Appeal to Motive and the presumed selfishness of God

[ananda]

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.

Certainly, but my point is that our actions are motivated by the discontentment<->contentment spectrum. If one area of my life is contented, my attention turns to another part of my life that possesses the most discontentment. in order to find resolution.

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

It's probably better to say that cessation of kammic activity equals (on the physical level) cessation of physical activity, which means one passes away at that time.

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?

I can only say what would apply to me - I might think how disappointing my team, family, friends would bring me more discontentment than saving my own life; or, I might think of the misery of my life and look forward to more contentment through death; etc.

 

[zippy2006]

Certainly, but my point is that our actions are motivated by the discontentment<->contentment spectrum.

Okay, I won't press this further, such as whether gratuitous acting out of abundance can transcend contentment or whether the principle can be generalized to God.

It's probably better to say that cessation of kammic activity equals (on the physical level) cessation of physical activity, which means one passes away at that time.

Cessation of conscious and unconscious activity? If both, then can one achieve parinibbana at 35 and collapse as they instantly die? Or does one achieve nibbana and then wait for parinibbana as the embers--and themselves--slowly die?

I can only say what would apply to me - I might think how disappointing my team, family, friends would bring me more discontentment than saving my own life; or, I might think of the misery of my life and look forward to more contentment through death; etc.

And you can't realistically imagine altruism as a motive? Not even of, say, a mother for her child?

 

[ananda]

Okay, I won't press this further, such as whether gratuitous acting out of abundance can transcend contentment or whether the principle can be generalized to God.

Cessation of conscious and unconscious activity? If both, then can one achieve parinibbana at 35 and collapse as they instantly die? Or does one achieve nibbana and then wait for parinibbana as the embers--and themselves--slowly die?

One supposedly achieves nibbana (complete contentment), and is then content whether one lives or dies ... usually one is said to be content to live out their remaining kammic activity until parinibbana.

And you can't realistically imagine altruism as a motive? Not even of, say, a mother for her child?

No, because I see most mothers are attached to their child, and acts because 1. she would be discontent if the child regresses, or 2. she would be more content/happy to see her child thriving.

 

[zippy2006]

No, because I see most mothers are attached to their child, and acts because 1. she would be discontent if the child regresses, or 2. she would be more content/happy to see her child thriving.

Sorry, I'm still talking about self-sacrifice, as in the grenade scenario. So the mother would not be discontent or content, she would be dead. Think Lily Potter.

 

[ananda]

Sorry, I'm still talking about self-sacrifice, as in the grenade scenario. So the mother would not be discontent or content, she would be dead. Think Lily Potter.

Gauging discontentment & contentment would still be in my mind before death occurs, during the decision process.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I wouldn't portray perfection as lack of want or desire, since desire is central to intent.

Perfection simply means the highest standard by which we comparatively evaluate certain hierarchy of order. By saying that God is perfect, we simply imply that God is at the top of that hierarchy.

Want means a lack of; desire means a wish for - not necessarily meaning lack. The words aren't equivalent, and you will notice I never used desire. Archaically, desire was used also for 'command to', as well. I don't think God has no intent, but that does not mean he must have a want of something. That was my whole point here, that it is fallacious to assume an action only occurs to fulfill a need by the being undertaking the action.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

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

Did you miss the single quotation marks around imperfect?

Anyway, I don't think the concept of Free Will has much applicability to God. God has nothing that limits Him except His own Nature. So His Will is Free, in as much as it is in accord with His own Nature. Now what is God's Nature but what has classically been termed the Good? Without assuming something beyond God, some eternal Form to which He would alse be beholden, the concept of Free Will loses meaning - and such a God would hardly be the Supreme Being then.

 

[Moral Orel]

Did you miss the single quotation marks around imperfect?

Anyway, I don't think the concept of Free Will has much applicability to God. God has nothing that limits Him except His own Nature. So His Will is Free, in as much as it is in accord with His own Nature. Now what is God's Nature but what has classically been termed the Good? Without assuming something beyond God, some eternal Form to which He would alse be beholden, the concept of Free Will loses meaning - and such a God would hardly be the Supreme Being then.

I didn't miss the quotation marks, but I didn't really focus on the word "imperfect". You said that to have free will would require that less than perfect choices be made. So I'm assuming all of God's choices are perfect somehow. And if there are no imperfect choices being made, then there is no free will.

But this explanation raises the question "Is God beholden to his own nature?". Think of a robot that has software installed which guide its decision making process. Even if this robot happens to lack a designer, are the choices it makes meaningful? Are they even choices?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I didn't miss the quotation marks, but I didn't really focus on the word "imperfect". You said that to have free will would require that less than perfect choices be made. So I'm assuming all of God's choices are perfect somehow. And if there are no imperfect choices being made, then there is no free will.

But this explanation raises the question "Is God beholden to his own nature?". Think of a robot that has software installed which guide its decision making process. Even if this robot happens to lack a designer, are the choices it makes meaningful? Are they even choices?

This is more the idea of Unities. Can we subdivide aspects of God further, in any coherent manner? We can describe God in an imperfect manner, giving attributes perhaps, but you cannot assume 'programming' without assuming a standard God must ascribe to - some Form beyond. Think of the Tao or the Neoplatonic One - so God is beholden to His Nature in that His Nature is indivisible from God. It is akin to asking whether an Apple must be an Apple - if it need not be, it isn't an Apple; or we are judging it by an external standard of Appleness that it may, or may not, be approaching or falling short of.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

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?

God cannot be a creature per defitionem. A creature etymologically would be something created, and even in a Wittgensteinian sense, the term jars with what Theists mean by the term God.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

God cannot be a creature per defitionem. A creature etymologically would be something created, and even in a Wittgensteinian sense, the term jars with what Theists mean by the term God.

Well, of course, God was actually created, by men. But within the boundaries of the Christian religion, you're right, of course.

So:
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 entity, isn't He?

 

[devolved]

Think of the Tao or the Neoplatonic One - so God is beholden to His Nature in that His Nature is indivisible from God.

Can't you say the same thing about cats, chairs or people?

I don't think God has no intent, but that does not mean he must have a want of something. That was my whole point here, that it is fallacious to assume an action only occurs to fulfill a need by the being undertaking the action.

Again, you are trying to separate God using distinct semantics, but desire is semantics equivalent of want, and Biblical God both desires and wants. You don't need to be imperfect to want something. You can want something in context of actions consistent with your nature.

For example, I want to type this out to give you more information on this issue. By doing that I'm not getting anything back to "complete me". It's merely me as mechanism acting out what it is. Want is is projection of purposeful intent.

 

[Chriliman]

Well, of course, God was actually created, by men. But within the boundaries of the Christian religion, you're right, of course.

So:
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 entity, isn't He?

Can you have perfect love if you don’t allow for the other to either love or not love you back? If God allows for this, then he’s giving up control in some sense, no? Perfect love can’t be all controlling, hence our, hopefully temporary, broken world.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Can you have perfect love if you don’t allow for the other to either love or not love you back? If God allows for this, then he’s giving up control in some sense, no? Perfect love can’t be all controlling, hence our, hopefully temporary, broken world.

Okay. So you're saying that God does love us, but he has to allow us the freedom to not love Him back if we decide to - because otherwise, He would be controlling us, and it wouldn't be true love. Is that a fair summary of your position?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Well, of course, God was actually created, by men. But within the boundaries of the Christian religion, you're right, of course.

So:
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 entity, isn't He?

Not to Christians. We believe the world is fundamentally a good place, made by a good being: And it was Good.

This is my point. Assuming the worst, that people only do things for selfish ends, that Nature is evil because it is red in tooth and claw - This Atheistic doctrine of Total Depravity - is not conclusive. It is merely assumed and stated as if fact. If anything, it is a sad spectacle of hatred and misplaced existential angst.

So no, the world we live in is not at odds with that at all. The mourner fundamentally realising the worth of the person he lost, the altruist sacrificing himself, the world I see around me - this does not need some complicated Theodicy. It merely requires observation of your fellow man and the world. The essential claim of Goodness is there, as even evil is nought but a short-cut or attempt by illicit means, to achieve a fundamentally good thing. Evil is the shadow, not the substance; and shadow can best be described by what casts it.

The person hemmed-in is the totalising claim of Selfish Genes (that need to be hedged by group selection and complicated prisoners' dilemmas), or deep Psychological theories that often are little more than fallacious Appeals to Motive. People in glass houses should not cast stones.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Why do people go to hell if God is loving?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Can't you say the same thing about cats, chairs or people?

How? Can you not overcome your nature? Are you the product merely of circumstance? Is there no imperitive to Virtue? If you hold this, then you assert Determinism - which I see little evidence for, and much in human behaviour against.

Again, you are trying to separate God using distinct semantics, but desire is semantics equivalent of want, and Biblical God both desires and wants. You don't need to be imperfect to want something. You can want something in context of actions consistent with your nature.

For example, I want to type this out to give you more information on this issue. By doing that I'm not getting anything back to "complete me". It's merely me as mechanism acting out what it is. Want is is projection of purposeful intent.

That 'want' could be replaced with desire. It is a synonym of it, but want as in lack of, is not. There, if desiring to completion was described as wanting, that want used as a noun, has a very different implication from desire as a noun. The semantics are clear, though confusing if you don't separate the meanings properly.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why do people go to hell if God is loving?

I don't know. Why did the chicken cross the road?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Why do people go to hell if God is loving?

Hell is bolted from the inside, to paraphrase CS Lewis.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I don't know. Why did the chicken cross the road?

Okay. I wasn't expecting that. Are you saying the question is too ridiculous to consider?
I've always thought that torturing people was inconsistent with being loving. But perhaps to you, it's okay to say that a God who sends people to literally the most horrible place that can exist loves them?