• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Endless Punishment, Fundie style

CplFerro said:
Dear tsig,

Excellent!

For my argument I would advance the notions of contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being's existence is not necessary; its existence or nonexistence are equally not illogical. Contrariwise, a necessary being's existence is such that it would be illogical for it not to exist.

An example of a necessity would be the logicality of the Universe. Why is the Universe logical? We might admit that it takes logic (A=A) to ask that question, but, that doesn't answer the question itself. The answer is that illogicality is a failure of language. Mysticism and other purposes of language aside, by saying something illogical we have failed to say anything. The phrase, “square circles exist” demonstrates this failure to say anything. When we say “square circle” we refer to nothing in particular, making our proposition a lie. So with the Universe. To say, “why is the Universe logical” is to say “Why can we say things about the Universe?” We can say so, because an illogical universe would be unreferenceable and therefore we would have nothing to reference. An illogical universe cannot exist, for this reason. Because the Universe is logical, we are able to make true references to it or its parts.

As I have mentioned, the Universe is contingent because it is neither eternal nor necessary. Its existence begs where did it come from. Saying another contingent, limited, unnecessary thing merely extends the problem, it does not solve it. The only answer is that there is a necessary being from which the contingent Universe was generated.

Note that I do not wish to argue backwards from the brute fact of the Universe's existence and say that because the Universe already exists, then a necessary being exists. Rather, I am saying that the question “why is there something rather than nothing” is only answerable through necessity. Contingency offers no explanation, and with it itself the question “why is there something rather than nothing” must be set aside as unanswerable. Since that violates the PSR, we are left with necessity as the only possible answer.

Cpl Ferro
Click to expand...

Let me condense your argument a bit: a God because God. Is there anything important I missed?
 
CplFerro said:
Dear Giordano,

By "why" I mean the mechanism, the how. I don't mean that I am a materialist (far from it), so. I want that to be clear that by "mechanism" here I mean the cause or reason for a thing's existence and condition.

Cpl Ferro
Click to expand...
To reiterate Slowvehicle, you don't really help me here. So you mean both, "how" and "why" (purpose)? I think of those as separate questions. For you, to claim things happen by a mechanism means that there has to be a purpose?
 
Giordano said:
My original question to you was, "What if you found out, on entering heaven, that everyone gets to heaven, would you be happy or unhappy." Your answer was that you would have mixed feelings. Clearly the question from the context of the discussion and the wording of my post related to the proposal that everyone gets into heaven, not when. So your response about you having mixed feelings about you leaving this life to go to heaven right now appears to not actually address the question. To clarify, would you be happy or unhappy if everyone goes to heaven, everyone, when they die at the end of their normal lives? The alternatives are of course, that people go nowhere when they die, or to Hell after they die. The choice is not whether they would live
longer, assume that they have already died. The question is only the kind of an afterlife they would have.
Click to expand...

Dear Giordano,

I would be happy. Somewhat surprised, but, happy nonetheless.

Cpl Ferro
 
Giordano said:
Let me condense your argument a bit: a God because God. Is there anything important I missed?
Click to expand...

In other words, Giordano, to avoid violating the PSR, there must be a necessary substance responsible for creating the Universe.

To reiterate Slowvehicle, you don't really help me here. So you mean both, "how" and "why" (purpose)? I think of those as separate questions. For you, to claim things happen by a mechanism means that there has to be a purpose?
Click to expand...

If we ask why did Kant go for a walk we can talk either of mechanism or purpose. But both are needed to explain fully the reason or cause for Kant's walk. So although I was originally meaning just cause or mechanism or how, your pressing me on teleology causes me to wonder if that should not be admitted to the argument as well. For if we can ask how and why did Kant go for a walk (mechanistically referring to physics; purposely referring to will) we should also include how and why God allowed it. It has not been my purpose to include purpose, but it is difficult to see how it can be excluded. The question then becomes, can a thing exist solely for a purpose, but not out of a cause? I think that absurd. A thing needs a cause and a purpose, or else a cause and no purpose, but never a purpose and no cause. Would you agree with this?

Cpl Ferro
 
Last edited:
CplFerro said:
in other words, Giordano, to avoid violating the PSR, there must be a necessary substance responsible for creating the Universe.

Cpl Ferro
Click to expand...

I think I said that.

Who or what created God? This must be true to avoid violating the PSR. If you answered this before, just point me to the correct post.
 
It's the principal of sufficient reason, because it's good enough to state that his god has always existed (in some mystical state) and so never had a cause. (The poster Breckmin is a master of this gambit.)

It's sufficient and it's a principal and it has reason in the title, so it's not special pleading in any way. Oh, look, over there! Shiny!
 
Donn said:
It's the principal of sufficient reason, because it's good enough to state that his god has always existed (in some mystical state) and so never had a cause. (The poster Breckmin is a master of this gambit.)

It's sufficient and it's a principal and it has reason in the title, so it's not special pleading in any way. Oh, look, over there! Shiny!
Click to expand...

Squirrel!
 
Giordano said:
I think I said that.

Who or what created God? This must be true to avoid violating the PSR. If you answered this before, just point me to the correct post.
Click to expand...

The problem here, Giordano, is that we are dealing with a necessary substance, one that logic dictates must exist. So, the question turns on how is it that logic exists? I addressed that somewhat in my post #376. How can logic survive the PSR? I surmise that the answer to that is the answer to the necessary substance's survival as well.

Cpl Ferro
 
CplFerro said:
The problem here, Giordano, is that we are dealing with a necessary substance, one that logic dictates must exist. So, the question turns on how is it that logic exists? I addressed that somewhat in my post #376. How can logic survive the PSR? I surmise that the answer to that is the answer to the necessary substance's survival as well.

Cpl Ferro
Click to expand...

God didn't need to be made because without a God it would all be meaningless.
So nothing needed to create God.
And this explains it all for you?
Again, I have learned alot from this thread. Not so much about physics or morality, but about psychology. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
God didn't need to be made because without a God it would all be meaningless.
So nothing needed to create God.
And this explains it all for you?
Again, I have learned alot from this thread. Not so much about physics or morality, but about psychology. Thanks!
Click to expand...

It seems to me that there are two ways to read "sufficient" in the "Principle of Sufficient Reason." One way would be "as much as it takes to satisfy my incredulity"; the other is "no more than it takes to satisfy contingency." One reading is a way to justify unlimited faith; the other rests only on what can be demonstrated. The only "logic" that demands a god to satisfy sufficiency is a circular one that assumes him to begin with.

And when you get right down to it, "god" isn't really a very satisfying answer unless that's as far as your imagination can get you; it's only a place-keeper for where you could go if you hadn't limited yourself by faith.
 
True believers don't want to admit this because it makes them feel uncomfortable, but we know who created God:

Humans created God.

Unlike them, I have plenty of evidence to support my case. God has human attributes and limitations, such as emotions. He shows anger, compassion, hatred, love, jealousy, and regret. He is often described as having human physical features, like arms, feet, eyes, breath, and voice. He produced a human offspring, who was born of a human, and who physically resembles whichever culture believes in him. He communicates in human language and acts according to human wants and needs. He plays favorites among cultures or ethnic groups on Earth, protecting some while punishing others. He interacts and intervenes in human affairs, and is often referred to as a father figure. He is a character in a book written by humans, each with their own personal, social, and political agendas. In all these respects, he is very similar if not identical to the thousands of other deities humans have created throughout history.

God is not an omnitemporal, extraspatial, unknowable, or alien entity. God IS human. He is a reflection of the best and worst among us, our hopes and fears, and our potential to create or destroy. He is the explanation for everything we do not yet know, or are unwilling to accept. He serves whatever purpose we require, and changes as human cultures evolve.

Humans create the gods that create them in turn.
 
Frozenwolf150 said:
True believers don't want to admit this because it makes them feel uncomfortable, but we know who created God:

Humans created God.

Unlike them, I have plenty of evidence to support my case. God has human attributes and limitations, such as emotions. He shows anger, compassion, hatred, love, jealousy, and regret. He is often described as having human physical features, like arms, feet, eyes, breath, and voice. He produced a human offspring, who was born of a human, and who physically resembles whichever culture believes in him. He communicates in human language and acts according to human wants and needs. He plays favorites among cultures or ethnic groups on Earth, protecting some while punishing others. He interacts and intervenes in human affairs, and is often referred to as a father figure. He is a character in a book written by humans, each with their own personal, social, and political agendas. In all these respects, he is very similar if not identical to the thousands of other deities humans have created throughout history.

God is not an omnitemporal, extraspatial, unknowable, or alien entity. God IS human. He is a reflection of the best and worst among us, our hopes and fears, and our potential to create or destroy. He is the explanation for everything we do not yet know, or are unwilling to accept. He serves whatever purpose we require, and changes as human cultures evolve.

Humans create the gods that create them in turn.
Click to expand...

Nommed!
 
Nicely said Frozenwolf. And as far as punishment goes, a lyric from the punk band crAss has always been my favourite:

Jesus died for his own sins, not mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom