on discussing god and religion

Imagine if you could pluck 1,000 people at random from around the world. You gather them together and you note this for them.

What would it mean to them? How would they react to it?

Which God? Understood in what manner? In what particular context?

And, sure, while it might be argued that God is just one more thing in your life to interact with, who would really believe that?

And “you”? Your identity? How would it not be an existential contraption with regard to God and religion.

Yes, you can choose to discuss these things in any way that you wish in your day to day interactions with others. But it would seem [to me] that in a philosophy venue, the gap between what you believe is true and what you able to demonstrate is in fact true about God would involve considerably more scrutiny.

Let us then just agree to disagree regarding what that entails.

I presume the existence of morality and value judgments because human interaction revolves around rules of behavior. And clearly in each community it must be decided what those rules will be.

Now, can these rules be predicated on an objective morality? If you think so, note a context in which values might come into conflict, and describe the behaviors that you would either prescribe or proscribe.

Show us how you would go about differentiating them.

And, historically, the objectivists are often thumped by the nihilists when it comes to horror stories.

For example, the nihilists that own and operate the global [capitalist] economy today, pretty much wrap their moral narrative around “show me the money”.

And this is the world they own and operate: statisticbrain.com/world-po … tatistics/

Wealth and power and self-interest is generally what they worship.

Communism, on the other hand, is an ideological contraption. The horrors that it precipitated often revolved around the dictum that you are either one of us or one of them. The either/or mentality of all objectivists. It then becomes a matter of how authoritarian you are willing to be. And [of course] the extent to which you have the political power to enforce your rigid doctrinaire agenda.

With communism [as with fascism and other such dogmas] the nihilistic horrors often revolve around the assumption that the end justifies the means.

Again, bring this down to earth. Note the sort of conflicted human behaviors that precipitate horrors. For example, with abortion some argue that the horror revolves around killing babies, while others insist that, on the contrary, the horror revolves around forcing women to give birth.

Now, how would a competent epistemologist address this? What can in fact be known here such that it is able to be demonstrated as applicable to all of us?

Or you pick the issue and the horrors it can bring about.

All I can do here is to note that I do not construe my own argument as any less an existential contraption. And that in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change, a new experience, relationship or idea might propel me in another direction. As has been the case many times in the past.

What I suspect however is that this common reaction among the objectivists to my frame of mind “here and now” revolves more around my speculation that it is applicable to them as well.

Good and bad as “existential contraptions” rooted in dasein just freaks them out. The idea that in a No God world construed by some to be essentially meaningless and absurd, “I” can rest only on the “intellectual contraptions” they concoct “in their head”, is just too discomfiting to seriously consider.

After all, look what is at stake: the comfort and the consolation derived from the conviction that right and wrong behavior must be distinguishable. Why? Because they have in fact already distinguished them.

And that’s often when the focus shifts from dealing with people like me, to dealing with all the other moral/political objectivists who share the conviction that right is right and wrong is wrong. But then insist it is their own agenda that nails this.

If an actual existing God made His presense known, everything would revolve around what He either could or could not know, what He either could or could not do.

Though, sure, there may well be any number of folks not aware of His existence. Or, after He made it known how His omniscience could be reconciled with human autonomy, some might freely choose to defy Him. Though here that would seem to be predicated on just how clear God made it regarding the consequences of defying Him.

Exactly! What actually would happen?

Well, God would be around to explain that, right?

This can only be connected to what the actual existing relationship is between this God and any particular mere mortal.

What it means to them or how they react is not something I have control over. I put it out there and get some feedback.

I notice that I don’t get any particularly thoughtful feedback from you.

So you’re in a philosophy venue and nobody is able demonstrate the truth about God to you.
In fact, nobody has been able to demonstrate the truth of any value judgements to you.

If I don’t demonstrate it, then that’s just in line with your expectations.

All you’re doing is sitting there going … “No, not good enough. Next …”. Over and over and over.

Ever have a discussion where you are not dismissive?

You agree but post no content. #-o

Why bother.

IOW if you believe in God on good grounds, you should be able to demonstrate the existence of God via text to a skeptic. Anyone want to parse that for all the silly assumptions in there. Of course some theists are silly and think they can do this. And they are nicely counter-melodied by atheists who think that theists should be able to do this.

Don’t forget … it has to be demonstrated in such as way that “all rational men and women are obligated to accept it”. :evilfun:

Not that he has any clear idea of what "rational " means. That’s just another contraption, isn’t it? :laughing:

More to the point, in living lives that may well be very, very different from your own, how might that feedback be construed as either constructive or destructive?

In either a God or a No God world.

Perhaps then you should stop reading my posts.

On the other hand, would any feedback suppotive of Communism be construed as thoughful by you?

But my point is to suggest that narratives relating to God are largely existential contraptions anchored subjectively/subjunctively in dasein.

You tell me: What [u][b]IS[/u][/b] the truth about God?

They would first have to note how, with regard to their own conflicting behaviors with others, they not down in the hole that I’m in.

All I can do then is to react to what they tell me. And in the either/or world there are countless things that can in fact be demonstrated to be true for all of us. My “expectations” here are almost always in sync with what is.

Indeed, I eschew a “dismissive” attitude here time and again.

Huh?

Until we are able to establish precisely what the relationship would be between an existing God and any particular mere mortal, how on earth could any “content” be realistically speculated about?

Go ahead, provide us with a hypothetical relationship.

Come on, let’s not forget what is at stake here: immortality, salvation and divine justice.

Which God then? Which Scripture?

Maybe it’s just me, but that would seem to be something a mere mortal would want to be rather certain regarding.

Could be either depending on the content.

I need the laughs.

Obviously yes.

But you have this weird idea about how and what I think, so you believe my answer is always “no”.

You have that “objectivist” stereotype and you can’t get past it.

You have your “INTELLECTUAL CONTRAPTION” stamp all inked up and no matter what I write, you’re going to use it.

And why not in a world where there are so many things that can be so demonstrated.

My point is that historically any number of moral and political objectivists insisted that the is/ought world could be construed in much the same way: right/wrong, good/evil, true/false.

And God help those who refused to become “one of us”.

You know, if there is a God.

Well, admittedly I’m not privy to the rock bottom ontological/teleological truth about existence.

But in the interim I’m willing to settle for mathematical truths, scientific truths and logical truths.

And, sure, even moral truths. If they are in fact demonstrated to exist.

But it always still revolves around “I”. As I construe this in being a moral nihilist. Here and now. In other words, “I” could come to believe that there are objective moral truths. But how would “I” then go about demonstrating that all rational men and women are obligated to believe it too?

Actually, I partially did … to which you responded with no content.

That’s because you don’t have the same standard for the demonstrations:

Someone refuses to accept that humans landed on the moon : Refuses to accept pictures, video, eye-witness testimony. Dimwit.

Someone thinks that all human life on the planet ought to be exterminated : Well you can’t argue with that, it’s a value judgement. You can’t demonstrate that it’s a crazy idea. Perfectly rational person.
#-o

At some point, you dismiss one guy as a nutter, but the other guy is never a nutter no matter what.

Well, a determinist who focuses centally Dasein cannot logically believe in rationality. All believe, not just religious ones, the determinist knows he or she is compelled to have and compelled to think they make sense. It is not necessary to add on the distortions of Dasein to this since knowing one is rational about any decision/conclusion is not possible. Knowing one has been. He loves the is ought distinction, but his own philosophy makes the distinction irrelevant and indiscernible.

Please partially do it again.

Then note why you construe my reaction as lacking in content.

In any event, the first accomplishment here would seem to revolve around demonstrating the existence of a God, the God, my God.

After all, only when this is established would we able to grapple with what He does or Does not know, and what He can or cannot do.

And then grapple further with how any mere mortal might react to this.

Indeed, in the first context, there are any number of facts that either can or cannot be established as true [objectively] for all of us. But, sure, there will always be those who insist that since they were not in the actual capsule that landed on the Moon, there’s always the possibility that the whole thing was just made up…a government conspiracy.

And, as always, there will be the solipsists. Or those who speculate that everything – everything – that we experience from day to day is really just a manifestation of some Sim world, or some cartesean demon’s dream.

And how on earth could I demonstrate otherwise?

As for the second context, yes, there may well be those who live lives so fucking miserable that, were they able to, they would readily push the button that blew up the planet.

And how on earth would you go about demonstrating that, philosophically, such a behavior is necessarily irrational and immoral? In a No God world.

The irony here being that, if there is a God, He brings about “extinction events” on planet earth from time to time Himself.

These things: worldatlas.com/articles/the … earth.html

And almost all scientists agree that it is not a question of whether but of when one or another Big One will bring about our own extinction.

So, when this occurs, will this be an example of God acting in a necessarily irrational and immoral manner.

Here, again, I will need you to note instances of this.

Since, in my view, with respect to God, religion, value judgments and morality, we are all only exchanging “existential contraptions” here, it would never occur to me to label someone a “nutter”. That would make me one.

On the other hand, please define a “nutter” for me.

This:

to which you responded with:

Which says basically nothing because “everything” is one of those idiot words which means practically nothing. Obviously some human thinking would revolve around God and some would not.

Then you quote me :

and you respond with :

Not responding to my questions or suggesting any ideas.

More of me:

and you responded with:

That’s not really a substantive answer is it?

My hypothetical situation consisted of God having revealed himself - no demonstrations of God’s existence would be required to discuss the situation.