Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Atheism And Moral Progress

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    I will ask again Carp, why give a pass on one intrinsically impossible thing (creating a square circle), but not on another intrinsically impossible thing; God violating his nature.
    God is, presumably a sentient being. Sentient beings can make choices and act on them. Limiting god to actions that are "aligned with his nature" is placing a limit on this supposed all-powerful being that us simple mortals don't even have. The very idea is somewhat oxymoronic.

    A logical contradiction is a logical contradiction. A limitation on action is not a logical contradiction.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    The only reason I see as to why you would accept the former and not the latter is your bias.
    No - but I suspect that is not going to be accepted.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    You are doing it again, hand waving. How isn't God referencing right and wrong when acting?
    See my answer above.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      I will ask again Carp, why give a pass on one intrinsically impossible thing (creating a square circle), but not on another intrinsically impossible thing; God violating his nature. The only reason I see as to why you would accept the former and not the latter is your bias.
      Creating a square circle is a logical impossibility, but moral free agency requires the freedom to choose between good and evil. To remove this component, is to render your God’s behavior predetermined by arbitrary limitations.

      You are doing it again, hand waving. How isn't God referencing right and wrong when acting?
      …because you have removed the element of choice.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        God is, presumably a sentient being. Sentient beings can make choices and act on them. Limiting god to actions that are "aligned with his nature" is placing a limit on this supposed all-powerful being that us simple mortals don't even have. The very idea is somewhat oxymoronic.
        That is not an answer Carp, you give a pass on one intrinsically impossible thing, but not another. It is not considered a limit if He can't create a square circle, but is if He can't violate His nature.

        A logical contradiction is a logical contradiction. A limitation on action is not a logical contradiction.
        ?

        No - but I suspect that is not going to be accepted.
        Because you know very well that the term omnipotent is not even used in Scripture, it is short hand for a supremely powerful being, the most powerful being in existence.



        See my answer above.
        What? That has nothing to do with this question. You were saying that free will, or the power of contrary choice, was necessary to be considered a moral agent, even your own link did not support that.
        Last edited by seer; 01-11-2019, 07:29 AM.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          That is not an answer Carp, you give a pass on one intrinsically impossible thing, but not another. It is not considered a limit if He can't create a square circle, but is if He can't violate His nature.
          Since humanity can "violate it's nature," there is no intrinsic, logical contradiction with being ABLE to act in a way that is inconsistent with one's nature. There may be a contradiction with actualizing that potential - but there is no contradiction with having that potential. However, removing that potential creates a contradiction with "omnipotent." This is where you are stuck on the horns of a dilemma, Seer - and Christianity (and others) have defined their way out of the conundrum for centuries - perhaps millenia.

          You appear to be trying to remove a power from a god that any mortal has possession of - yet continue to claim this being is "all-powerful." I don't know how you cannot see the implicit contradiction int hat position.

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          Because you know very well that the term omnipotent is not even used in Scripture, it is short hand for a supremely powerful being, the most powerful being in existence.
          Seer - I really don't care what is and is not "in scripture." That's your problem. I'm talking about the expressed theology of a particular religious sect and its inherent contradictions. The source of those contradictions is irrelevant to me. The fact of them is not. It informs my own beliefs.

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          What? That has nothing to do with this question. You were saying that free will, or the power of contrary choice, was necessary to be considered a moral agent, even your own link did not support that.
          Read the definition again, Seer. The definition clearly specifies acting with respect to right AND wrong. And common sense is a factor here as well - a being that is constrained from ever choosing a wrong or evil action is simply following moral programming. They can't be said to be "good" as a moral agent because they simply are incapable of choosing anything other THAN good. If I program a robot to always make the "moral" choice and to be incapable, by way of its programming, from making an evil choice - I cannot see that being as acting out of a free moral agency: it's just following its built-in programming.

          How you cannot see this is a bit unbelievable to me. I have to assume that you so desperately need to hold on to your belief system that you are simply incapable of acknowledging the problem. I empathize. At one point in my own faith journey, I was at the same place. I once said most of the things you have been saying to me. It took me years to break free of that "programming" and begin to critically assess the beliefs. From my perspective - you are not at that point in your own journey. You are still mired in the beliefs and working very hard to rationalize them.

          Of course, you are likely to have a similar view of me: that I am so poisoned against Christianity that I cannot even acknowledge what makes perfect sense to you. I don't know how we are going to move past that impasse. It is possible we have arrived at the end of what we can accomplish with this discussion.
          Last edited by carpedm9587; 01-11-2019, 09:48 AM.
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            Since humanity can "violate it's nature," there is no intrinsic, logical contradiction with being ABLE to act in a way that is inconsistent with one's nature. There may be a contradiction with actualizing that potential - but there is no contradiction with having that potential. However, removing that potential creates a contradiction with "omnipotent." This is where you are stuck on the horns of a dilemma, Seer - and Christianity (and others) have defined their way out of the conundrum for centuries - perhaps millenia.

            You appear to be trying to remove a power from a god that any mortal has possession of - yet continue to claim this being is "all-powerful." I don't know how you cannot see the implicit contradiction int hat position.

            Seer - I really don't care what is and is not "in scripture." That's your problem. I'm talking about the expressed theology of a particular religious sect and its inherent contradictions. The source of those contradictions is irrelevant to me. The fact of them is not. It informs my own beliefs.
            As a biased atheist you refuse to be gracious or give an inch. Like I said, it is short hand, and these very arguments are why I don't use the term. nor does Scripture. So it is not an actual problem with the texts. So no contradiction or conundrum actually exists. I can see why theologians use the term since God would be the most powerful Being in existence, if God does not qualify, then nothing does and the word is useless.


            Read the definition again, Seer. The definition clearly specifies acting with respect to right AND wrong. And common sense is a factor here as well - a being that is constrained from ever choosing a wrong or evil action is simply following moral programming. They can't be said to be "good" as a moral agent because they simply are incapable of choosing anything other THAN good. If I program a robot to always make the "moral" choice and to be incapable, by way of its programming, from making an evil choice - I cannot see that being as acting out of a free moral agency: it's just following its built-in programming.
            No Carp, with reference to right and wrong. Of course God references or knows right or wrong. If you don't agree, tell me why He doesn't? And there was nothing in your link about free will or the power of contrary choice.

            How you cannot see this is a bit unbelievable to me. I have to assume that you so desperately need to hold on to your belief system that you are simply incapable of acknowledging the problem. I empathize. At one point in my own faith journey, I was at the same place. I once said most of the things you have been saying to me. It took me years to break free of that "programming" and begin to critically assess the beliefs. From my perspective - you are not at that point in your own journey. You are still mired in the beliefs and working very hard to rationalize them.
            Carp if you think I'm desperate, you are way off the mark.

            Of course, you are likely to have a similar view of me: that I am so poisoned against Christianity that I cannot even acknowledge what makes perfect sense to you. I don't know how we are going to move past that impasse. It is possible we have arrived at the end of what we can accomplish with this discussion.
            Ok...
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              As a biased atheist you refuse to be gracious or give an inch.
              Why is there such a tendency for people to respond to a counter argument here by assuming "bias?" That's not an argument, Seer - it's a dodge. You're not responding to the argument - you're pivoting to a personal attack. It doesn't help your case.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              Like I said, it is short hand, and these very arguments are why I don't use the term. nor does Scripture. So it is not an actual problem with the texts. So no contradiction or conundrum actually exists. I can see why theologians use the term since God would be the most powerful Being in existence, if God does not qualify, then nothing does and the word is useless.
              And yet you've been using the term since the beginning of this discussion. If you don't consider your god "omnipotent," then all you needed to say is "I don't believe my god is omnipotent" and the discussion would have ended pages ago.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              No Carp, with reference to right and wrong. Of course God references or knows right or wrong. If you don't agree, tell me why He doesn't? And there was nothing in your link about free will or the power of contrary choice.
              I don't know why you regularly skip over the relevant part of the definition that speaks to this. The definition includes not just knowing - but also acting - and with reference to right AND wrong. For some reason, you continually ignore this part of the definition.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              Carp if you think I'm desperate, you are way off the mark.
              Desperate is perhaps too emotional a word. You do appear to need to cling to a position that, from my perspective, is logically indefensible.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              Ok...
              Fair enough. Thanks, again, for the exchange.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                And yet you've been using the term since the beginning of this discussion. If you don't consider your god "omnipotent," then all you needed to say is "I don't believe my god is omnipotent" and the discussion would have ended pages ago.
                I only got into it because you brought it up, but like I said there is no problem with Scripture, and that I use the term supremely powerful, not omnipotent. And that I do understand why theologians use the word, for the reasons I gave - though it is not precise enough for me.


                I don't know why you regularly skip over the relevant part of the definition that speaks to this. The definition includes not just knowing - but also acting - and with reference to right AND wrong. For some reason, you continually ignore this part of the definition.
                But you kept pointing to the word reference (and God certainly references right and wrong) , not acting - yet there too God acts on His moral nature. When God judges you, don't tell me that wasn't a moral act.


                Desperate is perhaps too emotional a word. You do appear to need to cling to a position that, from my perspective, is logically indefensible.
                Nothing illogical about anything I said or believe, if you think otherwise present a syllogism where we both agree on the premises.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  I only got into it because you brought it up, but like I said there is no problem with Scripture, and that I use the term supremely powerful, not omnipotent. And that I do understand why theologians use the word, for the reasons I gave - though it is not precise enough for me.
                  I have to admit this leaves me a little flummoxed. Why on earth would you defend "omnipotent" for pages and pages, and then declare that you don't think your god is actually omnipotent? The whole exercise seems pointless to me.

                  In any event - enough said. God cannot be simultaneously omnipotent and omnibenevolent - and we appear to agree on that point.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  But you kept pointing to the word reference (and God certainly references right and wrong) , not acting - yet there too God acts on His moral nature. When God judges you, don't tell me that wasn't a moral act.
                  Moral agency is an individual's ability to make moral judgments based on some notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions.[1] A moral agent is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong."


                  I (once again) emphasize the relevant part of the definition. "Acting with reference to" means what it says: acting with respect to - according to - in association with - the notions of right and wrong. It doesn't say only right. It says right and wrong. A being without the potential to freely act for the right or the wrong is not a moral agent. It does not say anything about what god actually chooses.

                  But all of this is a moot point since you don't believe god is omnipotent anyway. So 'Nuff said. Last word to you on the subject.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Nothing illogical about anything I said or believe, if you think otherwise present a syllogism where we both agree on the premises.
                  No need - you have acknowledged you do not believe god is omnipotent - which was the point of the discussion: the disconnect between "omnipotent" and "omnibenevolent" and the way in which the problem was being avoided by adjusting/adopting specific definitions.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    I have to admit this leaves me a little flummoxed. Why on earth would you defend "omnipotent" for pages and pages, and then declare that you don't think your god is actually omnipotent? The whole exercise seems pointless to me.

                    In any event - enough said. God cannot be simultaneously omnipotent and omnibenevolent - and we appear to agree on that point.
                    Because Carp, over history it has been used with beings that were not "all powerful" in the definitional sense (as I linked, and not only with Christians).

                    From Oxford dictionary: omnipotence The quality of having unlimited or very great power. ‘God's omnipotence’

                    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/de...us/omnipotence

                    I can't help you with your binary thinking problem....


                    I (once again) emphasize the relevant part of the definition. "Acting with reference to" means what it says: acting with respect to - according to - in association with - the notions of right and wrong. It doesn't say only right. It says right and wrong. A being without the potential to freely act for the right or the wrong is not a moral agent. It does not say anything about what god actually chooses.
                    Again, you keep saying this with no evidence. Of course God acts with reference to right or wrong. What conforms to His moral nature is right, what goes against His moral sense is wrong. He is certainly acting according to that internal reference.
                    Last edited by seer; 01-11-2019, 02:26 PM.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Because Carp, over history it has been used with beings that were not "all powerful" in the definitional sense (as I linked, and not only with Christians).

                      From Oxford dictionary: omnipotence The quality of having unlimited or very great power. ‘God's omnipotence’

                      https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/de...us/omnipotence

                      I can't help you with your binary thinking problem....
                      I know the feeling

                      I have repeatedly acknowledged the multiple definitions, Seer - and pointed out that they exist because people needed them to avoid the obvious conflicts. The subcomponents of the words are pretty clear: "all" and "powerful." The other definitions arose because it is not possible to have such a being.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Again, you keep saying this with no evidence. Of course God acts with reference to right or wrong. What conforms to His moral nature is right, what goes against His moral sense is wrong. He is certainly acting according to that internal reference.
                      Seer - the evidence is the statement itself. There is nothing I can do about your apparent need to simply gloss over the statement, or ignore its import. So we are at an impasse. I think we have accomplished all that can be accomplished with this discussion I'll leave the last word to you.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        I have repeatedly acknowledged the multiple definitions, Seer - and pointed out that they exist because people needed them to avoid the obvious conflicts. The subcomponents of the words are pretty clear: "all" and "powerful." The other definitions arose because it is not possible to have such a being.
                        Are you suggesting that Oxford has a hidden agenda?


                        Seer - the evidence is the statement itself. There is nothing I can do about your apparent need to simply gloss over the statement, or ignore its import. So we are at an impasse. I think we have accomplished all that can be accomplished with this discussion I'll leave the last word to you.
                        You still have not shown that God does not act according to the reference of good and bad, even if it is own internal moral compass.
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Are you suggesting that Oxford has a hidden agenda?
                          A dictionary reports how words are used. It does not explain how or why those words came to be used that way.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          You still have not shown that God does not act according to the reference of good and bad, even if it is own internal moral compass.
                          I don't believe there is a god, Seer, remember? So it's not my place to make any statements about gods. When someone else makes statements about their gods, I can apply simple reason to show how/when those statements are not logically consistent. Frankly, I find all of the claims about god to be untrue because I don't believe such a being exists.
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            A dictionary reports how words are used. It does not explain how or why those words came to be used that way.
                            So you are really anal about the definition of omnipotent, yet you had no problem using the word 'force' in novel ways.


                            I don't believe there is a god, Seer, remember? So it's not my place to make any statements about gods. When someone else makes statements about their gods, I can apply simple reason to show how/when those statements are not logically consistent. Frankly, I find all of the claims about god to be untrue because I don't believe such a being exists.
                            That does not answer the question Carp, if God acts in accordance to His own moral compass of what is good or evil, how is not referencing right and wrong?
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              So you are really anal about the definition of omnipotent, yet you had no problem using the word 'force' in novel ways.
                              "Force" was a poor choice of words on my part, because it immediately segued the discussion to god still being able to freely choose from the limited set - so no "force" was involved. My thinking was physics based: for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction. So if god cannot act in way X - then something is prohibiting him from making that choice (i.e., "forcing" him to chose from the constrained set). You used the word "constraint," which is probably a better choice. The ultimate point is that god, by your definition, is prohibited (apparently by his nature) from making choices that are not logically impossible choices.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              That does not answer the question Carp, if God acts in accordance to His own moral compass of what is good or evil, how is not referencing right and wrong?
                              It is referencing right. It is not referencing wrong. God is prohibited from choosing from that set of actions. He is not choosing to eschew evil acts - he cannot perform an evil act - by your definitions.

                              But the problem is a moot one, Seer. You have noted that god is not omnipotent - which eliminates the conundrum.
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post




                                You still have not shown that God does not act according to the reference of good and bad, even if it is own internal moral compass.
                                Your argument is that God cannot act according to the reference of good and bad, because you have ruled out the possibility of God ever being able to choose “bad”.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X