Originally posted by rwingettFree will strikes down the one "O" of omnibenevolence (although one can argue on what is more good - allowing man freedom or allowing evil and why).
Just keep passing the buck, dj. God gets the credit for everything good and man gets the blame for everything bad. Uh huh. I don't think it works that way. Either god takes the credit for everything or he gets credit for nothing. It's a package deal.
Originally posted by HalitoseAh, yes, freewill. The means by which god attempts to pass the buck.
Free will strikes down the one "O" of omnibenevolence (although one can argue on what is more good - allowing man freedom or allowing evil and why).
I'm afraid it doesn't help you, due to god's purported omniscience. God knew in advance every choice man would make and the results they would have. God could have made it otherwise. But he chose to let things proceed exactly as they have.
Oh my, Orfeo... On the off-chance that you might actually be a seeker rather than just a squeaker, I'm going to take a few moments to respond to your "mischevious" post...
You misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting there are fallacies in the theory. ...But I'm not mischievous so I won't point that out.
What you actually said, regarding my hasty summation of Jaynes' thought, was: "...the call was internal to begin with and wasn't internalized, it was partially externalized." Perhaps we subscribe to diferent theories of debate but that comment seems to me to be suggesting flaws in Jayne's thinking before you have even done the man's work the courtesy of reading his thoughts as he expressed them himself. Your "mischief" here is a facile attempt to appear somehow intrinsically more knowledgable than he... and a failure at that.
But really, the theory can't establish that God doesn't exist. It can only establish that there is a coherent explanation for how he was created IF he doesn't exist.
If you had taken the time to read his work before trying rather feebly to critique it, Orfeo, you might have realized that Jaynes does not contend that "God doesn't exist". As for establishing "that there is a coherent explanation for how he was created IF he doesn't exist"... Did you read that after you typed it? In and of itself, that statement is a locigal fallacy.
Given that starting point (axiom), I'm sure it's an excellent theory - even from the very small amount you've stated here it sounds entirely plausible.
This must be the germ of respect that obliged me to actually respond to your slingshot dismissal.... I am always alert for the possibility of an open and enquiring mind. Even if it requires some work to assist it on its way to being fully engaged in the world.
And I think you're absolutely RIGHT that people use God as an excuse. In the same way that people say 'the Devil made me do it'.... But just because people frequently say things like that with no justification, does not translate into evidence that it isn't occasionally true. Maybe once in a while the Devil really does make someone do something. Maybe once in a while God is responsible for something.
Please don't try to credit someone else, in this case myself, with your own thoughts and fears by making false assumptions about what you think I may have said... and then building on those false assumptions.
What I said was that Jaynes' theory "explains why god is just an easy excuse for what and why we are too weak to decide for ourselves". I didn't say anything at all about the Devil - nor did I say anything about God, either - making me do something.
My personal concern is more with the state of mindless alienation and fear that many of us live in as a result of being unable to make moral and ethical decisions ourselves. This same alienation and fear is responsible for our willingness to obey authority, regardless of morality or ethics.
Engraving this kind of obedience into our neural nets by acknowledging any organized religion simply makes us riper for the picking when some petty fascist or global megacorporation comes along offering to solve all our problems for us... if we only believe in them or their world-view.
I fully realize that what I'm saying is I'm not convinced of the proof of a negative - the non-existence of God is, if anything, harder to prove than his existence. That's just the way logic works, unfortunately.
By transferring your interpretations of what you thought I (...or Jaynes) might have meant, without taking the time and effort to try to investigate and understand, you are missing the point entirely. But that's just the way logic works, unfortunately. In the absence of real information there is a tendency towards startlingly obvious ignorance.
I shall keep the book in mind, although I emphasize I can't make any promises to read it. I read a lot as well, but sadly that's at work and frankly most of my spare time I try to AVOID doing much reading as a reaction to that. If it ever comes out on CD then let me know!
At the risk of sounding less than cooperative, Orfeo, I am afraid that this considered response to your dismissive and somewhat discourteous assessment of Jaynes' work is about as far as I care to go along the road to understanding with you. If a CD ever comes out, perhaps you will notice... I doubt it. You may still be in denial and AVOIDance.
That's okay by me... I tried... Remember what Meister Eckhard said : The eye with which you see God is the same eye with which God sees you.
Originally posted by rwingettThe Christian God is not omnibenevolent.
Ah, yes, freewill. The means by which god attempts to pass the buck.
I'm afraid it doesn't help you, due to god's purported omniscience. God knew in advance every choice man would make and the results they would have. God could have made it otherwise. But he chose to let things proceed exactly as they have.
And, as you correctly show, "free will" does not help resolve the problem of evil.
Originally posted by Coletti*stunned silence*
The Christian God is not omnibenevolent.
And, as you correctly show, "free will" does not help resolve the problem of evil.
The christian god is not omnibelevolent? The christian god is not all-loving? Is this what you're saying?
I have heard there are theodicies that take this approach. It might be very interesting to explore that angle in greater depth. Coletti, lead the way...
Originally posted by rwingettYou haven't heard of Calvinist Predestination with Elects and all that? Well, you're in for some schooling.
*stunned silence*
The christian god is not omnibelevolent? The christian god is not all-loving? Is this what you're saying?
I have heard there are theodicies that take this approach. It might be very interesting to explore that angle in greater depth. Coletti, lead the way...
Originally posted by rwingettIt's simple really. If God wanted all people to be saved from hell, then all people would be saved from hell. Either that, or God is not omniscient and omnipotent. I do not believe in a God who's will is not done.
*stunned silence*
The christian god is not omnibelevolent? The christian god is not all-loving? Is this what you're saying?
I have heard there are theodicies that take this approach. It might be very interesting to explore that angle in greater depth. Coletti, lead the way...
The prayer that starts "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (Mat 6:10) means God's will is done on earth just as it is in heaven. There is no escaping the logical implications - if God is almighty, then no one will go to hell unless God wills it. This is harsh, as some have noted - but that does not make it any less true.
Originally posted by rwingettunder coletti's world view, god is a megalomaniac who treats his human creations as dispensable puppets. coletti seems cool with that fact, since he considers himself one of the select few who have NOT been pre-determined to burn for all eternity.
*stunned silence*
The christian god is not omnibelevolent? The christian god is not all-loving? Is this what you're saying?
I have heard there are theodicies that take this approach. It might be very interesting to explore that angle in greater depth. Coletti, lead the way...
Originally posted by LemonJelloWe would prefer a god that owes us, not owns us. We prefer a god that gives us some R-E-S-P-E-C-T because we deserve it! A god that will look up to us and see how we deserve a little love because we a generally good people.
under coletti's world view, god is a megalomaniac who treats his human creations as dispensable puppets. coletti seems cool with that fact, since he considers himself one of the select few who have NOT been pre-determined to burn for all eternity.
But that's not the case with the God of the Bible. That's getting the perspective completely backwards. God appears to be a "megalomaniac" to someone who has a inflated view of his overall importance in the universe. But compared to the Creator of the universe we a nothing. And if we can even begin to contemplate the relative worth of God to a man, then we are just beginning to understand where we stand. And if God deigns to even consider you, to give you a glance or a thought, then it is not just "cool", it is profoundly humbling.
Originally posted by Colettias i understand it, according to your world view, we have no free will and our fates are pre-determined. in other words, we are all puppets. so if you are right, i'm confident there's no useful protest i can mount: god will either pitch me, strings and all, into the fire; or he will perch me on a dusty shelf until he deems it fit for me to dance for him again. i can only hope i give him a few splinters when he handles me.
We would prefer a god that owes us, not owns us. We prefer a god that gives us some R-E-S-P-E-C-T because we deserve it! A god that will look up to us and see how we deserve a little love because we a generally good people.
But that's not the case with the God of the Bible. That's getting the perspective completely backwards. God appears to be a "meg ...[text shortened]... you, to give you a glance or a thought, then it is not just "cool", it is profoundly humbling.
what astounds me is how you ever formulated this view from the bible. i don't think the bible supports either the non-existence of free will or pre-determination with respect to salvation. the OT does seem to support the megalomaniac angle, however.
your world view may be right, but i am hoping that it is not. the good news is that i don't think you have any substantive evidence to support your view. this doesn't mean you're wrong, but i don't see why you think you are right.
Originally posted by widgetFunnily enough, you've misunderstood half of what I was trying to say as well.
Oh my, Orfeo... On the off-chance that you might actually be a seeker rather than just a squeaker, I'm going to take a few moments to respond to your "mischevious" post...
[b]You misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting there are fallacies in the theory. ...But I'm not mischievous so I won't point that out.
What you actually said, regarding my ...[text shortened]... Meister Eckhard said : The eye with which you see God is the same eye with which God sees you.[/b]
Mostly because I didn't express it accurately, and didn't attempt to quote you word for word. Frankly I don't feel like being in lawyer mode in the middle of the night.
I don't know where you got the idea I thought that YOU had said anything about God or the Devil making you do things. I was expanding on the idea that you HAD put forward. I knew perfectly well what you were saying.
I'm not trying to critique the book in any meaningful sense, I was trying to respond to your post with some thoughts in a timely fashion. It's blindingly obvious that any detailed response to the book would require reading the book. It's also blindingly obvious that I'm not going to be able to do that any time in the next several months, during which this thread would become dead and buried.
Why do you think I described my own post as mischievous? Because I recognized the problem in replying.
Yes, my response was was not ideal. But given your complaint about not having got any response at all, I would have thought you could have appreciated the fact that someone noticed your post.
Originally posted by orfeoThe eye with which you see God is the same eye with which god sees you.
Funnily enough, you've misunderstood half of what I was trying to say as well... I would have thought you could have appreciated the fact that someone noticed your post.
*stunned silence*
Originally posted by ColettiDoes such a god deserve our worship? Or does he even care?
We would prefer a god that owes us, not owns us. We prefer a god that gives us some R-E-S-P-E-C-T because we deserve it! A god that will look up to us and see how we deserve a little love because we a generally good people.
But that's not the case with the God of the Bible. That's getting the perspective completely backwards. God appears to be a "meg ...[text shortened]... you, to give you a glance or a thought, then it is not just "cool", it is profoundly humbling.
Originally posted by rwingettI've asked before and never got an answer: why do people who believe in predestination pray? Or follow ANY moral code as it is irrelevant to their ultimate salvation? If I'm one of the Elect and I toss a couple of three year olds into a furnace it's all cool anyway.
Does such a god deserve our worship? Or does he even care?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by rwingettWell it is indeed mans nature to pass the buck. In the end it was the serpent that sat with the blame. But that did not change much. Man had to pay the penalty of disobedience. As someone once said, "The price payed for disobedience is a million times more than the price payed for obedience."
Just keep passing the buck, dj. God gets the credit for everything good and man gets the blame for everything bad. Uh huh. I don't think it works that way. Either god takes the credit for everything or he gets credit for nothing. It's a package deal.