If God exists, then I do not, since omniscience and omnipotence prevent the existence of independent agents. If god controls all aspects of everything we're all just pieces of God. As such, God cannot persuade me he exists since his existence and mine are mutually exclusive.
That assumes an omnipotent and omniscient god, however. Not all deities of all religions are both, or either.
And arguments in relation to gods which are not AT least omnipotent or omniscient are pointless, since if you aren't one of those then you aren't sufficiently different from normal life to be interesting. It's like having a special word for whether or not you believe the longest snake is bigger than 45 feet. It's not interesting enough to have a special philosophy around it. Give me a laser pointer, a pointy hat and a flamethower and I'd probably be able to persuade ancient greece that I am Zeus, and a god, but that doesn't make me one.
'God' is omnipotent and omniscient, or not God. If a being exists which knows everything, and can do anything, then I only exist as a pre-engineered set of states which God has allowed to exist. I am thus not an independent actor, and only exist in God's mind.
If God exists, then I do not, since omniscience and omnipotence prevent the existence of independent agents. If god controls all aspects of everything we're all just pieces of God. As such, God cannot persuade me he exists since his existence and mine are mutually exclusive.
That assumes an omnipotent and omniscient god, however. Not all deities of all religions are both, or either.
And arguments in relation to gods which are not AT least omnipotent or omniscient are pointless, since if you aren't one of those then you aren't sufficiently different from normal life to be interesting. It's like having a special word for whether or not you believe the longest snake is bigger than 45 feet. It's not interesting enough to have a special philosophy around it. Give me a laser pointer, a pointy hat and a flamethower and I'd probably be able to persuade ancient greece that I am Zeus, and a god, but that doesn't make me one.
'God' is omnipotent and omniscient, or not God. If a being exists which knows everything, and can do anything, then I only exist as a pre-engineered set of states which God has allowed to exist. I am thus not an independent actor, and only exist in God's mind.
Yeah, but those other little gods existing pretty much also all imply the existence of souls, which is kinda a big thing when grouping religious beliefs.
Believes in immoral spirit that interacts with the physical world, and that they will be rewarded after they die for their behavior during life are probably more important to how people act than your silly, Eurocentric rant about gods having to be God or it doesn't count.
redx on
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
+1
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
pascal's wager is the best
the basic idea is of an analysis of whether or not to believe in god based on expected utility value of belief
e.g. if the proposed god says you'll burn in hell (or be stuck in a wall) if you don't believe in it, then it's obviously better, even if you're not sure that god exists, it's worth believing, since not believing doesn't get you anything but trouble, but believing at very least keeps you out of hell. you can do this with a carrot instead of stick if you like, i.e. maybe there's no hell, but you get better afterlife accomodation if you did believe in the god.
of course, this starts falling apart a bit once you get to real life and there are multiple competing gods, who have all kinds of definitions for apostasy etc. that'll get you sent to the Bad Place. however, its proponents still argue that, even with this pick'n'mix selection of gods, the utility value of atheism is still 0 vs all of the other ones (ok, excepting cthulhu and sithrak)
i would actually say that the utility value of belief is still 0 though, and here's why:
once we're allowing all potentially proposed gods as options in the wager, we've actually fully opened the silliness trapdoor (i.e. said "no" to occam's razor) and all unfalsifiable entities are now in play. all of them. it doesn't matter if they're fictional, or part of an established or dead religion, or you just made them up over teatime; they could exist, you cannot prove that they don't in order to exclude them, and they get to take part in the wager.
there's demonstrably an infinite number of them, and an infinite number of that infinite number will have contradicting orthodoxic/orthopraxic requirements, which prevents you from choosing to 'believe' in all of them (which is meaningless anyway). so now you've got to choose only a finite number, while the total possibilities are still infinite.
as well all know from mathematics, a finite number divided by infinity is essentially 0 (technically a constant that is tending towards 0), hence the utility values between believing in gods vs not believing at all are equal: 0 vs 0.
...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
+5
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
I shook the catfood bag and now there are stuffed cats everywhere.
Yeeaaaaah.... the Abrahamic faiths didn't invent gods. They just put the concept on steroids.
Yes, but the advancement of technology has made 'thunder gods' or 'fire gods' irrelevant. We know how those things work. We can make them ourselves. We are not Gods. As such, the existence or non-existence of small gods is fundamentally uninteresting. Do 'small gods' exist, is just like asking whether aliens exist. Technology has made that a smaller and less interesting question.
On the subject of souls, I suppose that is of some interest, but it doesn't have much to do with atheism or theism. Souls could exist with no god, or 'small gods' could exist without their being souls. The only god which would have anything to say about souls would be a real God entity, in which case his existence would make them irrelevant.
"Supernatural" exists only in the domain of fiction, because fiction is describing a world whose rules are literally different from the natural world. Any "deity"' that manifested itself in this world, would be, by definition, natural. And this isn't even a semantic argument - the ability for a deity to provide phenomena which appear to break natural law must themselves be bound by a set of not-yet-understood laws, or how could the deity provide such phenomena?
A god could present me with a sphere of matter that is simultaneously solid and liquid or whatever, and my first instinct would be to immediately experiment on it to figure out whatever properties I could divine (ha!).
This is probably why I enjoyed Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality despite it being a dunning-krueger jerk-off session.
The distinction between the two probably comes from my enjoyment of Comic Book-esque universes where super science and magic are both explicitly real and magic isn't just waved away as "oh, it's just *really* advanced science," (which is part of my issue with the Marvel Cinematic Universe). Superman can be godlike for scientifically explainable reasons, why Captain Marvel explicitly gets his powers from the Pantheon.
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Functionally speaking, how are we not when you look at the classical god descriptors? We can throw lighting, live above the clouds, destroy entire cities in salt and fire in seconds, create life, and to a certain degree resurrect the dead. We are comparatively omniscient compared to early humans, can fly, make unbreakable armor and weapons, see the future (statistically speaking) and more.
@valiance John Wright is encompassed in the body of things I refer to when I say, "The overwhelming preponderance of fraud,"
I missed the fraud bit, sorry. Point me to it please.
Wright claims to have been faith healed of a heart condition, and recommends faith healing to people as an alternative medicine practice. And, of course, he decided to slap a price tag on his conversion story & his convictions about faith healing.
All the wondrous miracles of faith, yours to read about in either hard cover or paperback.
Yeeaaaaah.... the Abrahamic faiths didn't invent gods. They just put the concept on steroids.
Yes, but the advancement of technology has made 'thunder gods' or 'fire gods' irrelevant. We know how those things work. We can make them ourselves. We are not Gods. As such, the existence or non-existence of small gods is fundamentally uninteresting. Do 'small gods' exist, is just like asking whether aliens exist. Technology has made that a smaller and less interesting question.
On the subject of souls, I suppose that is of some interest, but it doesn't have much to do with atheism or theism. Souls could exist with no god, or 'small gods' could exist without their being souls. The only god which would have anything to say about souls would be a real God entity, in which case his existence would make them irrelevant.
Nope.
That's just what the Abrahamic faiths, especially Christianity, like to push. They also modify the hell out of their originally very small little tribal war deity every few years.
Smaller god worship is still alive and well across the world, like Japan.
Edit: I agree that souls and gods are not required for each other. This extends to the monotheistic versions. Remember: Gods can exist and still be lying.
Actually, an infinite number of gods can have an infinitely huge subset that still satisfies a given requirement, in this case being non-contradicting.
Actually, an infinite number of gods can have an infinitely huge subset that still satisfies a given requirement, in this case being non-contradicting.
they absolutely do, but afaik, because of the type of infinity involved (ever-increasing, as opposed to infinity as in ∀), they cannot prevent the existence of the subset that is contradicting, and therefore from the potential believer's perspective, they cannot choose to believe in all of the gods at once, so we effectively get back to where we were, if that makes sense
Pascal's wager also has the problem of a deity punishing you worse if you aren't an atheist.
A deity could reason that hey, at least atheists are being honest.
Or deities could receive pain from worship and be really mad at you.
Or deities could just be serious jerks who think it's funny to subvert your expectations.
Etc.
+6
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Pascal's wager becomes ridiculous when your invert it though.
Say you look at it as if there were a devil rather than a god. If you believe in the devil you will likely be tortured to death for all eternity as the rules of sin are essentially inescapable. If you do not believe in him and choose to live your life as you would and he does exist, you likely are still going to be tortured for all eternity. Since there is no way to know the dogmatic rules we have in Christianity are, in fact, from a god rather than a devil, there is no way to know that the likelihood of Pascal's Wager is any different from Pascal's Damnation.
Indeed, by the rules inherent in Christian dogma it is actually more likely that all of christian scripture is, in fact, misleading or false as we know there has been at least one complete turnover of power from Lucifer to God, that according to scripture itself those professing the faith have changed god's words to their own purposes many times, and according to recent history we can confirm this. Given that Lucifer is supposedly always tempting folk, what better temptation that a lifestyle that supposedly works god's will which, actually, does the opposite.
Option A. God (or Gods, etc) exist, and is all-good, all-merciful, or at least mostly beneficial and forgiving. What I believe doesn't really matter, God will hopefully appreciate that I generally live my life in a manner that is good.
Option B. God (or Gods, etc) exist, and is an asshole. If I don't worship a very specific way and hold to a specific set of beliefs, my afterlife will be extremely uncomfortable. Since the odds of picking the right faith as a crapshoot, there's not much point in trying, even if I could somehow force myself to believe.
Option C. God (or Gods, etc) exist, and ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn. It doesn't matter what anyone believes, the horrible animate survivors of distant eons that dwell in the darkness between the stars shall endlessly devour the flawed and shattered fragments of our souls.
Option D. No gods exist.
In every option but B, what I believe is irrelevant. In option B, I'd have to get really lucky to pick the right faith, and then probably inflict major trauma on myself to bring myself to a point where I could believe it. All things considered, I'll take my chances with hoping that B isn't the actual nature of things.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
Its oversimplifying pagan beliefs considerably to just say Zeus' only feature is that he makes thunder and lightning. His Roman name, Jupiter, literally means Father God (Deus pater). Lightning is an aspect of Zeus, something that emanates in Nature, but he is still a powerful god in the Pantheon. Perhaps not Omnipotent, but I'm not sure such a concept even existed in pagan religion. I'm seeing this odd religious version of Whiggish history being implied here, mankind hasn't been slowly building its way from pantheism to polytheism to monotheism to scientific enlightenment. The omni-suffix thing is largely regulated to Yahweh, I don't see why that should be exclusively be the sort of God we get to talk about. For instance, there's the Brahman of the Hindu cosmology, the ultimate principle, "It is the pervasive, genderless, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes." [wikipedia] Is this concept not god because it is not unified in a singular 'person' as Yahweh is? If we should discard every other non-Abrahamic conception of god or gods, perhaps it is better these two stances be called Yahwehism and Anti-Yahwehism. I think our conversations of Theism/Atheism are so steeped in Monotheistic and Scientific Materialist assumptions about how god works that it does an injustice to 1/4 of the population of this planet (and pre-abrahamic peoples).They don't even enter into the argument due to their beliefs not fitting into the extremes of both positions neatly.
The neoplatonist Porphory wrote about the Christians saying: "How can people not be in every way impious and atheistic who have apostatized from the customs of our ancestors through which every nation and city is sustained? ... What else are they than fighters against God?"
Question for atheists: is your atheism falsifiable? Say a guy appears and claims to be the returned Jesus Christ; what evidence would convince you OK this guy really is Jesus Christ Lord of Lords, King of Kings?
I feel like I would dismiss that guy as a nut, and if I saw him perform "miracles" I would more readily doubt my sanity and that of everyone around me rather than admit to the sudden, unprecedented intrusion of the truly supernatural into what I thought was hithero a purely material world.
Unfalsifiable belief is a problem for me. So, theoretically, what would convince you guys?
Thing is, even if Osiris walks up and taps me on the shoulder, I see no reason to worship him.
Sure, my atheism could be falsifiable. First someone would have to produce a definition of God for me to believe or not believe in, but if it's something along the lines of "Some entity which has a specific will or plan and is extraordinarily powerful", then a miracle with the stated prior intention of performing a miracle would do it. Do some genie shit, that would work. The criteria isn't that strict, it's just that stuff like that doesn't happen.
A deity is ultimately just an entity with X features and Y capabilities, and generally are either spirits with special powers or meat creatures with special powers; they're basically just pumped up monsters and aliens.
The implications of any supernatural being are pretty significant because holy shit it means that some form of magic is real. But magic use is a kind of technology, no matter how weird and confusing it is. Gods just have the best wizard nukes and wizard 3D printers.
But yeah, after that, okay, so there are super wizard aliens.
Lord of Light is an incredible book that explores this topic
Pascal's wager becomes ridiculous when your invert it though.
Say you look at it as if there were a devil rather than a god. If you believe in the devil you will likely be tortured to death for all eternity as the rules of sin are essentially inescapable. If you do not believe in him and choose to live your life as you would and he does exist, you likely are still going to be tortured for all eternity. Since there is no way to know the dogmatic rules we have in Christianity are, in fact, from a god rather than a devil, there is no way to know that the likelihood of Pascal's Wager is any different from Pascal's Damnation.
I actually think Pascal's Wager still holds under your Satanic inversion. You've essentially just added two additional options:
1. Satan exists, you believe in him
Outcome: Tortured in Hell
2. Satan does not exist, you do not believe in him
Outcome: Tortured in Hell
3. God exists, you believe in him
Outcome: Heaven!
4. God exists, you do not believe in him
Tortured in Hell
Pascal's wager becomes ridiculous when your invert it though.
Say you look at it as if there were a devil rather than a god. If you believe in the devil you will likely be tortured to death for all eternity as the rules of sin are essentially inescapable. If you do not believe in him and choose to live your life as you would and he does exist, you likely are still going to be tortured for all eternity. Since there is no way to know the dogmatic rules we have in Christianity are, in fact, from a god rather than a devil, there is no way to know that the likelihood of Pascal's Wager is any different from Pascal's Damnation.
I actually think Pascal's Wager still holds under your Satanic inversion. You've essentially just added two additional options:
1. Satan exists, you believe in him
Outcome: Tortured in Hell
2. Satan does not exist, you do not believe in him
Outcome: Tortured in Hell
3. God exists, you believe in him
Outcome: Heaven!
4. God exists, you do not believe in him
Tortured in Hell
3 is still the best option!
This kind of argument is so annoying in that it ignores 1. The cost of believing in a thing and letting it control your behavior. 2. The probabilities that thing a random unverified thing exists and does not exist are not equal.
If God exists, then I do not, since omniscience and omnipotence prevent the existence of independent agents. If god controls all aspects of everything we're all just pieces of God. As such, God cannot persuade me he exists since his existence and mine are mutually exclusive.
That assumes an omnipotent and omniscient god, however. Not all deities of all religions are both, or either.
'God' is omnipotent and omniscient, or not God. If a being exists which knows everything, and can do anything, then I only exist as a pre-engineered set of states which God has allowed to exist. I am thus not an independent actor, and only exist in God's mind.
The materialistic worldview leaves equally negligible room for you as an "independent actor." Without a "soul," you are an amalgamation of physical phenomena in constant interaction with the rest of the physical phenomena currently occurring, and you only exist as a set of pre-engineered states/probabilities which the nature of various particles and forces has allowed to exist.
Pascal's wager becomes ridiculous when your invert it though.
Say you look at it as if there were a devil rather than a god. If you believe in the devil you will likely be tortured to death for all eternity as the rules of sin are essentially inescapable. If you do not believe in him and choose to live your life as you would and he does exist, you likely are still going to be tortured for all eternity. Since there is no way to know the dogmatic rules we have in Christianity are, in fact, from a god rather than a devil, there is no way to know that the likelihood of Pascal's Wager is any different from Pascal's Damnation.
I actually think Pascal's Wager still holds under your Satanic inversion. You've essentially just added two additional options:
1. Satan exists, you believe in him
Outcome: Tortured in Hell
2. Satan does not exist, you do not believe in him
Outcome: Tortured in Hell
3. God exists, you believe in him
Outcome: Heaven!
4. God exists, you do not believe in him
Tortured in Hell
3 is still the best option!
This kind of argument is so annoying in that it ignores 1. The cost of believing in a thing and letting it control your behavior. 2. The probabilities that thing a random unverified thing exists and does not exist are not equal.
I agree, I don't think Pascal's Wager is a good argument overall, I just think it withstands Satan.
It's really weird looking back at people I've interacted with, people who seemed perfectly reasonable, and realizing that most of them believe in some sort of religion that's been clearly falsified.
Could you elaborate on this?
Muzzmuzz's response has the gist of it.
I mean, I could understand a ton of people being vague deists because they want the comfort of some sort of higher power but don't actually believe in anything that's clearly mythological, and that's pretty much what I have to assume of everyone by default so I can maintain respect for them. But then churches are a thing, and they're everywhere. Not even vague deist churches, actual Christian churches.
If God exists, then I do not, since omniscience and omnipotence prevent the existence of independent agents. If god controls all aspects of everything we're all just pieces of God. As such, God cannot persuade me he exists since his existence and mine are mutually exclusive.
That assumes an omnipotent and omniscient god, however. Not all deities of all religions are both, or either.
'God' is omnipotent and omniscient, or not God. If a being exists which knows everything, and can do anything, then I only exist as a pre-engineered set of states which God has allowed to exist. I am thus not an independent actor, and only exist in God's mind.
The materialistic worldview leaves equally negligible room for you as an "independent actor." Without a "soul," you are an amalgamation of physical phenomena in constant interaction with the rest of the physical phenomena currently occurring, and you only exist as a set of pre-engineered states/probabilities which the nature of various particles and forces has allowed to exist
And with a soul you make decisions based on the information that your soul is exposed to.
There's not really a way for this definition of free will and causality to coexist.
Which probably means the fault lies either with the definition, or with people needing to believe free will exists. Either way, it is poor evidence for the existence of deities or the existence of a soul.
If God exists, then I do not, since omniscience and omnipotence prevent the existence of independent agents. If god controls all aspects of everything we're all just pieces of God. As such, God cannot persuade me he exists since his existence and mine are mutually exclusive.
That assumes an omnipotent and omniscient god, however. Not all deities of all religions are both, or either.
'God' is omnipotent and omniscient, or not God. If a being exists which knows everything, and can do anything, then I only exist as a pre-engineered set of states which God has allowed to exist. I am thus not an independent actor, and only exist in God's mind.
The materialistic worldview leaves equally negligible room for you as an "independent actor." Without a "soul," you are an amalgamation of physical phenomena in constant interaction with the rest of the physical phenomena currently occurring, and you only exist as a set of pre-engineered states/probabilities which the nature of various particles and forces has allowed to exist.
No, my supposition allows me to exist, at least to myself as an independent actor because I do not think 'God' exists or can exist. I think it is impossible to be omniscient and omnipotent, even to the point where I can perfectly predict my own actions. As such, I can view myself as making decisions and choices, and of having an opinion which is relevant.
If God exists, then I do not, since omniscience and omnipotence prevent the existence of independent agents. If god controls all aspects of everything we're all just pieces of God. As such, God cannot persuade me he exists since his existence and mine are mutually exclusive.
That assumes an omnipotent and omniscient god, however. Not all deities of all religions are both, or either.
And arguments in relation to gods which are not AT least omnipotent or omniscient are pointless, since if you aren't one of those then you aren't sufficiently different from normal life to be interesting. It's like having a special word for whether or not you believe the longest snake is bigger than 45 feet. It's not interesting enough to have a special philosophy around it. Give me a laser pointer, a pointy hat and a flamethower and I'd probably be able to persuade ancient greece that I am Zeus, and a god, but that doesn't make me one.
'God' is omnipotent and omniscient, or not God. If a being exists which knows everything, and can do anything, then I only exist as a pre-engineered set of states which God has allowed to exist. I am thus not an independent actor, and only exist in God's mind.
I don't believe that an omniscient and omnipotent 'God' prevents the possibility of free will, the ability to control anything doesn't necessitate you control everything. By being all powerful and all knowing, 'God' should have the ability to grant you free will while still maintaining the criteria of being 'God'.
However requiring 'God' to be omnipotent and omniscient does shoehorn your 'God' into being at best, indifferent and uncaring towards the populace due to his inaction of peoples suffering/plight.
Either 'God' is omnipotent/niscient, and purposefully choose to inflict trials upon people regardless of the pain/cost it causes them, even though 'God' has the means of doing so without. Or 'God' is not omni.
If God exists, then I do not, since omniscience and omnipotence prevent the existence of independent agents. If god controls all aspects of everything we're all just pieces of God. As such, God cannot persuade me he exists since his existence and mine are mutually exclusive.
That assumes an omnipotent and omniscient god, however. Not all deities of all religions are both, or either.
'God' is omnipotent and omniscient, or not God. If a being exists which knows everything, and can do anything, then I only exist as a pre-engineered set of states which God has allowed to exist. I am thus not an independent actor, and only exist in God's mind.
The materialistic worldview leaves equally negligible room for you as an "independent actor." Without a "soul," you are an amalgamation of physical phenomena in constant interaction with the rest of the physical phenomena currently occurring, and you only exist as a set of pre-engineered states/probabilities which the nature of various particles and forces has allowed to exist.
No, my supposition allows me to exist, at least to myself as an independent actor because I do not think 'God' exists or can exist. I think it is impossible to be omniscient and omnipotent, even to the point where I can perfectly predict my own actions. As such, I can view myself as making decisions and choices, and of having an opinion which is relevant.
Yeeaaaaah.... the Abrahamic faiths didn't invent gods. They just put the concept on steroids.
Yes, but the advancement of technology has made 'thunder gods' or 'fire gods' irrelevant. We know how those things work. We can make them ourselves. We are not Gods. As such, the existence or non-existence of small gods is fundamentally uninteresting. Do 'small gods' exist, is just like asking whether aliens exist. Technology has made that a smaller and less interesting question.
On the subject of souls, I suppose that is of some interest, but it doesn't have much to do with atheism or theism. Souls could exist with no god, or 'small gods' could exist without their being souls. The only god which would have anything to say about souls would be a real God entity, in which case his existence would make them irrelevant.
Nope.
That's just what the Abrahamic faiths, especially Christianity, like to push. They also modify the hell out of their originally very small little tribal war deity every few years.
Smaller god worship is still alive and well across the world, like Japan.
Edit: I agree that souls and gods are not required for each other. This extends to the monotheistic versions. Remember: Gods can exist and still be lying.
Many beliefs are alive and well across the world. They just have no relevance to the argument between theism and atheism as an interesting thing. The existance of Yahweh style god is a wholly and completely different problem with utterly different implications than the existence of household deities in japan. They don't exist in the same argument. Yahweh is not Thor. Thor, and gods like that, are just things with abilities you don't understand.
If God exists, then I do not, since omniscience and omnipotence prevent the existence of independent agents. If god controls all aspects of everything we're all just pieces of God. As such, God cannot persuade me he exists since his existence and mine are mutually exclusive.
That assumes an omnipotent and omniscient god, however. Not all deities of all religions are both, or either.
'God' is omnipotent and omniscient, or not God. If a being exists which knows everything, and can do anything, then I only exist as a pre-engineered set of states which God has allowed to exist. I am thus not an independent actor, and only exist in God's mind.
The materialistic worldview leaves equally negligible room for you as an "independent actor." Without a "soul," you are an amalgamation of physical phenomena in constant interaction with the rest of the physical phenomena currently occurring, and you only exist as a set of pre-engineered states/probabilities which the nature of various particles and forces has allowed to exist.
No, my supposition allows me to exist, at least to myself as an independent actor because I do not think 'God' exists or can exist. I think it is impossible to be omniscient and omnipotent, even to the point where I can perfectly predict my own actions. As such, I can view myself as making decisions and choices, and of having an opinion which is relevant.
What is this decision making entity, if not a soul? If it's merely the brain, in what sense are "you" making decisions if those decisions are merely the result of neurological phenomena which can be reduced to chemistry or particle physics? I don't see how you have more or less individuality/independence whether it's God or physics deciding your actions.
If God exists, then I do not, since omniscience and omnipotence prevent the existence of independent agents. If god controls all aspects of everything we're all just pieces of God. As such, God cannot persuade me he exists since his existence and mine are mutually exclusive.
That assumes an omnipotent and omniscient god, however. Not all deities of all religions are both, or either.
And arguments in relation to gods which are not AT least omnipotent or omniscient are pointless, since if you aren't one of those then you aren't sufficiently different from normal life to be interesting. It's like having a special word for whether or not you believe the longest snake is bigger than 45 feet. It's not interesting enough to have a special philosophy around it. Give me a laser pointer, a pointy hat and a flamethower and I'd probably be able to persuade ancient greece that I am Zeus, and a god, but that doesn't make me one.
'God' is omnipotent and omniscient, or not God. If a being exists which knows everything, and can do anything, then I only exist as a pre-engineered set of states which God has allowed to exist. I am thus not an independent actor, and only exist in God's mind.
I don't believe that an omniscient and omnipotent 'God' prevents the possibility of free will, the ability to control anything doesn't necessitate you control everything. By being all powerful and all knowing, 'God' should have the ability to grant you free will while still maintaining the criteria of being 'God'.
However requiring 'God' to be omnipotent and omniscient does shoehorn your 'God' into being at best, indifferent and uncaring towards the populace due to his inaction of peoples suffering/plight.
Either 'God' is omnipotent/niscient, and purposefully choose to inflict trials upon people regardless of the pain/cost it causes them, even though 'God' has the means of doing so without. Or 'God' is not omni.
Or you haven't studied Christian theology sufficiently. This is a very old question and you arent even adressing answers to it.
To start with, what measure of good are you using?
Is free will sufficiently good, or does it lead to sufficient good, that the world is better with it and god sitting back (or maybe playing Futurama's game)?
If God exists, then I do not, since omniscience and omnipotence prevent the existence of independent agents. If god controls all aspects of everything we're all just pieces of God. As such, God cannot persuade me he exists since his existence and mine are mutually exclusive.
That assumes an omnipotent and omniscient god, however. Not all deities of all religions are both, or either.
'God' is omnipotent and omniscient, or not God. If a being exists which knows everything, and can do anything, then I only exist as a pre-engineered set of states which God has allowed to exist. I am thus not an independent actor, and only exist in God's mind.
The materialistic worldview leaves equally negligible room for you as an "independent actor." Without a "soul," you are an amalgamation of physical phenomena in constant interaction with the rest of the physical phenomena currently occurring, and you only exist as a set of pre-engineered states/probabilities which the nature of various particles and forces has allowed to exist
And with a soul you make decisions based on the information that your soul is exposed to.
There's not really a way for this definition of free will and causality to coexist.
Which probably means the fault lies either with the definition, or with people needing to believe free will exists. Either way, it is poor evidence for the existence of deities or the existence of a soul.
I agree entirely. My argument is that tbloxham's conception of him/herself as an independent actor necessitates something just as supernatural/unempirical as the God whose existence he/she denies.
If God exists, then I do not, since omniscience and omnipotence prevent the existence of independent agents. If god controls all aspects of everything we're all just pieces of God. As such, God cannot persuade me he exists since his existence and mine are mutually exclusive.
That assumes an omnipotent and omniscient god, however. Not all deities of all religions are both, or either.
And arguments in relation to gods which are not AT least omnipotent or omniscient are pointless, since if you aren't one of those then you aren't sufficiently different from normal life to be interesting. It's like having a special word for whether or not you believe the longest snake is bigger than 45 feet. It's not interesting enough to have a special philosophy around it. Give me a laser pointer, a pointy hat and a flamethower and I'd probably be able to persuade ancient greece that I am Zeus, and a god, but that doesn't make me one.
'God' is omnipotent and omniscient, or not God. If a being exists which knows everything, and can do anything, then I only exist as a pre-engineered set of states which God has allowed to exist. I am thus not an independent actor, and only exist in God's mind.
I don't believe that an omniscient and omnipotent 'God' prevents the possibility of free will, the ability to control anything doesn't necessitate you control everything. By being all powerful and all knowing, 'God' should have the ability to grant you free will while still maintaining the criteria of being 'God'.
However requiring 'God' to be omnipotent and omniscient does shoehorn your 'God' into being at best, indifferent and uncaring towards the populace due to his inaction of peoples suffering/plight.
Either 'God' is omnipotent/niscient, and purposefully choose to inflict trials upon people regardless of the pain/cost it causes them, even though 'God' has the means of doing so without. Or 'God' is not omni.
Or you haven't studied Christian theology sufficiently. This is a very old question and you arent even adressing answers to it.
To start with, what measure of good are you using?
Is free will sufficiently good, or does it lead to sufficient good, that the world is better with it and god sitting back (or maybe playing Futurama's game)?
Personally believe, if you allow any form of suffering you can no longer be considered omni. You should have the ability to prevent it from happening in a way that maintains free/forcing your will on them.
If you are willfully allowing suffering to happen to someone, when you have the ability to prevent it, that is not "good".
If you have the ability to prevent suffering but choose not to do so because of a disagreement of beliefs with that person, that is not "good".
Going off the Bender example, he wasn't omnipotent, he was simply stronger than his inhabitants. He wasn't omniscient, he simply had a birds eye view of his top half (he couldn't even see the people on his back). In that case, his decision to maintain his aloofness makes sense, as he was incapable of making changes without it affecting someone else negatively. I wouldn't call his decision to abstain, "good", either though.
If Bender were omni, he could have found a way to solve both sides disputes without impacting the other. I don't remember all of the issues in the episode, but going off the big "war" one. He could have simply created another "planet/body" for the other side to live on. Both sides no longer have to deal with each other, no side was impacted etc. This is obviously flawed down to the level of, what about people interacting between the two sides that didn't hate each other and can no longer see each other, etc. But hey, I'm not omni. :P
If God exists, then I do not, since omniscience and omnipotence prevent the existence of independent agents. If god controls all aspects of everything we're all just pieces of God. As such, God cannot persuade me he exists since his existence and mine are mutually exclusive.
That assumes an omnipotent and omniscient god, however. Not all deities of all religions are both, or either.
And arguments in relation to gods which are not AT least omnipotent or omniscient are pointless, since if you aren't one of those then you aren't sufficiently different from normal life to be interesting. It's like having a special word for whether or not you believe the longest snake is bigger than 45 feet. It's not interesting enough to have a special philosophy around it. Give me a laser pointer, a pointy hat and a flamethower and I'd probably be able to persuade ancient greece that I am Zeus, and a god, but that doesn't make me one.
'God' is omnipotent and omniscient, or not God. If a being exists which knows everything, and can do anything, then I only exist as a pre-engineered set of states which God has allowed to exist. I am thus not an independent actor, and only exist in God's mind.
I don't believe that an omniscient and omnipotent 'God' prevents the possibility of free will, the ability to control anything doesn't necessitate you control everything. By being all powerful and all knowing, 'God' should have the ability to grant you free will while still maintaining the criteria of being 'God'.
However requiring 'God' to be omnipotent and omniscient does shoehorn your 'God' into being at best, indifferent and uncaring towards the populace due to his inaction of peoples suffering/plight.
Either 'God' is omnipotent/niscient, and purposefully choose to inflict trials upon people regardless of the pain/cost it causes them, even though 'God' has the means of doing so without. Or 'God' is not omni.
Or you haven't studied Christian theology sufficiently. This is a very old question and you arent even adressing answers to it.
To start with, what measure of good are you using?
Is free will sufficiently good, or does it lead to sufficient good, that the world is better with it and god sitting back (or maybe playing Futurama's game)?
Personally believe, if you allow any form of suffering you can no longer be considered omni. You should have the ability to prevent it from happening in a way that maintains free/forcing your will on them.
If you are willfully allowing suffering to happen to someone, when you have the ability to prevent it, that is not "good".
If you have the ability to prevent suffering but choose not to do so because of a disagreement of beliefs with that person, that is not "good".
Going off the Bender example, he wasn't omnipotent, he was simply stronger than his inhabitants. He wasn't omniscient, he simply had a birds eye view of his top half (he couldn't even see the people on his back). In that case, his decision to maintain his aloofness makes sense, as he was incapable of making changes without it affecting someone else negatively. I wouldn't call his decision to abstain, "good", either though.
If Bender were omni, he could have found a way to solve both sides disputes without impacting the other. I don't remember all of the issues in the episode, but going off the big "war" one. He could have simply created another "planet/body" for the other side to live on. Both sides no longer have to deal with each other, no side was impacted etc. This is obviously flawed down to the level of, what about people interacting between the two sides that didn't hate each other and can no longer see each other, etc. But hey, I'm not omni. :P
Counterpoint: Goods can be in conflict. If we consider personal growth a good, your war example actually works against it.
You haven't addressed "what is good?" Until you do you can't get anywhere.
If God exists, then I do not, since omniscience and omnipotence prevent the existence of independent agents. If god controls all aspects of everything we're all just pieces of God. As such, God cannot persuade me he exists since his existence and mine are mutually exclusive.
That assumes an omnipotent and omniscient god, however. Not all deities of all religions are both, or either.
And arguments in relation to gods which are not AT least omnipotent or omniscient are pointless, since if you aren't one of those then you aren't sufficiently different from normal life to be interesting. It's like having a special word for whether or not you believe the longest snake is bigger than 45 feet. It's not interesting enough to have a special philosophy around it. Give me a laser pointer, a pointy hat and a flamethower and I'd probably be able to persuade ancient greece that I am Zeus, and a god, but that doesn't make me one.
'God' is omnipotent and omniscient, or not God. If a being exists which knows everything, and can do anything, then I only exist as a pre-engineered set of states which God has allowed to exist. I am thus not an independent actor, and only exist in God's mind.
I don't believe that an omniscient and omnipotent 'God' prevents the possibility of free will, the ability to control anything doesn't necessitate you control everything. By being all powerful and all knowing, 'God' should have the ability to grant you free will while still maintaining the criteria of being 'God'.
However requiring 'God' to be omnipotent and omniscient does shoehorn your 'God' into being at best, indifferent and uncaring towards the populace due to his inaction of peoples suffering/plight.
Either 'God' is omnipotent/niscient, and purposefully choose to inflict trials upon people regardless of the pain/cost it causes them, even though 'God' has the means of doing so without. Or 'God' is not omni.
Or you haven't studied Christian theology sufficiently. This is a very old question and you arent even adressing answers to it.
To start with, what measure of good are you using?
Is free will sufficiently good, or does it lead to sufficient good, that the world is better with it and god sitting back (or maybe playing Futurama's game)?
Personally believe, if you allow any form of suffering you can no longer be considered omni. You should have the ability to prevent it from happening in a way that maintains free/forcing your will on them.
If you are willfully allowing suffering to happen to someone, when you have the ability to prevent it, that is not "good".
If you have the ability to prevent suffering but choose not to do so because of a disagreement of beliefs with that person, that is not "good".
Going off the Bender example, he wasn't omnipotent, he was simply stronger than his inhabitants. He wasn't omniscient, he simply had a birds eye view of his top half (he couldn't even see the people on his back). In that case, his decision to maintain his aloofness makes sense, as he was incapable of making changes without it affecting someone else negatively. I wouldn't call his decision to abstain, "good", either though.
If Bender were omni, he could have found a way to solve both sides disputes without impacting the other. I don't remember all of the issues in the episode, but going off the big "war" one. He could have simply created another "planet/body" for the other side to live on. Both sides no longer have to deal with each other, no side was impacted etc. This is obviously flawed down to the level of, what about people interacting between the two sides that didn't hate each other and can no longer see each other, etc. But hey, I'm not omni. :P
Counterpoint: Goods can be in conflict. If we consider personal growth a good, your war example actually works against it.
I agree.
Which brings my point of, if you cannot find a way to solve the issue without impacting one side you cannot be considered omnipotent/omniscient or are willfully choosing to do nothing even though you have the ability, which I would find morally questionable.
e:
Why do I need to completly quantify 'good' for this, I can use the basics of allowing the following obvious choices and it fails;
Murder, Torture, Abuse, Rape
Many beliefs are alive and well across the world. They just have no relevance to the argument between theism and atheism as an interesting thing. The existance of Yahweh style god is a wholly and completely different problem with utterly different implications than the existence of household deities in japan. They don't exist in the same argument. Yahweh is not Thor. Thor, and gods like that, are just things with abilities you don't understand.
Thing is that the most common contemporary versions of the Abrahamic deity contradict logic, whereas a lot of less omni-whatever deities, including older historical ideas of what the Abrahamic deity is, are merely unsupported.
"This deity can make a really freaking big rock" doesn't cause the kinds of problems that "This deity can make a rock so big they can't lift it but they can also always lift any rocks." does.
The more of a Mary Sue a god becomes the less you can take them seriously in a discussion unless you are emotionally invested in doing so.
If God exists, then I do not, since omniscience and omnipotence prevent the existence of independent agents. If god controls all aspects of everything we're all just pieces of God. As such, God cannot persuade me he exists since his existence and mine are mutually exclusive.
That assumes an omnipotent and omniscient god, however. Not all deities of all religions are both, or either.
And arguments in relation to gods which are not AT least omnipotent or omniscient are pointless, since if you aren't one of those then you aren't sufficiently different from normal life to be interesting. It's like having a special word for whether or not you believe the longest snake is bigger than 45 feet. It's not interesting enough to have a special philosophy around it. Give me a laser pointer, a pointy hat and a flamethower and I'd probably be able to persuade ancient greece that I am Zeus, and a god, but that doesn't make me one.
'God' is omnipotent and omniscient, or not God. If a being exists which knows everything, and can do anything, then I only exist as a pre-engineered set of states which God has allowed to exist. I am thus not an independent actor, and only exist in God's mind.
I don't believe that an omniscient and omnipotent 'God' prevents the possibility of free will, the ability to control anything doesn't necessitate you control everything. By being all powerful and all knowing, 'God' should have the ability to grant you free will while still maintaining the criteria of being 'God'.
However requiring 'God' to be omnipotent and omniscient does shoehorn your 'God' into being at best, indifferent and uncaring towards the populace due to his inaction of peoples suffering/plight.
Either 'God' is omnipotent/niscient, and purposefully choose to inflict trials upon people regardless of the pain/cost it causes them, even though 'God' has the means of doing so without. Or 'God' is not omni.
Or you haven't studied Christian theology sufficiently. This is a very old question and you arent even adressing answers to it.
To start with, what measure of good are you using?
Is free will sufficiently good, or does it lead to sufficient good, that the world is better with it and god sitting back (or maybe playing Futurama's game)?
Personally believe, if you allow any form of suffering you can no longer be considered omni. You should have the ability to prevent it from happening in a way that maintains free/forcing your will on them.
If you are willfully allowing suffering to happen to someone, when you have the ability to prevent it, that is not "good".
If you have the ability to prevent suffering but choose not to do so because of a disagreement of beliefs with that person, that is not "good".
Going off the Bender example, he wasn't omnipotent, he was simply stronger than his inhabitants. He wasn't omniscient, he simply had a birds eye view of his top half (he couldn't even see the people on his back). In that case, his decision to maintain his aloofness makes sense, as he was incapable of making changes without it affecting someone else negatively. I wouldn't call his decision to abstain, "good", either though.
If Bender were omni, he could have found a way to solve both sides disputes without impacting the other. I don't remember all of the issues in the episode, but going off the big "war" one. He could have simply created another "planet/body" for the other side to live on. Both sides no longer have to deal with each other, no side was impacted etc. This is obviously flawed down to the level of, what about people interacting between the two sides that didn't hate each other and can no longer see each other, etc. But hey, I'm not omni. :P
Counterpoint: Goods can be in conflict. If we consider personal growth a good, your war example actually works against it.
I agree.
Which brings my point of, if you cannot find a way to solve the issue without impacting one side you cannot be considered omnipotent/omniscient or are willfully choosing to do nothing even though you have the ability, which I would find morally questionable.
e:
Why do I need to completly quantify 'good' for this, I can use the basics of allowing the following obvious choices and it fails;
Murder, Torture, Abuse, Rape
Can a person who has never been sad know happiness?
Can a person who can never choose evil choose good
In an Abrahamic stance...
Does imago dei necessitate free will?
If God exists, then I do not, since omniscience and omnipotence prevent the existence of independent agents. If god controls all aspects of everything we're all just pieces of God. As such, God cannot persuade me he exists since his existence and mine are mutually exclusive.
That assumes an omnipotent and omniscient god, however. Not all deities of all religions are both, or either.
And arguments in relation to gods which are not AT least omnipotent or omniscient are pointless, since if you aren't one of those then you aren't sufficiently different from normal life to be interesting. It's like having a special word for whether or not you believe the longest snake is bigger than 45 feet. It's not interesting enough to have a special philosophy around it. Give me a laser pointer, a pointy hat and a flamethower and I'd probably be able to persuade ancient greece that I am Zeus, and a god, but that doesn't make me one.
'God' is omnipotent and omniscient, or not God. If a being exists which knows everything, and can do anything, then I only exist as a pre-engineered set of states which God has allowed to exist. I am thus not an independent actor, and only exist in God's mind.
I don't believe that an omniscient and omnipotent 'God' prevents the possibility of free will, the ability to control anything doesn't necessitate you control everything. By being all powerful and all knowing, 'God' should have the ability to grant you free will while still maintaining the criteria of being 'God'.
However requiring 'God' to be omnipotent and omniscient does shoehorn your 'God' into being at best, indifferent and uncaring towards the populace due to his inaction of peoples suffering/plight.
Either 'God' is omnipotent/niscient, and purposefully choose to inflict trials upon people regardless of the pain/cost it causes them, even though 'God' has the means of doing so without. Or 'God' is not omni.
Or you haven't studied Christian theology sufficiently. This is a very old question and you arent even adressing answers to it.
To start with, what measure of good are you using?
Is free will sufficiently good, or does it lead to sufficient good, that the world is better with it and god sitting back (or maybe playing Futurama's game)?
Personally believe, if you allow any form of suffering you can no longer be considered omni. You should have the ability to prevent it from happening in a way that maintains free/forcing your will on them.
If you are willfully allowing suffering to happen to someone, when you have the ability to prevent it, that is not "good".
If you have the ability to prevent suffering but choose not to do so because of a disagreement of beliefs with that person, that is not "good".
Going off the Bender example, he wasn't omnipotent, he was simply stronger than his inhabitants. He wasn't omniscient, he simply had a birds eye view of his top half (he couldn't even see the people on his back). In that case, his decision to maintain his aloofness makes sense, as he was incapable of making changes without it affecting someone else negatively. I wouldn't call his decision to abstain, "good", either though.
If Bender were omni, he could have found a way to solve both sides disputes without impacting the other. I don't remember all of the issues in the episode, but going off the big "war" one. He could have simply created another "planet/body" for the other side to live on. Both sides no longer have to deal with each other, no side was impacted etc. This is obviously flawed down to the level of, what about people interacting between the two sides that didn't hate each other and can no longer see each other, etc. But hey, I'm not omni. :P
Counterpoint: Goods can be in conflict. If we consider personal growth a good, your war example actually works against it.
I agree.
Which brings my point of, if you cannot find a way to solve the issue without impacting one side you cannot be considered omnipotent/omniscient or are willfully choosing to do nothing even though you have the ability, which I would find morally questionable.
e:
Why do I need to completly quantify 'good' for this, I can use the basics of allowing the following obvious choices and it fails;
Murder, Torture, Abuse, Rape
Can a person who has never been sad know happiness?
Can a person who can never choose evil choose good
If you're omnipotent, you could totally make that possible.
If God exists, then I do not, since omniscience and omnipotence prevent the existence of independent agents. If god controls all aspects of everything we're all just pieces of God. As such, God cannot persuade me he exists since his existence and mine are mutually exclusive.
That assumes an omnipotent and omniscient god, however. Not all deities of all religions are both, or either.
And arguments in relation to gods which are not AT least omnipotent or omniscient are pointless, since if you aren't one of those then you aren't sufficiently different from normal life to be interesting. It's like having a special word for whether or not you believe the longest snake is bigger than 45 feet. It's not interesting enough to have a special philosophy around it. Give me a laser pointer, a pointy hat and a flamethower and I'd probably be able to persuade ancient greece that I am Zeus, and a god, but that doesn't make me one.
'God' is omnipotent and omniscient, or not God. If a being exists which knows everything, and can do anything, then I only exist as a pre-engineered set of states which God has allowed to exist. I am thus not an independent actor, and only exist in God's mind.
I don't believe that an omniscient and omnipotent 'God' prevents the possibility of free will, the ability to control anything doesn't necessitate you control everything. By being all powerful and all knowing, 'God' should have the ability to grant you free will while still maintaining the criteria of being 'God'.
However requiring 'God' to be omnipotent and omniscient does shoehorn your 'God' into being at best, indifferent and uncaring towards the populace due to his inaction of peoples suffering/plight.
Either 'God' is omnipotent/niscient, and purposefully choose to inflict trials upon people regardless of the pain/cost it causes them, even though 'God' has the means of doing so without. Or 'God' is not omni.
Or you haven't studied Christian theology sufficiently. This is a very old question and you arent even adressing answers to it.
To start with, what measure of good are you using?
Is free will sufficiently good, or does it lead to sufficient good, that the world is better with it and god sitting back (or maybe playing Futurama's game)?
Personally believe, if you allow any form of suffering you can no longer be considered omni. You should have the ability to prevent it from happening in a way that maintains free/forcing your will on them.
If you are willfully allowing suffering to happen to someone, when you have the ability to prevent it, that is not "good".
If you have the ability to prevent suffering but choose not to do so because of a disagreement of beliefs with that person, that is not "good".
Going off the Bender example, he wasn't omnipotent, he was simply stronger than his inhabitants. He wasn't omniscient, he simply had a birds eye view of his top half (he couldn't even see the people on his back). In that case, his decision to maintain his aloofness makes sense, as he was incapable of making changes without it affecting someone else negatively. I wouldn't call his decision to abstain, "good", either though.
If Bender were omni, he could have found a way to solve both sides disputes without impacting the other. I don't remember all of the issues in the episode, but going off the big "war" one. He could have simply created another "planet/body" for the other side to live on. Both sides no longer have to deal with each other, no side was impacted etc. This is obviously flawed down to the level of, what about people interacting between the two sides that didn't hate each other and can no longer see each other, etc. But hey, I'm not omni. :P
Counterpoint: Goods can be in conflict. If we consider personal growth a good, your war example actually works against it.
I agree.
Which brings my point of, if you cannot find a way to solve the issue without impacting one side you cannot be considered omnipotent/omniscient or are willfully choosing to do nothing even though you have the ability, which I would find morally questionable.
e:
Why do I need to completly quantify 'good' for this, I can use the basics of allowing the following obvious choices and it fails;
Murder, Torture, Abuse, Rape
Can a person who has never been sad know happiness?
Can a person who can never choose evil choose good
In an Abrahamic stance...
Does imago dei necessitate free will?
With unlimited power, ability, and knowledge at your disposal. Yes.
Posts
And arguments in relation to gods which are not AT least omnipotent or omniscient are pointless, since if you aren't one of those then you aren't sufficiently different from normal life to be interesting. It's like having a special word for whether or not you believe the longest snake is bigger than 45 feet. It's not interesting enough to have a special philosophy around it. Give me a laser pointer, a pointy hat and a flamethower and I'd probably be able to persuade ancient greece that I am Zeus, and a god, but that doesn't make me one.
'God' is omnipotent and omniscient, or not God. If a being exists which knows everything, and can do anything, then I only exist as a pre-engineered set of states which God has allowed to exist. I am thus not an independent actor, and only exist in God's mind.
Yeah, but those other little gods existing pretty much also all imply the existence of souls, which is kinda a big thing when grouping religious beliefs.
Believes in immoral spirit that interacts with the physical world, and that they will be rewarded after they die for their behavior during life are probably more important to how people act than your silly, Eurocentric rant about gods having to be God or it doesn't count.
the basic idea is of an analysis of whether or not to believe in god based on expected utility value of belief
e.g. if the proposed god says you'll burn in hell (or be stuck in a wall) if you don't believe in it, then it's obviously better, even if you're not sure that god exists, it's worth believing, since not believing doesn't get you anything but trouble, but believing at very least keeps you out of hell. you can do this with a carrot instead of stick if you like, i.e. maybe there's no hell, but you get better afterlife accomodation if you did believe in the god.
of course, this starts falling apart a bit once you get to real life and there are multiple competing gods, who have all kinds of definitions for apostasy etc. that'll get you sent to the Bad Place. however, its proponents still argue that, even with this pick'n'mix selection of gods, the utility value of atheism is still 0 vs all of the other ones (ok, excepting cthulhu and sithrak)
i would actually say that the utility value of belief is still 0 though, and here's why:
once we're allowing all potentially proposed gods as options in the wager, we've actually fully opened the silliness trapdoor (i.e. said "no" to occam's razor) and all unfalsifiable entities are now in play. all of them. it doesn't matter if they're fictional, or part of an established or dead religion, or you just made them up over teatime; they could exist, you cannot prove that they don't in order to exclude them, and they get to take part in the wager.
there's demonstrably an infinite number of them, and an infinite number of that infinite number will have contradicting orthodoxic/orthopraxic requirements, which prevents you from choosing to 'believe' in all of them (which is meaningless anyway). so now you've got to choose only a finite number, while the total possibilities are still infinite.
as well all know from mathematics, a finite number divided by infinity is essentially 0 (technically a constant that is tending towards 0), hence the utility values between believing in gods vs not believing at all are equal: 0 vs 0.
But what kind!?!?!?
Yes, but the advancement of technology has made 'thunder gods' or 'fire gods' irrelevant. We know how those things work. We can make them ourselves. We are not Gods. As such, the existence or non-existence of small gods is fundamentally uninteresting. Do 'small gods' exist, is just like asking whether aliens exist. Technology has made that a smaller and less interesting question.
On the subject of souls, I suppose that is of some interest, but it doesn't have much to do with atheism or theism. Souls could exist with no god, or 'small gods' could exist without their being souls. The only god which would have anything to say about souls would be a real God entity, in which case his existence would make them irrelevant.
The distinction between the two probably comes from my enjoyment of Comic Book-esque universes where super science and magic are both explicitly real and magic isn't just waved away as "oh, it's just *really* advanced science," (which is part of my issue with the Marvel Cinematic Universe). Superman can be godlike for scientifically explainable reasons, why Captain Marvel explicitly gets his powers from the Pantheon.
Functionally speaking, how are we not when you look at the classical god descriptors? We can throw lighting, live above the clouds, destroy entire cities in salt and fire in seconds, create life, and to a certain degree resurrect the dead. We are comparatively omniscient compared to early humans, can fly, make unbreakable armor and weapons, see the future (statistically speaking) and more.
What makes us not gods aside from time?
Wright claims to have been faith healed of a heart condition, and recommends faith healing to people as an alternative medicine practice. And, of course, he decided to slap a price tag on his conversion story & his convictions about faith healing.
All the wondrous miracles of faith, yours to read about in either hard cover or paperback.
Nope.
That's just what the Abrahamic faiths, especially Christianity, like to push. They also modify the hell out of their originally very small little tribal war deity every few years.
Smaller god worship is still alive and well across the world, like Japan.
Edit: I agree that souls and gods are not required for each other. This extends to the monotheistic versions. Remember: Gods can exist and still be lying.
A deity could reason that hey, at least atheists are being honest.
Or deities could receive pain from worship and be really mad at you.
Or deities could just be serious jerks who think it's funny to subvert your expectations.
Etc.
Say you look at it as if there were a devil rather than a god. If you believe in the devil you will likely be tortured to death for all eternity as the rules of sin are essentially inescapable. If you do not believe in him and choose to live your life as you would and he does exist, you likely are still going to be tortured for all eternity. Since there is no way to know the dogmatic rules we have in Christianity are, in fact, from a god rather than a devil, there is no way to know that the likelihood of Pascal's Wager is any different from Pascal's Damnation.
Indeed, by the rules inherent in Christian dogma it is actually more likely that all of christian scripture is, in fact, misleading or false as we know there has been at least one complete turnover of power from Lucifer to God, that according to scripture itself those professing the faith have changed god's words to their own purposes many times, and according to recent history we can confirm this. Given that Lucifer is supposedly always tempting folk, what better temptation that a lifestyle that supposedly works god's will which, actually, does the opposite.
Option A. God (or Gods, etc) exist, and is all-good, all-merciful, or at least mostly beneficial and forgiving. What I believe doesn't really matter, God will hopefully appreciate that I generally live my life in a manner that is good.
Option B. God (or Gods, etc) exist, and is an asshole. If I don't worship a very specific way and hold to a specific set of beliefs, my afterlife will be extremely uncomfortable. Since the odds of picking the right faith as a crapshoot, there's not much point in trying, even if I could somehow force myself to believe.
Option C. God (or Gods, etc) exist, and ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn. It doesn't matter what anyone believes, the horrible animate survivors of distant eons that dwell in the darkness between the stars shall endlessly devour the flawed and shattered fragments of our souls.
Option D. No gods exist.
In every option but B, what I believe is irrelevant. In option B, I'd have to get really lucky to pick the right faith, and then probably inflict major trauma on myself to bring myself to a point where I could believe it. All things considered, I'll take my chances with hoping that B isn't the actual nature of things.
Its oversimplifying pagan beliefs considerably to just say Zeus' only feature is that he makes thunder and lightning. His Roman name, Jupiter, literally means Father God (Deus pater). Lightning is an aspect of Zeus, something that emanates in Nature, but he is still a powerful god in the Pantheon. Perhaps not Omnipotent, but I'm not sure such a concept even existed in pagan religion. I'm seeing this odd religious version of Whiggish history being implied here, mankind hasn't been slowly building its way from pantheism to polytheism to monotheism to scientific enlightenment. The omni-suffix thing is largely regulated to Yahweh, I don't see why that should be exclusively be the sort of God we get to talk about. For instance, there's the Brahman of the Hindu cosmology, the ultimate principle, "It is the pervasive, genderless, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes." [wikipedia] Is this concept not god because it is not unified in a singular 'person' as Yahweh is? If we should discard every other non-Abrahamic conception of god or gods, perhaps it is better these two stances be called Yahwehism and Anti-Yahwehism. I think our conversations of Theism/Atheism are so steeped in Monotheistic and Scientific Materialist assumptions about how god works that it does an injustice to 1/4 of the population of this planet (and pre-abrahamic peoples).They don't even enter into the argument due to their beliefs not fitting into the extremes of both positions neatly.
The neoplatonist Porphory wrote about the Christians saying: "How can people not be in every way impious and atheistic who have apostatized from the customs of our ancestors through which every nation and city is sustained? ... What else are they than fighters against God?"
will continue this later maybe
Sure, my atheism could be falsifiable. First someone would have to produce a definition of God for me to believe or not believe in, but if it's something along the lines of "Some entity which has a specific will or plan and is extraordinarily powerful", then a miracle with the stated prior intention of performing a miracle would do it. Do some genie shit, that would work. The criteria isn't that strict, it's just that stuff like that doesn't happen.
Lord of Light is an incredible book that explores this topic
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
1. Satan exists, you believe in him
Outcome: Tortured in Hell
2. Satan does not exist, you do not believe in him
Outcome: Tortured in Hell
3. God exists, you believe in him
Outcome: Heaven!
4. God exists, you do not believe in him
Tortured in Hell
3 is still the best option!
This kind of argument is so annoying in that it ignores 1. The cost of believing in a thing and letting it control your behavior. 2. The probabilities that thing a random unverified thing exists and does not exist are not equal.
I agree, I don't think Pascal's Wager is a good argument overall, I just think it withstands Satan.
Muzzmuzz's response has the gist of it.
I mean, I could understand a ton of people being vague deists because they want the comfort of some sort of higher power but don't actually believe in anything that's clearly mythological, and that's pretty much what I have to assume of everyone by default so I can maintain respect for them. But then churches are a thing, and they're everywhere. Not even vague deist churches, actual Christian churches.
And with a soul you make decisions based on the information that your soul is exposed to.
There's not really a way for this definition of free will and causality to coexist.
Which probably means the fault lies either with the definition, or with people needing to believe free will exists. Either way, it is poor evidence for the existence of deities or the existence of a soul.
No, my supposition allows me to exist, at least to myself as an independent actor because I do not think 'God' exists or can exist. I think it is impossible to be omniscient and omnipotent, even to the point where I can perfectly predict my own actions. As such, I can view myself as making decisions and choices, and of having an opinion which is relevant.
I don't believe that an omniscient and omnipotent 'God' prevents the possibility of free will, the ability to control anything doesn't necessitate you control everything. By being all powerful and all knowing, 'God' should have the ability to grant you free will while still maintaining the criteria of being 'God'.
However requiring 'God' to be omnipotent and omniscient does shoehorn your 'God' into being at best, indifferent and uncaring towards the populace due to his inaction of peoples suffering/plight.
Either 'God' is omnipotent/niscient, and purposefully choose to inflict trials upon people regardless of the pain/cost it causes them, even though 'God' has the means of doing so without. Or 'God' is not omni.
No, my supposition allows me to exist, at least to myself as an independent actor because I do not think 'God' exists or can exist. I think it is impossible to be omniscient and omnipotent, even to the point where I can perfectly predict my own actions. As such, I can view myself as making decisions and choices, and of having an opinion which is relevant.
Many beliefs are alive and well across the world. They just have no relevance to the argument between theism and atheism as an interesting thing. The existance of Yahweh style god is a wholly and completely different problem with utterly different implications than the existence of household deities in japan. They don't exist in the same argument. Yahweh is not Thor. Thor, and gods like that, are just things with abilities you don't understand.
Or you haven't studied Christian theology sufficiently. This is a very old question and you arent even adressing answers to it.
To start with, what measure of good are you using?
Is free will sufficiently good, or does it lead to sufficient good, that the world is better with it and god sitting back (or maybe playing Futurama's game)?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
and accept those religions
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Personally believe, if you allow any form of suffering you can no longer be considered omni. You should have the ability to prevent it from happening in a way that maintains free/forcing your will on them.
If you are willfully allowing suffering to happen to someone, when you have the ability to prevent it, that is not "good".
If you have the ability to prevent suffering but choose not to do so because of a disagreement of beliefs with that person, that is not "good".
Going off the Bender example, he wasn't omnipotent, he was simply stronger than his inhabitants. He wasn't omniscient, he simply had a birds eye view of his top half (he couldn't even see the people on his back). In that case, his decision to maintain his aloofness makes sense, as he was incapable of making changes without it affecting someone else negatively. I wouldn't call his decision to abstain, "good", either though.
If Bender were omni, he could have found a way to solve both sides disputes without impacting the other. I don't remember all of the issues in the episode, but going off the big "war" one. He could have simply created another "planet/body" for the other side to live on. Both sides no longer have to deal with each other, no side was impacted etc. This is obviously flawed down to the level of, what about people interacting between the two sides that didn't hate each other and can no longer see each other, etc. But hey, I'm not omni. :P
Counterpoint: Goods can be in conflict. If we consider personal growth a good, your war example actually works against it.
You haven't addressed "what is good?" Until you do you can't get anywhere.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I agree.
Which brings my point of, if you cannot find a way to solve the issue without impacting one side you cannot be considered omnipotent/omniscient or are willfully choosing to do nothing even though you have the ability, which I would find morally questionable.
e:
Why do I need to completly quantify 'good' for this, I can use the basics of allowing the following obvious choices and it fails;
Murder, Torture, Abuse, Rape
Thing is that the most common contemporary versions of the Abrahamic deity contradict logic, whereas a lot of less omni-whatever deities, including older historical ideas of what the Abrahamic deity is, are merely unsupported.
"This deity can make a really freaking big rock" doesn't cause the kinds of problems that "This deity can make a rock so big they can't lift it but they can also always lift any rocks." does.
The more of a Mary Sue a god becomes the less you can take them seriously in a discussion unless you are emotionally invested in doing so.
Can a person who has never been sad know happiness?
Can a person who can never choose evil choose good
In an Abrahamic stance...
Does imago dei necessitate free will?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
With unlimited power, ability, and knowledge at your disposal. Yes.