Where's God?

doubtingmerle · Sep 28, 2020

Halbhh said:
heh, if we knew those answers, that would be pretty amazing knowledge. Certainly I won't claim to know that much even about physical consciousness even (having read many articles)! Even just for physical consciousness -- you could learn quickly (if you like) that while there are many theories about how consciousness arises in the brain, that also it's widely agreed that we just don't really understand yet how even just physical consciousness arises. I'm trying to point out even for what we know something about, even there the knowledge is limited. How much worse for the subtle thing called spirit or soul.

Ah, you call the soul a subtle thing, but you can't even tell me what it does. What good is a soul that doesn't do anything?

It is clear to me that the brain thinks and that the brain stores memories. At death it is gone. You seem to think of the soul as some kind of backup. When the hard disk crashes, no problem, you have a complete backup on the cloud that goes up to the clouds. But if God is simply building a new you from that something, how can that really be you? And why doesn't he just go ahead and do it now? He could run the backup routine, put a couple of dozen of you in heaven, and let "you" enjoy heaven right now 36 times simultaneously. But you would know that you were still on earth, and that those 3 dozen copies in heaven are just copies. Likewise, if God somehow makes a quick brain dump, and transfers all that is you to this something that survives death, what prevents him from doing it just once, and why do you really care about the happiness of that copy (or copies)?

Ed1wolf · Sep 28, 2020

doubtingmerle said:
Define what you mean when you use the word, "good".

Good is that which conforms to the objective moral character of the Creator.

Ed1wolf · Sep 28, 2020

doubtingmerle said:
What is you objective basis for calling things moral?

The objective moral character of God.

dm: Whatever God wants that is what is moral? What if God wanted the holocaust? Would that then be moral?

No, God is goodness Himself.

Ed1wolf · Sep 28, 2020

doubtingmerle said:
[sarcasm]
I have wumphala, you don't. Because I have wumphala, any nation that follows my ideas will be prosperous and filled will content, happy people. Yeah for me! [pounding my chest] Go wumphala!

You don't have wumphala. So sad, too bad. Any nation that does not have wumphala will go down a slippery slope to moral anarchy and eventually social chaos which results in a tyrannical government in order to control the moral anarchy and social chaos. Thereby producing a hell hole nation or society. Hitler! Death panels! Riots in the streets! Oh, so sad, too bad you don't have wumphala.

What is wumphala? I haven't got the slightest idea. All I know is, I got it, you don't, yeah for me! [pounding my chest].

[/sarcasm]

I see the same thing in your writings, except you use the term "absolute morality" instead of wumphala. What is "absolute morality"? Is it a good thing to follow this "absolute morality"? You might as well be telling me to follow wumphala. If you can't define it, what good is it?

It is the objective moral character of the Creator.

Ed1wolf · Sep 28, 2020

InterestedAtheist said:
ed: No, Goodness is Gods character not what He tells us to do. Though what He tells us to do does reflect His character.

ia: You have said that goodness is God's character. Therefore, whatever God does is good.
So, if we accept your logic, exactly what is to stop God from stealing, lying, cheating or telling others to do that?

Because that would be against His character.

ia: You can say "God would never do such a thing because it would not be good," but how can you tell? On what basis do you say that? You have already said that whatever God does is good. Therefore, if God did steal, cheat or lie, those would be good actions.
You can say - as indeed you did - that God would never do such things because they would contradict His character. But why would God never contradict His own character? Because it would be a bad thing to do? But if God did contradict His own character, then it would not - by your own definition - be a bad thing to do.

Gods character is part of His nature. He cannot go against His nature just as a dog cannot talk because dogs by nature cannot talk.

ed: No, we also know they are good from our moral consciences, if it has not become too distorted we recognize it as good

ia: And how do you know that your "moral conscience is correct? So far, all you've done is try to define it into existence, saying that your moral conscience knows what is right because it is the thing that recognises rightness.

We come to know it is correct by experience. Our experience with God confirms His claim to goodness.

ed: There is an "external scale", His unchanging moral character which objectively exists thereby providing us with an objective moral standard upon which all morality is based.

ia: We've already demonstrated that your definition of absolute morality has no foundation at all, since God could do absolutely anything and you would still label it good. Or, if you would not - if you would say, "No, God wouldn't do that because it's evil," then you are claiming to be able to judge God, which means you yourself claim to possess a standard by which to judge God, and absolute morality does not come from God after all.

No, see above.

↑

ed: Do you believe persons exist? Throughout all of human existence it has been empirically observed that only persons can produce the personal.

ia: It's certainly correct to say that persons produce the personal, but that's not what we're talking about, is it? Have you ever seen a person create a person? I haven't.

No, but I have seen persons create personal communication, personal relationships, and etc.

ia: Certainly I was produced by my parents, but all that means is that they instigated and participated in a series of biological chain reactions that led to me being born. They didn't create me, any more than a person pressing the button on a TV creates the film they watch.
So if you are saying that we have seen personal beings create other personal beings - that is, design the process by which they come into existence and use it to make them come into existence - I have to say that you are incorrect. The fact of the matter is that every single person in existence was created by the impersonal forces of human biology, themselves produced by the impersonal forces of evolution.

We do create persons by initiating the process by which persons come into existence, thereby proving that persons are needed to create personal beings. Either as the primary cause using secondary causes or as the primary cause itself in the production of personal relationships or personal communication.

ia: It's certainly correct to say that persons produce the personal, but that's not what we're talking about, is it? Have you ever seen a person create a person? I haven't.
Certainly I was produced by my parents, but all that means is that they instigated and participated in a series of biological chain reactions that led to me being born. They didn't create me, any more than a person pressing the button on a TV creates the film they watch.
So if you are saying that we have seen personal beings create other personal beings - that is, design the process by which they come into existence and use it to make them come into existence - I have to say that you are incorrect. The fact of the matter is that every single person in existence was created by the impersonal forces of human biology, themselves produced by the impersonal forces of evolution.

No, see above about using secondary causes.

doubtingmerle · Sep 29, 2020

Ed1wolf said:
Good is that which conforms to the objective moral character of the Creator.

And if the objective moral character of the creator said incest was good, then incest would be good?

All you are doing is saying that might makes right. God is the mightiest. Therefore whatever he is will be called good.

doubtingmerle · Sep 29, 2020

Ed1wolf said:
Because that would be against His character.

Gods character is part of His nature. He cannot go against His nature just as a dog cannot talk because dogs by nature cannot talk.

We come to know it is correct by experience. Our experience with God confirms His claim to goodness.

No, see above.

↑

No, but I have seen persons create personal communication, personal relationships, and etc.

We do create persons by initiating the process by which persons come into existence, thereby proving that persons are needed to create personal beings. Either as the primary cause using secondary causes or as the primary cause itself in the production of personal relationships or personal communication.

No, see above about using secondary causes.

God never lies? Read 2 Thessalonians 2:11 and 1 Kings 22:23.

And even if God were to personally tell us that he never lies, how would you know he was telling the truth when he said he never lies?

Jok · Sep 29, 2020

doubtingmerle said:
Ah, you call the soul a subtle thing, but you can't even tell me what it does. What good is a soul that doesn't do anything?

It is clear to me that the brain thinks and that the brain stores memories. At death it is gone. You seem to think of the soul as some kind of backup. When the hard disk crashes, no problem, you have a complete backup on the cloud that goes up to the clouds. But if God is simply building a new you from that something, how can that really be you? And why doesn't he just go ahead and do it now? He could run the backup routine, put a couple of dozen of you in heaven, and let "you" enjoy heaven right now 36 times simultaneously. But you would know that you were still on earth, and that those 3 dozen copies in heaven are just copies. Likewise, if God somehow makes a quick brain dump, and transfers all that is you to this something that survives death, what prevents him from doing it just once, and why do you really care about the happiness of that copy (or copies)?

Your soul is the essence of what you are. Imagine as a goofy example that your best friend since high school was Jim Carey. Jim gets in a brutal car accident and has total amnesia. However you rejoice a few month later because his full personality made it through and it is clearly “Him” again even though his memory is completely shot. That is Jim’s soul, he is still hilarious Jim!

Matter of fact they say that no matter how bad your memory may get, the one thing that you always tend to remember about people is how they made you feel! So it’s like even if you are 60 yrs old and bump into a guy you haven’t seen since high school, and you can not for the life of you remember a single conversation you ever had with him, you remember his essence...if he was a really cool dude you will remember that and you’ll remember that he was cool to you. If he was a jerk you will remember that vibe/essence. In fact I recently made a comment in this forum that imagine a psychologically broken person who went to heaven. It would actually BENEFIT them to lose their memories! Yet what they would want to do is keep the essence that they had before they were damaged by the trauma they had in life.

Ed1wolf · Sep 29, 2020

doubtingmerle said:
Ah you believe in three gods that form a strong union.

No, there is only one Divine being.

Ed1wolf · Sep 29, 2020

doubtingmerle said:
as I said before, you state that "good" and "God" are synonyms.

if God wanted rape you would want rape.

if God wanted a child to be abused, you would want that child to be abused.

good loses its meaning with you. Whatever your book says God wants, you say that is good.

if God told you to give me everything you have, would you do it?

No, all of those things are against His nature and character. He cannot go against His nature. Since we are created in His image we can recognize the good up to a point depending on how damaged our conscience is.

Ed1wolf · Sep 29, 2020

doubtingmerle said:
How do you know that God is good? We have no way of knowing what God is like if he exists. How would you know he is good?

We confirm He is good by having a relationship with Him and that experience confirms He is good.

dm: Even if we accept that the writings of certain ancient sheep herders and fisherman were absolutely the words of God, how would you know God is telling the truth? Liars will tell you that they are telling the truth. How do you know that God is not just pulling the wool over your eyes, and in the future will laugh at you and tell you he is really planning to reward those who question Christianity?

His truthfulness is confirmed by experience.

dm: But even if God is truthfully declaring that he is good, what does "good" even mean in this context? Good is a subjective term. Some think snow is good. Some don't. Some think broccoli is good. Some don't. So what do you mean when you say God is good?

His moral law which reflects his character gives us the definition of what good is.

dm: If you say he does what is best for people, how do you know that? You are simply making subjective judgements on what is good for us.

No, He has given us objective propositional statements explaining what good is.

dm: Or does good mean "good for God"? If so, you are arguing that might makes right. God is the mightiest. Therefore sit down and do what he says. The problem with this is that might does not make right. Sometimes mighty persons are wrong.

No, good means good for all. His objectively good moral law gives us life and life lived abundantly in this universe. Just as His physical laws were created for this universe so also His moral laws produce the best moral life in this universe because they were specifically designed for our good. And He even gives us free will to reject His moral law though of course we will ultimately have to face the consequences for this rejection often in this world and always in the next life.

dm: Or are you simply going to define God as good? OK, but some define homosexuals as gay. Does that mean that all homosexuals are happy? Some define atheists as "Brights". Does that mean all atheists are bright, simply because they label themselves that way?

Likewise, labeling God with the label "good" is nothing more than a label. Do you mean anything at all when you say that?

No, see above, His goodness is confirmed by having a relationship with Him and we personally experience that goodness.

Ed1wolf · Sep 29, 2020

FireDragon76 said:
One need not jump to the first definition of love, as the only possible definition.

In Buddhism, the concept of love, metta or maitri (Pali or Sanskrit, respectively), fits the third definition, benevolence.

One most certainly doesn't need a specific religious ideology to understand what benevolence is. Benevolence means to will what is good, to avoid harm. This is why many Indic religions have the concept of ahimsa (harmlessness) as the cornerstone of ethics. It is akin to the Golden Rule.

Yes but if there is no God then you dont have an objective definition of what harm is. Is the killing of unborn children willing what is good or avoiding harm and to whom?

FireDragon76 · Sep 30, 2020

Ed1wolf said:
Yes but if there is no God then you dont have an objective definition of what harm is. Is the killing of unborn children willing what is good or avoiding harm and to whom?

We do not need an objective definition. The Buddha, Confucius, etc. ,all said "Whatever is hurtful to you, do not cause to others". And that ethic has built enduring civilizations based on humanistic values. So I think for pragmatic reasons, it is wise advice to heed.

Clizby WampusCat · Sep 30, 2020

Ed1wolf said:
Good is that which conforms to the objective moral character of the Creator.

Why do you believe this to be true? How did you determine that God is actually good?

Ed1wolf · Sep 30, 2020

doubtingmerle said:
ed: do you agree that Hitler was engaging in loving behavior when he started the holocaust?

dm: No.

Why not? His belief about his actions fit the Dictionary definition of love that InterestedAtheist provided.

Ed1wolf · Sep 30, 2020

InterestedAtheist said:
ed: Divinity is much more unified than humanity. I am not saying the analogy is perfect. Just that it demonstrates that there is nothing contradictory about the Trinity.

ia: Analogies cannot and need not be perfect, of course. But this one is just simply not applicable, as you have shown yourself. Try again, if you like. Maybe God is like conjoined triplets?

No, you have not shown it is not applicable. There are many things about the Trinity that we dont know but there is nothing contradictory about it. One in essence and three in person. Cojoined Triplets are not a good analogy because they have three different wills, God has only a single will.
↑

ed: Those things also violate the teachings of Christianity because the Constitution is based on many Christian principles as I demonstrated earlier. The Treaty of Tripoli was an appeasement measure to stop the Muslims from attacking our ships. Politicians stretched the truth even back then in order prevent international interference and military attack. IOW they lied.

ia: No, I'm afraid you didn't demonstrate that earlier, nor will you. And while I'm sure politicians are quite capable of lying, in this case they told the simple truth. The Constitution is in no sense based on the Christian religion. It doesn't mention Jesus, God or the Bible at all, whether openly or in any other way.

It doesn't need to if the principles are derived from Christianity. Actually it does mention Jesus, ie Year of Our Lord. Unlike a real secular constitution from the French Revolution where they refused to even mention the year of our Lord. And the Judeo-Christian founding principles had already been mentioned in the document containing the philosophical foundation of Constitution, the Declaration of Independence.
↑

ed: No secular state would claim that our rights come from the Creator and based on the laws of Natures God.

ia: Again, the Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land. It is simply a statement that the Colonies are declaring independence from the English crown. Once they had declared independence and won it, the Founders had decisions to make about what sort of place they wanted their new country to be, and they decided that it should be a secular state.

No, as I stated earlier the DOI is listed in the United States Code Annotated under the heading "The Organic Laws of the United States of America". It is also referenced as part of the law of the land in multiple SCOTUS rulings. In addition many concepts in the Constitution come from the Bible. The concept called the "Law of Nations" in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 references offenses against the Law of Nations. The founders borrowed this concept from Grotius, Pufendorf, and Vattel. They developed the concept of the Law of Nations as an extension of natural, God given law. The fact a law exists that supersedes the legislative enactments of various nations, implies a power and authority higher than man. In additon, the concept of the equality of man which comes from the bible is incorporated into the Constitution in Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8 and the 14th Amendment. And there are other principles

Jok · Oct 1, 2020

Halbhh said:
Certainly I won't claim to know that much even about physical consciousness even (having read many articles)!

First, you know more about consciousness than anything else that you could possibly know, because we ARE consciousness. Second, “Physical Consciousness” is an oxymoron. It emerges from physical matter but IT is not physical matter.

Halbhh said:
Even just for physical consciousness -- you could learn quickly (if you like) that while there are many theories about how consciousness arises in the brain, that also it's widely agreed that we just don't really understand yet how even just physical consciousness arises.

We might be able to figure out what CORRELATES to it, for instance if we could routinely cause people to lose consciousness when we tinker with XYZ section of the brain.

Halbhh said:
I'm trying to point out even for what we know something about, even there the knowledge is limited.

Because you can only “empirically“ know about the “A” (brain state correlation) but never the “B” (qualia). The very nature of consciousness is that it’s a phenomenon of a non-physical nature. The knowledge will most certainly continue to be limited when the process to figure it out presupposes materialism for a non-material phenomenon, then remains baffled that empirical research isn’t able to access it.

InterestedAtheist · Oct 1, 2020

Ed1wolf said:
Why not? His belief about his actions fit the Dictionary definition of love that InterestedAtheist provided.

Of course they don't, as I've already pointed out.
It must be such a gift in a debate to be able to just ignore everything the other person says and just keep claiming you're right, even when you've been shown to be wrong.

InterestedAtheist · Oct 1, 2020

Halbhh said:
"Good" I'm defining in a straightforward way: that which makes human life work better: rules that result in people living together in peace and flourishing, energetic and enjoying themselves relatively more, and without starving and so on.

Great! So, you've gone for the first branch of the dilemma. You're saying that it is possible to work out what is good in naturalistic terms. Goodness, to quote you, is what makes human lives work better, rules that result in peace and flourishing. I believe something similar myself, so we are in agreement.
Of course, that does mean that we do not, therefore, require God to exist in order for morality to exist. We can work out morality quite well without God. While I agree with you on this, this doesn't seem to be the traditional Christian point of view, which is that God is Himself the essence of goodness (as I believe EdWolf is arguing on this very thread).
But is that is what you believe, then that's fine. Good for you!

InterestedAtheist · Oct 1, 2020

Jok said:
First, you know more about consciousness than anything else that you could possibly know, because we ARE consciousness. Second, “Physical Consciousness” is an oxymoron. It emerges from physical matter but IT is not physical matter.

Neither of those make sense.
Just because you experience something, does not mean you understand it, or know about it. Every single living human before Isaac Newton experienced gravity, and many of them saw apples fall off trees. But it was not until a mathematical genius came along that we could say we could begin to understand gravity.
In the same way, while we are all conscious, we have only begun to understand consciousness since the advent of science, and particularly our recent understanding of the brain and how it works. And there's still a great deal we don't understand.
Second, physical consciousness may be an oxymoron, but it also makes perfect sense - in that consciousness is something that arises from the physical. Do you have any proof that any type of consciousness exists without a material base of some kind to produce it? Do you have evidence that any disembodied intelligences actually exist?

Where's God?

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency