Is it?

[Bri]

Of course, many Christians would say that everything God does is good, so it would be impossible for him to do wrong by definition. No matter what it was, if he did it, it was the best thing to do. Quite a P.R. campaign he has going.

It wouldn't be phrased that way, but yes it's essentially unfalsifiable. We can neither predict nor track after the fact the full results of any action with any certainty, therefore we can neither prove nor disprove the notion that everything God does is for the greater good.

[/INDENT]Interesting. God gives some of his angels free will, and they immediately turn on him. Omniscience ain't what it used to be, I guess. Makes you wonder why he did it again with us.

Obviously free will is better than no free will, even considering the consequences.

(Hypothetically. I don't actually believe in free will, really.)

There is some evidence against free will and little if any for free will, but of course that doesn't mean free will doesn't exist.

In theory. But in practice, we pretty much have to start apologizing for everything the minute we take our first breath. And we have to apologize for every little urge, fantasy, and dark thought that we had, and that our forebears had. Pretty unusual, especially after Jesus allegedly made up for all that for us.

Yes, I understand what you're saying, but again we're not forced to do evil and then punished for it. We choose to do evil. Some Christians would also argue that apologizing and penance are a way to avoid punishment in recognition of the fact that we will succumb to temptation on occasion.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Well if god's plan requires that the person suffer or makes a choice that will lead to him suffering for the greater cause. Where is his free will? Where is his freedom?

Like I said, possessing free will does not mean that you're in control of everything. Even a person who suffers has free will and can make choices. They can't choose to fly, and in some cases can't choose not to suffer, but they can make other choices.

Well, I was not quite sure what you meant about the robot statement. Robots by definition do not feel anything.

What I meant was that if we have no free will, we are essentially following a program (like a robot) or acting out a play that was written long before we were born rather than actually making choices.

Well chosing not suffer is defintly not in his cards. And to be honest I don't believe that we really have free will. Only the illusion of free will.
And it is doubly so if there is a god.

The evidence seems to point to us not having free will at this point. Although I acknowledge that, I also hope that we do have free will.

That's great if you believe in an afterlife.

We're talking about the Christian view of God, and Christians do believe in an afterlife as far as I know.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I am talking of non-consequential immaterials. Yes, they are unfalsifiable, and they fall outside of the realm of science. So what?

So what indeed! Why even waste your time talking about entities that you can never come into contact with and that cannot affect your life in any way whatsoever?

-Bri

 

[JetLeg]

So what indeed! Why even waste your time talking about entities that you can never come into contact with and that cannot affect your life in any way whatsoever?

-Bri

You can believe in them, and take emotional consolation from them.

And, in order to know that your point is right, and others are wrong, you need to be able to disprove all others. You cannot disprove that point of view, so you cannot know you are right and I am wrong.

 

[JetLeg]

In order to know that your point is right, and others are wrong, you need to be able to disprove all others. If the point view of others are unfalsifiable, you are not able to disprove them, so you cannot know that you are right and they are wrong

Do you agree with this, by the way?

 

[Phlebas]

Obviously free will is better than no free will, even considering the consequences.

I don't think it's obvious at all. How would it feel to have no free will? Would you even know the difference? Yet the price of free will, according to many Christians, is the threat of eternal torment.

If God is so uptight that he is abloe to punish us forever, how is the illusion of free will and the guarantee of paradise superior to the real free will?

Yes, I understand what you're saying, but again we're not forced to do evil and then punished for it. We choose to do evil. Some Christians would also argue that apologizing and penance are a way to avoid punishment in recognition of the fact that we will succumb to temptation on occasion.

I don't think we're really disagreeing here. On paper, you're correct. It's the Christian theology that's contradictory.

 

[Phlebas]

And, in order to know that your point is right, and others are wrong, you need to be able to disprove all others. You cannot disprove that point of view, so you cannot know you are right and I am wrong.

But what does it matter? If there are no consequences for guessing wrong, why worry about distinguishing between non-consequential immaterial beings (or discerning them from entities that don't exist)?

Disproving all other non-consequential immaterial beings is not just impossible, but utterly pointless. Which non-existent entity exists more than the others? Why would anyone bother trying to be right about which of the (literally) infinite number of possible non-existent beings is worth believing in?

Hmmm... I feel like I'm repeating what Bri has said about 8 times now...

 

[JetLeg]

But what does it matter? If there are no consequences for guessing wrong, why worry about distinguishing between non-consequential immaterial beings (or discerning them from entities that don't exist)?

Disproving all other non-consequential immaterial beings is not just impossible, but utterly pointless.

Hmmm... I feel like I'm repeating what Bri has said about 8 times now...

Well, if I believe that a uf-nc-immaterial told me that all the world has to wear green, and I have to enforce it on the world, what then?

Again, you can't know you are right, because you cannot disprove me.

 

[Phlebas]

Well, if I believe that a uf-nc-immaterial told me that all the world has to wear green, and I have to enforce it on the world, what then?

Then you are not dealing with a uf-nc-immaterial because it has interacted with you in the real world.

(Or, of course, you are wrong about where you got your commandment.)

Again, you can't know you are right, because you cannot disprove me.

I don't need to disprove you, because it doesn't matter if you are right. The universe would not be any different in any way at all whether you are right or wrong.

But the burden of proof is on you. Shame you defined your claim in such a way that you cannot prove anything.

 

[JetLeg]

Then you are not dealing with a uf-nc-immaterial because it has interacted with you in the real world.

(Or, of course, you are wrong about where you got your commandment.)

I don't need to disprove you, because it doesn't matter if you are right. The universe would not be any different in any way at all whether you are right or wrong.

But the burden of proof is on you. Shame you defined your claim in such a way that you cannot prove anything.

I'll rephrase it - I believe there is a uf-nc-immaterial that wants all humanity to wear green socks. It did not interact with me, it is a nc-immaterial but I believe that this uf-nc-immaterial wants all humanity to wear green socks.

So, I want to impose it on humanity. Doesn't that make sense?

And no, the universe would be different if I were right. It would have a uf-nc-immaterial. That's a difference. The fact that we can't prove something to exist doesn't mean that there is no actual difference as to whether it exists or not.

It does not have an effect upon other things, if that is what you mean. But a universe with uf-nc-immaterials is a different one than a universe without them. The only difference is that in one uf-nc-immaterials exist, and in the other they don't. And there is no way to prove in which one we live. That's right. But still, there is a difference.

 

[Phlebas]

I'll rephrase it - I believe there is a uf-nc-immaterial that wants all humanity to wear green socks. It did not interact with me, it is a nc-immaterial but I believe that this uf-nc-immaterial wants all humanity to wear green socks.

So, I want to impose it on humanity. Doesn't that make sense?

Sure. You, by some undetermined method, have decided it's in humanity's best interest to wear green socks. Fine.

When asked to explain, you say you got the orders from a being that cannot affect the real world at all, that we cannot detect, and that you cannot show it even has the basic qualities of existence. You aren't likely to be pursuasive

And no, the universe would be different if I were right. It would have a uf-nc-immaterial. That's a difference. The fact that we can't prove something to exist doesn't mean that there is no actual difference as to whether it exists or not.

But in what way would it be different? Just saying it has an extrra immaterial object in it doesn't really make anything different. Is there a single atom anywhere displaced because of this thing? Is there even one consequence of the wishes or actions of the inconsequential?

If you can define existence to include things that do not exist in the physical world (and I don't really think you can), what possible effect could this being's existence have? It won't create anything, destroy anything, reflect light, or even exert a gravitational pull -- exactly like a non-existent thing does.

 

[jond]

I'll rephrase it - I believe there is a uf-nc-immaterial that wants all humanity to wear green socks. It did not interact with me, it is a nc-immaterial but I believe that this uf-nc-immaterial wants all humanity to wear green socks.

So, I want to impose it on humanity. Doesn't that make sense?

And no, the universe would be different if I were right. It would have a uf-nc-immaterial. That's a difference. The fact that we can't prove something to exist doesn't mean that there is no actual difference as to whether it exists or not.

It does not have an effect upon other things, if that is what you mean. But a universe with uf-nc-immaterials is a different one than a universe without them. The only difference is that in one uf-nc-immaterials exist, and in the other they don't. And there is no way to prove in which one we live. That's right. But still, there is a difference.

JetLeg, this is what you don't get: A nc-immaterial entity by definition CANNOT interact with you to tell you to wear green socks. By definition, if it IS telling you to wear green socks, then it IS CONSEQUENTIAL. And if it is consequential, then the bruden of proof lies on you to demonstrate that this entity is real and wants us to wear green socks. If you simply believe that there's an entity that wants all humanity to wear green socks, and you try to put them on people, this is what we call psychotic behavior. If you really believe that such an entity exists, and is telling you to do things, then you really need to seek professional help.

 

[JetLeg]

Sure. You, by some undetermined method, have decided it's in humanity's best interest to wear green socks. Fine.

When asked to explain, you say you got the orders from a being that cannot affect the real world at all, that we cannot detect, and that you cannot show it even has the basic qualities of existence. You aren't likely to be pursuasive



But in what way would it be different? Just saying it has an extrra immaterial object in it doesn't really make anything different. Is there a single atom anywhere displaced because of this thing? Is there even one consequence of the wishes or actions of the inconsequential?

If you can define existence to include things that do not exist in the physical world (and I don't really think you can), what possible effect could this being's existence have? It won't create anything, destroy anything, reflect light, or even exert a gravitational pull -- exactly like a non-existent thing does.

I am not trying to pursue, just trying to show that you cannot know you are right, because you cannot prove me wrong. If you cannot prove me wrong, there is no way you can know which one of us is right, it would be just arrogant.

And yes, it won't create anything, destroy anything, reflect light, or even exert a gravitational pull -- exactly like a non-existent thing does. But it would exist. In its own, special, nc-immaterial way.
--

Though may be I might feel its existance? May be it would be able to have an effect on my feelings?

 

[Bri]

Maybe, but it kind of lessens the spirit of it.

There are always constraints on free will. The freedom is to choose between the options that are available to you at the time, not to choose anything whatsoever.

Well it sounds to me that being omnibenvolent is a little like "to the holy all things are holy".

Of course that's not how it works. If God were to do something immoral, then he would no longer be omni-benevolent. Christians simply believe that it's against God's nature to do so, and that he never does (which would mean that he's omni-benevolent). And we can't prove or disprove it -- it's unfalsifiable.

But then how does giving us free will where we might choose evil mean that the god"s plan end in a greater good?

If having free will to choose between good and evil IS the greater good, then God providing us the free will to choose between good and evil WOULD result in the greater good, don't you think?

WHat if by some strange fluke we all choose evil. I know that highly improbable but not impossible. Especially if satan did a particularly good job of fooling us?

The theory is that the freedom to choose evil (regardless of whether we actually choose evil) is such a great good that it would be better for us to have the choice and to always choose evil than for us to never have the choice at all.

Actually that might be a great place to live. Isn't that what some people believe heaven is?

I don't know, but if so it is clear that people living there don't have the type of free will described above.

And if it we all choose badly in gods eyes?

See above. It would still result in a greater good than if we didn't have the freedom to choose.

Well isn't that what you are doing when you say theft is justified if the end result was a good thing?

No, in this theory, the forseeable consequences of the action are taken into account when determining whether or not the action is moral or immoral.

Note that I agree that the ends don't always justify the means. In this theory, the means are themselves consequences, just as the ends are consequences. All consequences of an action must be weighed before determining whether or not the action is justified. Instead of "the ends don't justify the means" this theory is more like "the ends don't always justify the means."

Some court may convict the offender but give him a symbolic punishment because of the extenuating circumstances. Most would say that yea, the theft is immoral but choose not to do anything about it because of the circumstances

If something is immoral, you should refrain from doing it. So, let's say that a man who you know intends to kill his daughter asks you where his daughter is. He knows that you know where his daughter is. You also know that it is immoral to lie. According to "the ends never justify the means" you would have to tell the truth. But would telling the truth be the moral choice given that you can forsee the consequences?

Well you just said that stealing was an evil. I agree it is a lesser evil than letting someon die. But stealing is still considered evil none the less. And like I said most would choose to ignore the "evil" of the theft in light of the life saved.

Yes, stealing is evil but letting someone die is more evil. Therefore, if you have to make a choice between the two, stealing would be the moral action and letting them die would be the immoral action. In this case, the ends do justify the means. Sure, it sucks for the person being stolen from, but so be it! It would suck worse for the person dying if you didn't steal.

Well it was relevent to the original post about gods actions being moral or not in a certain situation which is what I thought we were talking about.

Well, true, to a point. We don't know what rules of ethics a god might be using, so if we're talking about the Christian God we would look to Christianity to tell us whether or not their God could be behaving in a moral way or not. In that regard, "the ends don't justify the means" is only relevant if Christians believe it applies both to human beings and to God. It is unclear whether they believe it applies to human beings, but I'm fairly certain that it cannot apply to Christian belief about God since the Christian God knows ALL consequences of his actions and therefore MUST look at the full consequences of an action in order to act morally.

What the statement also implies is how would it sit with you if your benefit came at the cost of other's well being? If I had my choice I would not want my well being to come at the cost of another's well being. although I know that it happens all the time.

"Benefit" is not always good, quite true. And yes the means do have to be taken into account since they are also consequences of actions (I never meant to imply that they didn't).

Do you see how that would apply to god killing and causing suffering for a greater good?

Yes, I can see how it might apply, but I would also argue that it cannot apply to the Christian God, nor do Christians expect it to apply to their God.

Is it worth it to you that god cause all that death and destruction so that things are better for you?

So that things are better for everyone (including those suffering). I can see how it might be a greater good to suffer and have free will than to never suffer at all, yes.

You begin to wonder if there was a way where god din't have to do it...In the theft/life scenario; I would rather have not had to steal inorder to save the life. I would have liked to have done it another way than by stealing.

That's another question entirely. Certainly if the same good can be achieved through other means, it would be better. The argument here is that the same good cannot be achieved through other means.

Omni benevolence means that everything you do is good reguardless of what it is.

No, it doesn't. Not to any Christian anyway, and we're talking about the Christian God here. If you would like to posit another god that cannot do anything that we might consider "wrong" then I'll agree that your god cannot exist and is a logical absurdity. But like it or not, the Christian God could possibly exist.

And isn't non-action in preventing somethning bad from happening also a bad thing?

Yes, hence the example I gave you of stealing to save a life (action) or not stealing and allowing the person to die (non-action).

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Now, lets imagine I would believe in an uf(unfalsifiable)-nc-immaterial that would want me to do something with the life of other people. If you agreed with the above statement, since it is an uf-immaterial, the point of view that he exists is just as valid as he doesn't ergo relativism, ergo I do have the right to act on my belief.

It would be impossible for a non-consequential immaterial to make it known that it would want you to do anything. Nor could you ever know anything about it, including what it might want you to do. Nor could it likely even know about you.

Therefore, your point of view (that it wants you to do something) is NOT valid, and IS falsifiable.

It can be therefore be assumed that you're a lunatic and should be locked up.

-Bri

 

[JetLeg]

It would be impossible for a non-consequential immaterial to make it known that it would want you to do anything. Nor could you ever know anything about it, including what it might want you to do. Nor could it likely even know about you.

Therefore, your point of view (that it wants you to do something) is NOT valid, and IS falsifiable.

It can be therefore be assumed that you're a lunatic and should be locked up.

-Bri

Writing from the asylum,

I am not claiming that an nc-immaterial revealed something to me by scripture, that would be wrong.

But it can want me to do something, why not? It is an nc-immaterial that has wishes and wants me to do something. It can know something about the world, but it cannot influence it. And I am not even saying that it revealed it to me.

I am not believing that it wants all the world to wear green socks because of revealation. I am saying that I have an intellectual right to believe this. You cannot know if you are right, or I am right, since you cannot prove me wrong.

 

[Bri]

You can believe in them, and take emotional consolation from them.

And, in order to know that your point is right, and others are wrong, you need to be able to disprove all others. You cannot disprove that point of view, so you cannot know you are right and I am wrong.

I have no desire to prove your imaginary being wrong. And it MUST be imaginary because you have absolutely no knowledge of it, including whether it exists or not -- you only imagine that it exists.

Therefore, EVEN IF SOME BEING EXISTS that happens to be EXACTLY as you imagine it, it is only coincidence -- the only being you actually know about is entirely imaginary.

My point is that it makes no difference to me whatsoever if something exactly like what you imagine exists or not. If it does exist, it cannot communicate with you AT ALL. That's what makes it inconsequential.

-Bri

 

[Phlebas]

I am not trying to pursue, just trying to show that you cannot know you are right, because you cannot prove me wrong. If you cannot prove me wrong, there is no way you can know which one of us is right, it would be just arrogant.

But I'm not the one making any claims. I'm not the one who has said anything to be right or wrong about.

And "not being able to be proved wrong" is not the same thing as "right." By your own admission, there is no difference between your god and a non-existent being.

And yes, it won't create anything, destroy anything, reflect light, or even exert a gravitational pull -- exactly like a non-existent thing does. But it would exist. In its own, special, nc-immaterial way.

Maybe if you defined what you meant by "existence," we could clear some of this up.

Though may be I might feel its existance? May be it would be able to have an effect on my feelings?

Nope. An emotion is a measureable, chemical reaction in the brain. If this entity was working there, it would no long be immaterial or non-consequential.

 

[Bri]

I don't think it's obvious at all.

I meant that obviously according to Christian belief, free will is better than no free will, even considering the suffering that is necessary for free will.

If God is so uptight that he is abloe to punish us forever, how is the illusion of free will and the guarantee of paradise superior to the real free will?

I think it is assumed that not all sins will result in eternal damnation, and that any sins that do result in eternal damnation are avoidable given that we have free will.

I don't think we're really disagreeing here. On paper, you're correct. It's the Christian theology that's contradictory.

No, we don't disagree on most points, except that I would disagree that Christian theology is contradictory. I don't agree with Christian theology, but it's not contradictory.

-Bri

 

[Phlebas]

But it can want me to do something, why not? It is an nc-immaterial that has wishes and wants me to do something. It can know something about the world, but it cannot influence it.

There's really no way to test this, but it seems to me that an immaterial being cannot observe the physical world any more than physical beings can observe an immaterial world.

Of course, the distinction is meaningless -- since you're making up an entity in your own mind, it would know everything you do.