What is scholarly about discussing any aspect of religion?

[Rhiannon]

I believe that these can be normal reactions to severe disappointment.  Is 'telling something as it is' really a fright tactic?

Ah, so we'll be disappointed by the firey furnace. Right ....

[Brownie]

Oh don't, that is the stuff of nightmares Rhi. 
Plenty of people 'go through Hell' whilst still on earth, for all sorts of reasons.  Sometimes they seem to have drawn the short straw but there are plenty who suffer because of something they did wrong years ago and can't forgive themselves.  They are having their punishment in the here and now, God isn't going to punish them again.  My view of course, I'm sure no-one agrees with me.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Not being in relationship with one's creator.  Since you don't believe in the concept, I'm not sure that it would apply to you. 

I could only be disappointed if I were to find out that such a creator exists. Should I wake up after death to find such a creator why couldn't I have a relationship with him if that is what I wanted?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

then whatever that second decision leads to is not the fault of the person who created the path.

If there is a God of the tri-Omni nature then everything that happens is ultimately his responsibility.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Except that the 'shtick here isn't "these are my rules, you break my rules and I'll break you".  It's "these are my rules, you break my rules and this is what you will lead yourself into'.

Which is of course precisely what Fat Tony would say too.

Notice also that Romans, like all the other New Testament epistles - regardless of author, is written to Christians.  None of them were written to non-believers.  As I'm sure you can appreciate, if one has freely chosen to follow a certain path (which is likely what the vast majority of the readers of the epistles would have done), and then choose to leave that path or allow yourself to be led off it, then whatever that second decision leads to is not the fault of the person who created the path.

Tell it to the children who were indoctrinated into this stuff before they had the critical faculties to see through it.

Technically, as Paul points out earlier in Romans 'There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through him Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death'. Romans 8: 1,2

Ah, the get out clause. Fat Tony says that if you do the hit on Charlie "Two Sheds" Antonioni down in Miami maybe he won't break your legs after all. Capiche?

If, having once chosen to live under the Spirit, one returns in whatever way to living under the law then that law controls your life and the consequences of the law control your future.  Remember that, unless there is a law against a given behaviour, it is not illegal - it is the law that defines what is right and wrong.

Yeah, you join the mafia you follow da rules right?   

Except that you don't see the model, as it is a false analogy.

Except it isn't - see above.

So, I am still awaiting an explanation of how the idea of argumentum ad baculum fits the picture.

No you're not - you've had it already.

[Rhiannon]

Oh don't, that is the stuff of nightmares Rhi. 
Plenty of people 'go through Hell' whilst still on earth, for all sorts of reasons.  Sometimes they seem to have drawn the short straw but there are plenty who suffer because of something they did wrong years ago and can't forgive themselves.  They are having their punishment in the here and now, God isn't going to punish them again.  My view of course, I'm sure no-one agrees with me.

But Jesus said it, Brownie. Hope doesn't think that is a whacking great stick, it's just severely disappointing.

[Brownie]

Traditional Jewish teaching was pictorial, I'm sure you know that Rhiannon.  A story would be told that would illustrate a scene, sometimes quite beautiful, in your head.  The idea being to convey a truth.  Jesus told many stories with a moral in them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If there is a God of the tri-Omni nature then everything that happens is ultimately his responsibility.

Do you deny your own responsibility which exists whether there is a God or not?

[Stranger]

Do you deny your own responsibility which exists whether there is a God or not?

Actually, it doesn't:  free will is a nonsense from the point of view of an omnipotent and omniscient god.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually, it doesn't:  free will is a nonsense from the point of view of an omnipotent and omniscient god.

Well then one of your omnis is wrong.

And to prove it...........the inevitable absence of you justifying what you have just claimed.

[Stranger]

Well then one of your omnis is wrong.

And to prove it...........the inevitable absence of you justifying what you have just claimed.

Everything that happens, including our decisions, is either the result of deterministic processes or (possibly) randomness (or a combination). Logically, there is nothing else; to the extent something isn't determined, it is random (not determined being what random means).

Our consciousness is clearly intractably complex and, for all practical purposes (from the human point of view) we have freedom to do as we wish. From an omni-god's point of view, however,  the whole process would not only be clear and visible but, since it would have designed everything that influences our choices, entirely under its control. It might be, of course, that god has introduced some genuinely random element, but that wouldn't our responsibility either.

The whole idea of an omni god judging us is illogical drivel.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Everything that happens, including our decisions, is either the result of deterministic processes or (possibly) randomness (or a combination). Logically, there is nothing else; to the extent something isn't determined, it is random (not determined being what random means).

Our consciousness is clearly intractably complex and, for all practical purposes (from the human point of view) we have freedom to do as we wish. From an omni-god's point of view, however,  the whole process would not only be clear and visible but, since it would have designed everything that influences our choices, entirely under its control. It might be, of course, that god has introduced some genuinely random element, but that wouldn't our responsibility either.

The whole idea of an omni god judging us is illogical drivel.

A complete denial of agency.......of cause and effect.
You suggest an omnipotent God who cannot create something which can act independently of him and therefore deny him omnipotence.

Particularly where there is no obvious contradiction between omnipotence and independent creations.

I would question also if ultimate cosmic responsibility equates to and replaces human responsibility and agency.

[Stranger]

A complete denial of agency.......of cause and effect.

I'm just arguing that 'agency' cannot be self-contradictory magic. I am saying that the only alternative to cause and effect is randomness.

You suggest an omnipotent God who cannot create something which can act independently of him and therefore deny him omnipotence.

How? I guess it could create creatures and deliberately blind itself as to the exact consequences of its actions but that wouldn't stop what results from being the consequence of its actions. There is still no justification for blaming the creation.

Particularly where there is no obvious contradiction between omnipotence and independent creations.

I just pointed such a contradiction.

I would question also if ultimate cosmic responsibility equates to and replaces human responsibility and agency.

Where is your logic? How could it possibly work without self-contradictory magic?

[Dicky Underpants]

Too right! If it's not objective, it must be phony. Just like art, literature, beauty, music, love, friendship, happiness and so on; all that phony crap, eh?

Superb response!

[Dicky Underpants]

What happens if you are old and have lost all your teeth?

I've heard three versions of that joke delivered (supposedly) by three ministers of religion from different branches of Christianity - American Southern Baptist, Scottish Presbyterian and Anglican. I like the Baptist response:
"Well then, the Good Lord is sure goin' ta give ya hell on the gums".

[bluehillside Retd.]

Dicky,

Superb response!

I agree. It always seems odd to me when those who argue for objective morality also arbitrarily hive off that aspect of human experience that we intuit and reason our way towards from other aspects of the human experience that we intuit and reason our way towards. What's so special about the way we determine the morality of, say, capital punishment that puts it in a different epistemological category from the way we determine whether a painting or a symphony is good or bad? 

It's also of course a pretty egregious use of the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy: non-objectively set morality morality isn't real morality, therefore - um - it must be objectively set!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dicky,

I agree. It always seems odd to me when those who argue for objective morality also arbitrarily hive off that aspect of human experience that we intuit and reason our way towards from other aspects of the human experience that we intuit and reason our way towards. What's so special about the way we determine the morality of, say, capital punishment that puts it in a different epistemological category from the way we determine whether a painting or a symphony is good or bad? 

It's also of course a pretty egregious use of the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy: non-objectively set morality morality isn't real morality, therefore - um - it must be objectively set!

The trouble though is if morality is an ought then subjective morality finally resolves into there being nothing that really ought to be done and nothing that really ought not to be done and that rather puts an end to morality.

If you disagree, please point where the morality is in subjective morality.

I think what you are trying to say we have moved beyond Good and Evil..................Now where have I heard that before?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Appeal to consequences/argumentum ad consequentiam

"Truth matters in logical debates; our emotions or feelings about the truth do not. While human emotions, feelings, and values will always influence what we decide to do based on our knowledge of the situation, that knowledge cannot be unduly influenced by our emotions or values if it is to be true knowledge.

This is applied fallaciously in arguing whether something is true or not. Just because something is perceived as having adverse consequences if it is true, does not make it suddenly become untrue - such an idea is just a form of wishful thinking. Conversely, when something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, this perception does not actually make it true. Any argument from consequences is an appeal to emotion."

Rational Wiki

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

You suggest an omnipotent God who cannot create something which can act independently of him and therefore deny him omnipotence.

No, if the tri-Omni God exists an initialises the universe then all actions in that universe subsequently occur are his responsibility. Whether those beings can act independently  of him or not is irrelevant, he set the whole thing in motion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Rational wikis definition of Argumentum ad consequentium as provided by Bluehillside.

"Truth matters in logical debates; our emotions or feelings about the truth do not. While human emotions, feelings, and values will always influence what we decide to do based on our knowledge of the situation, that knowledge cannot be unduly influenced by our emotions or values if it is to be true knowledge.

This is applied fallaciously in arguing whether something is true or not. Just because something is perceived as having adverse consequences if it is true, does not make it suddenly become untrue - such an idea is just a form of wishful thinking. Conversely, when something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, this perception does not actually make it true. Any argument from consequences is an appeal to emotion."

Bluehillside's example of argumentum ad consequentium as provided by Bluehillside.

It's also of course a pretty egregious use of the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy: non-objectively set morality morality isn't real morality, therefore - um - it must be objectively set!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, if the tri-Omni God exists an initialises the universe then all actions in that universe subsequently occur are his responsibility. Whether those beings can act independently  of him or not is irrelevant, he set the whole thing in motion.

So what you are saying is they aren't independent of him.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

So what you are saying is they aren't independent of him.

No, whether or not they are independent or not he is still responsible. We don't have to trouble ourselves about the distinction.

If you created some AI robot and released it into the community, you would be resposible for any harm it did regardless of whether it could act independently of you or not. You might receive some sympathy/mitigation as a human being but if you were blessed of the three Omnis I would suggest you would end up eating a lot of porridge.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, whether or not they are independent or not he is still responsible. We don't have to trouble ourselves about the distinction.

If you created some AI robot and released it into the community, you would be resposible for any harm it did regardless of whether it could act independently of you or not. You might receive some sympathy/mitigation as a human being but if you were blessed of the three Omnis I would suggest you would end up eating a lot of porridge.

Ok humanity is an out of control intelligence.....check.
Who has been harmed? What community was humanity unleashed on?
Why is mankind now harmful? Choice and acting to it's autonomy rather than it's mission.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Ok humanity is an out of control intelligence.....check.
Who has been harmed? What community was humanity unleashed on?
Why is mankind now harmful? Choice and acting to it's autonomy rather than it's mission.

1) Depends on your perspective.

2) The world. The world.

3) Which is the responsibility of the person who designed it. Presumably the designer though autonomy was better than automation. That is a judgment and you have to accept that autonomous things might not carry out your plan. Presumably he thought this was OK and went with that design. He set it in motion, anything that happens subsequently is an outcome of that decision. You make the decisions, you take the responsibility.

[2Corrie]

No, whether or not they are independent or not he is still responsible. We don't have to trouble ourselves about the distinction.

Should we trouble ourselves with the consequences?