This is simply preposterous. If you claim that a particular tree or dog or boulder or mountain exist it either does or it does not. You can either take someone TO this tree, dog, boulder or mountain or you cannot. These four words were invented precisely because these things do in fact exist “out in the world”.
But words like “God” exist only because we are able to imagine the creation of existence “in our head” by God. But that does not mean we can actually demonstrate that God does exist in order TO have created it. Instead, we invent a word like God as something that one might believe is the Creator of existence.
But, again, merely believing in His existence is not the same thing as pointing to a tree or a dog or a boulder or a mountain and saying that they exist.
At least not to me. Now, again, lots of folks here at ILP claim to believe in God. But I do not believe in God. So, in my view, it is incumbent upon them to demonstrate to me that their God does in fact exist.
In talking about morality I have given you many examples of how I integrate “dasein”, “conflicting goods” and “political economy” in my discussion of moral interaction “out in the world”.
You on the other hand refuse to intertwine the “Real God” in moral conflicts at all. You merely define or assert or describe what it means: The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = “The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is”.
What situation?
One will always be "that lost" in the whole issue [any issue…right?] unless they agree that something means to them what it means to you. That is why you have never, ever been able to give me even [u][b]a single example[/u][/b] of where this was not the case.
No, it is a sound we have given to a word that was invented [in the course of acquiring a language] that is said to represent the thought in our head that existence must have been created by someone/something – and that we believe this to be our own God.
But again [in my view] all of this is just a transparent effort on your part to steer the exchange away from this:
You began a thread entitled The Morality of God. And in the OP you claim that The Morality of God (for those who can read words), is simply this; “There are things which you don’t bloody want to do to yourself, so don’t do them or suffer the consequences.”
Is this in reference to the Real God? And how are either one applicable to morality pertaining to John and Mary and their dead baby?
There are things folks don’t want to do to themselves. Like, say, masturbate. But other folks do want to do it to themselves. So, ought one to do it or not? Same with abortion or owning guns or going hunting or embracing big government.
People want to do things that conflict with what others insist we should not want to do. Then what? Where does any particular one of us embed God in these conflicts?
That however is real [the conflicts are real] and you have nothing to say about it.
[b][size=200][u]DUDE, YOU ARE BANGING YOUR HEAD AGAINST A FUCKING WALL WITH THIS. WE KNOW YOU CAN’T PROVE GOD THAT WAY OR PROVE THAT GOD CREATED IT ALL. WE KNOW WE CAN’T JUST POINT TO GOD AND SAY ‘THERE HE IS’. WE KNOW DAMN WELL THAT WE CAN NOT SIT HERE AND PROVE TO YOU HOW WE KNOW THIS IN ANY WAY THAT YOU WILL ACCEPT, BECAUSE IT IS AN IMMATERIAL THING. IT CAN NOT BE POINTED AT AND SAID ‘THERE IT IS.’
ALL. THAT. CAN. BE. DONE. IS. TO. TELL. YOU. HOW. TO. FIND. GOD. SO. YOU. CAN. SEE. FOR. YOUR. SELF.
FUCK MY LIFE, MAN; YOU ARE THE DUMBEST SACK OF FUCKING SHIT ON THE FUCKING PLANET FOR HOW SMART YOU ARE. NOW FUCKING QUIT GIVING JAMES SHIT BEFORE I REALLY TEAR YOU A NEW ONE. YOU ARE NOT GIVING HIM GROWTH THAT HE NEEDS; HE WILL GIVE HIMSELF THE GROWTH HE NEEDS AT THIS POINT. YOU ARE DOING NOTHING BUT STILL TRYING TO HAVE OTHERS QUANTIFY AND EXPLAIN TO YOU THIS CONCEPT OF GOD SO YOU CAN BE SATISFIED WITH IT, BUT YOU NEVER WILL BE BECAUSE YOU WANT CONCRETE PROOF WHEN NONE CAN BE GIVEN.
HOW ABOUT YOU GIVE US FUCKING CONCRETE PROOF ABOUT HOW YOU THINK THE UNIVERSE SPRANG INTO EXISTENCE? YOU CAN’T! JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, MAN… JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY.[/u][/size][/b]
You will be; and the sad part is that you still won’t have learned anything.
This is not the end, yet and God isn’t in the habit of smiting for peoples own personal agendas. As much as I personally hate to admit it, there must still be a purpose for you even if individual people don’t like that purpose. Just be glad that I’m not God, as I’m not in such a position yet as to restrain myself from smiting you just to be rid of the nuisance of your voice as you drip honey from your tongue and fuck with people over this concept of God that you understand full well.
Just remember that even though you still serve a purpose, that purpose is going to become obsolete eventually and you’ll still have to face the consequences of ALL that you have done. And, while I may not be able to catch all that you’ve done from my human standpoint, God will surely judge you perfectly. Perhaps you will find some saving grace from him that you would not find from me. Perhaps not. Perhaps your purpose is similar to that of the devils. To be honest, you and many others here remind me of Loki, who likes to keep his illusions up even when he has nothing more to gain from them.
[size=200]
Personally, I think what ruins the website are 1] folks who insist that only they get to say what philosophy is really about 2] objectivists who insist that nothing is logical unless they say it is 3] the hopelessly and haplessly arrogant Kids and 4] those who are always only inches away from flying into a complete motherfucking rage.[/size]
But that’s just my own personal opinion
And yet you refuse to actually engage my understanding of dasein [let alone its dilemma] by reacting to it in an intelligent, substantive manner. Anymore than you will substantiate your assertions regarding the morality of God and objectivity.
This [to me] is just more abstract twaddle, my friend. More words insisting that other words are true by definition. The definitions are never in reference to any acutal human interactions out in the world. It’s all just stuff that is true to you “in your head”. And that’s the only place you ever seem to feel comfortable concocting meaning. You tell us what the “morality of God” IS… but then it all just stops there.
There is no way to grasp how that might be made applicable to, say, John and Mary.
Maybe. But if there is a God, there is still the possibilty that he will be considerably more intelligent in discussing these things than many of the folks who claim to worship and adore him down here. He can’t be any duller surely.
Or, to paraphrase Frederick from Hannah and her Sisters, “If Jesus came back and saw what was said in his name at ILP, he’d never stop throwing up.”
As though in “naming” it, that makes your God [the Real God, the ONE God] any more substantial. Let alone probes the relationship between God and [human] morality.
It still all comes down to this: the capacity of matter evolved into mind [the human mind] able to contemplate these things at all. After all, to the best of our knowledge no other matter is able to.
The human mind is able to contemplate “existence qua existence”: why does something exist and not nothing? Why this particular existence and not another existence instead? Is there something analogous to an ontological and teleological font “behind” existence? What “caused” existence to exist.
Personally, I think mere mortals invented “the Gods” [and then “a God”] because:
1] it establishes immortality
2] it establishes Salvation
3] it establishes a moral Scripture
4] it establishes devine justice
5] it establishes a reason for…everything.
You know, like RM/AO. In other words, “in your head”.
And whether or not it establishes what is in fact is true objectively there seems little doubt that [emotionally and psychologically] it comforts and consoles many.
Those are all YOUR excuses made up in Your head concerning why other people have done things, your “strawman”.
RM:AO approaches the issue differently than what you know about or have experienced from others. But you don’t believe in defining the words that it uses, because your strawman insists that all words are just excuses for that list of excuses. You don’t listen or look for any truth, because you already “know” that everything is just a lie to trick people (your list).
“Everything you say is a lie. Resolve my dilemma for me!
Everything you say is a lie. Resolve my dilemma for me!
Everything you say is a lie. Resolve my dilemma for me!
Everything you say is a lie. Resolve my dilemma for me!
See!!! YOU CAN’T RESOLVE MY DILEMMA BECAUSE EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS A LIE!!!”
Why do you even bother to ask a question? “So that I can show people that you are a dangerous liar!”
But to You, everyone you talk to is a dangerous liar unless they are merely quoting what someone you have never met but respect has said. Yet none of those people who you respect answers your dilemma. So why ask anyone at all or even warn anyone at all, since you believe that your dilemma is eternal and unresolvable? Why even talk about a problem that cannot be solved at all? What danger would there be if anyone DID lie about having a resolution for it? How is believing a lie concerning a dilemma any more dangerous than the dilemma itself since it involves total distrust of everyone speaking other than an emperor who you will never meet or know?
It seems to me that believing in the immutability of the dilemma is the real danger.
James, I have never denied that my own narrative regarding God and morality is subjective. In fact, that is my point Thus above: “Personally, I think…”
Instead, I try to differentiate between subjective and objective reality pertaining TO relationships like this.
For example, it is in fact objectively true that in the OP you stated that:
The Morality of God…is simply this;
“There are things which you don’t bloody want to do to yourself, so don’t do them or suffer the consequences.”
And it is also true objectively that in your signature you note this:
The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = “The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is”.
But then it is also objectively true that I have asked you repeatedly to situate those assertions “out in the world”. I have asked you to note the relevance of these assertions as they might pertain to John and Mary and their dead baby. Or as they might pertain to any other conflicting human behaviors that are derived from value judgments at odds.
Well?
But how is any of this relevant to the manner in which I have myself situated dasein, conflicting good and political economy in the experience I had with, say, John and Mary? Especially given how, in interacting with them, none of us believed in the existence of God. I explained what these words mean to me and then I used this meaning existentially to illustrate my own point of view. Same with my “dasein dilemma”. Again, something you absolutely refuse to do yourself with regard to either RM/AO or the Real God.
Now, we can always start with the manner in which someone defines the words they use. But that is never, ever good enough for some objectivists. Instead, they insist that folks go “up there” with them into the clouds of abstraction and settle once and for all the only rational and logical manner in which these words CAN be defined.
And, in my exchange with you, it seems quite clear that means this: THE WAY THAT YOU DEFINE THEM.
That’s always your default loophole.
You don’t/won’t bring RM/AO or the Real God down to earth [down to John and Mary] until that is agreed upon. Hell, you won’t even bring them down to earth with respect to experiences that you have had: the Mormon couple.
Cue the “broad outline”?
Note to others:
Again, here is my “dilemma”:
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then everytime I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might just as well have gone in the other direction instead…Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it together at all. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
Now, since there was once a time in my life when I did not subscribe to this particular [subjective] point of view, I can reasonably conclude there may well be time when I do not again. But [here and now] it does seem reasonable to me given how I construe the meaning of dasein [identity] and conflicting goods [value judgments].
But I will be more then willing to have an intelligent and civil exchange regarding the manner in which you have come to grapple with these relationships. In particular if, like me, you do not believe in the existence of God. Or, sure, even if you do.
Further, I can assure you I do not believe this dilemma that I perceive with respect to “I” [here and now] is necessarily an objective truth. Nor do I believe it is eternal and unresolvable. How could I possibly believe that given the manner in which I construe these relationships “out in the world” with others?
[b]Bottom line, James[/b]: Over and over again, I have pointed out that as a Christian and a Unitarian and an Objectivist and a Leninist-Marxist and a Trotskyite-Marxist and a democratic socialist and a social democrat and an existentialist and a deconstructionist and a nihilist I have believd many, many conflicting and contradictory things about these relationships. That [in a world of contingency, chance and change] I had new experiences, new relationships, new sources of information and I changed my mind. Many others along the way were involved in changing my mind.
Can you say the same?
So, which us is more likely to be inflexible regarding what he believes about these relationships here and now?
Again, not once have you ever given me an example where you acknowledged how another you bumped into over the years had a better definition or meaning or understanding of the relationships between morality and God and human interaction.
What does that then tell us about your own frame of mind, my friend? Well, to me it reeks of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
In other words, you can’t own up to ever having been wrong before about something here because that implies you might well be wrong about something now too. And to admit that puts cracks in the façade of your “objective truth”. Then the dilemma that is “I” in regard TO these relationships begins to creep in. And that means you can’t take these certainties to the grave with you.
No, no. I am not talking about “your narrative” concerning the God and morality debate. I am talking about Your narrative concerning why people say what they say. You insist that everyone is simply manipulating and/or lying, thus you feel free to do the same.
Yet again: the entirety of my post and all of the substantive questions it posed to you reduced down to this. Shameless is how I would describe it, James. But, true, that’s just my own personal opinion.
Anyway, my speculations as to why folks say what they say about God and morality [or about dasein and its dilemma] can only be my own subjective rendering. Again, my friend, that is, well, my point.
Cite the passage above [or from another thread] where I insist that people are lying or being nanipulative if they…if they what exactly?
Instead, I suggest that if they understood dasein [identity] and conflicting goods [value judgments] as I do they would recognize that their own moral and political assessments [judgments] are only reflections OF subjective points of view ABOUT “goods” that, when in conflict, are not able to be reconciled or resolved objectively.
Which is what “I” do here and now. Thus the dilemma.
And much more crucially: I am willing to discuss this with anyone as long as they are willing to integrate the meaning that they give to the words they use in their arguments “out in the world” of actual experiences that they have had.
Something that you will simply not do. And for all of the reasons I raised. The ones that you completely ignored above. Again. Though, no doubt, in your own opinion, not shamelessly.
Not to mention the entirety of your ranting in the Rant section and your continuous accusation that any definitions are “just words used to justify other words”.
And now even the scintilla of substance in your last post implodes all the way down into [sigh] twaddle.
How is this even remotely an intelligent, substantive response to my points above?
In speculating on why mere mortal invented Gods/God I am not saying this makes them manipulative liars. After all, many, many of them genuinely believed that their faith in God was real. Instead, I am just offering up my own speculation about why Gods are invented given the manner in which I construe these things.
Are you [with a straight face] actually going to argue that substance wise [on this thread and others] you have matched me post by post?
Yes, I suspect, you really, really will. And what does that tell us about a frame of mind as a manifestation of self-delusion? And as a manifestation of the relationship between human psychology and objectivism?
Look, folks, you can’t say that I don’t give the objectivists every chance “in the world” to make their case. How [and why] they refuse to make it is entirely up to them.
How does one determine objectively when someone is “poking himself in the eye” while pondering the morality of God?
How can that not be anything other than a subjective point of view rooted in dasein?
Also, are they talking about the same God here? Is James’s “Real God” [the ONE God] another rendering of Idioticidiom’s rendering of the Christian God? There are, after all, hundreds and hundreds of them. If so, how important is that we agree with either one or the other’s rendition with so much [seemingly] at stake: immortality, salvation, devine justice etc.
But then James notes that, “God ‘said’ [metaphor]…”
This [to me] is obscure. Why just a metaphor? This is where I struggle [once again] to understand the extent to which his Real God is or is not the God of Moses and Abraham. Or is it only necessary to understand it as an “intellectual contraption” the “reality” of which has been defined/deduced into existence?
As for suffering the consequences of the things we do, sure, folks shouldn’t do particular things if they don’t/won’t like the consequences.
But with John and Mary, this got complicated. Mary would not want to have been aborted herself but that didn’t change the fact that she did not want to become a mother at the time. And she felt [as did I] that “society” [others] did not have the right to force her to give birth. Which is why moral conflicts ultimately become political conflicts: because, in the end, it always comes down to who has the power to enforce one outcome rather than the other.
That is precisely what can make moral quandaries like this so agonizing for the folks who have to endure them.
And, pertaining to this, my question to James then is always the same:
What can a belief in the Real God [and RM/AO] tell us about the objective morality of John and Mary and their dead baby? Can they be used to determine the objective morality here or not? What can or cannot they accomplish with respect to the relationship between philosophy and ethics?
