Is Belief a Moral Construct?

[zippy2006]

True, that was my mistake on which post was your lengthiest. So here's the facts.

I addressed the bulk of that post because the underlying theme of it was, "knowing what God wants removes free will". It did not go "entirely unanswered". Since that idea was interwoven with any other ideas you had in that post, I think it's fair for you to tell me what's left after we remove it. Rethink what you said. What still makes sense if you abandon that premise that we lose free will with knowledge? What other things you said in that post don't require that premise?

Eh, now you're just introducing another (mild) equivocation. Let's set them all out:

1. If we know what is good, we will do that thing.
2. If we know what God wants/commands, we will do that thing.
3. If we know what God wants, we do not have free will.​

As noted in the thread, I stand by (1) and I do not believe that there is any necessary implication between (1) and (2). Regarding this new idea of (3), I do not think it is true and I have never claimed it in the thread. Just because merit presupposes free will does not mean that absence of merit implies absence of free will, and no where in our conversation have I spoken of freedom apart from merit. The problem is not directly about free will. The only time I mentioned "free will" in that post was in order to give you leeway in your system since you are trying to accommodate something you do not believe in. This is just another example of you getting sloppy and getting ahead of yourself, trying to intuit the sense of an entire large post rather than address and engage it.

I don't think "learning something new" implies an addition, it can be a replacement.

I would say that learning something new always implies an addition and could include a replacement, but need not.

But okay, more specifically it's only when you learn something is false about the concept you had that you learn the thing you conceived of never really existed.

Good, that is true.

My Superman analogy still stands, Lois Lane just learned that Clark Kent is not from Kansas as she previously thought. This is still just a silly semantic argument to work "exists" into the thought process instead of merely plainly stating, "I learned I was wrong about someone".

Your example is question-begging as I noted immediately. "When Clark Kent revealed himself as Superman to Lois Lane..." This is a different question, namely that of rigid designators, the standard example being the morning star and the evening star which turn out to be the same star. It is an example of new information providing an additional attribute to a known object. Clark Kent did not cease to exist, either in actuality or in Lois' mind.

A non-question-begging example would have to at least preserve the ambiguity between the case of a new attribute and the case of a new existence. My comment in #71 about the perceived existence of a material form is quite relevant. Lois is assigning some new attributes, and perhaps replacing some old attributes, regarding the concrete material substance she has been labeling "Clark Kent." There really is no question about the existence of that substance, only Lois' perception of it. I have argued that the case of God is precisely different from this. Indeed, the precise shift that pushes one believer into "The Cloud of Unknowing" will push another believer into unbelief. Yet no one, upon realizing that Clark Kent is Superman, concludes that the substance underlying the name "Clark Kent" doesn't exist at all.

I never said that at all.

You said almost that exact thing here (but also elsewhere):

We would be moving the sphere of merit to our choices instead of our beliefs. What is the purpose of doing the work to reach the answer that He exists? Other than, of course, to then do what He wants. And then what is the purpose of doing the work to reach the answer of what He wants? Other than of course to do what He wants. The sphere of merit would fall in the arena of whether our choices align with what He wants those choices to be and why we chose to comply or not.

I didn't say that either. I think the search for God's existence is a waste of time, sure. But "searching for God" is "getting to know God" in my opinion, and that's all well and good. Either us and everything we see around us was created by a mind (God exists) or it wasn't (God doesn't exist). That's all I'm talking about. You asked me to simplify and focus on one point, that's the point I chose because it's the simplest, but you won't let the other stuff go.

Okay, well apparently I don't understand your position. You think that searching for God's existence is a dispensable waste of time, but that searching for God as a way of getting to know him is not? Is that right? Isn't that just to say that searching for God's existence serves an important purpose and isn't a waste of time?

I still maintain that plunging into God's existence and plunging into God's essence are very closely related, if not one and the same thing. But here you've concretized the "revelation of existence." You say that it is the revelation of a creator. Okay, sure, that simplifies the question a great deal. If we are merely talking about the existence of a creator then we would have a stable entry point to God's existence.

You dragged me into this conversation that I have no real investment in at all, I was content to ignore it. I mean, you've got me defending free will that you usta defend, but now you think it's amazingly fragile. I'm arguing within a framework I don't ascribe to.

I've acknowledged these things as well, but it still doesn't strike me as a great effort. By all means, though, we can be done. I won't hold it against you given the context.

The technical difficulty is that you have been doing a sort of premise-jumping, singling out and attacking a premise at a deeper and deeper level at each stage. It sprawls the dialogue like an accordion. You can't just challenge the entire theistic worldview, and then in your next post challenge the deep idea that we do what we believe to be good, and then in the next post dip into questions of divine command theory, Voluntarism, and Euthyphro. There are probably more than a thousand books written on each of those topics. Nonchalantly sniping at pieces of each of them in isolation in order to string together a very fragile argument is going to get us nowhere at all.

But it sounds like you're a lot more emotionally invested in this than I am and having your assumptions challenged is starting to wear on you, so maybe you should stop. I'm sure you were having a grand 'ol time with the other fella because it felt so easy it was actually boring, but you know me, I challenge the things that you feel are self-evident, and that's a lot harder to defend. So pick your poison: do you want to be bored and reinforce your beliefs, or do you want to be challenged and do some honest evaluation of your beliefs?

Rather, if you want to challenge deep premises and assumptions then you don't get to just ignore the millenia of complexity involved and the relatively short posts that I've produced. You have to pick your poison. You have to stop skimming the surface of non-superficial things superficially. You can either adopt a non-superficial approach to these things, or maintain your mode of interaction and turn instead to superficial things.

If you really want me to pick a poison I will probably pick the tortoise rather than the hare. At least with the former we get somewhere, albeit very, very, slowly.

 

[zippy2006]

Alright, I'm away for awhile. Have a good week.

 

[Moral Orel]

As noted in the thread, I stand by (1) and I do not believe that there is any necessary implication between (1) and (2).

You also stand by (2), and I never said there was any implication between (1) and (2).

Regarding this new idea of (3), I do not think it is true and I have never claimed it in the thread.

Well, (3) naturally follows from (2), which you've explicitly ascribed to. But I know, cause we've been over this before, I need to say that we don't have free will in regards to that specific choice. If knowing what God wants determines my actions to do what God wants, then I didn't make a free choice to do what God wants. But you have (supposedly) abandoned this, so this too is moot. You're just wrong about what I've claimed, and it has no bearing on the argument at large.

Good, that is true.

See, now remember that you agreed "when you learn something is false about the concept you had that you learn the thing you conceived of never really existed." for this next bit. Note the bolding in the next two quotes.

Your example is question-begging as I noted immediately. "When Clark Kent revealed himself as Superman to Lois Lane..." This is a different question, namely that of rigid designators, the standard example being the morning star and the evening star which turn out to be the same star. It is an example of new information providing an additional attribute to a known object. Clark Kent did not cease to exist, either in actuality or in Lois' mind.

It isn't only additional information. Lois thought (wrongly) that Clark was a human. Lois thought (wrongly) that Clark was from Kansas. Yes, it's new information that Clark can also fly and shoot laser beams from his eyes, but it isn't only additional information. So my analogy stands.

A non-question-begging example would have to at least preserve the ambiguity between the case of a new attribute and the case of a new existence. My comment in #71 about the perceived existence of a material form is quite relevant. Lois is assigning some new attributes, and perhaps replacing some old attributes, regarding the concrete material substance she has been labeling "Clark Kent." There really is no question about the existence of that substance, only Lois' perception of it. I have argued that the case of God is precisely different from this. Indeed, the precise shift that pushes one believer into "The Cloud of Unknowing" will push another believer into unbelief. Yet no one, upon realizing that Clark Kent is Superman, concludes that the substance underlying the name "Clark Kent" doesn't exist at all.

It sounds like you're coming at it from an entirely new angle here, since you suddenly acknowledge that Lois is ("perhaps") replacing old false information immediately after claiming that it was only additional information. But this new bit sounds like woo. I don't know what this substance replacement junk is. I know, for instance, folks like to think things like the POE are arguments against God's existence, but I just see it as an argument that God isn't all good. You're just changing attributes about a being, you aren't making that being not exist. Trying to force the word "exist" into contexts like these is ham-fisted to say the least.

You said almost that exact thing here (but also elsewhere):

Read the last eight words of the quote you just used and then tell me again that I am claiming people should be judged "simply" on whether or not they comply. I mean, come on. You went to go look for proof of your claim and then proved me right. Are you taking this seriously?

Okay, well apparently I don't understand your position. You think that searching for God's existence is a dispensable waste of time, but that searching for God as a way of getting to know him is not? Is that right? Isn't that just to say that searching for God's existence serves an important purpose and isn't a waste of time?

Searching for God's existence serves an important purpose if and only if we don't know whether He exists or not.

I still maintain that plunging into God's existence and plunging into God's essence are very closely related, if not one and the same thing. But here you've concretized the "revelation of existence." You say that it is the revelation of a creator. Okay, sure, that simplifies the question a great deal. If we are merely talking about the existence of a creator then we would have a stable entry point to God's existence.

Sure, and that creator has to think, i.e. have a mind. Do you just want to nail down what qualities a thing has to have to call it "God"?

The technical difficulty is that you have been doing a sort of premise-jumping, singling out and attacking a premise at a deeper and deeper level at each stage. It sprawls the dialogue like an accordion.

I'm all over the place because you're all over the place. You throw out assertions, I bat them down.

You can't just challenge the entire theistic worldview

I don't think I did that. I mean, the only thing that can be said about every theist is that they believe in God's existence, and I'm accepting that as a premise for the sake of the argument, so...

and then in your next post challenge the deep idea that we do what we believe to be good

Sure. I think people generally draw a distinction between "what I want" and "what is morally good" and often (but not always) try to rationalize that distinction away. I used to shoplift as a kid. I believed it was wrong, and I did it anyways.

and then in the next post dip into questions of divine command theory, Voluntarism, and Euthyphro.

Voluntarism, you betcha. DCT and Euthypro, nope. I've left it completely open to decide whether and why something is morally good. I've only been attacking things for being pointless and arbitrary.

There are probably more than a thousand books written on each of those topics. Nonchalantly sniping at pieces of each of them in isolation in order to string together a very fragile argument is going to get us nowhere at all.

And for every book that supports your side of this argument, there's another book written by someone who disagrees and makes just as strong of a case, and that I am rather coincidentally, and completely ignorantly, parroting. See, you know I do this just for sport. I don't read all those books because I find that boring. But what I've found is that when presented with arguments for God's existence or God's character, what I happen to nonchalantly snipe aligns perfectly with the nerds on my side who do read and write all those boring books and that have put in all the work that you think makes their position more respectable than mine. I operate on raw intuition, and I'm good at it. Every time you've given me an "Agree" rating in the past because you stumbled on one of my posts challenging someone else, I was nonchalantly sniping a subject I know nothing about. It's just harder to recognize my genius when I'm using it against you.

Rather, if you want to challenge deep premises and assumptions then you don't get to just ignore the millenia of complexity involved and the relatively short posts that I've produced.

Well I think that's a good challenge. You can put your knowledge of all those millennia of complexity to use combatting my raw intuition.

 

[cvanwey]

You need to try to start giving arguments for your positions. I will formalize an argument again to give visibility to your position. Let us compare Mark 16:15-16 to CCC 847 above.

Here are the two quotations:

---------------------------

And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:15-16, RSV)
​

---------------------------

847 This [previous] affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
​

---------------------------

I'm not making the same mistake I made in post #6. There exists 1,000 ways to skin a cat. I'll try and stay to the point, for brevity's sake.

Please note... I still would like to eventually get back to 'belief', as it relates to 'morality', from the OP. However, I feel 'sufficient grace' first warrants it's due, in response to post #75.

​

So this is what I think you are trying to say:

15. All who do not believe will be condemned. {Mark 16:16}
16. Some, through no fault of their own, do not believe.
17. Therefore some are condemned for not believing, even though it is not their fault that they do not believe.​

Above is not what I'm saying... I will attempt to steelman this argument.

A) Believers, please proselytize to all the uninformed/unaware about Christianity, whom are at the age of enlightenment/accountability or greater - (Mark 16:15)
B) All such humans, whom have reached the age of accountability, whom also receive proper proselytism, shall be/will be held accountable for believing and baptism - (Mark 16:16)
C) God is aware not all intended recipients will receive the Word, and thus, those individuals are excused from this rule
D) But wait, God apparently is also aware that not all have the ability to believe, even after sufficient proselytism; and thus, will also not be held accountable for Mark 16:16?
E) God alternatively judges these humans, via the category "sufficient grace"?
F) Therefore, telling your readers that all, whom are accountable and receive proselytism, shall NOT be held accountable for belief and baptism?.?.?.?

The first thing to note is that CCC 847 is saying that some do not have the opportunity to become Christians because they do not know Christ and his Church. Mark 16:16 is predicated on Mark 16:15 which is about preaching. Belief and disbelief are consequences of preaching. If we want to constrain ourselves to those two verses then we must say that if there is no preaching then there is no belief or disbelief. This is the distinction between unbelief and disbelief: unbelief is a simple lack, absence, or privation of belief, whereas disbelief is an active believing-not after the possibility of belief has been presented.

My point is about what the Bible text says. If you have received proselytism, you are accountable for also being baptized in His name. Baptism affirms you are devoted and loyal to Christ specifically, and are not merely a generalized seeker, deist, theist, or worshiper of alternative god(s). Please reference the 1st Commandment, just for starters.... You skipped the additional required part about baptism. Please see premise B).​

Now your natural response will be, "Even supposing that Mark is talking about disbelief rather than unbelief, isn't some disbelief also without fault?" Presumably, yes. Presumably not everyone who disbelieves in a purely logical or surface-level sense will be condemned (but I'm sure we could argue over definitions of 'preaching' and 'disbelief' for a very long time). The point that I believe Mark 16 is making is that if someone is truly preached to and truly understands the decision that is placed before them, and they still disbelieve, then they will be condemned.

"Belief" also requires baptism in Christ's name. See premise B).

I think it is a strawman to claim that that Mark 16:16 is presenting a simple, cut and dry litmus test for salvation. It is an understandable strawman for those who have never studied Hebraic literature, but it is a strawman nonetheless. The verse does show forth the difference between the saved and the damned, but it does not provide a transparent litmus test for when such a foundational decision has been taken.

Please refer to premise A), B), C). And then attempt to reconcile {A), B), C)} with {D) and E)}?.?.?.?

I realize this probably won't satisfy you, but I'm not sure what else there is to say. Perhaps there is an easy way to illustrate the strawman. Suppose your father dies and, for whatever reason, the Westboro Baptist Church is protesting his funeral. You have never heard of Christianity, but when you arrive for the funeral you see protestors shouting viciously and you see a sign which reads, "Repent and believe in Jesus or go to Hell." You consider the sign, think about it for a moment, and then walk into the funeral without repenting or believing. For the sake of argument suppose you go on with your life, never hear another word about Christianity, and eventually die at an old age without ever repenting or believing in Jesus. Are you a disbeliever? Are you at fault? I think 99% of Christians would say that you probably aren't even a disbeliever, and if you are then you still aren't at fault. Thus claiming that the meaning of Mark 16:16 ensures that you will be condemned is a strawman (unless we actually think that 99% of Christians drastically misunderstand their own religion).

What is dissatisfying, is that when the Bible speaks about the topic of salvation/condemnation, (arguably the most important topic), the Bible seems either contradictory - (premise B vs premise D), and/or ambiguous - (not well defined)? --- All explained in premises A) thru F).

The fact you can bring up this above scenario, attests to the Bible's lack in clarification and/or demonstrates ambiguity.

 

[cvanwey]

You dragged me into this conversation that I have no real investment in at all, I was content to ignore it.

@zippy2006 I too find it odd that you dragged him into this conversation? All I can say now is, "be careful what you ask for..."

 

[zippy2006]

You also stand by (2)...

Says who?

See, now remember that you agreed "when you learn something is false about the concept you had that you learn the thing you conceived of never really existed." for this next bit. Note the bolding in the next two quotes.

It may be helpful to include the first two words of your quote for both logical and grammatical purposes...

It isn't only additional information. Lois thought (wrongly) that Clark was a human. Lois thought (wrongly) that Clark was from Kansas. Yes, it's new information that Clark can also fly and shoot laser beams from his eyes, but it isn't only additional information. So my analogy stands.

The points I have given stand. The existence of the material substratum is not in question.

It sounds like you're coming at it from an entirely new angle here, since you suddenly acknowledge that Lois is ("perhaps") replacing old false information immediately after claiming that it was only additional information. But this new bit sounds like woo. I don't know what this substance replacement junk is. I know, for instance, folks like to think things like the POE are arguments against God's existence, but I just see it as an argument that God isn't all good. You're just changing attributes about a being, you aren't making that being not exist. Trying to force the word "exist" into contexts like these is ham-fisted to say the least.

Your initial statement said nothing about Kansas or human-ness or anything like that. If you want to introduce such considerations we can, but my underlying point is unaffected.

You're just changing attributes about a being, you aren't making that being not exist. Trying to force the word "exist" into contexts like these is ham-fisted to say the least.

That's why your analogy begs the question. Your Superman examples proves absolutely nothing. It proves that we can replace an attribute without replacing the substance. So what? That possibility was never in question.

Read the last eight words of the quote you just used and then tell me again that I am claiming people should be judged "simply" on whether or not they comply. I mean, come on. You went to go look for proof of your claim and then proved me right. Are you taking this seriously?

Your proposed alternative completely subordinates everything to alignment with God's will. I do not think you have any space to claim that the means have intrinsic worth given what you said, especially in the quote given.

Searching for God's existence serves an important purpose if and only if we don't know whether He exists or not.

So you've dodged the question about how "getting to know God" relates, unless you think that knowing God exists is the same as getting to know him fully.

Sure, and that creator has to think, i.e. have a mind. Do you just want to nail down what qualities a thing has to have to call it "God"?

Sure, it has to be intellectual.

I'm all over the place because you're all over the place. You throw out assertions, I bat them down.

I don't think I did that. I mean, the only thing that can be said about every theist is that they believe in God's existence, and I'm accepting that as a premise for the sake of the argument, so...

Sure. I think people generally draw a distinction between "what I want" and "what is morally good" and often (but not always) try to rationalize that distinction away. I used to shoplift as a kid. I believed it was wrong, and I did it anyways.

Voluntarism, you betcha. DCT and Euthypro, nope. I've left it completely open to decide whether and why something is morally good. I've only been attacking things for being pointless and arbitrary.

Again, the conversation is too stretched.

And for every book that supports your side of this argument, there's another book written by someone who disagrees and makes just as strong of a case, and that I am rather coincidentally, and completely ignorantly, parroting.

No and no.

Every time you've given me an "Agree" rating in the past because you stumbled on one of my posts challenging someone else, I was nonchalantly sniping a subject I know nothing about. It's just harder to recognize my genius when I'm using it against you.

The problem is that you are usually talking to people who also have no idea what they are talking about. If you managed to find a gaping hole in an argument from someone respectable, like Quid, I would give you a "Winner!" rating, not an "Agree" rating.


Let's hash the Superman thing since it's so simple:

It is semantics. When Clark Kent revealed himself as Superman to Lois Lane, we just say, "Holy moly! Clark Kent had this amazing secret this whole time!" not "Clark Kent ceased to exist!".

Zippy: Sometimes we come to believe that something we had previously believed to exist does not exist at all, and that something entirely different exists instead.
Orel: That's semantics. Lois didn't come to believe that Clark Kent never existed!
​

Your counter argument is logically fallacious because you don't seem to understand how the word "sometimes" works. A singular counter-example is not logically capable of refuting a particular affirmative; what is required is a categorical negative. You've confused a subcontrary with a contradiction by responding to a particular affirmative with a particular negative (See: Square of Opposition). Here is what you are doing:

Zippy: Some dogs are black.
Orel: You're wrong. Don't you know that Lassie was brown?​

 

[Moral Orel]

Says who?

Sez you:

Okay, let's move forward while assuming that someone can choose contrary to God's will even when that will is manifested clearly to them. I probably don't agree entirely

If you do not agree that "someone can choose contrary to God's will even when that will is manifested clearly to them" then you think that "someone can not choose contrary to God's will when that will is manifested to them".

I pointed out a long time ago that I was using "good" as shorthand in a confusing way, and you've still been pressing the determinant issue going forward as we're talking only about knowledge of what God commands and not whether it's good or not. So it seems like you've been equivocating between (1) and (2), not me.

The points I have given stand. The existence of the material substratum is not in question.

No, the points don't stand. You've had to add another qualifier. That qualifier being the "substance" that sounds like whatever quality you subjectively decide is super-important.

Your initial statement said nothing about Kansas or human-ness or anything like that. If you want to introduce such considerations we can, but my underlying point is unaffected.

Uhh, Superman is not a human from Kansas. Lois learned that Clark is Superman, ergo she learned that Clark is not a human from Kansas. Are you trying to quibble about what facts Lois learned as a result of the revelation that Clark is Superman? Pick whatever you want. Lois thought that Clark would die if shot in the head by a gun; Lois thought that Clark would die if he fell off of a really high cliff; Lois thought that Clark was a scaredy-cat that ran away from danger... So substance, okay, Lois thought Clark was made of the squishy sort of substance that can be crushed or torn or punctured like humans are so oft to do, but he's not, so that Clark doesn't exist because Clark is an entirely different kind of substance.

Incidentally, that reminds me of a joke. So here's some random, off-topic levity.

A guy is sitting in a bar at the top of the Empire State building having a drink. A very intoxicated fellow sitting next to him nudges him in the arm and says with extremely slurred speech, "Hey, you wanna know somethin' crazy about dis place? If you jump out dat window o'er der, der's a big gusta wind dat'll shoot you right back up trew dat window der." The guy responded incredulously, "Bologna, you're just drunk". So the drunk fellow gets up and boasts, "Watch! I'll show ya!" And he runs over to the window and jumps out! He falls a few stories, and sure enough comes shooting right back through the window! "That's incredible," exclaims the guy, "I have to try that!" So he goes running out the window, falls a few stories, and then keeps falling till he splats on the ground. The bartender turns to the intoxicated fellow and says, "You're a real jerk when you're drunk, Superman".

That's why your analogy begs the question. Your Superman examples proves absolutely nothing. It proves that we can replace an attribute without replacing the substance. So what? That possibility was never in question.

It proves everything. I've given you an example that fits your argument, but you wouldn't use the word "exist" in describing that example because you're just trying to force the word "exist" into the argument post hoc.

Your proposed alternative completely subordinates everything to alignment with God's will.

How so? I mean, isn't everything judged by how things align with God's will because God is perfectly good?

So you've dodged the question about how "getting to know God" relates, unless you think that knowing God exists is the same as getting to know him fully.

I didn't dodge anything; what I said is how it relates. It's good for finding out whether there is someone to get to know, and nothing else. If you know that someone exists, then it's pointless.

Sure, it has to be intellectual.

What else? What minimum required facts about the being need to be accepted to call that being "God" and not have to worry about changing substances? Before, you talked about how we have to conceive of people being in the shape of humans, but I've never thought that. Think about AI in sci-fi movies and what it would take to call something a "person". I think HAL was a person, for instance. So a creator of life, the universe, and everything that is a person. What sort of negative consequences would arise from all humans having that knowledge, or what sort of good things would be lost?

Let's hash the Superman thing since it's so simple:

It's not as simple as your little bit you wrote here; you gave your explanation and I worked within that specific explanation.

Zippy: It's only when you learn that something you thought was false about someone, then what you previously conceived exists, doesn't.
Orel: Lois learned that Clark isn't a human when she found out he was also Superman, so her previous conception of Clark doesn't exist. So the Clark Kent that is human and was born in Kansas doesn't exist. But no one talks like that. And the only reason you're talking like that in respect to God is to conflate "searching for whether or not God exists" with "getting to know who God is".

No, it isn't as simple as you thinking I just ignored the word "sometimes", that's a strawman.

Zippy: If it has fur, four legs, and a tail then it's a dog.
Orel: What about horses?
Zippy: That's different!

Lemme ask you this, other than God, where else should I use this sort of thinking to describe "well what I thought about X is false, so that X doesn't exist"? And is this phrasing any more accurate or apt than to simply say, "X is actually like this"?

 

[zippy2006]

Sez you:

You think that constitutes "standing by (2)"?

I pointed out a long time ago that I was using "good" as shorthand in a confusing way, and you've still been pressing the determinant issue going forward as we're talking only about knowledge of what God commands and not whether it's good or not. So it seems like you've been equivocating between (1) and (2), not me.

If you were only using good as shorthand then your reply and dismissal of that long post does not stand. This is what I've been saying...

No, the points don't stand. You've had to add another qualifier. That qualifier being the "substance" that sounds like whatever quality you subjectively decide is super-important.

Uhh, Superman is not a human from Kansas. Lois learned that Clark is Superman, ergo she learned that Clark is not a human from Kansas. Are you trying to quibble about what facts Lois learned as a result of the revelation that Clark is Superman? Pick whatever you want. Lois thought that Clark would die if shot in the head by a gun; Lois thought that Clark would die if he fell off of a really high cliff; Lois thought that Clark was a scaredy-cat that ran away from danger... So substance, okay, Lois thought Clark was made of the squishy sort of substance that can be crushed or torn or punctured like humans are so oft to do, but he's not, so that Clark doesn't exist because Clark is an entirely different kind of substance.

I will address this below.

Incidentally, that reminds me of a joke. So here's some random, off-topic levity.

A guy is sitting in a bar at the top of the Empire State building having a drink. A very intoxicated fellow sitting next to him nudges him in the arm and says with extremely slurred speech, "Hey, you wanna know somethin' crazy about dis place? If you jump out dat window o'er der, der's a big gusta wind dat'll shoot you right back up trew dat window der." The guy responded incredulously, "Bologna, you're just drunk". So the drunk fellow gets up and boasts, "Watch! I'll show ya!" And he runs over to the window and jumps out! He falls a few stories, and sure enough comes shooting right back through the window! "That's incredible," exclaims the guy, "I have to try that!" So he goes running out the window, falls a few stories, and then keeps falling till he splats on the ground. The bartender turns to the intoxicated fellow and says, "You're a real jerk when you're drunk, Superman".

Nice

It proves everything. I've given you an example that fits your argument, but you wouldn't use the word "exist" in describing that example because you're just trying to force the word "exist" into the argument post hoc.

Produce my argument. I dare you. Do what I did in post #5 and produce my argument.

What else? What minimum required facts about the being need to be accepted to call that being "God" and not have to worry about changing substances? Before, you talked about how we have to conceive of people being in the shape of humans, but I've never thought that. Think about AI in sci-fi movies and what it would take to call something a "person". I think HAL was a person, for instance. So a creator of life, the universe, and everything that is a person. What sort of negative consequences would arise from all humans having that knowledge, or what sort of good things would be lost?

You are asking me to define God, which cannot be done. You are again begging the question, although this time in a subtle and understandable way.

To take what you have already given: a creator with a mind, this really wouldn't need to be God. There are even people who think we were created by superior extraterrestrial intelligences, etc. The Mormons, for example. You're grappling here with questions of definitions.

But I concede that bulletproof proof that we were created by an intelligent creator would aid us in salvation.

It's not as simple as your little bit you wrote here; you gave your explanation and I worked within that specific explanation.

Zippy: It's only when you learn that something you thought was false about someone, then what you previously conceived exists, doesn't.

I accepted this as true even though it is your paraphrase from #120. Good so far.

Orel: Lois learned that Clark isn't a human when she found out he was also Superman, so her previous conception of Clark doesn't exist. So the Clark Kent that is human and was born in Kansas doesn't exist.

So you've literally already committed a fallacy. You are doing exactly what I said you were doing in the last post: confusing particular and categorical contradictories.

Your paraphrase above does not mean that anytime a falsity is discovered in one's own thinking the previously conceived thing therefore does not exist. That would be a dumb thing to say, and I've never said it. That would be a categorical affirmative, and your particular negative would refute it.

Your paraphrase above therefore does not mean that if Lois discovers that she was mistaken about Clark in some way, then necessarily Clark does not exist. Yet that is precisely what you have concluded.

"Only if" ("only when") functions this way logically: "If you realize that what you previously conceived does not actually exist, then you must have learned that one of your previous thoughts about that thing was false." In propositional logic your fallacy is called affirming the consequent, as follows:

P: I realize that the thing I previously believed to exist does not exist.
Q: I have learned that something I believed about that thing was false.

• P -> Q
• Q
• Therefore, P

(Above your paraphrase runs "Only when Q, P". This is logically equivalent to, "If P, then Q," not "If Q, then P." This is a common mistake for those unfamiliar with logic. Check out this link.)

No, it isn't as simple as you thinking I just ignored the word "sometimes", that's a strawman.

No, it really is. This is a rookie mistake, and it is above you, but it illustrates my point that you are going too fast and rushing things. You have to come to terms with this. Further, the tricky logical phrasing was your paraphrase. I did not employ that verbiage (so far as I know). The "only if" confusion demonstrates a more robust strawman, but a strawman nonetheless, and one that could have easily been caught if you had taken more time to think through my position.

Zippy: If it has fur, four legs, and a tail then it's a dog.
Orel: What about horses?
Zippy: That's different!

This is clearly a mischaracterization. It assumes that I gave a clear definition of the case I had in mind and then you intentionally chose an example that fit all of the various points of that definition. But that never happened, and from the very first I said yours is a bad example that begs the question. If you think I am wrong then produce the place in the thread where I gave criteria and explain how your Superman example fits that criteria such that it instantiates the "sometimes" that I had in mind.

 

[Moral Orel]

You think that constitutes "standing by (2)"?

Yep.

If you were only using good as shorthand then your reply and dismissal of that long post does not stand. This is what I've been saying...

Sure it does. After I clarified, and you acknowledged the clarification, we went forward arguing about whether or not we can ignore God's commands when they are clearly manifested to us. That you were still arguing about whether we can ignore what is good when that is clearly manifested to us after you acknowledged the clarification means you were equivocating between the two.

Produce my argument. I dare you. Do what I did in post #5 and produce my argument.

Okay, I'll give it a shot. Here's where I'm drawing from:

As is often the case with conceptions of God, if someone were to believe that God exists like you or I exist, and they continued in their knowledge of God and journey towards God, eventually they would have to reject that conception and acknowledge that the God they believed in does not actually exist. Something else "exists" which is vaguely like their initial conception, but it is incredibly different from what they thought.

If you discover that the thing you conceived is different than you thought
Then you have to acknowledge that the thing you conceived of does not actually exist

Now my Superman analogy fits this just fine. There are any number of things that we can point to which Lois is wrong about. But what you want to clarify is that it depends on what those differences are. And I have pointed out that what you deem to be significant is an entirely subjective judgement call on your part.

So, Lois originally conceived of a Clark Kent that was born in Kansas to human parents, works for the Daily Planet, requires prescription eyewear, and is a scaredy cat. Does that Clark Kent exist? If he does, then you're right about me mischaracterizing your statements. If he does not then I characterized them just fine. It's just playing with semantics.

You are asking me to define God, which cannot be done.

No I'm not. There are many facts that you will happily list off about God that you can cite from the Bible. I've asked merely for the bare minimum facts necessary for you to call a being "God". That does not require knowing absolutely everything about that being.

Can you define "human" for that matter if you can't tell me absolutely everything about all of us?

But I concede that bulletproof proof that we were created by an intelligent creator would aid us in salvation.

Neat, I win round one "It would be better if we knew God existed". Are we ready to move on to round two "It would be better if we knew exactly what God commands" or do you want to keep talking about Superman?

 

[zippy2006]

Yep.

More fallacies ignored with impunity, I see.

Again, you apparently have no ability to interpret the concept of "sometimes." You are not differentiating between two possibilities, and therefore that concept is altogether excluded from your analysis. At best what you have done is reduced the conversation to a tautology, "If you conclude that your former belief about some object was false, then you must hold that your former conception of that object was inaccurate." The mightily-defended strawman therefore terminates in the banal tautology. As I said in #118, what is at stake is realities, not concepts. In modern parlance we could say that what is at stake is objects, not properties.

Let me touch on this:

Lemme ask you this, other than God, where else should I use this sort of thinking to describe "well what I thought about X is false, so that X doesn't exist"? And is this phrasing any more accurate or apt than to simply say, "X is actually like this"?

Non-material examples are easiest. For example, consider two intellectual theories: Jungian Synchronicity and the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon. The first posits an ontological connection between the mind and the external world which explains a certain species of coincidence, whereas the second posits a psychological quirk which explains, in some cases, the very same species of coincidence. Although these two theories are mutually exclusive individuals might vacillate between them based on evidence and analysis. Moving from one to another would not be like moving from Clark to Superman, for in this case the fundamental identity of the theory has been repudiated and replaced with an essentially contradictory alternative.

Kal-El basically has two contrived identities: Clark Kent and Superman. If you know Superman you would know part of Kal-El. If you know Clark Kent you would know a different part of Kal-El. Upon learning that Kent is Superman, Lois not only realizes that she has many false beliefs about Clark, but she also realizes that she has a great deal of knowledge of Superman. It seems to me that Superman is Clark's secret identity, not his real identity. After all, Superman is exactly like a human except for his special physical abilities. It is fairly clear that we view personhood as rooted in personality, not in physical ability. The reason Lois knows Kal-El is not because she "knows" Superman. Everyone "knows" Superman. The reason Lois knows Kal-El is because she knows Clark, namely Clark's personality. It is precisely because Lois knows him that Kal-El gravitates towards Lois. Neither Kal-El nor Lois would claim that Lois does not know Kal-El at the moment after he reveals to her his special physical abilities. Indeed, the very reason he does so reveal himself is because she knows him!

 

[zippy2006]

If you discover that the thing you conceived is different than you thought
Then you have to acknowledge that the thing you conceived of does not actually exist

I suppose I should thank you for this attempt to capture my argument. "Thanks."

Of course this isn't my argument, and that should be clear given what I said about the fallacy of affirming the consequent in #128. Nevertheless, let's look at it. (Note: you've given a premise, not an argument, but that's fine since it is the main premise in question)

First, is the premise true? Well, it depends on what "the thing" refers to in the consequent. If it refers to the object in its entirety, then the premise is false. If it refers to the property of the object or the object qua property, then it is true (albeit tautologous).

To illustrate: suppose we were playing basketball yesterday. Today I ask you what kind of basketball we were playing with. You say, "Wilson." I produce the basketball, which is a Spalding. At this point the antecedent of your premise holds ("It was discovered that the thing you conceived is different than you thought"). Does the consequent therefore necessarily hold? Well, it depends. Does "the thing" refer to the basketball, regardless of kind? Or else does it refer to the basketball as understood via its property, i.e. "The Wilson Basketball." If the former, the consequent does not hold and the premise is false. If the latter, the consequent does hold and the premise is true but tautologous.

You correctly expressed my premise here:

Zippy: It's only when you learn that something you thought was false about someone, then what you previously conceived exists, doesn't.

Again, we can formalize it:

If you realize that what you previously conceived exists, doesn't, then you must have learned that something you thought to be true was in fact false.​

Or, using your language from the most recent post:

If you acknowledge that the thing you conceived of does not actually exist, then you have discovered that the thing you conceived is different than you thought.​

These premises are true, non-tautologous, and very much to the point. That is, if we interpret the antecedent's "thing" as the object itself, then the premise is true and non-tautologous. If we interpret the antecedent's "thing" as the deceptive property, then the premise is true but tautologous. When I affirmed your characterization I meant it in the former sense.


We could of course modify your recent premise to rectify it and capture part of what I have said in this thread. We would have to include that pesky "sometimes", which will be incorporated with the word "might":

If you discover that the thing you conceived is different than you thought
Then you might have to acknowledge that the thing you conceived of does not actually exist​

 

[Moral Orel]

Gee whiz, @zippy2006

Two full posts about Superman... I guess that answers the last question from my post. But I'm mostly interested in the answer to the one and only question I bolded.

 

[zippy2006]

Gee whiz, @zippy2006

Two full posts about Superman... I guess that answers the last question from my post. But I'm mostly interested in the answer to the one and only question I bolded.

Do whatever you like. I'm done playing the game where you ignore my posts and I address yours while you continually pretend you aren't committing strawmen and fallacies at every turn.

 

[Moral Orel]

Do whatever you like. I'm done playing the game where you ignore my posts and I address yours while you continually pretend you aren't committing strawmen and fallacies at every turn.

I'm literally pointing out you not addressing my post, so don't go claiming the high road. I didn't even mention the other half of my post you ignored.

 

[zippy2006]

I'm literally pointing out you not addressing my post, so don't go claiming the high road. I didn't even mention the other half of my post you ignored.

Yeah, sucks when the other shoe drops. Turns out that when you constantly ignore your interlocutor's posts, they also ignore yours. Super weird.

And if you don't think my posts on your Superman analogy address your bolded text about Clark Kent, you're crazy.

 

[stevevw]

In the pages of the Bible, God looks to deem belief under the umbrella of morality, verse instead under the cloak of amorality. When we read such a passage...:

"15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

God's judgement looks to hinge upon whether or not one believes in Him, and then acts accordingly. However, if belief is NOT a choice, or cannot be willed, then belief may not constitute a moral or immoral action.

- If belief is a moral action, please state your case?
- However, if belief is not a moral action, and is instead an amoral action, then why does this look be God's criteria for condemnation?

I don't think belief itself is a moral act but more like a mind set that leads to becominga new person in God that wants to be moral. That cannot harbor sin and Christ in the same body. Jesus says we must become like children in how they believe in God. As we grow older we begin to become more cynical so its hard to let go of worldly thinking and trust in God.

It is despite the material evidence or lack of it where we have to let go and believe what God says is true that we change and become Christlike. But being good itself is not enough. Anyone can be good and that can be motivated by a number of things.

I think this goes back to being born again and that we cannot on our own merit and ability be morally good. We have a sinful nature that is inclined to get caught up in the material world and its ideals of what is good and bad. By believing and trusting in Christ the old sinful nature and being a slave to sin is put to death with Christ. So belief is the key that opens the door to being moral. We no longer want to live in sin. Sin and Christ cannot live in the same body.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yeah, sucks when the other shoe drops. Turns out that when you constantly ignore your interlocutor's posts, they also ignore yours. Super weird.

Okay, so now we're even. We both constantly ignore each other's posts.

And if you don't think my posts on your Superman analogy address your bolded text about Clark Kent, you're crazy.

If you say so.

 

[cvanwey]

I don't think belief itself is a moral act but more like a mind set that leads to becominga new person in God that wants to be moral. That cannot harbor sin and Christ in the same body. Jesus says we must become like children in how they believe in God. As we grow older we begin to become more cynical so its hard to let go of worldly thinking and trust in God.

It is despite the material evidence or lack of it where we have to let go and believe what God says is true that we change and become Christlike. But being good itself is not enough. Anyone can be good and that can be motivated by a number of things.

I think this goes back to being born again and that we cannot on our own merit and ability be morally good. We have a sinful nature that is inclined to get caught up in the material world and its ideals of what is good and bad. By believing and trusting in Christ the old sinful nature and being a slave to sin is put to death with Christ. So belief is the key that opens the door to being moral. We no longer want to live in sin. Sin and Christ cannot live in the same body.

If a belief cannot be willed, as it is instead inferred, then it would seem rather odd that the almighty uses such a criteria to determine (salvation vs. damnation)?