Beyond God and Evil

[Leyla Shen]

^See how god is made in man's image...

(I much prefer lennyrizzo.)

~

I have not made a claim that “none of them [definitions of god] are possible.” I don’t really have a problem with “god” understood, for example, as causality (the infinite). I do have a problem with anthropomorphised gods, like your non-omnipotent, omnibenevolent god. Some kind of supremely good "being." I mean, what is such a belief if not, again, god made in the image of (at least one) man who then doubles back on himself? And what difference would finding such a god make, other than to cause you to spread "his" good word and resist the temptation of doing evil? Why, ES, do you need to believe in such a being? Why does goodness require an ultimate/absolute source?

Perhaps you noticed my comments on moral absolutism and moral relativism in the Crucible. Care to comment?

As for my typical fashion, stop whining. It's unbecoming of a pious, religious man.

In your essay, you managed to avoid addressing the question of truth. I cannot glean anything from your reply in respect of the matter. So, again, whilst you have said truth is key, how do you establish the truth if one’s mind can potentially be perpetually altered on the matter by experience, resulting only in strong belief/s?

It can't, it can only be measured against the particular experiences which formed that belief.

Yet, you can accurately, reasonably and honestly conclude when another’s mind (mine, for example) is closed? How, if the rest (establishing dishonesty, misguidedness or delusion) is impossible?

How do you get out of your own head long enough to say anything even remotely truthful about another person---and if you can’t, why bother?

[General edit]

[Matt Gregory]

He wants to be loved...

It's only humans' bloated sense of self-importance that makes them think there's a superpowerful God up there that cares about their petty emotions.

[earnest_seeker]

I do have a problem with anthropomorphised gods, like your non-omnipotent, omnibenevolent god. Some kind of supremely good "being." I mean, what is such a belief if not, again, god made in the image of (at least one) man who then doubles back on himself?

Hmm. OK, I'm trying to get inside of your perspective. So you see anthropomorphised God as so similar to man that the most rational conclusion is that such a conception must have been created by man, and could not possibly denote a real entity? See, this is where I find your thinking closed. Why is it not possible that an anthropomorphised God exists? I'm referring of course to an anthropomorphised God as I have described Him. Exactly what impossibilities are there with the description that I have provided?

And what difference would finding such a god make

The dismissive answer is: who cares? - the only relevancy is whether it brings you a new aspect of truth (i.e. that God exists), right? Isn't truth your focus? I've already explained that it's (one of) my focus(es).

other than to cause you to spread "his" good word and resist the temptation of doing evil?

The more thoughtful answer is: here are several differences that it might make that I can think of off the top of my head:
* it would provide you with an example to strive towards in improving yourself,
* it would provide you with hope (of assistance in times of trouble; of the possibility of better things to come),
* it might make you value your life more than you otherwise would, knowing that divinity takes an interest in it.

There are probably others, but thinking makes my Topsy Turvy head hurt.

Why, ES, do you need to believe in such a being?

Hmm. Where did you get that I "need" that? That's the second time on this board that you've asked me why I "need" something, when in fact I do not have a need (the first time was in a prior incarnation, and I won't publicise it - I'll send you a PM referring you to it). I've already told you that I was agnostic to start with, remember? I didn't "need" to believe in God, then, and I don't "need" to now, but it is quite a potent belief to have. I didn't overturn my agnosticism lightly, either. For example, I don't believe in logical proofs for God, nor do I believe in revelatory scriptures. Empirical evidence is what I go on.

Why does goodness require an ultimate/absolute source?

Dunno. Who even says that it does require one? That's not the question anyhow - it's not about whether goodness requires an ultimate/absolute source, but whether it actually has one in fact.

Perhaps you noticed my comments on moral absolutism and moral relativism in the Crucible. Care to comment?

[grumblings and mutterings about the imposition of having to return to reread other threads...]

[oops, I forgot: no whining...]

[trotting off to do the deed...]

OK, well I've reread it. You write in that thread, that:

moral absolutism constitutes a belief in absolute standards against which right and wrong/good and bad may be judged. Moral relativism, on the other hand, is the position that what is moral can be rationally defended---that there is an objective morality independent of any given individual's feelings and consequent behaviour.

If that's what moral relativism is, then I had the wrong idea of it in my head. My idea corresponded more to what sage wrote:

Moral relativism: the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth; moral subjectivism is thus the opposite of moral absolutism.

You seem to be saying that "moral relativism" corresponds to "objective morality". I agree with your definition of "objective morality", but I disagree that it is the same as "moral relativism" - I prefer sage's definition of the latter term.

So we have three distinct terms, "moral relativism/subjectivism", "moral absolutism" and "objective morality". And very nice definitions for them too, if I do say so myself (not that I had anything to do with them...). :-)

If you'd like me to make any further comments, then please indicate what you're interested in seeing me rabbit on about.

As for my typical fashion, stop whining.

I'll make you a deal: I'll stop whining (but not dining) if you stop projecting.

It's unbecoming of a pious

I'd love to be able to say that that was the case, but frankly I'm a recalcitrant.

religious man.

Ha! There's not a religious bone in my body.

In your essay, you managed to avoid addressing the question of truth. I cannot glean anything from your reply in respect of the matter. So, again, whilst you have said truth is key, how do you establish the truth if one’s mind can potentially be perpetually altered on the matter by experience, resulting only in strong belief/s?

My (provisional, always) current belief is that it's impossible to know what's true for certain: that at best one can be highly confident that one is modelling the world in an accurate way corresponding with and consistent with all of the empirical data that one has to date observed. There's always the possibility that one is wrong, or that there's more to it than one realises, or that the wicked aliens are beaming rays at one that cause one to believe that one is being rational when in fact one is highly delusional, etc, etc.

Let me turn the question back on you: do you believe that it's possible to be certain that one possesses truth? If so, then how?

Yet, you can accurately, reasonably and honestly conclude when another’s mind (mine, for example) is closed?

Seriously, Leyla, you launch into the discussion that Anna and I were having, branding us topsy turvy people and showering us with condescension, on the basis that we believe in God, and then question how I could "accurately, reasonably and honestly" conclude that your mind is closed - give me a break, mate.

How, if the rest (establishing dishonesty, misguidedness or delusion) is impossible?

See above.

How do you get out of your own head long enough to say anything even remotely truthful about another person---and if you can’t, why bother?

You don't have to get out of your own head, you just have to read what they have to write (or listen to what they have to say) and to question them about their beliefs.

It's only humans' bloated sense of self-importance that makes them think there's a superpowerful God up there that cares about their petty emotions.

And the above statement of yours is:
1. your opinion,
2. your provisional belief,
3. your strong belief,
4. provable.

(please pick one, or supply your own)

[Matt Gregory]

It's only humans' bloated sense of self-importance that makes them think there's a superpowerful God up there that cares about their petty emotions.

And the above statement of yours is:
1. your opinion,
2. your provisional belief,
3. your strong belief,
4. provable.

(please pick one, or supply your own)

It's an opinion that is based on what I know about the ego's weaknesses and insecurities, and how it compensates for these. We're not fully rational, so we're not fully mentally connected to the rest of the universe, which gives rise to our emotions and feelings of incompleteness. We justify our incomplete understanding by conjuring magical forces like gods and whatnot to make our situation seem inevitable. We submit to these fantasies because they make us feel better and relieve us from having to do any hard work to understand truth and reality.

[earnest_seeker]

OK, thanks for clarifying.

[Matt Gregory]

Sorry, I expanded a little bit on it. I'm trying not to be so lazy.

[earnest_seeker]

No worries. I disagree with you that they're fantasies, but I'm not out to convince. We simply have different experiences.

[mansman]

He wants to be loved...

It's only humans' bloated sense of self-importance that makes them think there's a superpowerful God up there that cares about their petty emotions.

Why you say? ("only")?
Not possible there is a creator of worlds who wants appreciation because He good natured?
I dont know how you can say for sure its a mistake.

(are you the one I asked question about computers being conscious? forgot where that is! will respond when I find it)

[Matt Gregory]

There is no evidence that there is a creator, so even if there was a creator, the reason people believe that there is would have nothing to do with the fact that there is one.

If you asked me about computers being conscious, I don't remember.

[Leyla Shen]

Precisely, Matt. What is literally incredible about it is that those who claim to have experienced evidence to the contrary are never willing to fully disclose it since there may be too many arguments against it as evidence of a god. Again, with that, I have no intention of soliciting such experiences from said people. Clearly, it's an incredibly emotional thing.

[Leyla Shen]

Hmm. OK, I'm trying to get inside of your perspective. So you see anthropomorphised God as so similar to man that the most rational conclusion is that such a conception must have been created by man, and could not possibly denote a real entity?

Is your thinking really so completely insane (for your benefit, essentially unexamined)? What, do you think, the purpose of definition is?

[Dave Toast]

* it would provide you with an example to strive towards in improving yourself,
* it would provide you with hope (of assistance in times of trouble; of the possibility of better things to come),
* it might make you value your life more than you otherwise would, knowing that divinity takes an interest in it.

You are the divine. It is interest. It is hope. It is the example to strive for.

It's all in you.

The importance of being earnest. ;-)

(sorry, couldn't resist)

[earnest_seeker]

earnest: Hmm. OK, I'm trying to get inside of your perspective. So you see anthropomorphised God as so similar to man that the most rational conclusion is that such a conception must have been created by man, and could not possibly denote a real entity?

Leyla: Is your thinking really so completely insane (for your benefit, essentially unexamined)? What, do you think, the purpose of definition is?

I don't know where you're coming from, Leyla. I asked you a simple question and you didn't even answer it, instead going for an ad-hom, and a question that, to my mind, doesn't seem to provide much of an answer either. But let me do my duty and answer your question, much as I don't understand the context in which you're asking it. I'm going to answer it as though you asked it to me out of the blue: I think that the purpose of definition is to carve into the conceptual space of our minds a somewhat distinct space that we can use as a unit of meaning.

Now will you fill me in on why you asked? And will you answer my question? I asked several others, which you also seem to have ignored - or are you planning on coming back to them (or perhaps you've given up on the dialogue)?

Clearly, it's an incredibly emotional thing.

That sentence just drips with irony. You relished the chance to condescend to us, and we're the emotional ones?

Dave,

Thanks for the affirmations. You should be a motivational speaker. :-)

[Leyla Shen]

Though there’s lots of potential in the discussion itself, I am seriously considering abandoning this…exchange, with you (which doesn‘t mean I won‘t have it, despite you). The futility of the endeavour insofar as you‘re concerned, lies in the fact of your ceaseless dedication to seamlessly merging with anyone and anything that comes across your path. It’s a sickly abomination, I tell you!

I am, however, heading off for work shortly, so---either way---your self-righteously needy, foot-stamping ego will have to wait.

[earnest_seeker]

The futility of the endeavour insofar as you‘re concerned, lies in the fact of your ceaseless dedication to seamlessly merging with anyone and anything that comes across your path. It’s a sickly abomination, I tell you!

It's called charm, my dear. :-) Prince Charming, remember? Don't worry, you're still my Rapunzel. I still can't work out why you won't let your hair down though...

I am, however, heading off for work shortly, so---either way---your self-righteously needy, foot-stamping ego will have to wait.

The wait will be an eternity!

[Leyla Shen]

Lord of the Flies wrote:

Hmm. OK, I'm trying to get inside of your perspective.

That’s right---climb, climb, climb up that beanstalk out of that little head of yours…

So you see anthropomorphised God as so similar to man that the most rational conclusion is that such a conception must have been created by man, and could not possibly denote a real entity?

Answer: Yes, and more than that. Defn. anthropomorphised the attribution of uniquely human characteristics to nonhuman beings, inanimate objects, or natural or supernatural phenomena

Do you understand this question, now:

Is your thinking really so completely insane (for your benefit, essentially unexamined)? What, do you think, the purpose of definition is?

See, this is where I find your thinking closed.

Yes, you find my thinking closed because, unlike yours, it’s well defined.

Why is it not possible that an anthropomorphised God exists?

Refer above.

I'm referring of course to an anthropomorphised God as I have described Him.

Yes, I know.

Exactly what impossibilities are there with the description that I have provided?

Refer above and Aristotle’s definition of truth.

In other words, if goodness and/or moral fortitude is an attribute of human behaviour, then the attribution of it to a non-human, creator being is anthropomorphisation and you have no good reason for believing otherwise. If, on the other hand, such a thing is not a) uniquely human or, b) your god is human, well---in the former case a) please elaborate with reason and tangible evidence, and in the latter case b) I’d like to meet him in the flesh.

So, which is it?

[earnest_seeker]

That’s right---climb, climb, climb up that beanstalk out of that little head of yours…

"Fe fi fo fum, I smell the..." actually, dang, that cold of yours has got you all blocked up, you really can't smell anything at all, can you?

earnest: So you see anthropomorphised God as so similar to man that the most rational conclusion is that such a conception must have been created by man, and could not possibly denote a real entity?

Leyla: Answer: Yes, and more than that. Defn. anthropomorphised the attribution of uniquely human characteristics to nonhuman beings, inanimate objects, or natural or supernatural phenomena

Do you understand this question, now:

Is your thinking really so completely insane (for your benefit, essentially unexamined)? What, do you think, the purpose of definition is?

Ah, yes, I see where you're coming from now. But it's you who's chosen to frame ("define") God in this way (i.e. as being a concept derived from human characteristics). Is your thinking so completely insane that you expect me to accept this arbitrary framing as a fact for no other reason than that you assert it thus, and that you cannot imagine the possibility of other framings?

I mean, let's be honest, your argument is completely puerile and irrational. It boils down to "God and man have some similar characteristics therefore the concept of God is built artificially out of the concept of man, is purely man's creation and cannot possibly refer to anything real". Applying it in similar situations (imagining a chimpanzee who somehow finds a way to describe a human to another chimpanzee who has never seen one before) we arrive at truths like "Humans are an artificial construct of the chimpanzee's mind and cannot possibly exist because the concept of a human is merely an embellished 'supernatural' version of the chimpanzee."

earnest: See, this is where I find your thinking closed.

Leyla: Yes, you find my thinking closed because, unlike yours, it’s well defined.

Definitions are not truths, they are merely aids in formulating truth. Regardless of whether or not your thinking is well defined, it is in this instance incredibly poorly formulated.

earnest: Why is it not possible that an anthropomorphised God exists?

Leyla: Refer above.

That's not an argument against the possibility, it's a statement of simple-minded bias. Leyla, you are the one with the emotional need. You have an emotional need to deny the possibility of the existence of God, and thus you push your bias as truth. What do I mean by bias?: The automatic assumption that God follows from man, which I am simply supposed to take from you as a given, when in fact there are at least two other possibilities that I can think of off the top of my head: that man derives from God, and that man and God share common origins. But hey, if you want to convince me that it's not simply a bias, then go ahead and invalidate these two possibilities... show me that your thinking is not so closed that you're automatically denying and excluding them.

earnest: Exactly what impossibilities are there with the description that I have provided?

Leyla: Refer above and Aristotle’s definition of truth.

I don't feel like accepting a homework assignment. If you want Aristotle's definition of truth to form a part of your argument then please provide it.

As I've already outlined, your "argument of impossibility" which you refer me to above is nothing but a closed-minded bias, so do you care to provide anything more substantial?

In other words, if goodness and/or moral fortitude is an attribute of human behaviour, then the attribution of it to a non-human, creator being is anthropomorphisation and you have no good reason for believing otherwise. If, on the other hand, such a thing is not a) uniquely human or, b) your god is human, well---in the former case a) please elaborate with reason and tangible evidence, and in the latter case b) I’d like to meet him in the flesh.

So, which is it?

It's (a). The burden isn't on me to justify that either - the burden is rather on you to explain why such characteristics should be "uniquely human". It's your claim - justify it. What is it about goodness and/or moral fortitude that would particularly bind them to humans? Do you imagine that - should we encounter extra-terrestrial intelligence - it would be bereft of similar attributes?

But here, since you've thrust the burden on me, let me "elaborate with reason": from the Crucible thread that you directed me to I gather that you believe in an "objective morality", a morality that can be arrived at through reason. A conscious God would be no less amenable to such reasoning than humans - more so in fact.

[Leyla Shen]

Now, come on. Swallow hard and let‘s cut to the chase. This is YOUR belief, which is why we are having any discussion about it at all!

Are you or are you not a human imagining the possibility of a (supreme) being (supreme in) that (He) exemplifies particular human characteristics---yes or no?

[earnest_seeker]

Address my points, Leyla.

In answer to your question, I believe in a God who has some characteristics in common with humans. Yes, in those characteristics He is exemplary. That doesn't mean that He (the notion of God) was derived from humans. That's purely your assertion, which it is incumbent upon you to prove the necessity of.

[Leyla Shen]

Listen here, bucko. This is your fantasy. What makes you think for one second that I’d think it rational in the slightest to entertain the idiotic idea of proving humans came from some thing beyond existence, something with certain human characteristics and unspecified others, that clearly cannot be shown to exist (thus requiring belief) despite said characteristics?

Or, are you really telling me, Laird, you need proof that humans exist, or that the notion of humans existing also constitutes mere belief?

And you didn’t answer the question. You evaded answering it, with convoluted rubbish, as usual.

[earnest_seeker]

Listen here, bucko. This is your fantasy.

It's purely your assertion that it's a fantasy, and it's an assertion that you have been unable to prove.

What makes you think for one second that I’d think it rational in the slightest to entertain the idiotic idea of proving humans came from some thing beyond existence, something with certain human characteristics and unspecified others, that clearly cannot be shown to exist (thus requiring belief) despite said characteristics?

I'm not asking you to prove that humans came from something beyond existence, I'm asking you to prove that such a thing is impossible. Clearly you can't, yet you maintain it dogmatically anyway, so you'll just have to cop on the chin that you are, indeed, closed-minded.

And where did I say that God is "beyond existence"? As far as I'm concerned He's a part of it.

Or, are you really telling me, Laird, you need proof that humans exist, or that the notion of humans existing also constitutes mere belief?

You've lost me. I have no reference point for this question. Where's it coming from?

And you didn’t answer the question.

I answered it clearly and concisely. If there's something that you didn't understand, then please ask me about it.

You evaded answering it, with convoluted rubbish, as usual.

The usual denigration. You wouldn't be the Leyla that I know and love without dashings of scorn.

[Leyla Shen]

It's purely your assertion that it's a fantasy, and it's an assertion that you have been unable to prove.

You're insane. It’s fantasy because, unlike humans (remember them?), “He” cannot be shown to exist or any order except that of a pink elephant---again, this is despite certain supposed human characteristics.

I'm not asking you to prove that humans came from something beyond existence, I'm asking you to prove that such a thing is impossible. Clearly you can't, yet you maintain it dogmatically anyway, so you'll just have to cop on the chin that you are, indeed, closed-minded.

Seriously, you don't know what you're talking about. Clearly, you’re completely blind to your own contradictions. Above you say you are asking me to prove that it is impossible that humans came from something beyond existence, asserting that I can’t and calling me, therefore, closed-minded. Then, you think you excuse yourself (actually, to be honest, I don't think it's at all even that conscious) for having posed this question as follows:

And where did I say that God is "beyond existence"? As far as I'm concerned He's a part of it.

So, what do you want, Laird, and of whose making is the ridiculous nature of this discussion, really?

If you consider he IS part of existence, why would you have asked me to prove that it is impossible for humans to have come from something beyond existence?

You change your mind as regularly as a woman. I’m sure you understand my intended meaning. Then again….

You've lost me. I have no reference point for this question. Where's it coming from?

Have a fucking think about it! You keep getting lost because you have no god-damned centre or focus for your thinking.

Here’s a hint, see my first reply in this post.

I answered it clearly and concisely.

Listen r-e-e-e-a-l-l-y carefully: “yes I am” or “no I am not” to the proposition, “Are you or are you not…”?

[Fujaro]

It's purely your assertion that it's a fantasy, and it's an assertion that you have been unable to prove.

Isn't the burden of proof on the person who makes a claim for the existence of a hitherto unproven entity?

[brokenhead]

The burden isn't on me to justify that either - the burden is rather on you to explain why such characteristics should be "uniquely human". It's your claim - justify it. What is it about goodness and/or moral fortitude that would particularly bind them to humans? Do you imagine that - should we encounter extra-terrestrial intelligence - it would be bereft of similar attributes?

But here, since you've thrust the burden on me, let me "elaborate with reason": from the Crucible thread that you directed me to I gather that you believe in an "objective morality", a morality that can be arrived at through reason. A conscious God would be no less amenable to such reasoning than humans - more so in fact

This is way beyond her capacity to understand, Ernie. This is a valid point. Leyla never makes it out of the gate.

[Steven Coyle]

As the Zen aspirant shouted, "Ka!" He finally realized, God was All - transcending the anthromorphized duality of the theologic.

Leyla's error lies in the tragic non-belief of self, making it near impossible to take her own arrogance, which is her own ironic narcissistic medicine.