Appeal to Motive and the presumed selfishness of God

[cloudyday2]

"Perfect" is probably the wrong attribute. "Self-satisfied" is probably more correct. A "self-satisfied" God could potentially become a complacent, do-nothing God. "Perfect" has no meaning except in the context of some standard. We might say "God is the perfect friend" or "God is the perfect teacher". If there was only God in the beginning then the standards and comparisons that would give meaning to "perfect" didn't originally exist.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

What a masterly, yet ironic stroke of genius within the plot structure!

Shakespeare would be envious....me thinks! ...No?

I'd certainly never compare myself to Shakespeare. It was, however, an interesting plot twist - but very much in keeping with God's character of never being able to get anything right.
All you have to do is read the Bible. God blunders everything He does.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Quid est Veritas?, InterestedAtheist, durangodawood, devolved,

I will try to be brief but this is a huge topic.

It's difficult for Christians, isn't it? They say that God is perfectly loving and perfectly powerful, but the world we live is completely at odds with that. What mental gymnastics Christians have to go through to make excuses for God! Just look at your own post - all the things you say God can't do. Poor God - He's really hemmed in for an all-powerful creature, isn't He?

 

[devolved]

I thought this was interesting. You don't think God has free will either?

Free will is probably one of the less coherent concepts ever thought of. Conscious beings don't have free will. They have agency which is consistent with their functional being, and that's what compatibalists would understand as free will - an idea of one's ability to execute ones intentions without these being directed by some external agency.

 

[durangodawood]

...Conscious beings don't have free will. They have agency which is consistent with their functional being....

What do you mean by "agency"?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'd certainly never compare myself to Shakespeare. It was, however, an interesting plot twist - but very much in keeping with God's character of never being able to get anything right.
All you have to do is read the Bible. God blunders everything He does.

I don't know. Is it really some God that's blundering through and through each and every day? I mean.......couldn't there be some level of human culpability in the midst of all of this ugly reality we're all having to endure? Or, do we all like to wake up everyday and then remind ourselves, "Darn, I'm living in yet another day of social victimization, one which I've had absolutely nothing---zero, zilcho---to do with?"

...I have a feeling it's the latter case, but, is this really the whole story? And if it's not the whole story, is it just easier to blame Christians and/or God for what looks like on ongoing social debacle? In the end, if there is no God, then..........................................................................................who is to blame for all of the socially dysfunctional crap we have to go through and what's the atheist's plan for actually doing something substantive about it? Surely it's not simply to just get rid of religion, as if that would in and of itself solve all of our problems.

Because, all I'm seeing among nearly everyone on the whole planet is just a bunch of big mouths opening and closing, opening and closing, opening and closing, flap, flap, flap. On all sides.

Yeah, starting at the point of Nihilism, I'd have to say that Jesus' plan of social reworking begins to sound plausible, maybe even helpful.

In fact, I rather think the following song from Flyleaf is ... relevant:

 

[ananda]

We have motive to continue to do so if we want to live, or to cease if we want to die, but the action largely takes place without conscious psychologic motive.

Conscious or unconscious, my statement you quoted still stands - there is an experienced discontentment due to a perceived problem.

For God as a perfect being, this makes even less sense. It is a anthropomorphisation of God, for it assumes a Perfect God would have similar psychology to men. Rather, if we assume a God as a creator, the idea that creation flows from Him out of pure Joy or Love or Plenty ... while in perfection God would have no needs, nothing lacking, it does not mean that creation does not flow naturally as an aspect of that Perfection

You're basically claiming that the laws governing Reality which we perceive & experience do not apply to God - which is fine to claim - but it goes beyond the realm of reason & observation into the realm of imagination where really anything can be possible with "God". Then, anything is possible in the realm of imagination - there is no reason to not imagine it as the flying spaghetti monster, or a being which rides a sun chariot across the sky daily.

 

[zippy2006]

You're basically claiming that the laws governing Reality which we perceive & experience do not apply to God

You're basically claiming that a law you assert (without argument) applies to human beings automatically applies to God. There's nothing remotely reasonable about it.

 

[ananda]

You're basically claiming that a law you assert ... applies to human beings automatically applies to God.

True, but that's because I prefer to remain in the realm of reason and experience, rather than wander into the realm of imagination.

 

[zippy2006]

True, but that's because I prefer to remain in the realm of reason and experience, rather than go into the realm of imagination.

There is nothing remotely reasonable about adding an unjustified generalization to an unsupported claim.

 

[ananda]

There is nothing remotely reasonable about adding an unjustified generalization to an unsupported claim.

I'm only saying that the claim I made about discontentment is universal in my own personal experience, which led me to my conclusions and position.

 

[zippy2006]

I'm only saying that the claim I made about discontentment is universal in my own personal experience, which led me to my conclusions and position.

Even if that is true, generalizing the claim to God still requires justification. And it is only true if you deny the existence of abundance. Often where there is abundance there are gratuitous acts.

 

[ananda]

Even if that is true, generalizing the claim to God still requires justification.

The claim is completely universal in the totality of my extant experience & observation, that is therefore my basis to generalize that to all unknown existence - including an alleged "God". I find no reason to provide an exception for "God", as I've found no exception elsewhere.

And it is only true if you deny the existence of abundance. Often where there is abundance there are gratuitous acts.

This is not an exception in my view - gratuitous acts bring pleasure and contentment, which is another way of saying they decrease discontentment.

 

[durangodawood]

The claim is completely universal in the totality of my extant experience & observation, that is therefore my basis to generalize that to all unknown existence - including an alleged "God". I find no reason to provide an exception for "God", as I've found no exception elsewhere.

This is not an exception in my view - gratuitous acts bring pleasure and contentment, which is another way of saying they decrease discontentment.

In my experience contentment/discontentment doesn't quite express the same thing as joy/misery.

Joy/misery are direct experiences. Contentment/discontentment are more like judgments applied to life from a state of reflection.

 

[ananda]

In my experience contentment/discontentment is actually a different dimension of experience than joy/misery.

Joy/misery are direct experiences. Contentment/discontentment are more like judgments applied to life from a state of reflection.

It's difficult to translate the Buddhist (Pali) words sukkha & dukkha ... they can also be understood to mean "satisfying" & "dissatisfying", which would mean "sukkha" encompasses both joy/contentment & "dukkha" both misery/discontentment.

 

[zippy2006]

The claim is completely universal in the totality of my extant experience & observation, that is therefore my basis to generalize that to all unknown existence...

That's fine, but it's not reasonable.

Did the Buddha act after his enlightenment?

This is not an exception in my view - gratuitous acts bring pleasure and contentment, which is another way of saying they decrease discontentment.

No, many cases of abundance have no "experienced discontentment," to use your words. Say what you like, but giving out of abundance simply doesn't fit your claim that all acts proceed from experienced discontentment.

 

[ananda]

That's fine, but it's not reasonable.

No, many cases of abundance have no "experienced discontentment," to use your words. Say what you like, but giving out of abundance simply doesn't fit your claim that all acts proceed from experienced discontentment.

My claim includes both sides of the coin; "giving out of abundance causes me to experience greater contentment" is merely another way of saying "not giving out of abundance causes me to experience discontentment."

 

[zippy2006]

My claim includes both sides of the coin; "giving out of abundance causes me to experience greater contentment" is merely another way of saying "not giving out of abundance causes me to experience discontentment."

Yes, you seem to be saying that an act which aims to increase contentment is the same as an act which aims to decrease discontentment, because you think contentment and discontentment are just the same thing in opposite directions. Following that logic we arrive at all sorts of strange things, such as saying that a sick man taking medicine is basically the same thing as a healthy man exercising.

The core rational problem with what you say is that you've abandoned your position about "experienced discontentment." When we point out a scenario where experienced contentment (and abundance) is the source of the act you just suddenly claim that it is really an example of discontentment, because contentment always includes discontentment. You're in the "No True Scotsman" waters now, clinging to your conclusion despite mounting contrary evidence.

Did the Buddha continue to act after his enlightenment? Is Nirvana a state of discontentment?

When a soldier covers a grenade for the sake of his fellow men is he acting because of experienced discontentment?

 

[ananda]

Yes, you seem to be saying that an act which aims to increase contentment is the same as an act which aims to decrease discontentment, because you think contentment and discontentment are just the same thing in opposite directions. Following that logic we arrive at all sorts of strange things, such as saying that a sick man taking medicine is basically the same thing as a healthy man exercising.

No, it's more like saying "increasing heat" is another way of saying "decreasing cold".

The core rational problem with what you say is that you've abandoned your position about "experienced discontentment." When we point out a scenario where experienced contentment (and abundance) is the source of the act you just suddenly claim that it is really an example of discontentment, because contentment always includes discontentment. You're in the "No True Scotsman" waters now, clinging to your conclusion despite mounting contrary evidence.

I'm claiming discontentment<->contentment is one spectrum, just like cold<-> heat.

Did the Buddha continue to act after his enlightenment? Is Nirvana a state of discontentment?

Nibbana is the cessation of the creation of all future kammic activity, but there is still a remnant of kammic activity left from the past before full enlightenment (like a fire that has gone out, but there are still some embers left from the prior fire). The enlightened ones supposedly do not act after they reach parinibbana (complete cessation of kammic activity, like a fire that has completely gone out, including its embers).

When a soldier covers a grenade for the sake of his fellow men is he acting because of experienced discontentment?

IMO probably yes, because he imagines achieving greater contentment/less discontentment than if he didn't act.

 

[zippy2006]

No, it's more like saying "increasing heat" is another way of saying "decreasing cold".

I'm claiming discontentment<->contentment is one spectrum, just like cold<-> heat.

Yes, I understand that, and the problem is that the analogy doesn't hold. Someone can be fully content, and not be discontent. This is especially obvious when we single out particular variables. After a large meal I am content with respect to food, and not discontent at all. Content/discontent are not equivalent ways of looking at the same reality, as are cold/heat.

Nibbana is the cessation of the creation of all future kammic activity, but there is still a remnant of kammic activity left from the past (like a fire that has gone out, but there are still some embers left from the prior fire). The enlightened ones supposedly do not act after they reach parinibbana (complete cessation of kammic activity, like a fire that has completely gone out, including its embers).

Okay. So once you hit parinibbana your body goes limp and you die of starvation?

IMO probably yes, because he imagines achieving greater contentment/less discontentment than if he didn't act.

But again, you're putting the cart before the horse. You're begging the question. Why does he imagine that? He is accepting death--something which most people perceive to be inexplicably bad--in order to help others. Are you expanding your principle to the social level?