Antitheism

[Udayana]

Udayana,

Well, I'm not so sure that these two things aren't in different categories. "Ownership", "responsibility" are "real" in that they are testable concepts with practical use in the conduct of intersubjective experience. They are behaviours or attitudes that demonstrably work.

"God", "spirits" etc on the other hand are claims of objective, "our there" fact that some think they have identified as facts for the rest of us too, and moreover that supposedly exist whether or not we exist at all. While belief in the claimed facts may be useful sometimes - for example, to comfort the grieving - I see that objective fact nature of the claim as fundamentally different from the functional facts of "ownership" etc. 

I think it's just a case of tools for the job. As society changes different belief/mythology can be found to work better, some things don't work as well or fall out of fashion. Actually I think Harari describes this quite well in his broad brush history - though there is loads of detail to object to. 

   
I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure I'd have said default "position" rather than "settings". The altruistic position would have been arrived at by evolutionary processes; settings on the other hand - as you say - imply a programmer or similar to do the setting, which I do not think to be the case.

Altruism is certainly a tool developed during evolution but how people behave just depends on how they feel and circumstances at any time. In many ways the most equal societies were those of the hunter gatherers but most of the time they seem to have been engaged in fierce warfare with competitive tribes (reading Jared Diamond rather than Harari).

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

It hasn't turned out yet.

So, God's plans/desires could be thwarted then.

Foreknowledge is not foreordination. In any case we don't exactly know in what fashion God foresees.

I agree it isn't necessarily the case that foreknowledge is foreordination, whichever way the ultimate initiator still bears ultimate responsibility.

[Sassy]

I've been a (horrified) party to a conversation that went something like this:

Bereaved woman; is my mum in heaven?

Vicar: no, sorry

Bereaved woman: but she was a nice person

Vicar: tough shit. She wasn't a Christian. Still, look on the bright side. You are.

Nah! I cannot believe any  vicar worth his 'salt' would say "TOUGH SHIT"  if sounds yukki it usually is.

Name of vicar and church I want to ask him for myself.

If the woman was a Christian why would she need to ask her vicar if her mum in heaven?

It sounds so unbelievable and ridiculous.

Nothing good ever came from eavesdropping... Perhaps you misheard the conversation after all you cannot be sure if you were ear wigging on someone other persons conversation.

[Sassy]

We are capable of empathy.

We are also capable of making up shit in order to enable us to feel better when we wonder where all the calculators go.

Oh that explains your last post...

Tell me do you feel better?

[Sassy]

He ran a web forum with his missus. And he really was a vicar - CofE.

I wasn't popular there and ended up being chased from the streets with burning brands.

You eavesdropped on a conversation on a forum.

Miracle Miracle however did you manage that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Udayana,

I think it's just a case of tools for the job. As society changes different belief/mythology can be found to work better, some things don't work as well or fall out of fashion. Actually I think Harari describes this quite well in his broad brush history - though there is loads of detail to object to.

 
Yes, but I was pointing out the category difference: "this painting is beautiful" and "there's a dragon in my garage" could each be described as beliefs that work better or not, but one relates to a subjective opinion and the other to an objective fact. When there's no-one to express an opinion on the painting there is no opinion on the painting; when there's no-one to feed the dragon, he's still there (or not) regardless.

That's the issue with morality: it's in the former category, though some really, really want it to be in the latter - generally for very bad reasons, like the argumentum ad consequentiam, as a proof for "God" etc.     

Altruism is certainly a tool developed during evolution but how people behave just depends on how they feel and circumstances at any time. In many ways the most equal societies were those of the hunter gatherers but most of the time they seem to have been engaged in fierce warfare with competitive tribes (reading Jared Diamond rather than Harari).

But I don't think that the exercise of altruism "just depends on how they feel and circumstances at any time" at all. Rather it's instinctive and for the most part automatic, and it's been observed and documented in may species other than out own. It's also been modelled mathematically, and computer simulations show the "quants" programmed to have it to flourish better than those that do not. It takes a supervening factor to override that - dogma being one such, and religious dogma being the example that's most relevant here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stephen,

I agree it isn't necessarily the case that foreknowledge is foreordination, whichever way the ultimate initiator still bears ultimate responsibility.

I'm not so sure about that. If a god knows what will happen, disapproves of it, could if he so wanted prevent it but sits on his hands instead, then his negligence is getting pretty close to "foreordination". Negligence is well-trodden ground in our legal system for example, and those who could have prevented a criminal act or damage to people or property can be held to be as guilty as the person who actually commits the bad act.

[Nearly Sane]

Stephen,

I'm not so sure about that. If a god knows what will happen, disapproves of it, could if he so wanted prevent it but sits on his hands instead, then his negligence is getting pretty close to "foreordination". Negligence is well-trodden ground in our legal system for example, and those who could have prevented a criminal act or damage to people or property can be held to be as guilty as the person who actually commits the bad act.

I don't see how the various omni and modified omni gods can avoid predestination. Surely these gods good, bad or indifferent act according to their nature and given the omnis carry that out. There is no room for anything in that case to be different. It isn't evil or good, it just is.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I don't see how the various omni and modified omni gods can avoid predestination. Surely these gods good, bad or indifferent act according to their nature and given the omnis carry that out. There is no room for anything in that case to be different.

Yes, it's an odd notion that such a god would change its mind given that the puzzle is already complete before the events it portrays play out. Why then someone would pray to such a god in a hope that "He" would change his mind is a mystery to me: if little Timmy was going to be cured of his measles then he would always have been cured of his measles, regardless of any supplications by his loved ones.   

It isn't evil or good, it just is.

Depends from whose perspective I guess. The god might think, "the actions I carry out (or don't carry out) are necessarily all "good"/"bad" ones because that is my unavoidable nature; theists on the other hand may just use these labels as a sort of confirmation bias: "my God is a god of the omnis; his actions are all good; therefore everything I observe him to do is good, even though I may not be able to rationalise why it is good; therefore god is good".

It's a logical mess though when you posit a god of the omnis and speculate about His morality.

[Nearly Sane]

I see it as much worse tha this, philosophically. If there is a omni god acting according to its nature, there is no perspective. It acts as it has to, and therefore judging it in any sense, as some form of omni makes no sense. There is no other way for things to be.

[Udayana]

There's no sense in trying to apply logic to entities that don't exist and have no logically consistent definition.

It doesn't mean that they can't exist as ideas or beliefs in people's minds and affect their emotions, actions or moral choices.   

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Stephen,

I'm not so sure about that. If a god knows what will happen, disapproves of it, could if he so wanted prevent it but sits on his hands instead, then his negligence is getting pretty close to "foreordination". Negligence is well-trodden ground in our legal system for example, and those who could have prevented a criminal act or damage to people or property can be held to be as guilty as the person who actually commits the bad act.

Well I don't think they are necessarily the same if foreknowledge is in reality like getting a sneak preview of things unfolding. So for example say God sets things going and simply sees things unfolding a second before we do, I wouldn't necessarily see that as foreordained in the same way as if he had known the outcome of everything before initiating creation.

As I said to Vlad though. Foreknowledge or foreordained doesn't clear him of his responsibility.

I think this tends to be the case with all the omnis, they are meant in their literal sense until, as you pointed it, it shows God in a bad light, then they have to mean something different and normally portrays a weaker God who is only "a bit" tri-Omni.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I see it as much worse tha this, philosophically. If there is a omni god acting according to its nature, there is no perspective. It acts as it has to, and therefore judging it in any sense, as some form of omni makes no sense. There is no other way for things to be.

Any attempt to bring the rigours of philosophy to "God" collapses very quickly in my experience, but yes - a god of the omnis would just be what it is. Whether though some would ascribe labels like "good" and "bad" to its actions is another matter. I suppose something like "according to my human definition of these terms I can map god's actions agains those definitions and reach a conclusion accordingly" makes a kind of sense though if that's your reference point.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Udayana,

There's no sense in trying to apply logic to entities that don't exist and have no logically consistent definition.

It doesn't mean that they can't exist as ideas or beliefs in people's minds and affect their emotions, actions or moral choices.

But there is sense in applying logic to the arguments some attempt to demonstrate the existence of these gods, especially when they would arrogate to themselves various rights and privileges for those beliefs in the public square. That the logic is lost on many here doesn't matter too much for this purpose - it informs the secular society in which we live and that's good enough for me.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stephen,

Well I don't think they are necessarily the same if foreknowledge is in reality like getting a sneak preview of things unfolding. So for example say God sets things going and simply sees things unfolding a second before we do, I wouldn't necessarily see that as foreordained in the same way as if he had known the outcome of everything before initiating creation.

But if "He" gets the sneak preview of, say, a tsunami and sits on His hands nonetheless then his inaction is ordaining it isn't it? Surely you can ordain things by acts of omission as well as by acts of commission can't you?

As I said to Vlad though. Foreknowledge or foreordained doesn't clear him of his responsibility.

I think this tends to be the case with all the omnis, they are meant in their literal sense until, as you pointed it, it shows God in a bad light, then they have to mean something different and normally portrays a weaker God who is only "a bit" tri-Omni.

And therein lies the problem: claim a god of the omnis and the logic collapses in a heap; claim a god not of the omnis and you have to figure out what "He" can't know or do or make good while at the same time be capable of knocking up an entire universe (or maybe lots of them) in his celestial shed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stephen,

I'm not so sure about that. If a god knows what will happen, disapproves of it, could if he so wanted prevent it but sits on his hands instead, then his negligence is getting pretty close to "foreordination". Negligence is well-trodden ground in our legal system for example, and those who could have prevented a criminal act or damage to people or property can be held to be as guilty as the person who actually commits the bad act.

I had to laugh at negligence being pretty close to foreordination since say a criminal is still deemed responsible for a committed crime whether someone is done for negligence or not.

Secondly Hillside puts himself in the position of cosmic God at a stage when there are competing theories and a good deal of ignorance about the nature of time.

Well meaning no doubt but certainly ludicrous.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well I don't think they are necessarily the same if foreknowledge is in reality like getting a sneak preview of things unfolding. So for example say God sets things going and simply sees things unfolding a second before we do, I wouldn't necessarily see that as foreordained in the same way as if he had known the outcome of everything before initiating creation.

As I said to Vlad though. Foreknowledge or foreordained doesn't clear him of his responsibility.

I think this tends to be the case with all the omnis, they are meant in their literal sense until, as you pointed it, it shows God in a bad light, then they have to mean something different and normally portrays a weaker God who is only "a bit" tri-Omni.

Well as I said before ultimate responsibility is a different thing from responsible for an act.
But supposing we could get a conviction justice would involve deserved restoration and God in Christ not only makes this but undeserved restoration.

Let me put this question. What does God owe us? And why?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Stephen,

But if "He" gets the sneak preview of, say, a tsunami and sits on His hands nonetheless then his inaction is ordaining it isn't it? Surely you can ordain things by acts of omission as well as by acts of commission can't you?

Yes. We don't disagree here. If the God is possessed of the other two Omni's then yes, everything happens with his say so. However, it's still true that foreknowledge and foreordination are not necessarily the same. The problem for the theist is when you lump them together. Then you either have to accept that God ordained/allowed the holocaust or you have to reduce the meaning of the omnis to let it off.

And therein lies the problem: claim a god of the omnis and the logic collapses in a heap; claim a god not of the omnis and you have to figure out what "He" can't know or do or make good while at the same time be capable of knocking up an entire universe (or maybe lots of them) in his celestial shed.

Which is exactly what I replied to Vlad. If your reduce foreordained to foreknowledge then you have to answer the question as to whether or not God's will can be thwarted, how would God know that his plan's would come to fruition? I notice there is no answer from him on that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stephen,

Yes. We don't disagree here. If the God is possessed of the other two Omni's then yes, everything happens with his say so. However, it's still true that foreknowledge and foreordination are not necessarily the same. The problem for the theist is when you lump them together. Then you either have to accept that God ordained/allowed the holocaust or you have to reduce the meaning of the omnis to let it off.

But you still have the concept of culpable negligence to deal with - if I know a building with children in it will burn down at midday on Tuesday, I have the key to enable the fire extinguishers to go off at 11.50, but I choose to keep it in my pocket instead then it seems to me that I have "ordained" the death of those children, even if I wan't the electrician who wrongly wired the plug in the first place. The problem isn't that theists claim that their god has foreknowledge; the problem is that they claim that and they also claim that he could change the future event but chooses not to and that he's all good. 

What that would mean is that the children going up in flames must necessarily therefore be "good" - which is precisely the sort of contemptible moral position that, say, William Lane Craig finds himself in when he defends genocide.

Which is exactly what I replied to Vlad. If your reduce foreordained to foreknowledge then you have to answer the question as to whether or not God's will can be thwarted, how would God know that his plan's would come to fruition? I notice there is no answer from him on that.

Sadly, nor will there ever be...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stephen,

But you still have the concept it culpable negligence to deal with - if I know a building with children in it will burn down at midday on Tuesday, I have the key to enable the fire extinguishers to go off at 11.50, but I choose to keep it in my pocket instead then it seems to me that I have "ordained" the death of those children, even if I wan't the electrician who wrongly wired the plug in the first place. The problem isn't that theists claim that their god has foreknowledge; the problem is that they claim that and they also claim that he could change the future event but chooses not to and that he's all good. 

But hang on a minute ....aren't you trying to argue that God is responsible.......for everything. And yet here you are talking about who is responsible.

Secondly you have the person responsible only responsible for an accident rather than responsible deliberately.

In other words Hillside bad analogy with hand waving. We saw what you did there.

It seems on a wider scale that God has not retained the keys with which to counteract misfortune.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Well as I said before ultimate responsibility is a different thing from responsible for an act.

actually I said that. But glad to see you agree that God is ultimately responsible.

But supposing we could get a conviction justice would involve deserved restoration and God in Christ not only makes this but undeserved restoration.

So God sets in motion a universe in which someone is murdered and the justice for that person is the death of Jesus? Ehh?

Let me put this question. What does God owe us? And why?

Well I can think of  few things but number one would be.

If he requires/wants to be in a relationship with me then he should demonstrate his existence to me. Seems fair.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Stephen,

But you still have the concept of culpable negligence to deal with - if I know a building with children in it will burn down at midday on Tuesday, I have the key to enable the fire extinguishers to go off at 11.50, but I choose to keep it in my pocket instead then it seems to me that I have "ordained" the death of those children, even if I wan't the electrician who wrongly wired the plug in the first place. The problem isn't that theists claim that their god has foreknowledge; the problem is that they claim that and they also claim that he could change the future event but chooses not to and that he's all good. 

We are argreed on this. The thiests problem is that God could act on that foreknowledge and so (by acting or not acting) it is the same as preordained. However, having foreknowledge wouldn't neccesarily mean that you could act to avert a situation, or that you approved of it. Apparently LVG's wife learnt of his sacking before him. To him she had foreknowledge but she didn't (apparently) ordain it.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Secondly you have the person responsible only responsible for an accident rather than responsible deliberately.

It wouldn't matter if deliberate or accident. If he set the events in motion he would still be responsible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stephen,

We are argreed on this. The thiests problem is that God could act on that foreknowledge and so (by acting or not acting) it is the same as preordained. However, having foreknowledge wouldn't neccesarily mean that you could act to avert a situation, or that you approved of it. Apparently LVG's wife learnt of his sacking before him. To him she had foreknowledge but she didn't (apparently) ordain it.

No, but if Ed Woodward had said, "but we won't sack him of you dance a jig in your clogs on the boardroom table" and she'd refused to do so, then she'd be at least a co- pre-ordainer I'd say. 

It wouldn't matter if deliberate or accident. If he set the events in motion he would still be responsible.

Just to note that a god of the omnis couldn't do anything "by accident" in any case, and moreover that in my analogy this person/god chose to keep the key in his pocket. That's why he'd be criminally culpable - and I'd say at least partly responsible for "ordaining" the deaths of the children.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Stephen,

No, but if Ed Woodward had said, "but we won't sack him of you dance a jig in your clogs on the boardroom table" and she'd refused to do so, then she'd be at least a co- pre-ordainer I'd say. 

Not necessarily as that could be construed as an offer with menaces. Anyway that isn't the example I gave. Knowing something before someone else doesn't mean you had a part in determining that outcome.

Just to note that a god of the omnis couldn't do anything "by accident" in any case, and moreover that in my analogy this person/god chose to keep the key in his pocket. That's why he'd be criminally culpable - and I'd say at least partly responsible for "ordaining" the deaths of the children.

If you look back at my posts you will see that I have said on more than one occasion that if there is a God of the omnis then this is the only world that could be, so no, he couldn't do anything by accident.

But rather than  argue this irrelevant point with Vlad as to whether or not he could do it by accident or not, it is better, I think, to point out that it doesn't actually matter much. The instigator is still ultimately responsible.