can to "objective truth" more than I value my current ideas being "right".

I had previously stated:
The terms, "good, "evil", and "omnibenevolent" are all entirely subjective. Even if a tri-Omni, universe-creating being exists, morality is still subjective to that being. I don't see how anything can be objectively moral or immoral if that label reflects a judgment. Also, we often use the term, "perfect", referring to such a being, but that term is also very subjective in this case; we can only truly perceive from our own point of view, and in our world, a perfect being would (likely) be described as perfectly benevolent. This needn't be true to this being, because the being's judgment is likely not so driven by empathy are we are, given that such a being would not have the physical faculties that we have that grant us empathy.

I have a distaste for the "Omni-" terms, and I believe that these terms are argued as absolute definitions for the purposes of exploiting the flaws within the definitions to disprove a being that, if existent, exists objectively. Our definitions are subjective to reality, and the only point that such an argument makes it that a being cannot exist with this "absolute" attribute. For instance, an omnibenevolent being would be akin to a robot, only ever able to perform the most benevolent action in any given scenario. This is a preposterous attribute to ascribe to anything, in my opinion.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 6:32:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 6:00:10 PM, Chaosism wrote:

The terms, "good, "evil", and "omnibenevolent" are all entirely subjective. Even if a tri-Omni, universe-creating being exists, morality is still subjective to that being.

Because God is omnipresent, he is synonymous with reality, so "according to that being" is the same as saying "according to reality". God's morality only applies within reality, but that is sufficient to make it objective.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 8:47:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 6:32:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Because God is omnipresent, he is synonymous with reality, so "according to that being" is the same as saying "according to reality". God's morality only applies within reality, but that is sufficient to make it objective.

This is (or is at least similar to) the concept of pantheism, right? If reality and God are synonymous, then is all that we see, know, and experience the embodiment of God?
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 12:56:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Also, we often use the term, "perfect", referring to such a being, but that term is also very subjective in this case; we can only truly perceive from our own point of view, and in our world, a perfect being would (likely) be described as perfectly benevolent."

So benevolence is subjective, as such, so is "perfect benevolence" aka omnibenevolence.

"This needn't be true to this being, because the being's judgment is likely not so driven by empathy are we are, given that such a being would not have the physical faculties that we have that grant us empathy."

Where did you get this from? I don't think god needs to have physical faculties to empathize, just like he doesn't need a brain to be intelligent. Why would god be benevolent if he didn't empathize?

"I have a distaste for the "Omni-" terms, and I believe that these terms are argued as absolute definitions for the purposes of exploiting the flaws within the definitions to disprove a being that, if existent, exists objectively."

The "omni" isn't the problem here, its the benevolence. I didn't say anything about existence either. I'm not sure if on the same page as you here. Morality must be objective when arguing for a benevolent god, as morality is contingent on said god, which is independent of human thought.

" For instance, an omnibenevolent being would be akin to a robot, only ever able to perform the most benevolent action in any given scenario. This is a preposterous attribute to ascribe to anything, in my opinion."

Your opinion would seem to be in the minority. People already believe that god only does the most benevolent actions. I also don't see how doing the contrary meet gods definition.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 1:54:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 12:56:28 PM, Kozu wrote:
Chaosism's original statement:
"This needn't be true to this being, because the being's judgment is likely not so driven by empathy are we are, given that such a being would not have the physical faculties that we have that grant us empathy."

Where did you get this from? I don't think god needs to have physical faculties to empathize, just like he doesn't need a brain to be intelligent. Why would god be benevolent if he didn't empathize?

I got it from my own contemplations.

Empathy is product of the functions of brain [1], which has been developed over the course of evolution [2] as a result of our ancient ancestors evolving as social beings. Empathy is a strong force within nearly all humans that is "selected" by evolutionary processes because it promotes survival; basically, if one shows more concern about others, then the others will see more value in that one.

Of course, empathy isn't the same for everyone. Although men and women did not show a significant difference in empathy towards other people, women have been shown to have at least somewhat more empathy towards animals than men [4]. One could speculate that this is a remnant of the hunter-gatherer role of men; if men empathized too much with the prey that they needed to kill to survive, they would be less likely to survive. This has likely changed in modern times due to the lack of need for the lack of empathy, and that modern mate selection favors universal empathy.

Why does all this matter? Empathy is a function of the physical processes of that hunk of grey matter in our heads, and emotions themselves [5], as well. These functions restrict/regulate/guide our behavior to suit our social evolution to better our odds for survival and perpetuating that trait. This can also be observed in many animal species.

So, why would a God that exists outside a physical form (or outside physical reality, for that matter) possess this trait? It is easy for us to ascribe this trait to a "perfect" being because, to us, that is a universally appreciated trait. That is easy for us to understand and agree on because we are ALL the same species: human! We [virtually] all have it. Also, if said God was "perfect", why would he possess emotions as those are known to *cloud* or *influence* rational judgment, thus, indicated as well that such as being capable of imperfection?

I'll stop here before I write an essay.

[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com...
[2] http://greatergood.berkeley.edu...
[3] http://greatergood.berkeley.edu...
[4] http://core.ecu.edu...
[5] http://www.humantruth.info...
(I don't know exactly why I cited sources...)
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 1:58:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Basically, if there were an omniscient, bodiless being, it would be a nebulous mass of raw knowledge like a computer database, with nothing but rational judgment employing its power according that knowledge.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 2:09:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 12:58:19 PM, Kozu wrote:
Deep down, I think your an atheist lol.

I'm curious, what impression do you get from me on the surface?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 2:29:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 8:47:09 AM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/5/2015 6:32:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Because God is omnipresent, he is synonymous with reality, so "according to that being" is the same as saying "according to reality". God's morality only applies within reality, but that is sufficient to make it objective.

This is (or is at least similar to) the concept of pantheism, right? If reality and God are synonymous, then is all that we see, know, and experience the embodiment of God?

Yes, but pantheism and monotheism aren't mutually exclusive. Any religion which posits the existence of an omnipresent God supports a kind of pantheism, whether it realizes it or not.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 2:48:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 2:29:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/6/2015 8:47:09 AM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/5/2015 6:32:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Because God is omnipresent, he is synonymous with reality, so "according to that being" is the same as saying "according to reality". God's morality only applies within reality, but that is sufficient to make it objective.

This is (or is at least similar to) the concept of pantheism, right? If reality and God are synonymous, then is all that we see, know, and experience the embodiment of God?

Yes, but pantheism and monotheism aren't mutually exclusive. Any religion which posits the existence of an omnipresent God supports a kind of pantheism, whether it realizes it or not.

Thank you for responding to my banter, by the way!

That means that the evil and immorality of this reality is also the embodiment of God, then, as well as the good, correct? If God *is* reality, and as such defines objective morality, then how can immorality exist within that reality? Conclusively, the evil and immorality that we experience is not immoral to this God because its existence is observable in this reality.
Dichasium
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 3:28:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Unfortunately, language limits our thinking. When you speak of any'thing' it is limited to your current thinking in earthly terms. It is therefore natural for you to think of your last sentence. When imagination begins to 'see' the potential of God it 'sees' on a level which language cannot restrict. Love is not bounded by your words. Then you 'see' that love is and WILL be under the terms of its maker, not our own terms. This expansion enables us to 'see' it in its true form. This will need your patience, determination and courage. Stick at it!
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 3:28:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
God
Human
Animals
Can animals comprehend humans and their actions?
Ever considered that evolution isn't finished?
Good, immortal, omnipresent... human concepts.
We give God attributes?
Lol for humanty
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 3:42:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 1:54:57 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/6/2015 12:56:28 PM, Kozu wrote:
Chaosism's original statement:
"This needn't be true to this being, because the being's judgment is likely not so driven by empathy are we are, given that such a being would not have the physical faculties that we have that grant us empathy."

Where did you get this from? I don't think god needs to have physical faculties to empathize, just like he doesn't need a brain to be intelligent. Why would god be benevolent if he didn't empathize?

I got it from my own contemplations.

Empathy is product of the functions of brain [1], which has been developed over the course of evolution [2] as a result of our ancient ancestors evolving as social beings. Empathy is a strong force within nearly all humans that is "selected" by evolutionary processes because it promotes survival; basically, if one shows more concern about others, then the others will see more value in that one.

Of course, empathy isn't the same for everyone. Although men and women did not show a significant difference in empathy towards other people, women have been shown to have at least somewhat more empathy towards animals than men [4]. One could speculate that this is a remnant of the hunter-gatherer role of men; if men empathized too much with the prey that they needed to kill to survive, they would be less likely to survive. This has likely changed in modern times due to the lack of need for the lack of empathy, and that modern mate selection favors universal empathy.

Why does all this matter? Empathy is a function of the physical processes of that hunk of grey matter in our heads, and emotions themselves [5], as well. These functions restrict/regulate/guide our behavior to suit our social evolution to better our odds for survival and perpetuating that trait. This can also be observed in many animal species.

So, why would a God that exists outside a physical form (or outside physical reality, for that matter) possess this trait? It is easy for us to ascribe this trait to a "perfect" being because, to us, that is a universally appreciated trait. That is easy for us to understand and agree on because we are ALL the same species: human! We [virtually] all have it. Also, if said God was "perfect", why would he possess emotions as those are known to *cloud* or *influence* rational judgment, thus, indicated as well that such as being capable of imperfection?

I'll stop here before I write an essay.

[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com...
[2] http://greatergood.berkeley.edu...
[3] http://greatergood.berkeley.edu...
[4] http://core.ecu.edu...
[5] http://www.humantruth.info...
(I don't know exactly why I cited sources...)

I know how empathy works and I know why people think god also is. What I would like to know is why you think he can't be empathetic despite having no faculties. Just like how he has no brain but we consider him intelligent, or no body yet all powerful.
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 3:44:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 2:09:58 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/6/2015 12:58:19 PM, Kozu wrote:
Deep down, I think your an atheist lol.

I'm curious, what impression do you get from me on the surface?

Atheist.
The way you rationalize things sounds like a theist (long indirect explanations), but the reason behind it all is so atheistic.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 3:51:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 3:28:45 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
Can animals comprehend humans and their actions?

Heh. Even we cannot comprehend our own actions, sometimes.

At 5/6/2015 3:28:45 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
Ever considered that evolution isn't finished?

It is an ongoing, perpetual process. Regarding humanity, it is heavily hampered and non-existent.

#1 - The environment is one of the major pressures that drives the evolutionary process. Humans have learned to change their environment rather than adapt to it or move. Predators are virtually non-existent. Natural Selection is no longer in significant effect, as evolution requires the "weaker" organisms to die and/or not breed.

#2 - Negative mutations that would ordinarily lessen the survivability of an organism can be negated via modern medical technology, so those genes (that are addressable) are not removed from the gene pool anymore. People who would have been too dumb to survive are protected now. Natural Selection is insignificant, as above.

#3 - Evolution occurs faster and more readily in small populations. Humanity, today, is essentially a world-wide single population because of modern transportation technology. This means that for a positive mutation to become "mainstream" in humans, it would take a staggering amount of time to get through the population, if it is even possible.

Good, immortal, omnipresent... human concepts.
We give God attributes?

We ascribe our artificial definitions of attributes to the notion of God.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 4:25:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 3:42:02 PM, Kozu wrote:
I know how empathy works and I know why people think god also is. What I would like to know is why you think he can't be empathetic despite having no faculties. Just like how he has no brain but we consider him intelligent, or no body yet all powerful.

Basically, we know the reason that those traits exist, and that God fits none of those reasons (by most definitions of God) to possess it. I'm not saying that it is flat-out impossible since it's unfalsifiable, but I have no reason to consider it possible. I believe it is also absurd that infinite information could be held by a non-existent (outside of reality) being. I'm trying to think outside of our human limitations, and I am not seeing why a God would be constrained by them.

At 5/6/2015 3:44:35 PM, Kozu wrote:
Atheist.
The way you rationalize things sounds like a theist (long indirect explanations), but the reason behind it all is so atheistic.

Hmmm... not sure how to take that. :P Anyway, I've never had a lot of success trying to explain myself clearly with but a few words. Anyway, I am always willing to change my mind, if convinced.
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 4:34:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 4:25:27 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/6/2015 3:42:02 PM, Kozu wrote:
I know how empathy works and I know why people think god also is. What I would like to know is why you think he can't be empathetic despite having no faculties. Just like how he has no brain but we consider him intelligent, or no body yet all powerful.

Basically, we know the reason that those traits exist, and that God fits none of those reasons (by most definitions of God) to possess it. I'm not saying that it is flat-out impossible since it's unfalsifiable, but I have no reason to consider it possible. I believe it is also absurd that infinite information could be held by a non-existent (outside of reality) being. I'm trying to think outside of our human limitations, and I am not seeing why a God would be constrained by them.

At 5/6/2015 3:44:35 PM, Kozu wrote:
Atheist.
The way you rationalize things sounds like a theist (long indirect explanations), but the reason behind it all is so atheistic.

Hmmm... not sure how to take that. :P Anyway, I've never had a lot of success trying to explain myself clearly with but a few words. Anyway, I am always willing to change my mind, if convinced.

So...

P1. Empathy is an evolutionary trait.
P2. God did not come from evolution
C1. God does not have empathy.

Is that what your thought process is?

Tell me how god is intelligent without a brain. Answer this before anything.
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 4:36:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 12:56:28 PM, Kozu wrote:
"Also, we often use the term, "perfect", referring to such a being, but that term is also very subjective in this case; we can only truly perceive from our own point of view, and in our world, a perfect being would (likely) be described as perfectly benevolent."

So benevolence is subjective, as such, so is "perfect benevolence" aka omnibenevolence.

I'm honestly more interest in this one's answer. None of what were discussing matters if god's "existence" is subjective.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 4:37:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 12:56:28 PM, Kozu wrote:
Chaosism originally said:
"I have a distaste for the "Omni-" terms, and I believe that these terms are argued as absolute definitions for the purposes of exploiting the flaws within the definitions to disprove a being that, if existent, exists objectively."

The "omni" isn't the problem here, its the benevolence. I didn't say anything about existence either. I'm not sure if on the same page as you here. Morality must be objective when arguing for a benevolent god, as morality is contingent on said god, which is independent of human thought.

If we attribute an Omni-trait, we often imagine it in the most extreme terms, which is then used to prove that being impossible. It's like dragging God into the realm of logic, disproving the concept, and the pushing that conclusion back into reality. It doesn't work like that. Where do we get the idea that God must be *absolute* in whatever traits he possesses? So, if one says God is omniscient, someone else can say "Well, does God know it's like to not know something? Hmm?? Paradox! God disproved!". That kind of stuff is dumb, to me.

I don't understand why morality *must* be objective just because there is a God. If God only creates what is moral, then everything we see is moral to God. If God allows some immorality to exist in reality, then he is exercising judgment, which is subjective to him. I can't seem to break away from this reasoning, if it is indeed wrong.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 4:45:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 4:34:03 PM, Kozu wrote:

So...

P1. Empathy is an evolutionary trait.
P2. God did not come from evolution
C1. God does not have empathy.

Is that what your thought process is?

Tell me how god is intelligent without a brain. Answer this before anything.

Yes, in a basic sense. That's a pretty good summary; kudos on translating my exhaustive explanation.

I also think that it is absurd that God is intelligent without a brain, but we know MORE about the traits in question, so it is more reasonable argument, to me. Those traits are well defined. There are more mays to argue about "knowledge" being that the actual meaning is quite ambiguous, and that the concept is not fully understood, philosophically. For instance, one could stretch and claim it as some sort of database, like a computer, which doesn't need a "brain", per se.
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 5:26:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 4:45:25 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/6/2015 4:34:03 PM, Kozu wrote:

So...

P1. Empathy is an evolutionary trait.
P2. God did not come from evolution
C1. God does not have empathy.

Is that what your thought process is?

Tell me how god is intelligent without a brain. Answer this before anything.

Yes, in a basic sense. That's a pretty good summary; kudos on translating my exhaustive explanation.

I also think that it is absurd that God is intelligent without a brain, but we know MORE about the traits in question, so it is more reasonable argument, to me. Those traits are well defined. There are more mays to argue about "knowledge" being that the actual meaning is quite ambiguous, and that the concept is not fully understood, philosophically. For instance, one could stretch and claim it as some sort of database, like a computer, which doesn't need a "brain", per se.

Whats your definition of god?

I believe knowledge and intelligence go hand in hand, also as much as I would like to appreciate your computer analogy computers still uses processors which function as a "brain", and those brains still need to have a physical existence. Knowledge can't exist if there isn't some sort of retainer. You make it sounds like god is some ambiguous fog of knowledge.
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 5:28:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 4:45:25 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/6/2015 4:34:03 PM, Kozu wrote:

So...

P1. Empathy is an evolutionary trait.
P2. God did not come from evolution
C1. God does not have empathy.

Is that what your thought process is?

Tell me how god is intelligent without a brain. Answer this before anything.

kudos on translating my exhaustive explanation.

Lol, If only your answers were this simple
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 5:38:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 4:37:39 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/6/2015 12:56:28 PM, Kozu wrote:
Chaosism originally said:
"I have a distaste for the "Omni-" terms, and I believe that these terms are argued as absolute definitions for the purposes of exploiting the flaws within the definitions to disprove a being that, if existent, exists objectively."

The "omni" isn't the problem here, its the benevolence. I didn't say anything about existence either. I'm not sure if on the same page as you here. Morality must be objective when arguing for a benevolent god, as morality is contingent on said god, which is independent of human thought.

If we attribute an Omni-trait, we often imagine it in the most extreme terms, which is then used to prove that being impossible. It's like dragging God into the realm of logic, disproving the concept, and the pushing that conclusion back into reality. It doesn't work like that. Where do we get the idea that God must be *absolute* in whatever traits he possesses? So, if one says God is omniscient, someone else can say "Well, does God know it's like to not know something? Hmm?? Paradox! God disproved!". That kind of stuff is dumb, to me.

Most theists acknowledge god is bound by logic (despite him creating them). That why I would never pull the "unable to create a rock he can't lift" argument. If god isn't bound by logic then there's no way for us to logically define his traits or even his existence.

I don't understand why morality *must* be objective just because there is a God. If God only creates what is moral, then everything we see is moral to God. If God allows some immorality to exist in reality, then he is exercising judgment.

It's the other way around. If god exists then objective morals *must* exist. The vast majority of theists believe morality is objective (via. religious doctrine).
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 11:33:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 2:48:11 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/6/2015 2:29:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/6/2015 8:47:09 AM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/5/2015 6:32:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Because God is omnipresent, he is synonymous with reality, so "according to that being" is the same as saying "according to reality". God's morality only applies within reality, but that is sufficient to make it objective.

This is (or is at least similar to) the concept of pantheism, right? If reality and God are synonymous, then is all that we see, know, and experience the embodiment of God?

Yes, but pantheism and monotheism aren't mutually exclusive. Any religion which posits the existence of an omnipresent God supports a kind of pantheism, whether it realizes it or not.

Thank you for responding to my banter, by the way!

That means that the evil and immorality of this reality is also the embodiment of God, then, as well as the good, correct? If God *is* reality, and as such defines objective morality, then how can immorality exist within that reality? Conclusively, the evil and immorality that we experience is not immoral to this God because its existence is observable in this reality.

Because God is self-contained, he must generate his own potential in order to emerge into existence, and this potential is free to be out of sync with God's morality. However, God can rewrite the past to ensure that evil never truly existed except as a possibility. In other words, the world around us is only God contemplating and assessing possible states of existence.
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 5:06:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 6:00:10 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This is broken off from a Comment discussion in the Debate section (http://www.debate.org...) with Kozu. I have had pretty much zero interaction with others regarding philosophical ideas, and I'd like to share some of them here. I have no qualms about being told or shown that I am wrong, just so long as it's explained why I'm wrong. I value the notion of getting as close as I can to "objective truth" more than I value my current ideas being "right".

I had previously stated:
The terms, "good, "evil", and "omnibenevolent" are all entirely subjective. Even if a tri-Omni, universe-creating being exists, morality is still subjective to that being. I don't see how anything can be objectively moral or immoral if that label reflects a judgment. Also, we often use the term, "perfect", referring to such a being, but that term is also very subjective in this case; we can only truly perceive from our own point of view, and in our world, a perfect being would (likely) be described as perfectly benevolent. This needn't be true to this being, because the being's judgment is likely not so driven by empathy are we are, given that such a being would not have the physical faculties that we have that grant us empathy.

I have a distaste for the "Omni-" terms, and I believe that these terms are argued as absolute definitions for the purposes of exploiting the flaws within the definitions to disprove a being that, if existent, exists objectively. Our definitions are subjective to reality, and the only point that such an argument makes it that a being cannot exist with this "absolute" attribute. For instance, an omnibenevolent being would be akin to a robot, only ever able to perform the most benevolent action in any given scenario. This is a preposterous attribute to ascribe to anything, in my opinion.

If "good" is always subjective, you imply morality itself is subjective.

"Many discussions of morality and evolutionary biology focus largely on the issue of altruistic feeling and behavior. This can be confusing because in addition to psychological altruism there is also biological altruism, which is found in many species. (See Kitcher 2011, part I, for a comprehensive discussion.) Psychological altruism involves caring about others' welfare and deliberately benefiting them for their own sake, with no restriction on the type of benefit involved. By contrast, biological altruism has nothing essentially to do with intentions or motives, and it pertains only to "benefits" to others that increase their reproductive fitness (boosting their genetic contribution to future generations)." [http://plato.stanford.edu...]
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 5:13:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 11:33:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/6/2015 2:48:11 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/6/2015 2:29:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/6/2015 8:47:09 AM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/5/2015 6:32:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Because God is omnipresent, he is synonymous with reality, so "according to that being" is the same as saying "according to reality". God's morality only applies within reality, but that is sufficient to make it objective.

This is (or is at least similar to) the concept of pantheism, right? If reality and God are synonymous, then is all that we see, know, and experience the embodiment of God?

Yes, but pantheism and monotheism aren't mutually exclusive. Any religion which posits the existence of an omnipresent God supports a kind of pantheism, whether it realizes it or not.

Thank you for responding to my banter, by the way!

That means that the evil and immorality of this reality is also the embodiment of God, then, as well as the good, correct? If God *is* reality, and as such defines objective morality, then how can immorality exist within that reality? Conclusively, the evil and immorality that we experience is not immoral to this God because its existence is observable in this reality.

Because God is self-contained, he must generate his own potential in order to emerge into existence, and this potential is free to be out of sync with God's morality. However, God can rewrite the past to ensure that evil never truly existed except as a possibility. In other words, the world around us is only God contemplating and assessing possible states of existence.

This assumes the metaphysical and objective existence of God, which must fulfil its own onus via. Hitchens's razor.

"For any particular quantum system, the principle of quantum superposition states the existence of certain relations amongst states, respectively pure with respect to particular distinct quantum state analysers. It is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. ... Physically, it refers to the separation and reconstitution of different quantum states. ... [T]he special pure quantum state where the qubits are in an equal superposition [or 'cat state']."

By the fact that entropy shows all particles at quantum superposition, nothing is external to the universe because all-observation is impossible.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 7:32:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 5:26:45 PM, Kozu wrote:
Whats your definition of god?

I do not have a definition of God. I am just reaching these conclusions regarding some of the traits that are frequently attributed to God.

At 5/6/2015 5:26:45 PM, Kozu wrote:
I believe knowledge and intelligence go hand in hand, also as much as I would like to appreciate your computer analogy computers still uses processors which function as a "brain", and those brains still need to have a physical existence. Knowledge can't exist if there isn't some sort of retainer. You make it sounds like god is some ambiguous fog of knowledge.

I agree with you, and I do not believe the computer analogy. I was just giving an example of how someone could rationalize it. Regarding the ambiguous fog of knowledge, that's not what I believe, or anything, that's just what's currently remaining of the notion after I've dismissed emotions and empathy as such.

At 5/6/2015 5:28:43 PM, Kozu wrote:
Lol, If only your answers were this simple

I frequently answer questions on a couple of technical forums, so I am very used to spelling everything our in gory detail, because anytime I don't, someone misses something or gets confused. So, when I explain things as much as I did with that evolution thing, it's not that I think you don't know, that's just what I'm used to doing things. See what I did here with this simple remark?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 7:43:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 5:38:01 PM, Kozu wrote:
Most theists acknowledge god is bound by logic (despite him creating them). That why I would never pull the "unable to create a rock he can't lift" argument. If god isn't bound by logic then there's no way for us to logically define his traits or even his existence.

I've not heard that. I've heard some argue that God is beyond logic and understanding, but perhaps that's just when they are backed into a corner. I would think more theists would be willing to place God out of reach of criticism by "removing him from the field".

At 5/6/2015 5:38:01 PM, Kozu wrote:
Chaosism originally wrote:
I don't understand why morality *must* be objective just because there is a God. If God only creates what is moral, then everything we see is moral to God. If God allows some immorality to exist in reality, then he is exercising judgment.

It's the other way around. If god exists then objective morals *must* exist. The vast majority of theists believe morality is objective (via. religious doctrine).

I still don't grasp this argument. Is it because God would be the ultimate judge, or something? If we take the Bible, for instance, I still believe that God's decree of right and wrong is still subjective to him. I do know most theists believe morality is objective, but I don't see their reasoning beyond the initial claim.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 7:56:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 5:06:39 AM, tejretics wrote:
If "good" is always subjective, you imply morality itself is subjective.

I'll go beyond implying and state that is the conclusion that I current hold.

"Many discussions of morality and evolutionary biology focus largely on the issue of altruistic feeling and behavior...

I am familiar with altruism, but I don't see how psychologically and physiologically developed traits relate to objective morality. Sure, they are universally understood (for the most part), but that is because we are all the same evolved species. I will have to dig and find some more of these arguments.
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 7:57:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 7:56:06 AM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/7/2015 5:06:39 AM, tejretics wrote:
If "good" is always subjective, you imply morality itself is subjective.

I'll go beyond implying and state that is the conclusion that I current hold.

"Many discussions of morality and evolutionary biology focus largely on the issue of altruistic feeling and behavior...

I am familiar with altruism, but I don't see how psychologically and physiologically developed traits relate to objective morality. Sure, they are universally understood (for the most part), but that is because we are all the same evolved species. I will have to dig and find some more of these arguments.

Altruism IS the basic form of morality.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass