How do we know that God is good?

[nanacat]

But for an infinite being it’s not much of a gesture really. What is the span of a human life to an infinite omnipotent being. A human life isn’t even significant on a planetary time level. Also, although painful the passion wasn’t the worst fate a human ever has suffered.

Jesus suffered humiliation, unspeakable pain and death as a man, a human being.

It’s a free country, a free, open forum, but personally, as a Catholic, I find your cavalier description of the crucifixion and death of Christ offensive. You should be ashamed.

 

[jonfawkes]

Jesus suffered humiliation, unspeakable pain and death as a man, a human being.

It’s a free country, a free, open forum, but personally, as a Catholic, I find your cavalier description of the crucifixion and death of Christ offensive. You should be ashamed.

Many humans have suffered more pain, humiliation and we all die. I am sorry your are offended. I am not ashamed.

[BIBLEDRB]Matt 7:1-5[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Oreoracle]

You are assuming that we have free will - which in your materialistic scheme of things infringes the law of conservation of energy.

Three things:

1. I’m not assuming that we have free will. I think humans have the capacity to make decisions, yes, but I don’t think those decisions are “free”, per se.
2. I’m not a materialist. I know it isn’t convenient for you to admit this, but believe it or not, a person not being religious doesn’t imply that they agree with any “-ism” other than atheism.
3. As far as I can tell, “freedom” of will, however you define it, is seen as a metaphysical concept, whereas the law of conservation of energy is physical in nature. The physical notion doesn’t take precedence over the metaphysical one.

Nothing! But then morality is merely an arbitrary set of rules that people can - and do - reject or ignore.

Well, any moral code will zoom in on some particular thing and consider that thing to be fundamentally good without offering an explanation. This inability to justify our most fundamental bases of morality makes morality arbitrary anyway. To see my point, ask yourself why God is good. The answer comes in many forms, but ultimately Christians say, “He’s good because he’s good.” Thus, God is seen as a fundamental good and we can’t give a reason why this ought to be so, and so choosing him as the basis of morality is, in a sense, arbitrary. It’s not as though we can offer a moral basis for the foundation of a moral code, because the basis would come from the code itself.

At any rate, I agree with what you said above. It doesn’t surprise me that morality is an “arbitrary” (and I use that word loosely here) set of rules that people may reject.

Is that the sole purpose of morality?

Maybe, maybe not. That depends on the morality you choose. The point is that I provided an example that showed humans can craft a moral code without God’s help, and therefore God isn’t necessary for morality.

There is no correspondence between your fantasy and reality whereas human rationality is more adequately explained by divine rationality than irrational processes…

But Lord Big-Beak is rational and divine, and he threatens you with his wrath for your heretical insistence that he is a fantasy.

In that case atheists have been wasting their time for thousands of years in their attempts to falsify theism!

No, because atheists are trying to get everyone else to see something that should be obvious, and that is a worthy cause, especially since people base their morality on unsupported ideas.

What do you value more than love?

My life.

You’re fond of the word “weasel” but it is not a term used in philosophical discussions.

Far worse words are used in real debates, in case you weren’t aware. “Bigot” comes to mind. “Ignoramus” is another one. The reason people don’t protest them is because they sound more sophisticated, but their actual meanings are just as bad, if not worse.

You can do the same but you have no **rational **basis for doing so.

The universe can only be adequately explained as the creation of our Lord Big-Beak. It is the only rational explanation!

(…Do you see how annoying this is whenever you’re the one who’s putting up with it? )

Belief in God is based on the principle of adequate explanation.

God is a convenient explanation, but his existence is based on several assumptions. The convenience of an explanation is not the only factor involved in determining whether or not we adopt it. See Occam’s Razor for details.

It is absurd to explain reason in terms of that which lacks reason.

Do you mean absurd in the sense of “impossible” or in the sense of “unlikely”?

What happens when you use your intelligence, imagination and make decisions? Are you being uncreative? Do you have to produce visible results?

Creation and creativity do not necessarily imply one another, certainly. But usually when someone’s being described as creative they’re doing something, not merely thinking. You might look at a child drawing a picture of their idea of an alien and say they’re creative, but you wouldn’t say that if they were just sitting down and thinking.

Physical events: Special. Treatment.

I’m not exempting physical events from a standard that applies to other events without explanation. I don’t think you understand what special treatment is.

Why should non-divine events be the only events? This is just an assumption made by materialists.

I asked why divine events would be exempted from a standard that presumably applies to all events. I did not say divine events don’t exist. You know, it’s funny–you go through the trouble of making strawman arguments and you don’t even rebut them.

 

[tonyrey]

You are assuming that we have free will - which in your materialistic scheme of things infringes the law of conservation of energy.

If they’re not free they’re not “our” decisions. We are merely the cogs in the machine.

1. I’m not a materialist. I know it isn’t convenient for you to admit this, but believe it or not, a person not being religious doesn’t imply that they agree with any “-ism” other than atheism.

You don’t seem to have any beliefs!

1. As far as I can tell, “freedom” of will, however you define it, is seen as a metaphysical concept, whereas the law of conservation of energy is physical in nature. The physical notion doesn’t take precedence over the metaphysical one.

Do you accept metaphysical concepts?

Nothing! But then morality is merely an arbitrary set of rules that people can - and do - reject or ignore.

…This inability to justify our most fundamental bases of morality makes morality arbitrary anyway. To see my point, ask yourself why God is good. The answer comes in many forms, but ultimately Christians say, “He’s good because he’s good.” Thus, God is seen as a fundamental good and we can’t give a reason why this ought to be so, and so choosing him as the basis of morality is, in a sense, arbitrary. It’s not as though we can offer a moral basis for the foundation of a moral code, because the basis would come from the code itself.

I have pointed out that existence is good - confirmed by your statement that you value your life.

At any rate, I agree with what you said above. It doesn’t surprise me that morality is an “arbitrary” (and I use that word loosely here) set of rules that people may reject.

In that case what use is it?

Is that the sole purpose of morality?

Maybe, maybe not. That depends on the morality you choose. The point is that I provided an example that showed humans can craft a moral code without God’s help, and therefore God isn’t necessary for morality.

You haven’t shown that it’s a moral code worthy of respect.

There is no correspondence between your fantasy and reality whereas human rationality is more adequately explained by divine rationality than irrational processes…

But Lord Big-Beak is rational and divine, and he threatens you with his wrath for your heretical insistence that he is a fantasy.

Your fantasy still has no rational basis.

In that case atheists have been wasting their time for thousands of years in their attempts to falsify theism!

No, because atheists are trying to get everyone else to see something that should be obvious, and that is a worthy cause, especially since people base their morality on unsupported ideas.

…something they assume should be obvious. What is your morality based on?

What do you value more than love?

My life.

Only yours?

You’re fond of the word “weasel” but it is not a term used in philosophical discussions.

Far worse words are used in real debates, in case you weren’t aware. “Bigot” comes to mind. “Ignoramus” is another one. The reason people don’t protest them is because they sound more sophisticated, but their actual meanings are just as bad, if not worse.

A genuine philosophical discussion is not a debate.

You can do the same but you have no rational basis for doing so.

The universe can only be adequately explained as the creation of our Lord Big-Beak. It is the only rational explanation!

You are evading the origin of rationality…

(…Do you see how annoying this is whenever you’re the one who’s putting up with it? )

I can see you’re evading the issue of how rationality originated…

Belief in God is based on the principle of adequate explanation.

God is a convenient explanation, but his existence is based on several assumptions. The convenience of an explanation is not the only factor involved in determining whether or not we adopt it. See Occam’s Razor for details.

There is nothing more adequate and economical than one Supreme Being.
It is absurd to explain reason in terms of that which lacks reason.

Do you mean absurd in the sense of “impossible” or in the sense of “unlikely”?

Neither. “irrational” because it is self-refuting.

What happens when you use your intelligence, imagination and make decisions? Are you being uncreative? Do you have to produce visible results?

Creation and creativity do not necessarily imply one another, certainly. But usually when someone’s being described as creative they’re doing something, not merely thinking. You might look at a child drawing a picture of their idea of an alien and say they’re creative, but you wouldn’t say that if they were just sitting down and thinking.

You’re not capable of creative thought? You sound as if you are a materialist after all…

Physical events: Special. Treatment.

I’m not exempting physical events from a standard that applies to other events without explanation. I don’t think you understand what special treatment is.

You seem to reject anything that isn’t observable, i.e. physical.

Why should non-divine events be the only events? This is just an assumption made by materialists.

I asked why divine events would be exempted from a standard that presumably applies to all events. I did not say divine events don’t exist. You know, it’s funny–you go through the trouble of making strawman arguments and you don’t even rebut them.

If anything is a strawman argument it is Your Lord Big-Beak…

 

[Oreoracle]

If they’re not free they’re not “our” decisions. We are merely the cogs in the machine.

Of course they’re our decisions. Our brains are compilations of matter that are biased toward certain preferences and equipped with logic such that we are motivated to make choices and we can make choices. It’s just that the construction of our brains is most likely pre-determined by prior events, and thus the choices we make are pre-determined. The pre-determination doesn’t make the choices any less our own, because our brains, which is what we are, are still responsible for the choices. It’s just that the brains’ structures, and therefore their actions, are most likely pre-determined.

You don’t seem to have any beliefs!

Having a few reasonable beliefs is better than having many unreasonable ones. I only subscribe to a belief if I have sufficient reason to accept it.

Do you accept metaphysical concepts?

Some I do, some I don’t.

I have pointed out that existence is good - confirmed by your statement that you value your life.

Before I respond to that, I want to clear up a misunderstanding here. I don’t value my life in itself. I value it for its perks; namely, the happiness I experience. But I don’t enjoy every facet of my life, and so I don’t value my life in itself.

Regarding your quote above, I disagree with your reasoning. Saying that x causes y and that y is good is not sufficient reason to believe that x is good. This is because it is possible that x causes another factor, which we’ll call z, that is bad. If we use similar reasoning, we would use z to show that x is bad. X can’t be good and bad at the same time, and so we’re left with a contradiction.

And that is the problem with your argument. Just because existence produces something I consider good doesn’t mean that existence itself is good, because existence is responsible for bad things, too, and so your argument would work the other way around, yielding the conclusion that existence is bad.

In that case what use is it?

Different moral codes serve different purposes. It could be of any use you want it to be. However, its most common use is to convince others to act in ways you approve.

You haven’t shown that it’s a moral code worthy of respect.

Well, that’s your opinion. I consider a moral code whose purpose is to preserve human society, and therefore humanity itself, to be worthy of at least some respect. Do you not consider the preservation of humanity to be a respectable goal?

Your fantasy still has no rational basis.

Other than the name I’ve given him, I haven’t described Lord Big-Beak to be any different than your own god. You find him repulsive because now you’re the one who has to face the impenetrable wall of special treatment. Special treatment cuts both ways.

What is your morality based on?

My own preferences. Just as you prefer to serve your conception of God, I act as I prefer.

Only yours?

Of course not, but you didn’t ask me to be very specific.

I can see you’re evading the issue of how rationality originated…

I don’t know about you, but I consider rationality to be an emergent property. What you don’t understand is that just because matter itself isn’t capable of rationality doesn’t mean that compilations of matter can’t be. In other words, something can be greater than the sum of its parts.

There is nothing more adequate and economical than one Supreme Being.

The number of entities involved in an explanation alone does not determine that explanation’s economy. Although fewer entities are preferred, simplicity is also preferred, and God is arguably the single most complicated being humanity has ever confabulated. He is perhaps infinitely complicated.

This is also the point at which Christians miss the mark. They look at a complicated universe and claim, “Wow, this is so complicated, it had to have been designed!” Yet they never stop to consider that the designer they propose is necessarily more complicated than the universe whose existence he supposedly accounts for, which means that, regarding simplicity, proposing God is actually less economical because he’s more complicated.

It is absurd to explain reason in terms of that which lacks reason.

Do you understand the thinking behind emergent properties?

You seem to reject anything that isn’t observable, i.e. physical.

You confuse rejection with skepticism.

 

[I_love_rocks]

I’m reading a lot of logical arguments and philosophical commentary going back and forth. It’s interesting and intriguing, but to the persons trying to disect God - as if that were possible - you’ve missed the point entirely.

The question may have started as - How do we know that God is good? … but that was obviously jumping in the deep end. The answers here have satisfied the question of a believer earnestly wrestling with a point. But that’s not what’s happening here.

The real question, and the actual problem is that there is not the belief in God to begin with. Why do you ask how it is that God is good when you don’t believe in God to begin with? That’s just an inflammatory, argumentative starting-point to begin a debate that devolves into unbelievers attacking the truth with well-crafted, and inheirantly wrong statements meant to confuse and offend. But you’ve failed. We aren’t confused about God. Wrods, maybe… points of contention, perhaps… semantics, sure… But not God.

Without faith in God and a desire to know Him - the answer is - you will never know the answer. You will spend your life chasing after the wind and never catching it. The truth of God exists and is knowable only with faith in God. If you don’t like that I’m sorry. Without faith, you will not get the answers to you rquestions. They will elude you your whole life.

So why does this go on and on? Is it the depraved enjoyment of crushing down believers? Is your superior intellect going to save you when God comes to judge the world?

You attack statements of fact and truth about God without wisdom. Your intellect appears to you to be superior, but in truth, you are purposely drawing down the wrath of God. God does not need to prove that He exists. He does. That’s truth. That’s reality. But He HAS revealed Himslef and made Himself knowable. Thaks be to God. If you want to know the truth, then you have to go to the Truth and ask Him.

He’s not some woodland fairy, dependent on your belief in HIm, for Him to be able to exist. He exists. Our job is to discover Who He is; and we do this through what He has revealed about Himself. I know you’re really amused equating God, the Almighty creator with whatever ridiculous Big Beak thing you keep throwing out there to offend every one with. But in truth, you are in grave sin. It doesn’t matter if you agree with that statement. It doesn’t matter if you understand that your soul is in peril. It is. I can tell you I don’t believe the sky is blue. I think it’s green. I can think whatever false things I want. I can use intellect and logic to argue others into agreeing. That doesn’t make it true. Never will.

The point is… if you don’t understand, with all of your “wisdom”, that God exists. You will never really seek the answer to the question about how it is that God is good. And you will not find the truth, though you search. Looking for crafty ways to make the truth apear to be a lie is an action of the evil one. It is trying to hold water in your hands and carry it across the desert. A fool’s errand.

So this discussion, although I’m sure you really believe you’re progressing, is a fool’s errand, because in the end - you’ve missed the point altogether to your own detriment.

God is NOT an evil being who created the world and all of existence. That is the perfect lie of the devil who forms your quetions of mockery and deceit. It is from him that such blasphemies proceed. Take a good look at who it is that you serve with your attacks on God and HIs goodness. Good luck with that one.

Stop hiding in the shadows and taking sniper shots. Do you REALLY WANT to know the truth? Or is this just a game for you? Because in the end… you will feel temorarily self-satisfied. Wheras, we, God’s children will be saved from Hell and eternal destruction.

The poisonous things being said about our HOLY and Good God is like filling your own pool with acid and convincing yourself it’s crystal clear water, and jumping in. Doesn’t make it water. You can swear up and down that it’s water… It’s still acid. That’s reality.

This is sinful. Stop it. And not because it’s so darn annoying to me personally - but because you are stacking the deck against yourself and creating a more ferocious punishment for yourself. You are purposely hurting yourself by doing this. It’s not a game or a passtime. This is YOUR LIFE you are messing with, not ours. I hope you know that.

God is. God is Good. God is divine. God is the ONLY living God, and there can be no other, for He alone is the Creator of all things visible and invisible. He is eternal. No beginning and no end.

I can live with my stance in this debate. Can you?

 

[tonyrey]

Of course they’re our decisions. Our brains are compilations of matter that are biased toward certain preferences and equipped with logic such that we are motivated to make choices and we can make choices. It’s just that the construction of our brains is most likely pre-determined by prior events, and thus the choices we make are pre-determined. The pre-determination doesn’t make the choices any less our own, because our brains, which is what we are, are still responsible for the choices. It’s just that the brains’ structures, and therefore their actions, are most likely pre-determined.

You are not entitled to use the term “our” because according to you there is no intangible self but merely a brain which belongs to a body which belongs to the universe. Or brains are not “responsible” for anything because - as you agree - all choices are predetermined. In other words a “choice” is nothing but the result of previous events.

Having a few reasonable beliefs is better than having many unreasonable ones. I only subscribe to a belief if I have sufficient reason to accept it.

What are your “reasonable beliefs”?

Do you accept metaphysical concepts?

Some I do, some I don’t.

Which do you accept?

I don’t value my life in itself. I value it for its perks; namely, the happiness I experience. But I don’t enjoy every facet of my life, and so I don’t value my life in itself.

It is arbitrary to separate your life from your happiness. You would have no happiness if you didn’t exist.

Saying that x causes y and that y is good is not sufficient reason to believe that x is good. This is because it is possible that x causes another factor, which we’ll call z, that is bad. If we use similar reasoning, we would use z to show that x is bad. X can’t be good and bad at the same time, and so we’re left with a contradiction.

So you get good from nothing! Life doesn’t cause happiness. Life is a necessary condition of happiness.

Just because existence produces something I consider good doesn’t mean that existence itself is good, because existence is responsible for bad things, too, and so your argument would work the other way around, yielding the conclusion that existence is bad.

Existence is not responsible for anything. It is a simple fact.

Different moral codes serve different purposes. It could be of any use you want it to be.

In that case they are merely ways of getting what you want…

However, its most common use is to convince others to act in ways you approve.

Why do you approve of some ways rather than others?

Well, that’s your opinion. I consider a moral code whose purpose is to preserve human society, and therefore humanity itself, to be worthy of at least some respect. Do you not consider the preservation of humanity to be a respectable goal?

Of course. It is a respectable goal because life is valuable!

Other than the name I’ve given him, I haven’t described Lord Big-Beak to be any different than your own god. You find him repulsive because now you’re the one who has to face the impenetrable wall of special treatment. Special treatment cuts both ways.

You haven’t explained why your fantasy is superior to any other fantasy. What are its defining features? Belief in the Supreme Being is based on the principles of economy and adequacy.

What is your morality based on?

My own preferences. Just as you prefer to serve your conception of God, I act as I prefer.

It is not my conception but a universal concept of humanity based on the recognition of the power of the mind and intangible realities like truth, goodness, freedom, justive , beauty and love.

Only your life?

Of course not, but you didn’t ask me to be very specific.

Who else?

I don’t know about you, but I consider rationality to be an emergent property. What you don’t understand is that just because matter itself isn’t capable of rationality doesn’t mean that compilations of matter can’t be. In other words, something can be greater than the sum of its parts.

Can you explain how compilations of matter have become capable of reasoning and grasping abstract truths?

There is nothing more adequate and economical than one Supreme Being.

The number of entities involved in an explanation alone does not determine that explanation’s economy. Although fewer entities are preferred, simplicity is also preferred, and God is arguably the single most complicated being humanity has ever confabulated. He is perhaps infinitely complicated.

The fact that your brain - like other human brains - is the most complex structure in the universe does not prevent you from being one person. …

This is also the point at which Christians miss the mark. They look at a complicated universe and claim, “Wow, this is so complicated, it had to have been designed!” Yet they never stop to consider that the designer they propose is necessarily more complicated than the universe whose existence he supposedly accounts for, which means that, regarding simplicity, proposing God is actually less economical because he’s more complicated.

You are attributing material complexity to immaterial unity. Do you regard yourself as complicated as the universe?

It is absurd to explain reason in terms of that which lacks reason.

Do you understand the thinking behind emergent properties?

I understand that the term is a cloak for ignorance!

You seem to reject anything that isn’t observable, i.e. physical.

You confuse rejection with skepticism.

What is the difference? If you reject the mind you must be mindless. All that occurs in your brain is electrical activity which lacks insight and understanding…

 

[GloriousOrder]

This thread is given assuming we’re not agnostics and we already believe one God exists. The question is not whether there might be God, but what the already-established God is all about. Don’t try to make it into some scientific proof, because they will not accept it…

We know God is good because muffins exist. Peaches exist. Our brains exist in such a way that empty tones can be combined to make symphonies. This may sound childish, but what more can you ask for? The fact that things are the way they are shows how joyous and absolutely, simply good God is.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The real question, and the actual problem is that there is not the belief in God to begin with. Why do you ask how it is that God is good when you don’t believe in God to begin with? That’s just an inflammatory, argumentative starting-point to begin a debate that devolves into unbelievers attacking the truth with well-crafted, and inheirantly wrong statements meant to confuse and offend.

Your reply doesn’t indicate to which message you are responding. If you were responding to the original poster I don’t think she is trying to be offensive. Her stated religious disposition is “trying to hold on to Catholicism.” I think there’s sincerity in her words. Some highlights from some of her post that I think indication her intentions.

Oh, I am. Every day. Almost every moment. I am begging for faith. I still feel it slipping away. Pray for me.

Yes, this is my problem. Please pray for me, your sister in Christ, instead of shrugging off the slipping away of my faith.

Or from a post that she made last year in another thread

I’m really trying to hold on to my faith here…

If your response was not direction at the OP and was directed at some one else then please accept my apologies for misinterpreting it.

 

[tonyrey]

Your reply doesn’t indicate to which message you are responding.

His reply referred to a post subsequent to the OP which alluded to Lord Big-Beak…

 

[Oreoracle]

Or brains are not “responsible” for anything because - as you agree - all choices are predetermined. In other words a “choice” is nothing but the result of previous events.

I don’t see how choices being predetermined negates them from being choices. Brain activity is still involved, it’s just that the brain activity would be predetermined. Perhaps you’re using a different definition of “choice” than I am.

What are your “reasonable beliefs”?

That’s a very broad question–one that would surely go beyond the scope of this thread (more so than we’ve already gone). Could you make the question more specific?

Which do you accept?

Again, make the question more specific or else it is too broad for the scope of the thread. I can’t be expected to write a metaphysical treatise for you, can I?

It is arbitrary to separate your life from your happiness. You would have no happiness if you didn’t exist.

I’m not “separating”. I’m taking note of the fact that life has good and bad consequences. Since consequences are what ultimately determine whether something’s good or bad, the moral worth of life is somewhat mixed, and can be either good or bad, depending on its results. If an infant were born only so it could be brutally tortured and eventually murdered, we would agree that it would have been better if it hadn’t have been born in the first place. It certainly would have been better if it could have been born and not been tortured and murdered, but I’m just pointing out that living is not always the best option because living permits suffering. And as we know, people sometimes have more suffering than happiness in their lives.

So you get good from nothing! Life doesn’t cause happiness. Life is a necessary condition of happiness.

Life is also a necessary condition of suffering. It’s arbitrary on your part to acknowledge the happiness that life causes and deem it “good” for this reason, but ignore the suffering it causes and not deem it “bad” for that reason. You can’t cherrypick.

Existence is not responsible for anything. It is a simple fact.

I’m not playing semantical games with you. It is obvious that the existence of certain things produces certain consequences. The existence of those things is responsible for those consequences.

In that case they are merely ways of getting what you want…

I don’t see the problem with that.

Why do you approve of some ways rather than others?

I have preferences because of my biological composition.

You haven’t explained why your fantasy is superior to any other fantasy.

I was invoking irony by commiting the same fallacies Christians commit. The Christian account of God isn’t fundamentally different than the gods of other monotheistic religions. They have the same fundamental qualities with slightly different personalities and histories. They’re just different flavors of the same brand of ice cream.

Can you explain how compilations of matter have become capable of reasoning and grasping abstract truths?

I’m not a biology major. My inability to explain the exact details doesn’t invalidate established science, however.

The fact that your brain - like other human brains - is the most complex structure in the universe does not prevent you from being one person. …

Right, but it does make me relatively complicated compared to most other things. Don’t you see the folly in saying that something is too complicated to develop from simplicity, posit a creator to explain it, and then ignore the fact that the creator is more complicated than the creation? Why is the creator not in need of a creator, then? If God is alowed to exist in his own right in spite of being more complicated than the universe, why can’t the universe have existed in its own right?

The position that the universe has always existed doesn’t require us to posit something we don’t already know to exist. When it comes to God’s economy, he’s like dark matter–something we don’t know to exist on account of lacking evidence, but his existence is postulated merely to explain a gap in our understandings. If I had to believe that either the universe or God existed eternally, I would choose the universe, because I already know that exists.

I understand that the term is a cloak for ignorance!

Uh-huh. Okay, I’ll use a couple of examples to explain this for you. I’m not trying to insult you, I just think you genuinely don’t understand the concept.

Alright, you understand the basic idea of a line segment in geometry, right? It is one-dimensional, is a figure, has length, and has endpoints. Now, if we take three or more line segments, it is possible to construct a polygon with them. A polygon has many qualities, such as two-dimensionality, being a shape, having a perimeter, and having vertices. Notice that two-dimensionality is more complicated than one-dimensionality, being a shape is more complicated than merely being a figure, having perimeter is more complicated than having length, and vertices are more complicated than endpoints. New properties (along with more complexity) have arisen simply by arranging simpler objects (line segments) in certain ways. These properties would be emergent properties, because even though the polygons that possess these properties consist of line segments, the polygons themselves possess properties that the line segments do not.

Another example is that of water. Both hydrogen and oxygen are gases at room temperature. However, if they are positioned such that they react, they form water, which is a liquid at room temperature. Therefore, although water consists of hydrogen and oxygen, it has a property that neither hydrogen nor oxygen possess. This property is emergent.

 

[Oreoracle]

What is the difference?

Skepticism isn’t rejection. It is the hesitation to believe claims without sufficient evidence.

Whether or not the religious want to admit it, the default state is always disbelief, not belief. And disbelief is not the same as rejection. For example, if I said that unicorns exist, you wouldn’t believe me because I wouldn’t be able to offer evidence to verify that statement. It’s not that you have evidence against that statement, because the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You simply lack evidence, and so you don’t believe it. At the same time, you could still admit that there might be unicorns on some other planet, but you just don’t believe there are. Do you see the difference? Instead of making a negative claim against unicorns, you’re just refraining from making a positive claim for them.

Christians typically reverse this and try to make the default state belief rather than disbelief. If someone makes a claim, it isn’t your obligation to put forth evidence against it; it’s their obligation to put forth evidence in favor of it. So when a Christian says “such-and-such exists”, it is their obligation to support that. Our hesitation to believe in it is not the same as making a negative claim against their belief. We just won’t make a positive claim for it.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t see how choices being predetermined negates them from being choices. Brain activity is still involved, it’s just that the brain activity would be predetermined.

You reduce choices to automatic events.

Could you make the question more specific?

How do you decide what is a reasonable belief?

It is arbitrary to separate your life from your happiness. You would have no happiness if you didn’t exist.

Since consequences are what ultimately determine whether something’s good or bad, the moral worth of life is somewhat mixed, and can be either good or bad, depending on its results. If an infant were born only so it could be brutally tortured and eventually murdered, we would agree that it would have been better if it hadn’t have been born in the first place.

Is suffering the only evil? Is it the worst evil?

Life is also a necessary condition of suffering. It’s arbitrary on your part to acknowledge the happiness that life causes and deem it “good” for this reason, but ignore the suffering it causes and not deem it “bad” for that reason.

You expect everything for nothing! Do you believe suffering outweighs the value of life?

It is obvious that the existence of certain things produces certain consequences. The existence of those things is responsible for those consequences.

Not morally or rationally responsible.

In that case they are merely ways of getting what you want…

I don’t see the problem with that.

You reduce morality to expediency.

Why do you approve of some ways rather than others?

I have preferences because of my biological composition.

Then they are not yours! They are biological facts…

The Christian account of God isn’t fundamentally different than the gods of other monotheistic religions. They have the same fundamental qualities with slightly different personalities and histories.

All varieties of materialism are in the same boat!

Can you explain how compilations of matter have become capable of reasoning and grasping abstract truths?

My inability to explain the exact details doesn’t invalidate established science, however.

Your faith in science is touching but unsupported by any evidence.

The fact that your brain - like other human brains - is the most complex structure in the universe does not prevent you from being one person. …

Right, but it does make me relatively complicated compared to most other things.

If you have to appear in court you’re found guilty or not guilty. There’s nothing complicated about that. You cannot pass the buck!

Don’t you see the folly in saying that something is too complicated to develop from simplicity, posit a creator to explain it, and then ignore the fact that the creator is more complicated than the creation?

Don’t you see the folly in saying that a person is so complicated he or she must have developed from simplicity, posit inanimate matter to explain it, and then ignore the fact that inanimate matter is more inadequate than a person?

Why is the creator not in need of a creator, then?

Why is inanimate matter not in need of a creator, then?

If God is allowed to exist in his own right in spite of being more complicated than the universe, why can’t the universe have existed in its own right?

The universe has no rights!

The position that the universe has always existed doesn’t require us to posit something we don’t already know to exist.

You thereby unreasonably rule out discovery of anything we don’t already know to exist…

When it comes to God’s economy, he’s like dark matter–something we don’t know to exist on account of lacking evidence, but his existence is postulated merely to explain a gap in our understandings.

You postulate the omnipotence of matter merely to explain all the gaps in your understanding.

If I had to believe that either the universe or God existed eternally, I would choose the universe, because I already know that exists.

You thereby imprison yourself in a closed system.

I understand that the term is a cloak for ignorance!

I’m not trying to insult you, I just think you genuinely don’t understand the concept.

Alright, you understand the basic idea of a line segment in geometry, right? It is one-dimensional, is a figure, has length, and has endpoints. Now, if we take three or more line segments, it is possible to construct a polygon with them. A polygon has many qualities, such as two-dimensionality, being a shape, having a perimeter, and having vertices. Notice that two-dimensionality is more complicated than one-dimensionality, being a shape is more complicated than merely being a figure, having perimeter is more complicated than having length, and vertices are more complicated than endpoints. New properties (along with more complexity) have arisen simply by arranging simpler objects (line segments) in certain ways. These properties would be emergent properties, because even though the polygons that possess these properties consist of line segments, the polygons themselves possess properties that the line segments do not.

You are presupposing the existence of material objects and the laws of nature…

Another example is that of water. Both hydrogen and oxygen are gases at room temperature. However, if they are positioned such that they react, they form water, which is a liquid at room temperature. Therefore, although water consists of hydrogen and oxygen, it has a property that neither hydrogen nor oxygen possess. This property is emergent.

You are presupposing the existence of material objects, the laws of nature and the development of chemical elements…

 

[Oreoracle]

You reduce choices to automatic events.

Why can’t choices be “automatic events”?

How do you decide what is a reasonable belief?

Roughly speaking, I divide beliefs into three categories: physical, abstract, and aesthetic. I would say a reasonable belief that is physical in nature would have evidence to support it (unless it is axiomatic). I would say a reasonable belief that is abstract in nature would require a proof using some kind of deductive system (unless it is axiomatic), such as logic or math. I would say beliefs that are aesthetic in nature aren’t the sort one should term “reasonable”. For example, a person can think a painting is ugly without having to provide a rationale for that belief, because that belief has nothing or little to do with reason. It’s a matter of taste.

Is suffering the only evil?

I think so.

You expect everything for nothing!

Not quite. It would be more accurate to say that I want everything for nothing. Morality is all about envisioning a perfect world and trying to make the real world resemble that perfect world as much as possible. In a perfect world, suffering wouldn’t exist. Wouldn’t you agree?

Do you believe suffering outweighs the value of life?

That depends. Which life are you talking about? We all suffer in varying amounts.

You reduce morality to expediency.

Why can’t morality be expedient? In fact, let me make the question more to the point: What kind of morality wouldn’t be expedient?

Then they are not yours! They are biological facts…

Well, I think I’m the same as my biological composition. So if it’s my biological composition’s, it’s mine.

Your faith in science is touching but unsupported by any evidence.

Right, it’s not like we have good reason to believe that science works. Especially that nonsensical biology. I mean, when you need to get rid of an illness, who are you going to trust: your tribe’s shaman, or your family doctor? Not only is the shaman more effective, he’s a lot cheaper, too.

Don’t you see the folly in saying that a person is so complicated he or she must have developed from simplicity, posit inanimate matter to explain it, and then ignore the fact that inanimate matter is more inadequate than a person?

This is where your misunderstanding of emergent properties becomes relevant.

The universe has no rights!

The phrase “exists in its own right”, is not referring to rights. I am essentially asking why the universe can’t have always existed if God’s allowed to have always existed. If the universe is allowed to do so, then the universe being eternal is a more economical explanation than God being eternal, because we already know the universe exists. We would have to guess that God exists, which is much less economical.

You thereby unreasonably rule out discovery of anything we don’t already know to exist…

If X is known to exist, and Y is not known to exist, and either of them existing would explain a certain phenomenon, which do you think we should believe is responsible for the phenomenon? X or Y?

Answer that question honestly, and we’ll see what the consequences are. Using the variables prevents you from giving special treatment to God.

You postulate the omnipotence of matter merely to explain all the gaps in your understanding.

I don’t think matter is “omnipotent”. I think it can produce emergent properties, which is something you can learn about in an introductory chemistry course.

You are presupposing the existence of material objects and the laws of nature…

…
…
…
…Umm, yeah. Of course.

 

[crish123]

All of you are magnets for the lonely… the troubled and the misunderstood because, ministers, bartenders, therapists and hairdressers are all good listeners…

live adult chat

 

[tonyrey]

You reduce choices to automatic events.

Does a cog in a machine has a choice?

How do you decide what is a reasonable belief?

Roughly speaking, I divide beliefs into three categories: physical, abstract, and aesthetic. I would say a reasonable belief that is physical in nature would have evidence to support it (unless it is axiomatic). I would say a reasonable belief that is abstract in nature would require a proof using some kind of deductive system (unless it is axiomatic), such as logic or math. I would say beliefs that are aesthetic in nature aren’t the sort one should term “reasonable”. For example, a person can think a painting is ugly without having to provide a rationale for that belief, because that belief has nothing or little to do with reason. It’s a matter of taste.

So you exclude all beliefs about intangible reality?

Is suffering the only evil?

I think so.

What about the deliberate infliction of suffering?

You expect everything for nothing!

Not quite. It would be more accurate to say that I want everything for nothing.

They amount to the same thing - if you are realistic.

Morality is all about envisioning a perfect world and trying to make the real world resemble that perfect world as much as possible. In a perfect world, suffering wouldn’t exist. Wouldn’t you agree?

No! That is pure hedonism. Without any suffering there is no challenge nor opportunity for compassion, self-sacrifice or love.

Do you believe suffering outweighs the value of life?

That depends. Which life are you talking about? We all suffer in varying amounts.

You have said **all **suffering is evil.
If you accept the inevitability of some suffering how do you determine whether it outweighs the value of life?

You reduce morality to expediency.

Why can’t morality be expedient? In fact, let me make the question more to the point: What kind of morality wouldn’t be expedient?

“expedient” means “based on or marked by a concern for self-interest rather than principle”.

Then they are not yours! They are biological facts…

Well, I think I’m the same as my biological composition. So if it’s my biological composition’s, it’s mine.

If you are the same as your biological composition there is no “you”. There is only a mindless body which disintegrates at death…

Your faith in science is touching but unsupported by any evidence.

Right, it’s not like we have good reason to believe that science works. Especially that nonsensical biology. I mean, when you need to get rid of an illness, who are you going to trust: your tribe’s shaman, or your family doctor? Not only is the shaman more effective, he’s a lot cheaper, too.

Science works but it is restricted to material objects.

Don’t you see the folly in saying that a person is so complicated he or she must have developed from simplicity, posit inanimate matter to explain it, and then ignore the fact that inanimate matter is more inadequate than a person?

This is where your misunderstanding of emergent properties becomes relevant.

“emergent” is equivalent to a magic wand. Hey presto! Give enough time things develop into persons - without any outside help of course!

The universe has no rights!

The phrase “exists in its own right”, is not referring to rights. I am essentially asking why the universe can’t have always existed if God’s allowed to have always existed. If the universe is allowed to do so, then the universe being eternal is a more economical explanation than God being eternal, because we already know the universe exists. We would have to guess that God exists, which is much less economical.

The universe is less economical than One Being. It consists of many things. It is also less adequate because it lacks consciousness and insight. It doesn’t know we exist whereas we know it exists…

You thereby unreasonably rule out discovery of anything we don’t already know to exist…

If X is known to exist, and Y is not known to exist, and either of them existing would explain a certain phenomenon, which do you think we should believe is responsible for the phenomenon? X or Y?

If X is the universe it is unreasonable to regard it as self-explanatory.

Answer that question honestly, and we’ll see what the consequences are. Using the variables prevents you from giving special treatment to God.

You are giving special treatment to X, i.e. the universe.

You postulate the omnipotence of matter merely to explain all the gaps in your understanding.

I don’t think matter is “omnipotent”.

You think it is the ultimate reality that has created everything all by itself. What can’t it do?

It can produce emergent properties, which is something you can learn about in an introductory chemistry course.

Emergent properties do **not **explain their own existence, which is something you can learn about in an introductory philosophy course.

You are presupposing the existence of material objects and the laws of nature…

Umm, yeah. Of course.

As if they are self-explanatory…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Does a cog in a machine has a choice?

This question grabbed my attention.

If that cog is removed from the collective of the machine and set down then it doesn’t have the potential to do much decision making. It could be said to make a choice in much the same way that a spinning bottle or a flipped coin can make a choice. But I’ll assume you are talking about choices that are the result of some form of thinking.

A common attribute of systems that “think” (whether that system be a single organism, a swarm of organisms, or a machine) is that the thinking occurs throughout a collective in part as an interaction of the members of that system[1]. That collective could be composed of natural or logical neurons, the organisms within a hive, or other components. Analyzing a single element of that system can be useful for discovering some constraints in which the system operates but such a reductionist view isn’t useful for establishing the behaviour of the system[2].

It is possible to design and manufacture an artificial intelligence agent whose cognition is partially implemented with cogs that is capable of learning, thinking and making choices after thinking (though in present times mechanical components are no longer common place in the processors of machines). In such a machine any single one of the cogs would not be said to think, but does contribute to the thinking. Any one of the cogns hasn’t made the final decision, but contributes to the deciding.

[1] - “Swarm Intelligence: From Natural to Artificial Systems” by Eric Bonabea, Guy Theraula and Marco Dorigo

[2] “Neuroconstructivism: How the Brain Constructs Cognition, Vol 1” by Mareschal, Johnson, Sirois, Spratling, Thomas, and Westermann

 

[Oreoracle]

Does a cog in a machine has a choice?

You’re comparing apples and oranges. Inanimate objects are not comparable to animate objects.

So you exclude all beliefs about intangible reality?

I don’t see a reason to believe in an “intangible reality”. Thus far, history has shown that science is better at explaining things than mysticism. Mystical ideas were adopted because they were easy, and they were easy for good reason. Saying that lightning is produced by Zeus, for example, doesn’t actually tell us anything about lightning. All that belief did for ancient people was create the illusion that they had a legitimate answer, all without the hassle of actually coming to understand their environment. Most of us know better nowadays.

What about the deliberate infliction of suffering?

Well, you must understand that I say suffering is the only evil because I think every other evil is contingent on the occurrence or possibility of suffering. Indeed, suffering is the only thing that I would deem to be unconditionally bad. Thus, my answer to your question is that deliberately inflicting suffering is bad, but only because suffering is caused. If someone attempted to inflict suffering without the possibility of suffering actually occurring, then it wouldn’t be bad.

No! That is pure hedonism. Without any suffering there is no challenge…

Why should life have to be challenging? I don’t see any reason to force hardship on people.

Let me put it this way: I’m not sure if you have a kid or not, but if you did, would you want their life to be challenging? I think most parents want their childrens’ lives to be easy.

…nor opportunity for compassion, self-sacrifice or love.

I don’t see how the absence of suffering makes compassion and love impossible. As for self-sacrifice, it looks very noble, but why should people have to sacrifice? Again, wouldn’t it be better if people didn’t have to endure sacrifices?

You have said **all **suffering is evil.
If you accept the inevitability of some suffering how do you determine whether it outweighs the value of life?

Roughly speaking, I think of an amount of suffering as a negative number–the more intense, the more negative it is–and an amount of happiness as a positive number–the more intense, the more positive it is. If the “sum” is positive, then happiness outweighs suffering, and the life is worthwhile.

In practice, though, if a person is already in existence, then I think the value of their life is contingent on how much they value their life. This is because happier people tend to value their lives more while miserable people tend to value their lives less.

“expedient” means “based on or marked by a concern for self-interest rather than principle”.

Right. Every moral code I can think of derives its principles from someone’s self-interest. The only difference between my morality and yours is that mine comes from my self-interest but you believe yours comes from God’s self-interest. Self-interest is still involved. As a matter of fact, if your self-interest is serving God, then your morality could also be interpreted as coming from your self-interest. The bottom line is that you do the things you do because you want to do them.

Science works but it is restricted to material objects.

Right, and the only time this is a problem is when people assume that there are immaterial objects. Why do you assume the existence of such things?

“emergent” is equivalent to a magic wand. Hey presto! Give enough time things develop into persons - without any outside help of course!

When simple objects are arranged correctly, new properties can emerge. This is not debatable. Molecules can have properties that their constituent atoms lack.

The universe is less economical than One Being. It consists of many things.

If scientists are right about the universe existing as a singularity, then the universe would have only been a single object.

It is also less adequate because it lacks consciousness and insight. It doesn’t know we exist whereas we know it exists…

Why can consciousness not be an emergent property?

If X is the universe it is unreasonable to regard it as self-explanatory.
You are giving special treatment to X, i.e. the universe.

You didn’t answer the question, you just started assuming values of X.

You think it is the ultimate reality that has created everything all by itself. What can’t it do?

It can’t produce energy or other matter from nothing.

Emergent properties do **not **explain their own existence, which is something you can learn about in an introductory philosophy course.

Contrary to popular belief, the subject of philosophy actually hosts a wide variety of philosophies that are not compatible with each other, and therefore you can’t claim philosophy as a whole has demonstrated anything. Indeed, for any philosophy you can think of, there’s another philosophy that directly contradicts it.

And again, this matter is not debatable. Molecules can have properties their constituent atoms lack. These properties are emergent.

 

[tonyrey]

Inanimate objects are not comparable to animate objects.

I don’t see a reason to believe in an “intangible reality”.

What about truth?

Thus far, history has shown that science is better at explaining things than mysticism.

Things but not persons.

Mystical ideas were adopted because they were easy, and they were easy for good reason.

Mystical ideas were adopted because human beings have always recognised the inadequacy of materialism.

All that belief did for ancient people was create the illusion that they had a legitimate answer, all without the hassle of actually coming to understand their environment.

It is an illusion that science has a legitimate answer for everything.

Well, you must understand that I say suffering is the only evil because I think every other evil is contingent on the occurrence or possibility of suffering.

So we are always entitled to kill a person painlessly…

Indeed, suffering is the only thing that I would deem to be unconditionally bad.

So painless destruction is always permissible?

Thus, my answer to your question is that deliberately inflicting suffering is bad, but only because suffering is caused.

So only the **consequences **of actions are evil?

If someone attempted to inflict suffering without the possibility of suffering actually occurring, then it wouldn’t be bad.

So there are no evil motives?

Why should life have to be challenging?

To demonstrate we’re not spoilt brats!

I don’t see any reason to force hardship on people.

Not even if it makes them happier in the long run?

I think most parents want their childrens’ lives to be easy.

Then they are seriously misguided.

I don’t see how the absence of suffering makes compassion and love impossible.

Compassion = suffering with

As for self-sacrifice, it looks very noble, but why should people have to sacrifice?

Do you believe in getting your own way all the time?

Again, wouldn’t it be better if people didn’t have to endure sacrifices?

They wouldn’t appreciate life if they had everything on a plate.

Roughly speaking, I think of an amount of suffering as a negative number–the more intense, the more negative it is–and an amount of happiness as a positive number–the more intense, the more positive it is. If the “sum” is positive, then happiness outweighs suffering, and the life is worthwhile.

Happiness for individuals or society as a whole?

In practice, though, if a person is already in existence, then I think the value of their life is contingent on how much they value their life.

No one is infallible about the value of his or her life. We are not isolated individuals but members of a community.

This is because happier people tend to value their lives more while miserable people tend to value their lives less.

Emotions are unstable and an unreliable criterion.

Every moral code I can think of derives its principles from someone’s self-interest.

The common good is often not in individuals’ self-interest.

The only difference between my morality and yours is that mine comes from my self-interest but you believe yours comes from God’s self-interest.

God didn’t create us for His benefit but ours. You may live for yourself but not everyone else does…

As a matter of fact, if your self-interest is serving God, then your morality could also be interpreted as coming from your self-interest.

Jesus said that we cannot love Him unless we love others. Only an egoist believes the world revolves around himself.

The bottom line is that you do the things you do because you want to do them.

We can want to do things because we believe they are right not necessarily because we enjoy doing them.

Science works but it is restricted to material objects.

Right, and the only time this is a problem is when people assume that there are immaterial objects. Why do you assume the existence of such things?
Why do you assume the only things that exist are those that you can hear, see, taste, smell and touch? Don’t you believe your thoughts and decisions are real?

Molecules can have properties that their constituent atoms lack.

They can but why and how?

If scientists are right about the universe existing as a singularity, then the universe would have only been a single object.

The issue is the universe as it has been, is and will be requires explanation, not just the beginning.

Why can consciousness not be an emergent property?

Anything is theoretically possible but reality is judged by evidence.

You didn’t answer the question, you just started assuming values of X.

Do you assume nothing at all?

You think it is the ultimate reality that has created everything all by itself. What can’t it do?

It can’t produce energy or other matter from nothing.

Yet it can create everything else all by itself?

Contrary to popular belief, the subject of philosophy actually hosts a wide variety of philosophies that are not compatible with each other, and therefore you can’t claim philosophy as a whole has demonstrated anything.

What do you think science is based on?

Indeed, for any philosophy you can think of, there’s another philosophy that directly contradicts it.

Then why are you a materialist?

Molecules can have properties their constituent atoms lack. .

You still haven’t explained why or how they have acquired those properties.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Oreoracle;8252300:

Molecules can have properties their constituent atoms lack.

You still haven’t explained why or how they have acquired those properties.

I don’t think there is an intent to explain that. A full explanation wouldn’t be short, the relevant reasons may be dependent on the specific chemical reaction or molecule collection being observed and as mentioned introduction to chemistry courses would be the better answer to this question.

A compound may have a colour that is different than it’s constituent atoms and that color is not necessarily the function of adding the colors that the constituent atoms would have. The color the substance has is influenced by the electrons in the molecule and how they react to photons of various frequency. Photons of some frequencies of photons may pass through a substance without interacting with this electrons making it transparent to that colour. Some photons may excite electrons which will release that energy at the same frequency. We see this as reflection. The energy can also be absorbed and released at some other frequency. I’ve not gone into detail about how the arrangement of atoms in the union of a molecule affect these attributes though I could fill several pages doing so. Nor have I spoken about the other attributes that can be impacted by how the molecules are arranged.

Might I suggest that you employ the knowledge of someone with a background in chemistry (or possibly physics) to provide assistance in understanding how the arrangement of protons, neutrons, and electrons result in substances that have diverse properties.