Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But he is also saying that, to forgive somebody for a crime, you have to do the time instead of them. It's utterly bizarre.

It's not bizarre at all. Forgiveness requires taking the consequences on yourself. By bringing in Crime you are shifting the goalposts a bit. If they do the time they are being punished and there is no forgiveness. I would have thought that was obvious.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Worse even than that, the punishment (being tortured to death) is not one that would be meted out to anybody for anything in any civilised society today and Jesus didn't even take the punishment properly because he didn't stay dead.

It's silly beyond belief.

And how many people has our civilised society put to death by murder in the past week in the UK? You mean civilised system of official penalties don't you not civilised society.......which is a vague and slightly useless term IMV.

And we don't stay dead either since all are resurrected by God to judgment.

[Nearly Sane]

And how many people has our civilised society put to death by murder in the past week in the UK? You mean civilised system of official penalties don't you not civilised society.......which is a vague and slightly useless term IMV.

And we don't stay dead either since all are resurrected by God to judgment.

  So, according to you, your god is the equivalent of the murderer(s) of Sara Sharif.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/14/three-sought-over-woking-killing-were-known-to-10-year-old-victim-police-say

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Continuing the review of the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on atheism
b. The Santa Claus Argument

Martin (1990) offers this general principle to describe the criteria that render the belief, “X does not exist” justified:

Oh, the belief that God does not exist….which presumably results in acting as though God does not exist.

A person is justified in believing that X does not exist if

(1)  all the available evidence used to support the view that X exists is shown to be inadequate

Back to ‘’Evidence’’ and what that involves. Is Martin including argumentation and philosophy here since it is all to easy for evidence to strictly mean empirical evidence , a meaning symptomatic of philosophical empiricism etc.

(2)  X is the sort of entity that, if X exists, then there is a presumption that would be evidence adequate to support the view that X exists; and

(3)  this presumption has not been defeated although serious efforts have been made to do so; and

(4)  the area where evidence would appear, if there were any, has been comprehensively examined; and

(5)  there are no acceptable beneficial reasons to believe that X exists.  (p. 283)

I don’t quite get this but if this is a condition of using a Santa Clause argument against God then it explains New Atheism’s desire to suggest that religion is the root of all evil.

Aside from it being a Horse’s laugh argument, let’s park that for a moment….
Santa Claus argument is BAD ANALOGY basically mistaking Contingent component non ultimate entities for the non contingent, ultimate entity.

[Enki]

I'm not sure how the idea of a crucifixion intending as an act of forgiveness works when the one ultimately responsible(I.E. God) shows no act of redemption towards him/her/itself. In my eyes that should be its first priority.

So, apart from the fact that I have no belief in this God, I'll carry on with my own sense of forgiveness thank you very much without staining it with what I see as the corrupting influence of Christianity.

[Outrider]

A charge of logical incoherence in the case of morality looks to me as though you are assuming there is a moral realism.

No, it looks like you're attempting to make a case within moral realism, and as it's logically incoherent that's just another reason that it falls over.

What are we being forgiven for? spoiling what is known as the image of God in us, in other words offending against God and our true selves.

By being human? If he didn't want humans, he shouldn't have made humans. The angels rebelled before us, apparently, so it's not like there wasn't a precedent for this.

I think there is the question of accepting our forgiveness and facing our likeness to God and God himself.

I'm still not clear on what it is that I'm supposed to be forgiven for - I haven't followed through on my parents' dreams for me, either, but I don't owe them an apology for that, I don't seek forgiveness for being me, how is this different? That I'm not, apparently, what God wanted isn't my problem, am I in some way 'wrong'?

Judgment I suppose is facing the truth of what we have done.

Happy to do that - there are few things I should probably seek forgiveness for, but none of them from God. God is absent from my life, there is no relationship with God, God has never given any indication that he's there, from childhood through to now. How is that my fault?

I think we live at a more trivial, flippant, level and shallower than God.

Because we aren't gods, we're human. We should be judged based on what we are, and I'll stand up for my actions on that. I don't need to be 'forgiven', I've not done anything that requires it.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not sure how the idea of a crucifixion intending as an act of forgiveness works when the one ultimately responsible(I.E. God) shows no act of redemption towards him/her/itself. In my eyes that should be its first priority.

You will agree that forgiveness actually means shouldering the burden and consequence that justice demands of the offender yourself hopefully. The crucixion of God the son is exactly that. I'm not sure what you mean by an act of redemption towards itself since God is not the offender.

I'm afraid I'm reaching the unhappy conclusion that what you and indeed Outrider desire is suspension of justice negating in turn any mercy. Which makes any complaint from you of corrupting influences rather ironic.

[jeremyp]

I think this assumes that sinning has no corrupting affect on the person and isn't an offence against God. The idea that forgiveness just involves the statement ''your forgiven'' seems magical thinking and not even true even if you discount God yet keep everyone else who has been offended against

And you think God materialising as a human and getting himself crucified and that somehow absolves everybody of their sins is not magical thinking?

Physician heal thyself.

[jeremyp]

Or it's a way to show mercy and to restore God's image in us.

I can show mercy without killing anybody least of all my son/self.

With all due respect that's cherry picked theology isn't it

Correct. It's cherry picked from Christianity. Other religions have different ideas.

....The son of God IS God.

That's an absurdity right out of the gate. Even in the Ptolemaic line nobody was able to be their own son.

Anyway, leaving the logical impossibility of being my own son aside, I do not have to kill myself or my son to forgive people.

If you forgive someone you are taking what they have done fully and any consequences on yourself

Nonense.

e.g. if someone crashes their car into you. You sort it all out without them being penalised in anyway. It's a whole new level of forgiveness.

I can forgive somebody for denting my car and yet their insurance company still pays.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Continuing a review of the atheism article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Atheism c. Problem of Evil

The existence of widespread human and non-human animal suffering has been seen by many to be compelling evidence that a being with all power, all knowledge, and all goodness does not exist.  Many of those arguments have been deductive:  See the article on The Logical Problem of Evil. In the 21st century, several inductive arguments from evil for the non-existence of God have received a great deal of attention.  See The Evidential Problem of Evil.

What looks like a strong hand here for atheism isn’t.
Firstly, there is the problem of all goodness. Whose goodness are we talking about here?
Secondly is goodness quantifiable in the way that power and knowledge are quantifiable?
Short answer No, Long answer Nooooooooooooooooooo.
Then of course we have the problem of evil without Good (shades of contingency without necessity here?) Not to mention the depth of evil.
I wonder if the refuge of eliminating Good and evil just leaves a massive gap in the defence of atheism.

[jeremyp]

You will agree that forgiveness actually means shouldering the burden and consequence that justice demands of the offender

No, absolutely not.

If I forgive the murderer of my wife, it doesn't mean I have to go to prison in his place.

And let's be honest, Jesus was only dead for a couple of days. How is that "shouldering the burden and consequence that justice demands of the offender" if the offender happens to be a murderer?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You will agree that forgiveness actually means shouldering the burden and consequence that justice demands of the offender yourself hopefully.

No. You can’t forgive someone who’s done nothing that requires forgiveness, and what the hell’s it got to do with Jesus in any case? If, say, I steal the apples from your tree and you forgive me that’s one thing, but if someone far away and long-dead claims by his blood sacrifice to have forgiven me in advance for it (in exchange for my self-respect and personal responsibility for my actions) that’s overreaching.   

The crucixion of God the son is exactly that.

No it isn’t. It’s what a frankly unpleasant and immoral story says it’s what it’s about.

I'm not sure what you mean by an act of redemption towards itself since God is not the offender.

Gibberish, but in any case if a god made us “sinners’ and then demanded that we repent in exchange for unspecified delights or untold miseries depending our response, that would very much make “god” the offender.

I'm afraid I'm reaching the unhappy conclusion that what you and indeed Outrider desire is suspension of justice negating in turn any mercy. Which makes any complaint from you of corrupting influences rather ironic.

Gibberish. Try to express that as a coherent thought.

[Outrider]

You will agree that forgiveness actually means shouldering the burden and consequence that justice demands of the offender yourself hopefully.

Notwithstanding you haven't established what it is that needs forgiving... no. It's not a debt, you don't owe someone and they're out of pocket.

The crucixion of God the son is exactly that.

Unrelated to any actual forgiveness? Yes, absolutely. In what civilised world is some sort of blood sacrifice required for forgiveness?

I'm not sure what you mean by an act of redemption towards itself since God is not the offender.

Who is? There's this idea that somehow humanity is offending by virtue of just being - how is fault inherited? If 'sin' is conveyed by blood then whomever implemented that system is the offendor.

I'm afraid I'm reaching the unhappy conclusion that what you and indeed Outrider desire is suspension of justice negating in turn any mercy.

No, what I'm looking for is a coherent concept of justice. There is no moral abrogation, there is no sense of proportionality to the suggested punishment, there is no informed involvement in the process. There is nothing about this 'system' which even remotely begins to resemble 'justice'.

O.

[Enki]

You will agree that forgiveness actually means shouldering the burden and consequence that justice demands of the offender yourself hopefully.

Forgiveness can only be given by the offended party towards the persons who have offended. Forgiveness can only be sought by the offender from those that have been offended. That, to me, is just and that is where my sense of morality lies.

The crucixion of God the son is exactly that.

It certainly isn't. In my case I do not accept that I have committed any offence related to Jesus(man or God). His crucifixion, if true, seemed to be a meaningless act which has no significance to me whatever. If the story of his resurrection was true, then the whole thing was a shoddy act by a God who should have known better.

I'm not sure what you mean by an act of redemption towards itself since God is not the offender.

If I took the idea of the Christian God seriously(which I don't) then I would certainly hope and expect that He would redeem himself since, by being ultimately responsible for everything that happens, He most certainly is the offender. That, again, is where my morality lies.

I'm afraid I'm reaching the unhappy conclusion that what you and indeed Outrider desire is suspension of justice negating in turn any mercy.

Reach any conclusion you like, but from my point of view, this is completely just. As to mercy, it would depend on how I might react to how sincerely was Jesus's plea for forgiveness(on behalf of Himself/God in this unlikely scenario).

Which makes any complaint from you of corrupting influences rather ironic.

I don't see why. There are plenty of examples of Christianity being a corrupting influence. indeed, I am watching a drama at the moment(The Woman in the Wall) which has as its background one such blot upon Christianity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And you think God materialising as a human and getting himself crucified and that somehow absolves everybody of their sins is not magical thinking?

Physician heal thyself.

All sins in this scheme of things are against god. Therefore God’s forgiveness of the sinner automatically involves god carrying the consequences of the sin. It is actually magical thinking to think otherwise.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, absolutely not.

If I forgive the murderer of my wife, it doesn't mean I have to go to prison in his place.

And let's be honest, Jesus was only dead for a couple of days. How is that "shouldering the burden and consequence that justice demands of the offender" if the offender happens to be a murderer?

Because of our society we have given legal redress over to police and the courts and the prison system. That is and has not always been the case and people are and have been ‘free’ and responsible for administering their own justice or mercy. Even in our own system the criminal has to pay compensation to the victim. In the light of this we can discount your objections here.

Just dead for two days is a modern secular conception of the matter with the spiritual and scriptural context deliberately ignored.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No. You can’t forgive someone who’s done nothing that requires forgiveness,

That is true but in my opinion you are deliberately conflating that truth with your belief that there is nothing to forgive.

[Outrider]

Even in our own system the criminal has to pay compensation to the victim.

In the UK criminal justice system, at least, compensation does not come from the criminal, but from a social fund. (I appreciate that, in civil cases, this is not the case)

Just dead for two days is a modern secular conception of the matter with the spiritual and scriptural context deliberately ignored.

That it's modern doesn't make it wrong. That it's secular doesn't make it wrong. That it doesn't accept unfounded notions like 'spiritual' doesn't make it wrong.

Where in scripture does it suggest that this interpretation is wrong? Where does it say that Jesus stayed dead? Isn't there at least one explicit suggestion that he's up and about and talking to the two Marys a few days later?

That is true but in my opinion you are deliberately conflating that truth with your belief that there is nothing to forgive.

What contract, social or otherwise, do we have a spiritual dictator who holds us responsible for offences which are not demonstrably immoral, and which were imposed against the nature of people by their 'creator'? Isn't there a moral obligation to oppose the unwarranted impositions of a dictator?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Continuing a review of the Internet encyclopaedia of philosophy article on Atheism Cosmology.

Questions about the origins of the universe and cosmology have been the focus for many inductive atheism arguments.  We can distinguish four recent views about God and the cosmos:

Naturalism: On naturalistic view, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago, the Earth formed out of cosmic matter about 4.6 billion years ago, and life forms on Earth, unaided by any supernatural forces about 4 billion years ago.  Various physical (non-God) hypotheses are currently being explored about the cause or explanation of the Big Bang such as the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary condition model, brane cosmology models, string theoretic models, ekpyrotic models, cyclic models, chaotic inflation, and so on.

Physical hypothesis and in particular the pursuit of them to explain the Big Bang do not have to be copywrit to atheists and theists could seek these as well. This is of course a different question to why physics...and not nothing.

Big Bang Theism: We can call the view that God caused about the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago Big Bang Theism.

Again, theism is perfectly capable of taking a physical reason for the Big Bang in it’s stride.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Internet encyclopaedia of philosophy. The atheist argument from non belief.

I won’t include the excerpt those who are interested can find it themselves.

First off, if there is an atheist argument from non belief why not a theist argument from belief?

Any way this seems to say If God we’re all loving he would want everybody to become a believer.

Is that an atheist argument? I’m not sure. It seem’s to revolve around what God considers belief
And why subsequently people are not considered to be believers.

Another strand is that God should be reachable by pure reason. Again, who is perfectly reasonable?

[Outrider]

First off, if there is an atheist argument from non belief why not a theist argument from belief?

That people believe doesn't equate, with the depiction of god, to any sort of reliable conclusion that therefore a god is real.

Any way this seems to say If God we’re all loving he would want everybody to become a believer.

That's a part of it, yes. The presumption is (and, indeed, the explicit message from many religious believers is) that believing in a god, accepting the premises of the religion makes you a better person. Some version of an eternal reward is normally involved, which is depicted as to the benefit of the believer, which an all-loving god would be presumed to want on the believers behalf. Therefore, if an all-loving god is creating reality, why is it creating a reality in which people might not believe and might be denied this; it's a variant of the problem of evil idea, I guess, and is probably best countered by the idea of free will and that the reward is only worthwhile if it's somehow 'earned' or 'deserved'.

Is that an atheist argument?

I don't think it stands up well on its own, I've seen it used as a counterpoint to the idea of free will - the idea that god had already, in giving us free will, decided that some would be lost which doesn't jibe with the idea of omnibenevolence.

I’m not sure. It seem’s to revolve around what God considers belief

It hinges (as do so many things) in Christianity at least on what's required to achieve 'heaven' - if it's at God's whim then how we live is irrelevant, if it's 'earned' then why are the instructions so vague, contradictory and in places immoral (or, silent on immorality)... there are probably other mechanisms posited.

Another strand is that God should be reachable by pure reason.

That, I suspect, is a result of people who in theocratic times were forced to justify their non-belief coming up with arguments that then needed to be countered. In the overwhelming majority of cases it seems that believers do not come to their belief by reason; for those who come through childhood without being indoctrinated/inculcated into a religious tradition, the methodology needs to change for religions to claw those few errant souls back, which is where attempts at reasoned arguments come in.

Again, who is perfectly reasonable?

Should we then abandon the arguments from morality because who is perfectly moral? Should we abandon the arguments from contingency because free will means that none of us are perfectly contingent?

O.

[jeremyp]

Because of our society we have given legal redress over to police and the courts and the prison system. That is and has not always been the case and people are and have been ‘free’ and responsible for administering their own justice or mercy. Even in our own system the criminal has to pay compensation to the victim. In the light of this we can discount your objections here.

Just dead for two days is a modern secular conception of the matter with the spiritual and scriptural context deliberately ignored.

If the Home Secretary commutes a sentence or pardons a criminal, he doesn't have to do the time.

[jeremyp]

Just dead for two days is a modern secular conception of the matter

No it isn't. It's in the Bible. Jesus died on the day before the Sabbath and he was "documented" as not dead on the day after the Sabbath.

with the spiritual and scriptural context deliberately ignored.

Do tell us what that is.

[Spud]

No it isn't. It's in the Bible. Jesus died on the day before the Sabbath and he was "documented" as not dead on the day after the Sabbath.
Do tell us what that is.

Jesus suffered death, but his body didn't 'see decay', fulfilling Psalm 16:10 (see Acts 13:34-37.

[jeremyp]

Jesus suffered death, but his body didn't 'see decay',

You're saying he didn't die.

fulfilling Psalm 16:10

Psalm 16:10 is not a prophecy. Read it in context.

(see Acts 13:34-37.

Yeah, the author of Acts seems to have made the same mistake as you.