Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why even know God?

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 4:40:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm not worried about whether God exists or not. That really has never been the question. It is, why do we care? Why must we know?

What is all this meaningless idolatry and worship to a superior being? Only humans value such things, because humans have egos and gain self-worth out of the level of praise they receive from their fellow beings. Now, it seems that we project those infantile desires unto the God of the Universe. Worship is an earthly invention. What use does a transcendent and immeasurably powerful being have for it?

God gave you freewill,...now give it back?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 4:52:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 4:40:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
I'm not worried about whether God exists or not. That really has never been the question. It is, why do we care? Why must we know?

What is all this meaningless idolatry and worship to a superior being? Only humans value such things, because humans have egos and gain self-worth out of the level of praise they receive from their fellow beings. Now, it seems that we project those infantile desires unto the God of the Universe. Worship is an earthly invention. What use does a transcendent and immeasurably powerful being have for it?

God gave you freewill,...now give it back?

We don't have to know, we want to know. I'm guessing you're taking the apatheistic position, then?

It's not so much about do we have to know or not, we just want to know if there's a God. We are curious beings, so we ask questions. That's why we care.

I agree with you on the second paragraph, an omnipotent guy would gain nothing from our praise of him.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 4:54:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 4:40:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
I'm not worried about whether God exists or not. That really has never been the question. It is, why do we care? Why must we know?

What is all this meaningless idolatry and worship to a superior being? Only humans value such things, because humans have egos and gain self-worth out of the level of praise they receive from their fellow beings. Now, it seems that we project those infantile desires unto the God of the Universe. Worship is an earthly invention. What use does a transcendent and immeasurably powerful being have for it?

God gave you freewill,...now give it back?

I agree. If there is a being who created all the planets and DNA, and is responsible for physical reality itself...This being must be so beyond our scope and so intelligent. To think this being would actually care whether we believed he existed or not, or care whether or not we worship him seems absurd. Only apes get off on ape-like praise, I do not see any being of this magnitude worrying himself with these petty issues.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 4:56:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think this is the best question regarding the discourse on ultimate existence. Why does it even matter if theism, namely Christianity were true?

Barring the genetic fallacy against the desirability of God, let me suggest that answering the question of why it matters does nothing to prove God, but rather my answer entails an existential preference.

God doesn't demand our freewill, rather it seems he intends to make as we were always meant to be, Whole. And Wholeness (yes, capital W) involves being free.

Here then, is why Christianity matters: In order for our lives to be objectively meaningful, purposeful & valuable, we must at least have access to the possibility of obtaining the experience of a qualitative infinite reality, for a quantitatively infinite duration.

I propose that ultimate happiness is an experience or quale found as a byproduct of Wholeness, which is what God seeks to make us. It involves being free from the tyranny of physical & psychological evils and the positive experience of God (a qualitatively infinite reality) forever.

The existential virtues of meaning, purpose & value are thus fulfilled on Christianity. Atheism is bankrupt in this department. So even if the intellectual scales are even, we ought to at least prefer Christianity given existential virtue or eternal significance.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 4:56:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, we are conscious and intelligent so it's no surprise humans, as ego centered as we are, would posit a conscious and intelligent explanation for reality. The idea of God just reeks "man-made", and all philosophical argumentation for his existence just makes it seem that much more desperate of an idea.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 5:00:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 4:52:09 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 7/7/2012 4:40:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
I'm not worried about whether God exists or not. That really has never been the question. It is, why do we care? Why must we know?

What is all this meaningless idolatry and worship to a superior being? Only humans value such things, because humans have egos and gain self-worth out of the level of praise they receive from their fellow beings. Now, it seems that we project those infantile desires unto the God of the Universe. Worship is an earthly invention. What use does a transcendent and immeasurably powerful being have for it?

God gave you freewill,...now give it back?

We don't have to know, we want to know. I'm guessing you're taking the apatheistic position, then?

It's not so much about do we have to know or not, we just want to know if there's a God. We are curious beings, so we ask questions. That's why we care.

I agree with you on the second paragraph, an omnipotent guy would gain nothing from our praise of him.

As a Christian who always struggled with worship I finally came to the realization that God intends worship (of which he's worthy) not so much as for his benefit than for ours. There's deep psychological healing that takes place when a person truly releases their cares to God. I've also witnessed physical healing- which I won't use as an argument for worship unless I were to have a video, evidence other than testimony, etc.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 5:03:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 4:54:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2012 4:40:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
I'm not worried about whether God exists or not. That really has never been the question. It is, why do we care? Why must we know?

What is all this meaningless idolatry and worship to a superior being? Only humans value such things, because humans have egos and gain self-worth out of the level of praise they receive from their fellow beings. Now, it seems that we project those infantile desires unto the God of the Universe. Worship is an earthly invention. What use does a transcendent and immeasurably powerful being have for it?

God gave you freewill,...now give it back?

I agree. If there is a being who created all the planets and DNA, and is responsible for physical reality itself...This being must be so beyond our scope and so intelligent. To think this being would actually care whether we believed he existed or not, or care whether or not we worship him seems absurd. Only apes get off on ape-like praise, I do not see any being of this magnitude worrying himself with these petty issues.

I'm surprised to hear you admit this RT. This makes your atheist position somewhat hard to defend since it's an argument from ignorance when all you're doing is rebutting proofs of theism.

The Christian argument isn't that God needs us to worship him, it's that we need him to worship. Regardless of all that, would you be willing to admit that Christianity is highly existentially virtuous?

I attempted to debate this with ou in the past but you declined.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 5:04:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 4:56:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, we are conscious and intelligent so it's no surprise humans, as ego centered as we are, would posit a conscious and intelligent explanation for reality. The idea of God just reeks "man-made", and all philosophical argumentation for his existence just makes it seem that much more desperate of an idea.

Genetic fallacy from your view but makes perfect sense from mine.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 5:04:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 4:56:15 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
I think this is the best question regarding the discourse on ultimate existence. Why does it even matter if theism, namely Christianity were true?

Barring the genetic fallacy against the desirability of God, let me suggest that answering the question of why it matters does nothing to prove God, but rather my answer entails an existential preference.

God doesn't demand our freewill, rather it seems he intends to make as we were always meant to be, Whole. And Wholeness (yes, capital W) involves being free.

Here then, is why Christianity matters: In order for our lives to be objectively meaningful, purposeful & valuable, we must at least have access to the possibility of obtaining the experience of a qualitative infinite reality, for a quantitatively infinite duration.

I propose that ultimate happiness is an experience or quale found as a byproduct of Wholeness, which is what God seeks to make us. It involves being free from the tyranny of physical & psychological evils and the positive experience of God (a qualitatively infinite reality) forever.

The existential virtues of meaning, purpose & value are thus fulfilled on Christianity. Atheism is bankrupt in this department. So even if the intellectual scales are even, we ought to at least prefer Christianity given existential virtue or eternal significance.

Two things:
1. Is there a necessity for life to have meaning or purpose? I'm content to believe that it doesn't...and anyone who disagrees does so likely out of the human tendency to explain everything...even things beyond our comprehension.

2. I disagree with you when you imply that happiness is the greatest virtue. What we really seek is peace - the 2 are mutually exclusive. Infinite consciousness and infinite happiness are inherently stressful. Continuous sensation is tiresome. The only true peace is the peace of non-existence.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 5:05:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'll say here what I said in the thread on Hell.

At 7/7/2012 3:53:10 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I would prefer the condition of the unbaptized infant in Limbo--you're eternally separated from God, but in such a way that you never knew God, or knew of him, in the first place. In this way, one is not only immune to judgment, beyond the reach of God and divine Law, but is completely disinterested in the idea of salvation. That sort of existence would, on my view, be accompanied by a profound joy.
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 5:06:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 5:00:02 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/7/2012 4:52:09 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 7/7/2012 4:40:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
I'm not worried about whether God exists or not. That really has never been the question. It is, why do we care? Why must we know?

What is all this meaningless idolatry and worship to a superior being? Only humans value such things, because humans have egos and gain self-worth out of the level of praise they receive from their fellow beings. Now, it seems that we project those infantile desires unto the God of the Universe. Worship is an earthly invention. What use does a transcendent and immeasurably powerful being have for it?

God gave you freewill,...now give it back?

We don't have to know, we want to know. I'm guessing you're taking the apatheistic position, then?

It's not so much about do we have to know or not, we just want to know if there's a God. We are curious beings, so we ask questions. That's why we care.

I agree with you on the second paragraph, an omnipotent guy would gain nothing from our praise of him.

As a Christian who always struggled with worship I finally came to the realization that God intends worship (of which he's worthy) not so much as for his benefit than for ours. There's deep psychological healing that takes place when a person truly releases their cares to God. I've also witnessed physical healing- which I won't use as an argument for worship unless I were to have a video, evidence other than testimony, etc.

So God, a perfect being, who by definition, needs nothing, created people on a random planet and cared about these petty humans so much he sacrificed his own son, a deity by himself?

And as he obviously created ourselves for him, he surely needs to get something from us. But how can he get anything from us, when he already has all? Or are you suggesting he created us without a purpose?
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 5:24:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 5:06:23 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:00:02 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/7/2012 4:52:09 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 7/7/2012 4:40:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
I'm not worried about whether God exists or not. That really has never been the question. It is, why do we care? Why must we know?

What is all this meaningless idolatry and worship to a superior being? Only humans value such things, because humans have egos and gain self-worth out of the level of praise they receive from their fellow beings. Now, it seems that we project those infantile desires unto the God of the Universe. Worship is an earthly invention. What use does a transcendent and immeasurably powerful being have for it?

God gave you freewill,...now give it back?

We don't have to know, we want to know. I'm guessing you're taking the apatheistic position, then?

It's not so much about do we have to know or not, we just want to know if there's a God. We are curious beings, so we ask questions. That's why we care.

I agree with you on the second paragraph, an omnipotent guy would gain nothing from our praise of him.

As a Christian who always struggled with worship I finally came to the realization that God intends worship (of which he's worthy) not so much as for his benefit than for ours. There's deep psychological healing that takes place when a person truly releases their cares to God. I've also witnessed physical healing- which I won't use as an argument for worship unless I were to have a video, evidence other than testimony, etc.

So God, a perfect being, who by definition, needs nothing, created people on a random planet and cared about these petty humans so much he sacrificed his own son, a deity by himself?

Yes, and the answer to why can is perhaps that it seems God (a maximally great being), out of a free act, saw it good to create a world with other free creatures in order that they may also experience the Love (a Wholeness quale) that the three persons in the Trinity experience. Now Christ is part of that Trinity and the Trinity exist in this fashion (a model for thinking): Just as you have the mental faculties & capacities to so constitute one person, so God has the mental faculties & capacities to so constitute 3 persons, pr three seats of consciousness; all self-existing on a Love unity. In this way, when Christ became man, he was still united with the remaining Trinity, yet he was fully man in the sense that he had a mind connected to a human body. If interactionism or substance dualism is true, then there's nothing incoherent about this model.

And as he obviously created ourselves for him, he surely needs to get something from us. But how can he get anything from us, when he already has all? Or are you suggesting he created us without a purpose?

It seems God created us out of a free choice, namely, that it would be a demonstration of his Love, to not only bestow existence to non-necessary beings, but also to save us from ourselves whilst giving us the option of enjoying Wholeness forever.

It's true that a maximally Great being (a necessary being) would need nothing from contingent beings. Rather it's the contingent beings needing something from the necessary beings, namely, our existence & ultimate happiness.

Now I'm not saying God created us with no purpose, rather he created us with a very specific purpose, that is, to experience Wholeness as He does. Or at minumum the possibility of Wholeness. That is, complete perfect happiness as a byproduct of God's way of existence.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 5:24:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 4:40:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
I'm not worried about whether God exists or not. That really has never been the question. It is, why do we care? Why must we know?

What is all this meaningless idolatry and worship to a superior being? Only humans value such things, because humans have egos and gain self-worth out of the level of praise they receive from their fellow beings. Now, it seems that we project those infantile desires unto the God of the Universe. Worship is an earthly invention. What use does a transcendent and immeasurably powerful being have for it?

God gave you freewill,...now give it back?

To be honest... I'm suspicious of minute perfections...

The universe is too beautiful. Experience is too pleasurable.

And, we're too wicked. We surely don't deserve it.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 5:27:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 5:05:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I'll say here what I said in the thread on Hell.

At 7/7/2012 3:53:10 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I would prefer the condition of the unbaptized infant in Limbo--you're eternally separated from God, but in such a way that you never knew God, or knew of him, in the first place. In this way, one is not only immune to judgment, beyond the reach of God and divine Law, but is completely disinterested in the idea of salvation. That sort of existence would, on my view, be accompanied by a profound joy.

How on any reality would a non-aware state enjoy anything at all? Your view is very strange. In my view of hell, happiness is in fact enjoyed, but just obtained in a fundamentally different way than the happiness obtained in heaven.

Hellions, perhaps, obtain happiness in such a way that it follows a sort of law of diminishing returns, so that a hellion must make a more unjust-self-forming choice each time he is to obtain whatever happiness he can; such a life is a satisfaction based life vs a commitment based life where satisfaction follows as a by-product.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 5:29:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 5:24:45 PM, Ren wrote:
At 7/7/2012 4:40:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
I'm not worried about whether God exists or not. That really has never been the question. It is, why do we care? Why must we know?

What is all this meaningless idolatry and worship to a superior being? Only humans value such things, because humans have egos and gain self-worth out of the level of praise they receive from their fellow beings. Now, it seems that we project those infantile desires unto the God of the Universe. Worship is an earthly invention. What use does a transcendent and immeasurably powerful being have for it?

God gave you freewill,...now give it back?

To be honest... I'm suspicious of minute perfections...

The universe is too beautiful. Experience is too pleasurable.

And, we're too wicked. We surely don't deserve it.

And we never did. What a wonderful bestowal, what a cosmic Love!
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 5:29:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 5:24:22 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:06:23 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:00:02 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/7/2012 4:52:09 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 7/7/2012 4:40:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
I'm not worried about whether God exists or not. That really has never been the question. It is, why do we care? Why must we know?

What is all this meaningless idolatry and worship to a superior being? Only humans value such things, because humans have egos and gain self-worth out of the level of praise they receive from their fellow beings. Now, it seems that we project those infantile desires unto the God of the Universe. Worship is an earthly invention. What use does a transcendent and immeasurably powerful being have for it?

God gave you freewill,...now give it back?

We don't have to know, we want to know. I'm guessing you're taking the apatheistic position, then?

It's not so much about do we have to know or not, we just want to know if there's a God. We are curious beings, so we ask questions. That's why we care.

I agree with you on the second paragraph, an omnipotent guy would gain nothing from our praise of him.

As a Christian who always struggled with worship I finally came to the realization that God intends worship (of which he's worthy) not so much as for his benefit than for ours. There's deep psychological healing that takes place when a person truly releases their cares to God. I've also witnessed physical healing- which I won't use as an argument for worship unless I were to have a video, evidence other than testimony, etc.

So God, a perfect being, who by definition, needs nothing, created people on a random planet and cared about these petty humans so much he sacrificed his own son, a deity by himself?

Yes, and the answer to why can is perhaps that it seems God (a maximally great being), out of a free act, saw it good to create a world with other free creatures in order that they may also experience the Love (a Wholeness quale) that the three persons in the Trinity experience. Now Christ is part of that Trinity and the Trinity exist in this fashion (a model for thinking): Just as you have the mental faculties & capacities to so constitute one person, so God has the mental faculties & capacities to so constitute 3 persons, pr three seats of consciousness; all self-existing on a Love unity. In this way, when Christ became man, he was still united with the remaining Trinity, yet he was fully man in the sense that he had a mind connected to a human body. If interactionism or substance dualism is true, then there's nothing incoherent about this model.

And as he obviously created ourselves for him, he surely needs to get something from us. But how can he get anything from us, when he already has all? Or are you suggesting he created us without a purpose?

It seems God created us out of a free choice, namely, that it would be a demonstration of his Love, to not only bestow existence to non-necessary beings, but also to save us from ourselves whilst giving us the option of enjoying Wholeness forever.

It's true that a maximally Great being (a necessary being) would need nothing from contingent beings. Rather it's the contingent beings needing something from the necessary beings, namely, our existence & ultimate happiness.

Now I'm not saying God created us with no purpose, rather he created us with a very specific purpose, that is, to experience Wholeness as He does. Or at minumum the possibility of Wholeness. That is, complete perfect happiness as a byproduct of God's way of existence.

Still, why would God just randomly create people? And really, why would he create them so a giant majority will rot in Hell for eternity? It is pointless to create something just so it could gain something (or, for the most part, just lose).
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 5:37:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 5:27:49 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:05:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I'll say here what I said in the thread on Hell.

At 7/7/2012 3:53:10 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I would prefer the condition of the unbaptized infant in Limbo--you're eternally separated from God, but in such a way that you never knew God, or knew of him, in the first place. In this way, one is not only immune to judgment, beyond the reach of God and divine Law, but is completely disinterested in the idea of salvation. That sort of existence would, on my view, be accompanied by a profound joy.

How on any reality would a non-aware state enjoy anything at all? Your view is very strange. In my view of hell, happiness is in fact enjoyed, but just obtained in a fundamentally different way than the happiness obtained in heaven.

One isn't just "unaware" generally. I invoke the condition of the unbaptized infants precisely because the thing of which they are most importantly unaware is that there is a God. Their punishment isn't being tormented in a lake of fire or prodded constantly with pitchforks--it is only an eternal separation with God; yet, whereas the gnostic sinner despairs in that separation, the unbaptized infant cannot despair, because it has never known or been in conscious relation to God, and hence has always already forgotten about Him. The result of this isolationist punishment is an immunity to the Law and to the judgment of God, but also a peculiar indifference to being "saved". Hence, by virtue of their indifference, both the mechanisms of judgment/punishment and salvation are rendered completely impotent and inoperative. This results, I think, not in infinite misery, but in maximal joy.

Hellions, perhaps, obtain happiness in such a way that it follows a sort of law of diminishing returns, so that a hellion must make a more unjust-self-forming choice each time he is to obtain whatever happiness he can; such a life is a satisfaction based life vs a commitment based life where satisfaction follows as a by-product.

I don't see the relevance.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 5:46:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 5:29:34 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:

Still, why would God just randomly create people? And really, why would he create them so a giant majority will rot in Hell for eternity? It is pointless to create something just so it could gain something (or, for the most part, just lose).

First, God creates with a final cause, so its not random, just a free act of which he didn't have to implement. Also, as an aside, this was the first ever contingent act- which created time by it's own right: which if anything, time is a novel concept worthy of creation... some physicists who hold to a Loranzian interpretation of Special Relativity sya that if God exists, the universe would literally be his clock... so maybe God just really wanted a clock & so created time for it... ;-)

Secondly, why should God refrain from bestowing existence on those who would freely choose God's way of life simply because some others would freely choose their own way of life?

Let's even suppose that NO one chooses to God's way of life, and they all exist in a place where only unjustly seeking-self forming choices are made for the sake of happiness quale. Even then they're experiencing happiness, albeit a potentially infinite diminishing happiness, but insofar as 0.00000000001% happiness is experienced, it's still greater to exist than not.

But in fact that's not the case, If Christianity is true, it would appear that as trends continue, that the majority of the human race who ever lived past present & future, would come into a saving relationship with God, and experience Wholeness quale forever.

And for those who chose against God's way of existence, God will grant them their choice, and I'm sure they wouldn't want to switch their personal way of finding happiness anyway- the gates of Hades is barred shut from the inside, not the outside by God.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 5:50:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 5:37:15 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:27:49 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:05:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I'll say here what I said in the thread on Hell.

At 7/7/2012 3:53:10 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I would prefer the condition of the unbaptized infant in Limbo--you're eternally separated from God, but in such a way that you never knew God, or knew of him, in the first place. In this way, one is not only immune to judgment, beyond the reach of God and divine Law, but is completely disinterested in the idea of salvation. That sort of existence would, on my view, be accompanied by a profound joy.

How on any reality would a non-aware state enjoy anything at all? Your view is very strange. In my view of hell, happiness is in fact enjoyed, but just obtained in a fundamentally different way than the happiness obtained in heaven.

One isn't just "unaware" generally. I invoke the condition of the unbaptized infants precisely because the thing of which they are most importantly unaware is that there is a God.

Easily answered, suppose a reincarnation principle for those not conscious enough to choose a way of existence. Boom.

Their punishment isn't being tormented in a lake of fire or prodded constantly with pitchforks--it is only an eternal separation with God; yet, whereas the gnostic sinner despairs in that separation, the unbaptized infant cannot despair, because it has never known or been in conscious relation to God, and hence has always already forgotten about Him. The result of this isolationist punishment is an immunity to the Law and to the judgment of God, but also a peculiar indifference to being "saved". Hence, by virtue of their indifference, both the mechanisms of judgment/punishment and salvation are rendered completely impotent and inoperative. This results, I think, not in infinite misery, but in maximal joy.

Hellions, perhaps, obtain happiness in such a way that it follows a sort of law of diminishing returns, so that a hellion must make a more unjust-self-forming choice each time he is to obtain whatever happiness he can; such a life is a satisfaction based life vs a commitment based life where satisfaction follows as a by-product.

I don't see the relevance.

If our existence in this life is like, as I consider it, a present purgatory; a great simpliciter of making a free choice of how one obtains happiness, whether justly or unjustly, if this is the case, then it's relevant in the sense that those who are too unaware to make such a choice, then die before they can-- may get a second chance to come into relation with God (or worst, estrangement from Him forever).
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 6:02:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I kind of have been fluctuating between Atheism and Theism. I kind of view it is a "challenge" of sorts to determine how to and who can achieve ultimate knowledge and that God derives pleasure from watching us struggle.

Part 1: Chant 1 - 4

Shalok, First Mehl: A hundred times a day, I am a sacrifice to my Guru; He made angels out of men, without delay. ||1||

Second Mehl: If a hundred moons were to rise, and a thousand suns appeared, even with such light, there would still be pitch darkness without the Guru. ||2||

First Mehl: O Nanak, those who do not think of the Guru, and who think of themselves as clever, shall be left abandoned in the field, like the scattered sesame. They are abandoned in the field, says Nanak, and they have a hundred masters to please. The wretches bear fruit and flower, but within their bodies, they are filled with ashes. ||3||

Pauree: He Himself created Himself; He Himself assumed His Name. Secondly, He fashioned the creation; seated within the creation, He beholds it with delight. You Yourself are the Giver and the Creator; by Your Pleasure, You bestow Your Mercy. You are the Knower of all; You give life, and take it away again with a word. Seated within the creation, You behold it with delight. ||1||
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 6:12:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 5:50:56 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:37:15 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:27:49 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:05:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I'll say here what I said in the thread on Hell.

At 7/7/2012 3:53:10 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I would prefer the condition of the unbaptized infant in Limbo--you're eternally separated from God, but in such a way that you never knew God, or knew of him, in the first place. In this way, one is not only immune to judgment, beyond the reach of God and divine Law, but is completely disinterested in the idea of salvation. That sort of existence would, on my view, be accompanied by a profound joy.

How on any reality would a non-aware state enjoy anything at all? Your view is very strange. In my view of hell, happiness is in fact enjoyed, but just obtained in a fundamentally different way than the happiness obtained in heaven.

One isn't just "unaware" generally. I invoke the condition of the unbaptized infants precisely because the thing of which they are most importantly unaware is that there is a God.

Easily answered, suppose a reincarnation principle for those not conscious enough to choose a way of existence. Boom.

It's a metaphor for happy life, one--two, you can't just "suppose" something because it allows you to make an argument. On that basis, my reply is this: Easily answered. Suppose a non-reincarnation principle for those not conscious enough to choose a way of existence. Boom.

Their punishment isn't being tormented in a lake of fire or prodded constantly with pitchforks--it is only an eternal separation with God; yet, whereas the gnostic sinner despairs in that separation, the unbaptized infant cannot despair, because it has never known or been in conscious relation to God, and hence has always already forgotten about Him. The result of this isolationist punishment is an immunity to the Law and to the judgment of God, but also a peculiar indifference to being "saved". Hence, by virtue of their indifference, both the mechanisms of judgment/punishment and salvation are rendered completely impotent and inoperative. This results, I think, not in infinite misery, but in maximal joy.

Hellions, perhaps, obtain happiness in such a way that it follows a sort of law of diminishing returns, so that a hellion must make a more unjust-self-forming choice each time he is to obtain whatever happiness he can; such a life is a satisfaction based life vs a commitment based life where satisfaction follows as a by-product.

I don't see the relevance.

If our existence in this life is like, as I consider it, a present purgatory; a great simpliciter of making a free choice of how one obtains happiness, whether justly or unjustly, if this is the case, then it's relevant in the sense that those who are too unaware to make such a choice, then die before they can-- may get a second chance to come into relation with God (or worst, estrangement from Him forever).

So, you're positing a hypothetical world which gives you the result you want?
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 7:27:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 6:12:24 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:50:56 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:37:15 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:27:49 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:05:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I'll say here what I said in the thread on Hell.

At 7/7/2012 3:53:10 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I would prefer the condition of the unbaptized infant in Limbo--you're eternally separated from God, but in such a way that you never knew God, or knew of him, in the first place. In this way, one is not only immune to judgment, beyond the reach of God and divine Law, but is completely disinterested in the idea of salvation. That sort of existence would, on my view, be accompanied by a profound joy.

How on any reality would a non-aware state enjoy anything at all? Your view is very strange. In my view of hell, happiness is in fact enjoyed, but just obtained in a fundamentally different way than the happiness obtained in heaven.

One isn't just "unaware" generally. I invoke the condition of the unbaptized infants precisely because the thing of which they are most importantly unaware is that there is a God.

Easily answered, suppose a reincarnation principle for those not conscious enough to choose a way of existence. Boom.

It's a metaphor for happy life, one--two, you can't just "suppose" something because it allows you to make an argument. On that basis, my reply is this: Easily answered. Suppose a non-reincarnation principle for those not conscious enough to choose a way of existence. Boom.

Right, but it could go one way or the other: but insofar as my view is coherent, it follows that your objection doesn't go through.

Their punishment isn't being tormented in a lake of fire or prodded constantly with pitchforks--it is only an eternal separation with God; yet, whereas the gnostic sinner despairs in that separation, the unbaptized infant cannot despair, because it has never known or been in conscious relation to God, and hence has always already forgotten about Him. The result of this isolationist punishment is an immunity to the Law and to the judgment of God, but also a peculiar indifference to being "saved". Hence, by virtue of their indifference, both the mechanisms of judgment/punishment and salvation are rendered completely impotent and inoperative. This results, I think, not in infinite misery, but in maximal joy.

Hellions, perhaps, obtain happiness in such a way that it follows a sort of law of diminishing returns, so that a hellion must make a more unjust-self-forming choice each time he is to obtain whatever happiness he can; such a life is a satisfaction based life vs a commitment based life where satisfaction follows as a by-product.

I don't see the relevance.

If our existence in this life is like, as I consider it, a present purgatory; a great simpliciter of making a free choice of how one obtains happiness, whether justly or unjustly, if this is the case, then it's relevant in the sense that those who are too unaware to make such a choice, then die before they can-- may get a second chance to come into relation with God (or worst, estrangement from Him forever).

So, you're positing a hypothetical world which gives you [get] the result you want?

Welcome to metaphysics friend. See the epistemology of coherentism. Insofar as such views are coherent, it rebuts objections to it, like "God is evil for allowing those to suffer hell who are too unaware to make decisions..."

Take a step back & realize where in the theistic/atheological debate we're finding ourselves.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 7:32:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 6:02:52 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I kind of have been fluctuating between Atheism and Theism. I kind of view it is a "challenge" of sorts to determine how to and who can achieve ultimate knowledge and that God derives pleasure from watching us struggle.

Suppose that Christianity is correct & that there was a sort of fall, to where our Sensus Divinitatis or 'sense of the Divine' was damaged. We would still remain with working cognitive faculties but they would be running at, say, less than optimal regarding how we actually come to know God; due to our fallen nature- or estrangement of God due to our & His' polar-opposite ways of existence.

In such a world it wouldn't be by virtue of God toying with us that we don't as readily apprehend his existence. Rather it would be by virtue of our nature of distancing ourselves from God's presence so that our apprehension of Him takes work, not only on our part, but on His part as well- and this is exactly what we see on Christianity.

...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 7:48:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 7:27:02 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/7/2012 6:12:24 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:50:56 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Easily answered, suppose a reincarnation principle for those not conscious enough to choose a way of existence. Boom.

It's a metaphor for happy life, one--two, you can't just "suppose" something because it allows you to make an argument. On that basis, my reply is this: Easily answered. Suppose a non-reincarnation principle for those not conscious enough to choose a way of existence. Boom.

Right, but it could go one way or the other: but insofar as my view is coherent, it follows that your objection doesn't go through.

I'm not objecting to anything. I'm telling you that I'm appropriating the profane situation of the unbaptized infant.

If our existence in this life is like, as I consider it, a present purgatory; a great simpliciter of making a free choice of how one obtains happiness, whether justly or unjustly, if this is the case, then it's relevant in the sense that those who are too unaware to make such a choice, then die before they can-- may get a second chance to come into relation with God (or worst, estrangement from Him forever).

So, you're positing a hypothetical world which gives you the result you want?

Don't edit my sentences. I'm aware of what I'm saying, and I don't require clarifications.

Welcome to metaphysics friend. See the epistemology of coherentism.

I'm not a coherentist.

Insofar as such views are coherent, it rebuts objections to it, like "God is evil for allowing those to suffer hell who are too unaware to make decisions..."

My argument is not that God is evil for allowing the unaware to suffer hell. I have never claimed this, and do not presently claim this. But, since you could conceivably invent a coherentist world where I'm accidentally claiming this without knowing it, even though I'm not, I challenge you to quote me, then re-explain my argument back to me--trace out the chain of reasoning which leads you to conclude that I am advancing such an argument.

Take a step back & realize where in the theistic/atheological debate we're finding ourselves.

I am not--and was not--participating in any kind of debate here, and I'm unsure what gave you the opposite impression.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 8:00:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 7:48:39 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/7/2012 7:27:02 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/7/2012 6:12:24 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:50:56 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Easily answered, suppose a reincarnation principle for those not conscious enough to choose a way of existence. Boom.

It's a metaphor for happy life, one--two, you can't just "suppose" something because it allows you to make an argument. On that basis, my reply is this: Easily answered. Suppose a non-reincarnation principle for those not conscious enough to choose a way of existence. Boom.

Right, but it could go one way or the other: but insofar as my view is coherent, it follows that your objection doesn't go through.

I'm not objecting to anything. I'm telling you that I'm appropriating the profane situation of the unbaptized infant.

OK, your "appropriation" is no more plausible than my "appropriating." Boom.

If our existence in this life is like, as I consider it, a present purgatory; a great simpliciter of making a free choice of how one obtains happiness, whether justly or unjustly, if this is the case, then it's relevant in the sense that those who are too unaware to make such a choice, then die before they can-- may get a second chance to come into relation with God (or worst, estrangement from Him forever).

So, you're positing a hypothetical world which gives you the result you want?

Don't edit my sentences. I'm aware of what I'm saying, and I don't require clarifications.

Welcome to metaphysics friend. See the epistemology of coherentism.

I'm not a coherentist.

Neither am I.

Insofar as such views are coherent, it rebuts objections to it, like "God is evil for allowing those to suffer hell who are too unaware to make decisions..."

My argument is not that God is evil for allowing the unaware to suffer hell. I have never claimed this, and do not presently claim this. But, since you could conceivably invent a coherentist world where I'm accidentally claiming this without knowing it, even though I'm not, I challenge you to quote me, then re-explain my argument back to me--trace out the chain of reasoning which leads you to conclude that I am advancing such an argument.

Relax, we're here to share views.

Take a step back & realize where in the theistic/atheological debate we're finding ourselves.

I am not--and was not--participating in any kind of debate here, and I'm unsure what gave you the opposite impression.

Nor I.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 8:01:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 7:53:05 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Also, suppose a world in which you're just wrong about everything. It's coherent, because it is a possible world, so all of your objections fail.

Suppose a world in which you're wrong about everything & I'm right- that's coherent enough.

This is why I'm a foundationalist.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 8:34:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I sincerely hope, Reason_Alliance, that you're wrong about everything you believe....because the vision of the world you subscribe to is dismal.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 8:39:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 8:34:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
I sincerely hope, Reason_Alliance, that you're wrong about everything you believe....because the vision of the world you subscribe to is dismal.

That sounds like pure emotion speaking. Plus yours doesn't sound all too better- I can live as another Hitler and it wouldn't matter on your view.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 8:40:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 8:39:31 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/7/2012 8:34:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
I sincerely hope, Reason_Alliance, that you're wrong about everything you believe....because the vision of the world you subscribe to is dismal.

That sounds like pure emotion speaking. Plus yours doesn't sound all too better- I can live as another Hitler and it wouldn't matter on your view.

And how is the possibility for perfect happiness in the least bit dismal? Are you insane?