Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Nearly Sane]

As i’ve Said before changing the laws of nature for specific categories of events gives rise to internal inconsistency and I have explained how. I am not totally clear how miracles can possibly come under any expectation of consistency.

I'm not saying they do. I'm saying that your position has no internal consistency.

[Nearly Sane]

Anyone?

Now you see the incoherence inherent in your system

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not saying they do. I'm saying that your position has no internal consistency.

My position is that God is sovereign but his modus is to let laws of physics

 govern with his miraculous p⁸9hysical intervention only in exceptional circumstances

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Now you see the incoherence inherent in your system

My system? I think you rather mean YOUR  rhetoric.

[jeremyp]

My position is that God is sovereign but his modus is to let laws of physics

 govern with his miraculous p⁸9hysical intervention only in exceptional circumstances

According to your Bible, God used to intervene all the time. What changed his mind?

[Outrider]

Alienation is estrangement Outrider.

Synonyms do not constitute a demonstration.

Everyone’s alienation from Zeus derives I would say from their alienation from the true divinity...

But given that you don't have anyone you're asserting isn't alienated, you have nothing to demonstrate that it's a valid concept in the first place.

I love cheese.

You think that, but you don't appreciate the reality of 'proper' cheese, because you're alienated from it... just like the rest of us.

O.

[Enki]

Anyone?

The fact that human beings are capable of ameliorating and eradicating a range of diseases, then the idea that there is a God who hasn't done so, points to one of at least three possibilities. Feel free to add to them as you wish.

1) This God is indifferent to human suffering

2) This God deliberately designed things to include human suffering

3) This God is incapable of changing things, and therefore human beings are, at least in this respect, more powerful.

3a) And, as a corollary, one is left with the distinct impression that this God made one almighty cockup, whether well meaning or not, which He/She/It is incapable of correcting.

My responses are:

1) This isn't my idea of morality and therefore I would despise such a God

2) Ditto

3) Then He/She/It is such a blunderer that they are not worth worshipping

[Nearly Sane]

My system? I think you rather mean YOUR  rhetoric.

Both. My rhetoric was inspired by your 'explanations' of your 'system', which is essentially 'Listen, strange women lyin’ in ponds distributin’ swords is no system for a basis of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.”

[Nearly Sane]

My position is that God is sovereign but his modus is to let laws of physics

 govern with his miraculous p⁸9hysical intervention only in exceptional circumstances

That's what my rhetoric covered.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

According to your Bible, God used to intervene all the time. What changed his mind?

You exaggerate. The Bible isn't a chronical of quotidian life in the holy land.

[SteveH]

I emphatically do not believe in the fall as a historical event, and do believe in evolution by natural selection, but a biblical literalist could perhaps argue that parasites such as tapeworms were parasites before the fall, but did not harm their host - maybe even benefitted them in some way, in a symbiotic relationship.

[Nearly Sane]

I emphatically do not believe in the fall as a historical event, and do believe in evolution by natural selection, but a biblical literalist could perhaps argue that parasites such as tapeworms were parasites before the fall, but did not harm their host - maybe even benefitted them in some way, in a symbiotic relationship.

But would then have to concede that it was their god that choose to change which makes them worship pain.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The fact that human beings are capable of ameliorating and eradicating a range of diseases, then the idea that there is a God who hasn't done so, points to one of at least three possibilities. Feel free to add to them as you wish.

1) This God is indifferent to human suffering

2) This God deliberately designed things to include human suffering

3) This God is incapable of changing things, and therefore human beings are, at least in this respect, more powerful.

3a) And, as a corollary, one is left with the distinct impression that this God made one almighty cockup, whether well meaning or not, which He/She/It is incapable of correcting.

My responses are:

1) This isn't my idea of morality and therefore I would despise such a God

2) Ditto

3) Then He/She/It is such a blunderer that they are not worth worshipping

Again how do you eliminate the potential for human suffering without plunging the world into a quagmire of illogical absurdities?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But would then have to concede that it was their god that choose to change which makes them worship pain.

Eh?

[Enki]

Again how do you eliminate the potential for human suffering without plunging the world into a quagmire of illogical absurdities?

Again, humans have shown they are capable and have had many successes in combating human suffering without any' illogical absurdities' whatsoever.

[Nearly Sane]

Eh?

If before the 'Fall' posited by creationists, tapeworn were jolly little symbiotic critters turning cartwheels across the floor of their hosts' guts, then the change into them causing pain would be brought about deliberately by the god that they worship. Therefore they worship pain. 

They also bathe in the danger and pain of childbirth, and give thanks to the thing they think caused it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I emphatically do not believe in the fall as a historical event, and do believe in evolution by natural selection, but a biblical literalist could perhaps argue that parasites such as tapeworms were parasites before the fall, but did not harm their host - maybe even benefitted them in some way, in a symbiotic relationship.

I can see a Humanist doctrine of the fall though. Wrong doing or bad (the good is assumed by humanism) is inculcated in a person from persons outside ultimately this must be predecessors and contemporary. Historically and inevitably, in this scheme there must have existed “Perpetrator zero”.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I can see a Humanist doctrine of the fall though. Wrong doing or bad (the good is assumed by humanism) is inculcated in a person from persons outside ultimately this must be predecessors and contemporary. Historically and inevitably, in this scheme there must have existed “Perpetrator zero”.

You appear to have dropped a set of Scrabble tiles here. What on earth do you think you're even trying to say? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Again, humans have shown they are capable and have had many successes in combating human suffering without any' illogical absurdities' whatsoever.

Yes and I suppose there is nothing to stop God intervening in the same way either. Intervention is a question of will though in the case of man and God.

What you seem to be asking is for weird specific change in natural laws and perhaps logic itself. Potentially hellish imho.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes and I suppose there is nothing to stop God intervening in the same way either. Intervention is a question of will though in the case of man and God.

What you seem to be asking is for weird specific change in natural laws and perhaps logic itself. Potentially hellish imho.

So your god could stop rapes of children but chooses not to, and you worship it for not preventing rapes of children. You and your god are evil.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You appear to have dropped a set of Scrabble tiles here. What on earth do you think you're even trying to say?

I’m saying Humanists tend to blame poor behaviour on nurture and knowledge and so the blame lies with a persons contemporary or predecessor. Inevitably therefore we are looking for “perpetrator zero” somewhere in the dim and distant past. How is that then different from an idea of an Adam”.

[Nearly Sane]

I can see a Humanist doctrine of the fall though. Wrong doing or bad (the good is assumed by humanism) is inculcated in a person from persons outside ultimately this must be predecessors and contemporary. Historically and inevitably, in this scheme there must have existed “Perpetrator zero”.

Take an aspirin, and go and lie down in a darkened room for a few hours. You appear to have a verbal migraine.

[Enki]

Yes and I suppose there is nothing to stop God intervening in the same way either. Intervention is a question of will though in the case of man and God.

What you seem to be asking is for weird specific change in natural laws and perhaps logic itself. Potentially hellish imho.

Nope. Utter rubbish. There was nothing to stop your God from not creating smallpox, for instance. The fact we humans have eliminated it without any 'illogical absurdities' suggests strongly that my three alternatives in post 331 are completely sound.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I’m saying Humanists tend to blame poor behaviour on nurture and knowledge…

That’s nothing to do with humanism specifically, and in any case if not for “nurture and knowledge” what else would you blame for poor behaviour?

…and so the blame lies with a persons contemporary or predecessor.

Not really. The ”blame” lies with environment and culture and all sort of complex social phenomena. 
 

Inevitably therefore we are looking for “perpetrator zero” somewhere in the dim and distant past. How is that then different from an idea of an Adam”.

Your “inevitably therefore” is a non sequitur. We’re “looking for” no such thing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope. Utter rubbish. There was nothing to stop your God from not creating smallpox, for instance. The fact we humans have eliminated it without any 'illogical absurdities' suggests strongly that my three alternatives in post 331 are completely sound.

I’m saying that phrases like “God creating smallpox” are largely bollocks loaded and hysterical anti-theistic rhetorical devices. God creates matter and laws of nature with the potential for disease yes. God creates disease as the end in itself? No, what about the potential for good things.

Is god indifferent to suffering? No, hence the healing miracles. Is God going to overturn this laws of nature in a universal way for specific categories or eventualities? No.

Before the fall and indeed God’s will for mankind is unbroken communion with him which overcomes any considerations of physics. A return to paradisal condition is a yet to be realised event during our physical existence.