God is good

[Bahman]

The question: “Is it correct to assign some attributes to God and then try to deduce something about the state of nature that we are embedded in?”
Instead of a straight answer of yes or no, the answer becomes maybe, maybe not.

We construct/understand concept/emotions through our interaction of ourselves with others including nature. These are sole ideas/feeling which reflect a state of mind whether it is related to understanding a concept or feeling an emotion. We can however share and have common understanding on a topic whether is conceptual or emotional.

The problem arises when we would like to apply our common understanding concept/emotion to God and conclude that what is the God purpose of creation,…

Lets look at God of Christianity which is related to the subject of this thread. We have phrases like “God is love” which demonstrate of quality of God which is common sense to us as well. On other hand we observe that human get through the state of misery and suffering. Suffering for some people could become overwhelming. This gives rise to question that why a lovely God could put human in state of suffering. The concept suffering is in contradiction with the concept love and it is serious anomaly in this picture.

I have been reminded about the Great Manitou, Zeus and company, Jupiter and company, and we should not forget the Hindu deities and the God of Adam and Eve, etc., etc. All this teaches us that humankind has an innate ability to recognize the difference between a spiritual, supernatural being and our natural selves. As humans, many of us are curious about our origin and the ultimate reason for living plus how we can interact with a supernatural being.

History clearly shows us that our understanding of God was subject of time as our understanding from each other and nature have changed. This also means that our current understanding of God could be wrong. This remind me a phrase from movie zeitgeist as following: “We have been mislead away from the truth and true divine presence of universe that men called God. I don’t know what God is but I know what it isn’t. And unless you are prepared to look at the whole truth, where it may go, whoever it may lead to, or if you want to play a favourite you might mess with divine justice. The more you educate yourself, more you understand where things come from the more obvious things become and you begin to see lies everywhere. You have know the truth and seek the truth and truth will set you free.”

Thus, in one way, it will be beneficial to recognize the attributes of God as a spiritual being and check how they are reflected in our own world. In another way, maybe assigning some natural human attributes to a super-natural God will lead to a demotion of God. For example. In my humble opinion, pantheism is being approached on this thread. Maybe not the “pantheism” of old, but a modern form of the doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe including the natural actions of our decomposing anatomy. In any case, I sense that the concept of a personal God is under attack.

This is exactly my point. We constantly try to assign our understanding of concept/emotions to God not knowing how things are perceived from its point of view. Maybe all concept and emotion that we perceived is superficial and meaningless from God perspective.

 

[Bagheera]

How would you “know” that you are mistaken when you think you are in possession of the “facts?”

Because facts are objective, observable by anyone. I do not claim to know all the facts.

Except that my argument was not an argument from ignorance, it was an argument from the absolute certainty that any human observer does not possess the wherewithal to conclude, as you do, that all events necessarily fall under or are controlled by the known laws of physics.

You argued that “maybe” God performs billions of “miracles” every day. You have absolutely no evidence for it. Therefore it is irrational to assume the existence of those alleged “miracles”. The argument from ignorance is distilled into: “you cannot prove that event ‘A’ did not happen, therefore it is reasonable to assume that it did happen, even if there in no evidence for it”. And that is precisely what you did.

The laws of gravity and motion, for example, merely describe the attraction that exists between material entities but these laws do not explain WHY attraction exists, only THAT it does. There is no tenet in the law of gravity to explain WHY the law of gravity exists or holds to be the case instead of some other possibility.

The word “WHY” has two meanings. One translates into “what are underlying causative factors?” and the other one is “toward what purpose?”. Your argument insinuates that you use it in the second sense. Which is an irrelevant, meaningless question. There is no “telos” in the physical world. Water is the densest at the temperature of 4 degrees Celsius. It is a brute fact. It is a meaningless question to ask: “but why should it be the densest at 4 degrees, and not at 13 degrees?”.

Sure there is a way to decide what is knowable - is it an accurate depiction of what was, is or will be.

“Will be” did not happen. There is no difference between something that “did not happen yet”, and “could happen” and “could have happened”. It is not enough to know the different hypothetical outcomes. I know that tossing a coin will result in either “heads” or “tails”, or it will land on its edge, or it will not land at all for some reason (for example someone snatches it in mid-air). These are all the possibilities. But that is not knowledge. The “omniscient” being also should know which one WOULD HAVE happened, if the toss actually took place. And that is absurd. Of course sensible people do not argue that something that never happened is “knowable”. As such even those who argue for “omniscience” cannot agree among themselves just what should “omniscience” be?

Your analysis here is wanting. It makes perfect sense to speak of legitimate possibilities and to “know” them. To know that this tree could be cut down and turned into lumber or paper is knowledge of the potential for what could plausibly occur.

Read the paragraph above. To “know” is more than be able to enumerate the possible outcomes. It requires the knowledge of the “actual” outcome, and since the event did not happen, there is no “actual” outcome. This should be easy to comprehend.

According to you, all such foresight would be logical nonsense.

No. It is illogical to **confuse **the knowledge of the **potential **outcomes with the knowledge of the **actual **outcome.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The word “WHY” has two meanings. One translates into “what are underlying causative factors?” and the other one is “toward what purpose?”. Your argument insinuates that you use it in the second sense. Which is an irrelevant, meaningless question. There is no “telos” in the physical world. Water is the densest at the temperature of 4 degrees Celsius. It is a brute fact. It is a meaningless question to ask: “but why should it be the densest at 4 degrees, and not at 13 degrees?”.

The “underlying causative factors” are more an answer to the question “HOW?” which is a request for the “means by which” something has come to be. It makes perfect sense to ask “WHY?” as in “toward what purpose?” There is no need to insinuate.

If I ask “Why do birds have wings?” giving the genetic or evolutionary origin of bird wings does not provide a “WHY?” answer, but, rather, a “HOW?” answer - the means by which wings develop. The answer to the “WHY?” question Is a very simple teleological one - to fly. Are you denying that flight is the “purpose” for which wings exist on birds? So, the “brute” conclusion is that telos exists in the physical world and asking about the purpose for features in nature is to accept that it is also inherent in the way nature operates - a brute fact. It is not irrelevant and meaningless just because you choose to ignore it. Which brings up the question: Why would you would choose to do so? What is your purpose for ignoring telos?

Purpose is an important aspect of all human behaviour. Are you insinuating that humans do not exist “in the physical world?” Where did this human trait of doing things for a purpose come from if not from the causative features found in nature? We see purpose in things because there is telos embedded in the very fabric of nature, Plants have flowers to make new plants. Carnivorous animals hunt to get food. Plants use sunlight to make energy. You have a brain to think. All of these are answers to meaningful “WHY?” questions. If I wanted to know “HOW?” plants make flowers, how animals hunt or how plants convert sunlight to energy, I would ask a different question.

All swans are not white just because you declare them to be.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Read the paragraph above. To “know” is more than be able to enumerate the possible outcomes. It requires the knowledge of the “actual” outcome, and since the event did not happen, there is no “actual” outcome. This should be easy to comprehend.

To “know” is certainly more than to be able to enumerate possible outcomes, but knowledge does not exclude or render meaningless that capacity.

No. It is illogical to **confuse **the knowledge of the **potential **outcomes with the knowledge of the **actual **outcome.

There is no need to confuse the two, just as there is no need to deny one. Recognizing the difference would be important and meaningful, not illogical. Not acknowledging potential outcomes would be illogical. It would mean making predictions or constructing plausible hypotheses would be a meaningless exercise. Speaking of nonsense…

 

[Peter_Plato]

“Will be” did not happen. There is no difference between something that “did not happen yet”, and “could happen” and “could have happened”.

I am not sure what your point is here. Surely, it is a valuable and important capacity to distinguish between outcomes or hypotheticals that are impossible, plausible, likely or certain. It is knowledge that allows such distinctions to be made and is a premise behind all technological advance.

It is also another reason to be convinced that “telos” is an inherent aspect of the physical world. Events tend toward ends in very predictable ways. To understand the entire picture must include a grasp of the ordering. These means are ordered towards these ends.

**It is not enough to know the different hypothetical outcomes. **I know that tossing a coin will result in either “heads” or “tails”, or it will land on its edge, or it will not land at all for some reason (for example someone snatches it in mid-air). These are all the possibilities. But that is not knowledge. The “omniscient” being also should know which one WOULD HAVE happened, if the toss actually took place. And that is absurd. Of course sensible people do not argue that something that never happened is “knowable”. As such even those who argue for “omniscience” cannot agree among themselves just what should “omniscience” be?

Of course “it is not enough” to know possible outcomes, but seeing the whole picture or “having complete knowledge,” including concerning logical possibilities is what allows greater certainty regarding outcomes, so it is nonsensical to dismiss knowledge of potential outcomes as meaningless. Knowing what will take place given certain conditions is precisely what allows reasoned behaviour. If I do A, given C, D and E, the inevitable result is B. I choose to do A in order to bring about B.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You argued that “maybe” God performs billions of “miracles” every day. You have absolutely no evidence for it. Therefore it is irrational to assume the existence of those alleged “miracles”. The argument from ignorance is distilled into: “you cannot prove that event ‘A’ did not happen, therefore it is reasonable to assume that it did happen, even if there in no evidence for it”. And that is precisely what you did.

My argument is that every day billions of events happen that remain unaddressed and unexplained by “the evidence.” We simply do not know “WHY” many things happen around us as they do. If miracles are defined as “unexplained” events, then billions of miracles happen every day. It is not an argument from ignorance.

Your “answer” is that “WHY?” Is a meaningless question. Why would you contend that, except from argumentum ad ignorantiam? It is simply a claim that we do not know WHY things happen, therefore we cannot know WHY. We just dismiss the whole question of WHY and our ignorance proves that WHY is a meaningless consideration.

 

[Bagheera]

Purpose is an important aspect of all human behaviour.

And only of human behavior (at least until we find another sentient race). Purpose requires “thinking”, “planning” and all sorts of mental and physical abilities. And the question of “where does it comes from?” only reveals your ignorance of the concept of “emerging attributes”. Where does the “wetness” of water come from, since neither oxygen nor hydrogen are “wet”? You need to learn actual science and not look for some “mystical” non-explanations.

I am not sure what your point is here.

That is obvious that you don’t, even though I already explained it more than once. As such the conversation is futile. And hereby, terminated.

 

[tonyrey]

And only of human behavior (at least until we find another sentient race). Purpose requires “thinking”, “planning” and all sorts of mental and physical abilities. And the question of “where does it comes from?” only reveals your ignorance of the concept of “emerging attributes”. Where does the “wetness” of water come from, since neither oxygen nor hydrogen are “wet”? You need to learn actual science and not look for some “mystical” non-explanations.

You need to understand the limitations of science…

 

[Peter_Plato]

And only of human behavior (at least until we find another sentient race). Purpose requires “thinking”, “planning” and all sorts of mental and physical abilities. And the question of “where does it comes from?” only reveals your ignorance of the concept of “emerging attributes”. Where does the “wetness” of water come from, since neither oxygen nor hydrogen are “wet”? You need to learn actual science and not look for some “mystical” non-explanations.

That is obvious that you don’t, even though I already explained it more than once. As such the conversation is futile. And hereby, terminated.

However, naming something as an “emerging attribute” is a way of avoiding the need for explanation altogether.

We don’t need to explain purpose BECAUSE it is an emerging attribute. We don’t need to explain wetness because it is an emerging attribute. We don’t need to explain consciousness because it is an emerging attribute.

This is the same kind “placeholder” response that atheists are very fond of ridiculing theists about. “Emerging attribute” is no more of an explanation from you than “God did it” is from a theist. At least be honest about that.

Of course our conversation was doomed to be terminated by you because we have arrived at the logical end of what you can possibly add.

I can accept that.

 

[Peter_Plato]

And only of human behavior (at least until we find another sentient race).

Purpose or telos has to do with means towards ends. Wings on birds are the means towards the end of taking flight. That is purpose.

It is not a surprise that human beings exhibit purposeful behaviour since purpose is found all over nature.

I would agree, perhaps, that conscious intent is found only in human beings and perhaps some higher order animals, but purpose or telos need not require conscious intent, at least not of the kind found in human beings.

It does become rather difficult to explain purpose without intent, however, since it is difficult to imagine how events can be ordered towards an end without some foresight regarding the connection between ends and the means to get there.

Of course, your answer is that we simply ignore the question of why and just assume the ordering was accidental even though it is ubiquitous and universal. Which is another way of saying, “Our methods can not address the question so let’s cover our ears and sing, 'La, la la,” whenever someone brings it up.

All swans are white. All whys are hows. Anything we can’t explain causally is an “emerging attribute.” What fun!

 

[tonyrey]

However, naming something as an “emerging attribute” is a way of avoiding the need for explanation altogether.

We don’t need to explain purpose BECAUSE it is an emerging attribute. We don’t need to explain wetness because it is an emerging attribute. We don’t need to explain consciousness because it is an emerging attribute.

This is the same kind “placeholder” response that atheists are very fond of ridiculing theists about. “Emerging attribute” is no more of an explanation from you than “God did it” is from a theist. At least be honest about that.

Of course our conversation was doomed to be terminated by you because we have arrived at the logical end of what you can possibly add.

I can accept that.

Anyone who believes science is the **only **form of knowledge is bound to come to a dead end!