Why ought I follow?

[thenexttodie]

Indeed. Care to expand on that and explain how my simplification of your argument exposing that circular reasoning isn't relevant, is inaccurate, or doesn't do justice to your argument?

It seems to me God, exists with 2 other counterparts which provide a "reference point" so to speak which allow God to know that he is good. You think I am wrong and I am just making up metaphysical bullshit. So it seems we have arived at a standstill on this subject.

 

[thenexttodie]

If your rambling and ranting "question" was if I consider human morality to be concerned with human well-being, of course I do. If morality has nothing to with well-being, there is no point to it.

Would you be surprised if you ever found at that things you thought were moral actually do more harm than good to humanity. I guess i am talking about unintended consequences.

 

[MarsCydonia]

It seems to me God, exists with 2 other counterparts which provide a "reference point" so to speak which allow God to know that he is good. You think I am wrong and I am just making up metaphysical bullshit. So it seems we have arived at a standstill on this subject.

So god is good because the version of himself that he sacrificed to another version of himself acts as a reference point to that version of himself. Metaphysical bullshit indeed.

Would you be surprised if you ever found at that things you thought were moral actually do more harm than good to humanity. I guess i am talking about unintended consequences.

No, I was talking about consequences when it comes to discussing morality, about well-being and harm.
While You were discussing "good" referencing itself.

Still a non-answer about how god is supposed to be good and still not any closer to why I ought follow.

 

[MarsCydonia]

God is good by definition, ether God doesn't exist or he is good.

but sure this is just an assumption, I don't claim to have evidence for it ...

if you grant that there is some transcendent standard for good and bad, then by definition God would be the paradigm of good, anything different from God, would by definition be something less than perfectly good. just like anything different form 100cm would be different form

This is not an "assumption", its ontological and semantical bullshit. Why ought we care about your definition of good?

3 pages of comments in and still no reason why we ought follow a god christian call "good by default because god".

 

[Sparhafoc]

What about when the Bible talks about an invisible realm and things unseen? What about all of the miracles?

With all due respect, why don't you pull your finger out of your arse and cite these passages? I went to the trouble of citing the Bible on your behalf, and I think it's all a load of todge.

Actually, if you go and look, you'll find that there's really not an awful lot more to hang the supposition on - I've cited the commonly used scriptural basis for such claims, and I think you can see that they amount to nothing relevant whatsoever. As I mentioned, your position is not scriptural - it's an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of scripture handed down via whatever Christian tradition you belong to, landing in your lap as an article of faith that doesn't even have a basis in scripture, let alone reality.

As for the whole invisible bullshit - don't you hold any standard of evidence? If it's unseen, how could you honestly say you have any confidence in it existing? The immaterial, invisible, heat-free dragon lives in your garage too?

As for miracles, they are just stories. Here, I will show you how it works.

There was once a guy called Dave who lived in Madrid and was a bit lazy. One day, a giant fucking meteorite came racing towards the planet, poised to kill all life on Earth except maybe a few burrowing nematodes and some extremophile bacteria. But Dave, he stood up, went outside and using magical powers which had laid dormant in his genes since the dawn of humanity, he caught the meteorite and chucked it back into space thereby saving all life on the planet. You owe your life to Dave.

Do you now believe that happened?

If you don't believe it happened, how would you propose to test the claim skeptically? Wouldn't you ask for evidence?

Serious scholars of the Bible - those who aren't in it just to boost their preferred religious team - do not believe that any 'miracle' in the Bible passes any form of test one could propose to evidence it.

At least half (probably more, but can't remember the details) of amazing prophecies in the Bible were actually written after the supposed prophetic events. Most Christians have literally no idea who wrote what bits of the Bible when, and are often shocked to find that much of the new testament was written 3 or 4 generations after the alleged death of Jesus. Not even second hand testimony - just plain old myth and legend crafting.

So yeah, again, perhaps bring some specifics to the discussion and then we can see whether any claim about 'miracles' stands up to honest scrutiny.

Well, as I said, I could be wrong. I'm no expert.

Yes, and as I said, no one is an expert and anyone who pretends to be should be strangled with their own intestines. We would never have been in such a mess if there'd been a bit more liberal application of historical barbaric violence against these snake-oil salesmen.

Are the rest of the questions in this post meant to be rhetorical?

No, they're intended to unequivocally show you - or failing that, everyone else reading - that you hold inconsistent and contradictory views when it comes to this topic. Neuroscience has shown us what happens when we encounter inconvenient information we don't want to accept - we simply dismiss it. There, gone... you don't even need to spend a joule of brain power on addressing these problems because you've now simply moved on and forgotten all about them.

That's how it works, you see?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Indeed. Care to expand on that and explain how my simplification of your argument exposing that circular reasoning isn't relevant, is inaccurate, or doesn't do justice to your argument?

It seems to me God, exists with 2 other counterparts which provide a "reference point" so to speak which allow God to know that he is good. You think I am wrong and I am just making up metaphysical bullshit. So it seems we have arived at a standstill on this subject.

I am not at all surprised that your response actively ignores the question I posed for you.

The issue here is not what you think - because, to be frank, you are not thinking when it comes to these questions. The issue is that your argument, borrowed uncritically though it might be, still amounts to question begging.

Trying to get out of this by appealing to some nebulous explanation about how God is 3 and therefore can't do X is just a non-sequitur, a way for your conscience to feel like you've answered without your brain needing to be involved in the process.

Draw me a line between 'God is 3 entities' and 'therefore God can do no evil'. How does that make sense?

I won't even question the trinitarian claim - I will simply accept it as a postulate and we can then go on to inspect the validity of your argument.

How does that argument actually answer the question posed to you? How does 'god is 3' result in any logical response meaning 'he' can't do evil?

To me, there's no meat to your argument - just a logic gap the size of the cosmos.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Would you be surprised if you ever found at that things you thought were moral actually do more harm than good to humanity. I guess i am talking about unintended consequences.

Unintended consequences cannot be considered a component of morality.

Morality is not about doing something that is cosmically correct for all times, but behaving or responding to the best of one's ability, to the satisfaction of one's conscience, and by the ideal behavior preferred by the society in which that happens, all in accordance with what is known and what the presumed outcome will be.

I think you might want to look into Jainism if you are concerned about the far future effects of a moral decision today. You'll find not doing anything is the ultimate answer to such a line of reasoning.

Any which way, this is in contrast to the cosmic peeping Tom who is supposedly in full knowledge of everything that ever was, is, and will be. Therefore, any moral activity on 'his' part could never result in harm at any step of the process. Remember, your god's ontology specifically states that 'he' can do anything, there is no limit to 'his' power, or to 'his' knowledge. As such, you can't try and equivocate between humans and Yahweh to try and explain away apparent immorality in 'his' actions. If Yahweh's actions appear bad, immoral or evil, why don't you let your conscience adjudicate? Why do you feel compelled to seek ways to reorder everything you know just so you don't find yourself disliking the actions of a character written in a book two thousand years ago?

 

[thenexttodie]

Draw me a line between 'God is 3 entities' and 'therefore God can do no evil'. How does that make sense?

I never said I thought God can not do evil. What I said was I believe God is good of his own freewill. Thus He could choose to do evil.

Then you asked how I know God has never done evil before. My answer was that if He did evil, I don't think there would still be a trinity. I am not sure why you are stuck on this, you seem like a smart guy.

I had assumed your next question would be: How do I know God still exists in a Trinity? followed by quotes from the Bible showing God repenting of evil. Like Jonah 3:10 for example "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Draw me a line between 'God is 3 entities' and 'therefore God can do no evil'. How does that make sense?

I never said I thought God can not do evil. What I said was I believe God is good of his own freewill. Thus He could choose to do evil.

Then you asked how I know God has never done evil before. My answer was that if He did evil, I don't think there would still be a trinity. I am not sure why you are stuck on this, you seem like a smart guy.

I had assumed your next question would be: How do I know God still exists in a Trinity? followed by quotes from the Bible showing God repenting of evil. Like Jonah 3:10 for example "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

Then you can't believe god is omni-benevolent.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[thenexttodie]

Unintended consequences cannot be considered a component of morality.

Morality is not about doing something that is cosmically correct for all times, but behaving or responding to the best of one's ability, to the satisfaction of one's conscience, and by the ideal behavior preferred by the society in which that happens, all in accordance with what is known and what the presumed outcome will be.

My point is we are unable quantify ripple effects of our own actions, so how are you able to judge whether the standard you use to judge moral behavior is abided by (MarsCydonia implied his standard was the reduction of human suffering). How are you able to know that God immoral?

 

[thenexttodie]

Then you can't believe god is omni-benevolent.

Define omni-benevolent to my satisfaction.

 

[MarsCydonia]

How are you able to know that God immoral?

Yet the original question was "Why ought I follow" and your response was in part that I ought follow because "god is good".

So to the follow up of, to use your own phrasing, "How are you able to know that God is good?", we're still waiting for an answer.

If I ought follow god because he is good, how did you come to know that god is good?
Keep in mind that if we lack you lack the "capacity to quantify ripple effects of our actions" (which has nothing to do with how we evaluate morality), you certainly lack that capacity when it comes to god.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Then you can't believe god is omni-benevolent.

Define omni-benevolent to my satisfaction.

You know what the term means - if not, consult a dictionary.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[MarsCydonia]

Define omni-benevolent to my satisfaction.

Which word are you having trouble with? It should be omni since you asserted is good, a synonym of benevolent (but not how he is so).

Omni: a combining form meaning “all,” used in the formation of compound words.

 

[thenexttodie]

If I ought follow god because he is good, how did you come to know that god is good?
Keep in mind that if we lack you lack the "capacity to quantify ripple effects of our actions" (which has nothing to do with how we evaluate morality.

How do you know something is good?

 

[thenexttodie]

You know what the term means - if not, consult a dictionary.

Kindest regards,

James

Well it's a word we use when talking about things which are beyond the limits of human comprehension. I do not know what it means to Omni-benevolent and I see no reason to pretend otherwise.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

You know what the term means - if not, consult a dictionary.

Kindest regards,

James

Well it's a word we use when talking about things which are beyond the limits of human comprehension. I do not know what it means to Omni-benevolent and I see no reason to pretend otherwise.

If god is capable of doing evil then he can't be omni-benevolent (all good).

It's that simple.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[thenexttodie]

If god is capable of doing evil then he can't be omni-benevolent (all good).

It's that simple.

Maybe you would like to tell us all now what your point is?

 

[MarsCydonia]

If I ought follow god because he is good, how did you come to know that god is good?
Keep in mind that if we lack you lack the "capacity to quantify ripple effects of our actions" (which has nothing to do with how we evaluate morality.

How do you know something is good?

That was my question to you when you asserted god is good and ought to be followed because of it.

Your answer so has consisted of "fuck" and "all".

Congratulations troll.

 

[thenexttodie]

How do you know something is good?

That was my question to you when you asserted god is good and ought to be followed because of it.

Your answer so has consisted of "fuck" and "all".

Congratulations troll.

Your right Mars, I am asking you the same question you asked earlier. Are people not allowed to do this?