Theodicy argument failure?

[Eudaimonist]

But you don't know their isn't a Creator and purpose for your life, so if you live only according to this notion, your not acting on what you know but on what you don't.

No, I'm drawing the best conclusions from what I do know. And that does not lead to the notion of a purposeless life. It's simply a life in which there are human purposes instead of divine purposes.

If you don't know their isn't a Creator and after life, then why should you be acting as if this is true?

For the same reason I don't hide in the bushes when I leave my apartment out of fear that there might be hungry fire-breathing dragons nearby. My worldview is absent fire-breathing dragons, and so I act as if they don't exist. This is honest. It means that I'm acting on the integrity of my judgment.

I would say it does it make it more meaningful.

I'm sure that you would. Most people would. I personally judge otherwise.

This specially for people whom suffer and they have opportunity to build a character that lasts.

Character is worthwhile even if it lasts for only a brief moment, and suffering is worth that. Character doesn't have to be eternal to be worth something.

Every moment is for nothing but the moment?

No, a moment can also be a means to another moment. However, a moment can be worthwhile for its own sake. It can be a sacred end-in-itself.

This life is just for this life?

Yes. Religion (some religion, at least) has spoiled this by creating the impression that this life is nothing more than a painful entrance examination to something else that has all or most of the value of one's existence.

I don't see how this makes life more precious, it seems to me to make it more vain. A person lives a honorable life of sufferring where they are patient, and it leads to nothing but nothingness at the end? How is their honor precious now, as opposed to dishonorable people whom enjoyed life?

Honor is an end-in-itself, just as life is an end-in-itself. Honor does not need to be precious after death. It simply needs to be precious during one's life.

I really don't see the logic here.

What do you think the value of honor is? Is it to win fabulous prizes in some afterlife?

Also you can enjoy moments, do things for the moments, but also not at the end, your life is not in vain

No life is in vain that is not taken in vain. No life is worthless that is treated as having worth. The idea that a finite life is "in vain" is the product of the devaluation of life by people who think that one's existence is eternal.

I don't see how a life that ends and had no purpose, can be more meaningful.

NOT MY VIEW.

I don't view life as purposeless.

In the matrix, the world people lived in the matrix was not really material but seemed to be.

This kind of solipsistic skepticism goes nowhere, IMV.

Your choices have a purpose for your well being, but that doesn't mean your life has a purpose.

Yes, in fact it does, and for precisely that reason. My life simply doesn't have a divine purpose.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[AskTheFamily]

Nor do you KNOW there isn't a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Have you gone looking for it? If you don't KNOW it doesn't exist why are you are acting as though there isn't?

Actually I know there isn't. But the case of a Creator existing or not existing is not like other things we don't know. It seems very plausible that a Creator does exist, while this is not true of other things.

More vain? If you know how much is in your wallet you are more careful how you use it. Where does vanity come in?

When you see a person didn't die in vain, it doesn't have to do with vanity.

I didn't mean it in the sense you understood it.

I would agree that is quite depressing to see seemingly good people have hard lives for seemingly little reward, and vice versa. We do the good people who have gone before a greater honour by trying to make the world of the present and future a more just place.

If life is all about the moment and enjoying the moment, it just makes their life less precious.

But you seem to be upset that some people want to do the right thing for it's own reward. Why? It looks to me like a mature attitude to take.

No this is not what I'm saying at all. It's just a life of doing the right thing and a life of doing the wrong thing both end at nothingness.

But it is certainly ridiculous to suggest that a life that ends at death has no meaning at all. Maybe it does for you, but you have to accept that other people manage to find a purpose without a belief in life after death. Why are you trying to tell them their lives are meaningless.

I don't believe their lives are meaningless. However I do believe without a Creator life would be meaningless and without purpose.

For all we know the only thing that really exists are snickers bars.

No we know that is not true.

All these worlds of the imagination are "possible"...but if you really believe in your world of consciousness only then may I suggest you communicate with me without typing on your keyboard.

In a video game, everything is run by rules. You can't break the rules of the programmer. In the same way, if true existence was nothing but consciousness but we live in matrix like world, you can't break the rules of the programmer which is God in this case.

You're starting to sound like the religionists who are insistent that unless we believe what they believe we must be miserable, pathetic creatures. It is very patronising, and treats the testimony of others with contempt. You either accept that my life has a purpose or you don't. But why try and persuade someone that there life is purposeless.

I never said such a thing. I believe your life has a purpose, I never said it doesn't. I just don't see how it has a purpose without a Creator. Not saying you can't make a lot out of life and live a good life if you don't believe in a Creator.

Also, relax, a lot of people in the world, most people most likely, believe without a Creator life is purposeless, and without life after death, it's really in vain. Don't get so upset of people having different views.

 

[AskTheFamily]

No, I'm drawing the best conclusions from what I do know. And that does not lead to the notion of a purposeless life. It's simply a life in which there are human purposes instead of divine purposes.

I understand people make goals in life, but how does that translate that these goals were the purpose of his life?

For the same reason I don't hide in the bushes when I leave my apartment out of fear that there might be hungry fire-breathing dragons nearby. My worldview is absent fire-breathing dragons, and so I act as if they don't exist. This is honest. It means that I'm acting on the integrity of my judgment.

This is sort of like the flying spaghetti monster thing isn't. I find this wrong reasoning for many reasons. A Creator being plausible is not simply possible. Besides to many it seems to be the best explanation to the way things are. Dragons are not an explanation to anything. It's really not the same thing.

But I understand where you coming from, I just don't see any loss in living life as if both are possible when you don't believe either way. Life that ends, and life that has a divine purpose and continues after death.

Character is worthwhile even if it lasts for only a brief moment, and suffering is worth that. Character doesn't have to be eternal to be worth something.

Actually I agree on this. Good point.

No, a moment can also be a means to another moment. However, a moment can be worthwhile for its own sake. It can be a sacred end-in-itself.

I agree with this now. Thanks.

Yes. Religion (some religion, at least) has spoiled this by creating the impression that this life is nothing more than a painful entrance examination to something else that has all or most of the value of one's existence.

I don't see how this spoils life as opposed to giving it higher purpose. A painful life for the sake of a painful life doesn't seem all too great.

Honor is an end-in-itself, just as life is an end-in-itself. Honor does not need to be precious after death. It simply needs to be precious during one's life.

Ok fair point. I agree.

What do you think the value of honor is? Is it to win fabulous prizes in some afterlife?

No this is not what I think honor is.

No life is in vain that is not taken in vain. No life is worthless that is treated as having worth. The idea that a finite life is "in vain" is the product of the devaluation of life by people who think that one's existence is eternal.

Fair point again.

This kind of solipsistic skepticism goes nowhere, IMV.

I think it's useful as to not be in delusion. If we don't know what defines existence, we shouldn't act like we know for sure.

Yes, in fact it does, and for precisely that reason. My life simply doesn't have a divine purpose.

I understand having a goal of well being and living a life for that. But how does that make it your life's purpose, as opposed to simply your own goal?

 

[hikersong]

Actually I know there isn't. But the case of a Creator existing or not existing is not like other things we don't know. It seems very plausible that a Creator does exist, while this is not true of other things.

OK. I'm not going to argue degrees of plausibility.

When you see a person didn't die in vain, it doesn't have to do with vanity. I didn't mean it in the sense you understood it.

I understood in the way you said it the first time. But now you've added that important little word "in".

If life is all about the moment and enjoying the moment, it just makes their life less precious.

As I think we've established, I disagree.

No this is not what I'm saying at all. It's just a life of doing the right thing and a life of doing the wrong thing both end at nothingness.

OK. But it doesn't make their lives "nothingness".

I don't believe their lives are meaningless. However I do believe without a Creator life would be meaningless and without purpose.

Alright. Sorry if I have misconstrued your meaning on that point. Never the less, I disagree, but it really doesn't make any difference if you are saying that a life has creator endowed meaning even if the life in question doesn't believe in a creator.

No we know that is not true.

And to the same degree we know that life is not made up of consciousness alone.

In a video game, everything is run by rules. You can't break the rules of the programmer. In the same way, if true existence was nothing but consciousness but we live in matrix like world, you can't break the rules of the programmer which is God in this case.

So, who gave you the little red pill?

I never said such a thing. I believe your life has a purpose, I never said it doesn't. I just don't see how it has a purpose without a Creator. Not saying you can't make a lot out of life and live a good life if you don't believe in a Creator.

OK, again I apologise for misunderstanding you. It is an important issue for me. Nothing more irritating than having someone talk about a fantasy existence and being told that your life in the real world is meaningless. So, I'm glad that is not what you are doing.

Also, relax, a lot of people in the world, most people most likely, believe without a Creator life is purposeless, and without life after death, it's really in vain. Don't get so upset of people having different views.

I don't get upset about people having different views. Unless they have intolerant views that are used to build walls and control people. Then I grow fangs.

I'm very happy to learn that you can see a purpose and meaning to lives that have different world views to your own. That's not such a small thing.

 

[AskTheFamily]

OK. But it doesn't make their lives "nothingness".

Your right, see the points I agreed upon with Eudaimonist. I changed my perspective.

No worries for apologies.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I understand having a goal of well being and living a life for that. But how does that make it your life's purpose, as opposed to simply your own goal?

Goals are not the same as a self-determined purpose of life.
Goals are waypoints, sometimes even trivial ones such as "I want to buy a house". Purposes are far more overarching than that.

 

[Montalban]

Quote me. Verbatim.
I'd like to see how you manage to construe anything of what I've actually written to mean: "God should intervene to stop us (SERIOUSLY) harming ourselves or others."

It's not what I've said, it's not what I've implied.
It is a misrepresentation of my argument, designed to be easily refutable. In short: a straw man.

Your post #61 you say it's only reasonable to restrict the will of those who wish to harm us.

What about choices that seriously infringe upon the freedom and well-being of another? Few people want to be robbed, or raped, or murdered, and their free will is seriously impaired by the actions of their attacker.

Weighing these two against each other, it seems only reasonable to restrict the free will of the culprit to protect the free will of the potential victim.

 

[Montalban]

I am talking about the victims.I dont understand why you are talking about perpetrators.

Because both exist

You can't have one without the other.

In order to protect one the other's 'free will' would have to be curtailed.

 

[durangodawood]

Because both exist

You can't have one without the other.

In order to protect one the other's 'free will' would have to be curtailed.

Like with prison! Thats actually a great idea.
.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Like with prison!

Or someone who interrupts a crime by distracting the perpetrator and letting the victim escape. But we can't have that. That would be a deviation from pure lawless anarchy.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

I understand people make goals in life, but how does that translate that these goals were the purpose of his life?

Not "were". Are.

If one's chosen goals aim at some good, they are worthy of being chosen. They are purposes that matter to one's existence as a human being. This means that they aren't arbitrary, and one's life has purpose.

This is sort of like the flying spaghetti monster thing isn't.

I'm not sure. Like it in what way?

A Creator being plausible is not simply possible.

I don't understand your sentence. Please rephrase.

Besides to many it seems to be the best explanation to the way things are.

What "many" find convincing isn't at issue. Please explain the issue to me so I know that we are on the same page.

I just don't see any loss in living life as if both are possible when you don't believe either way.

I don't understand this sentence.

I don't see how this spoils life as opposed to giving it higher purpose.

It turns this life into a pure means, which makes it meaningless in itself.

And if a stretch of 70 years (or whatever one's lifespan is) is meaningless except as a means, how does adding an infinite number of meaningless-in-itself 70 year stretches improve matters?

At some point, and not in the infinitely distant future, life is going to have to mean something for its own sake, and it might as well be now. It certainly can be.

A painful life for the sake of a painful life doesn't seem all too great.

Pain isn't great, but this is only a serious problem if one is a hedonist, for whom pleasure is regarded as the essence of what is good in life. In that case, a painful life would have to be a bad one. However, if there are values in life aside from pleasure, then pain doesn't necessarily mean that life is rendered worthless.

I will grant that a tortured life is probably one that is likely to be starved of values of many sorts. All I can say to that is that this is unfortunate. Not everyone gets what is good for them. That's reality.

It doesn't damage my case, however. It simply means that one has to be an adult and face up to the sharp edges of life. It also shows the need to address the problems of this world and this life. We need improvements in medicine, politics, etc.

No this is not what I think honor is.

What is honor?

I think it's useful as to not be in delusion. If we don't know what defines existence, we shouldn't act like we know for sure.

But we still look both ways before crossing the street. There's no point in wondering in any serious way if the cars are a delusion unless one has serious evidence that they are a delusion.

I understand having a goal of well being and living a life for that. But how does that make it your life's purpose, as opposed to simply your own goal?

Because this is the sort of thing you need to strive for according to your nature as a human being. It is your life's purpose because it is a constructive expression of your life as a human being. It is that which adds to your life.



eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Montalban]

Like with prison! Thats actually a great idea.

I'm not against prisons. However, are you saying people should be imprisoned before they commit a crime? If not then your remark has no context to the discussion, because the issue here is about God intervening

Not man

The premise has been put that God should intervene to stop people doing harm to others.

I maintain that this would interfere with the notion of 'free will'.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I maintain that this would interfere with the notion of 'free will'.

Did the Flood intervene with "free will"?
Okay, that one was a rather ill-planned one-time event, and YHVH promised never to do anything like that again.
What about the Tower of Babel, then?
What about telling Abraham to sacrifice his son, AND then stopping him from doing so?
What about the Plagues of Egypt?
Or parting the Re(e)d Sea?
Or stopping the sun from setting so that the Israelites would have more time to slaughter women and children after their fathers and husbands were dealt with?
Or keeping lions from feeding on a prophet?
Or driving a king insane after writing frightening messages on his wall with glow-in-the-dark paint?
Or...

Actually, I already missed lots of items - none of which are compatible with the strict non-interventionist god that you try to argue for here. The Biblical God is a chronic and compulsive meddler.

 

[durangodawood]

I'm not against prisons. However, are you saying people should be imprisoned before they commit a crime? If not then your remark has no context to the discussion, because the issue here is about God intervening

No. They should be imprisoned after they commit one, but before they commit others. Public safety is one rationale for prisons.
.

I maintain that this would interfere with the notion of 'free will'.

Sure, a liitle bit, in extreme cases. But we could still have mostly free will.
.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Ideally, a person would be prevented from commiting a crime at the moment in which they will the act, and the attempt (if any bodily motion is allowed) would always fail. If you try to punch someone, your arm will never connect with the other person, or it will never move in the first place.

It would be like one of the house rules in my Dungeons & Dragons campaigns. I would let people know that rape (and certain other actions) can never be accomplished in any of my campaigns, either to player characters from my end, or by player characters from their end. If a player indicates that his character will rape another, the character will either fail somehow, or simply not move in any way to perform the act.

No player has ever complained, but if they felt that I was impeding their free will, I would have asked them why I should permit them to ruin the atmosphere of the game. Seriously, there is so much that they can do that there is barely any limitation on free will.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

It would be like one of the house rules in my Dungeons & Dragons campaigns. I would let people know that rape (and certain other actions) can never be accomplished in any of my campaigns, either to player characters from my end, or by player characters from their end. If a player indicates that his character will rape another, the character will either fail somehow, or simply not move in any way to perform the act.

No player has ever complained, but if they felt that I was impeding their free will, I would have asked them why I should permit them to ruin the atmosphere of the game. Seriously, there is so much that they can do that there is barely any limitation on free will.

I'm sorry to distract from the actual discussion, but... you actually needed to make up a rule for that? I've been a roleplaying nerd for roughly twenty years, and although we've explored some pretty dark scenarios, I doubt that any of us ever even conceived of the possibility of in-game rape.

As in: not ever.

Even back in the days when most members of our group were young adult males, the most dangerous animal on the planet. They caused some mayhem, admittedly, but never anything that was so altogether vile and sinister.

(I think the most horrible deed performed by one of *my* characters was an actual torture scene, where my sci-fi black ops medic actually mutilated the toes of a captured terrorist to learn the location of a bunch of hidden bombs. - That was pre-9/11, by the way. It was grisly, it was dark, it was evil; but it fit the scenario, added to the mood, made it perfectly clear that we were *not* the "good guys", and helped me explore some of the darkest corners of my being, leading to the relief of knowing that I could never do such a thing to anybody, regardless of circumstances.)

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'm sorry to distract from the actual discussion, but... you actually needed to make up a rule for that?

It probably wasn't necessary, but it was in response to a campaign in which my character was raped by a demon. The demon was controlled by the Dungeon Master.

Now, get this... there is a punchline...

The Dungeon Master was a born again Christian.

I've been a roleplaying nerd for roughly twenty years, and although we've explored some pretty dark scenarios, I doubt that any of us ever even conceived of the possibility of in-game rape.

As in: not ever.

I'm not surprised. I can only recall it happening in that one campaign. I have played with scores of atheists, pagans, and New Agers, and it was only in his campaign that this had happened.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Montalban]

Did the Flood intervene with "free will"?

This goes to the same response I give when you and others say that the OT is just as bad as the Koran.

Anyway, you've gone from accusing me of misrepresenting your posts to this.

I accept your apology.

 

[Montalban]

No. They should be imprisoned after they commit one, but before they commit others. Public safety is one rationale for prisons.

I agree with the idea of prisons.

Sure, a liitle bit, in extreme cases. But we could still have mostly free will.
.

But I think for God that 'free will' is an absolute. Whilst you might not wish to be murdered, the other person also has free will.

It's the imperfect world we live in because of sin.

I find it ironic though that one atheist, who once gave relativist defence for a case of child abuse continually argues with Christians about moral issues
(no, I'm not talking about you)

 

[durangodawood]

I agree with the idea of prisons.


But I think for God that 'free will' is an absolute. Whilst you might not wish to be murdered, the other person also has free will.

It's the imperfect world we live in because of sin.

I find it ironic though that one atheist, who once gave relativist defence for a case of child abuse continually argues with Christians about moral issues
(no, I'm not talking about you)

Well, actually I agree. I dont find the "problem of evil" to be a problem. The "free-will" defense sits fine with me.
.