Controversial RELIGIONS & SPIRITUALITIES : Conversations

[Etzel Andergast]

Indeed.




Yes.. but that literally doesn't change anything. If one can be impassible in front of the suffering it means that one does not love us.

It would be like saying : "my father is all loving and infinitely good, and if he is impassible in front of my suffering if I get tortured in front of him or if an earthquake kills all my sisters and buries me in front of a building, that's because he loves me infinitely and he is perfect"

Like... wuat?




But I'm not saying such a being can't exist. What I'm questionning here is the status of God of such a being.

Those 4 characteristics could very well be present in a beings that acts like a monster as none of those concept include the concept of "infinite goodness" (simplicity maybe, but I don't know how you make the bridge )

EDIT: Maybe you are talking about the concept of divine simplicity that uncompass infinite goodness.

But then again, being good is constituated of moral values on the concrete world. This means that said God would possesses moral values (time infinity) about the world :

So in this sence, impassibility contradicts divine simplicity. If said God is impassible therefore they can't be infinitely good and if said God is infinitely good, therefore they can't be impassible.

The presence of both characteristics within one entity renders the existence of said entity incoherent.

You didnt get: impassibility = doesnt change the """feeling""" for any reason
impassibility ≠ doesnt care about the other beings

If god see the suffering of a person his unchangeable love makes he feels for that person. And that is totally different to say that the suffering of that person would change god.
So cares about the suffering of other beings, because he loves, and his love doesnt change. So he gonna feel equally for the best person and the worst person. Thats why his love is unchangeable

Actually there are 8 attributtes: the 4 omni attributes (omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, omnibenevolence) + simplicty, impassibility + eternity + aseity

The idea is that none of these 8 attributtes are incoherent in itself. If it was proved that there are incoherences btw these attributtes then I would accept that god doesnt exist.

"But then again, being good is constituted of moral values on the concrete world."

Actually no because goodness is more abstract than any moral value. And also have the fuction to explain the moral values. So it can't be derived from a multiplicity of values

 

[Logiko]

If god see the suffering of a person his unchangeable love makes he feels for that person

If god see the suffering and love, why aren't they acting ? It's contradictory to the notion of love.

You can't love someone and watch them suffer while staying impassible and refusing to act. Or this would mean that God can't act and therefore it's negates there omnipotence.

In one way or another, there is a contradiction here.

The idea is that none of these 8 attributtes are incoherent in itself.

Trust me on that, there are some lol.

> You can't be full of love for people and be impassible in front of their suffering. It's a logical contradiction.
> You can't be omnipotent and be incapable of acting
> You can't be infinitely good and be impassible and inactive in front of sufferings.
Etc.

Actually no because goodness is more abstract than any moral value.

Actually yes lol. It's completely a moral value. "Good" is simply what we called as a specie everything that was acceptable to be or to do or to make in order to limit our common suffering to the maximum and therefore our survival.

It's a value that evolves with us.

So if god is infinitely good, it means that he has an infinite understanding of what is needed for people not to suffer. And thus, being impassible in front of suffering while being infinitely good is a logical contradiction.

 

[Okamakama]

My wife said something interesting to me about how there are some insects who cannot even comprehend that humans exist. To them, we're essentially parts of the environment itself.

Then let's consider humans. Can we really be so arrogant as to say we can comprehend everything around us? That we could recognise god? By the myriad mysteries that baffle scientists to this day, I can unequivocally say that we cannot understand everything, and thus it's possible to argue we would not be able to recognise god.

Whilst I previously believed, I'd like to say this strengthens my belief. We cannot explain god. God is beyond us. He is perfect - and we imperfect. Whilst some call it wise to only believe what you can see, even your eyes can sometimes deceive you. Instead, I trust my heart and instincts.

And those tell me through a means which is entirely unscientific that God is real.

 

[Logiko]

Then let's consider humans. Can we really be so arrogant as to say we can comprehend everything around us? That we could recognise god? By the myriad mysteries that baffle scientists to this day, I can unequivocally say that we cannot understand everything, and thus it's possible to argue we would not be able to recognise god.

Whilst I previously believed, I'd like to say this strengthens my belief. We cannot explain god. God is beyond us. He is perfect - and we imperfect. Whilst some call it wise to only believe what you can see, even your eyes can sometimes deceive you. Instead, I trust my heart and instincts.

That's stand on the the premisse that god is needed to understand the world, when in reality, it's not the case.

God is only a possible to explain how there ca be something instead of nothing. Beyond that, we do not really need to use this concept for our understanding of the universe. As long as sentient beings exist, time should be able to allow them to understand fully the universe.

 

[Okamakama]

That's stand on the the premisse that god is needed to understand the world, when in reality, it's not the case.

God is only a possible to explain how there ca be something instead of nothing. Beyond that, we do not really need to use this concept for our understanding of the universe. As long as sentient beings exist, time should be able to allow them to understand fully the universe.

I believe there is a limit to human comprehension. I do not believe this is a Gnostic "greater truth". I think God is needed. Without God, in this era of atheism, I have seen humanity lose it's way. The unbridled pride, embodied and weaponised by so-called intellectuals, is the sword upon which they will fall.

We seemingly hold fundamentally different views. I have made my own observation and point. You are free to make yours, but I'd appreciate if you'd not brazenly throw remarks such as "....that god is needed to understand the world, when in reality, it's not the case" at me. It's likely intended to be inflammatory towards a believer. No amount of faux response can sheath your open blade, so to speak.

I have not tried to disprove you. I haven't even called you wrong. Please do me the same courtesy. Thank you and God Bless.

 

[Logiko]

I have seen humanity lose it's way.

I have no god, worst I'm against the idea. Do you feel like I have no humanity ?

Humanity is not shaped on faith, but our survival and the system we live in. If such system is bad, no matter if you have a god or not, it will stripped you from your humanity.

Take the genocide of Palestinians for example. Those are people who murder others in the name of gods and their beliefs. Their faith is not and will not stop them.

This show that a world with god is not necessaraly a world with more humanity. (Same for a world without it)

if you'd not brazenly throw inflammatory remarks such as "....that god is needed to understand the world, when in reality, it's not the case" at me.

It's not an inflammatory remarks. It's a fact. Scientists do not need to at the moment to use the concept of God to explain how the universe works.

God is simply not a factor taken into account.

Weither we are astrophysicians or a sociologists, we can explain the universe and human behaviors without the concept of god.

I'm not saying that you are wrong. I'm saying that currently, it's just the way science works mate.

 

[Okamakama]

I have no god, worst I'm against the idea. Do you feel like I have no humanity ?

Humanity is not shaped on faith, but our survival and the system we live in. If such system is bad, no matter if you have a god or not, it will stripped you from your humanity.

Take the genocide of Palestinians for example. Those are people who murder others in the name of gods and their beliefs. Their faith is not and will not stop them.

This show that a world with god is not necessaraly a world with more humanity. (Same for a world without it)



It's not an inflammatory remarks. It's a fact. Scientists do not need to at the moment to use the concept of God to explain how the universe works.

God is simply not a factor taken into account.

Weither we are astrophysicians or a sociologists, we can explain the universe and human behaviors without the concept of god.

I'm not saying that you are wrong. I'm saying that currently, it's just the way science works mate.

All I shall say - as I do not endeavour for a debate (especially when debates on this forum are more like dog-piling where both sides never TRULY listen to the other) - is that science is not all perfect. It does very little to explain "why" only "what". You are treating scientists as if they're an absolute authority, which is chilling to me, in all honesty.

This focus on "seeing" reminds me of something:

Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” - John 20:29

I did not need to see to believe; even though I have seen and felt God (this is not hyperbole, though many might just call me crazy for believing this).

We believe different Logiko. All is well. I hope one day, you see my truth. For now, I shall follow the below:

"If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." - Romans 12:18.

 

[Logiko]

is that science is not all perfect.

I agree with that.

It does very little to explain "why" only "what".

That's because that's not the role of science. Sciences only search to understand the how. To understand the why, you need to seek for religion or sometimes, politics.

You are treating scientists as if they're an absolute authority, which is chilling to me, in all honesty.

Hm no really no. Simply those who can explain the "how" the best way. (and now I'm doing something that I didn't want to under but.. oh well..)

Science is the best way to understand HOW the world works. Anything related to the "Why", is not scientist's purpose.

I hope one day, you see my truth.

I see and understand your truth. I simply do not need to believe in god to be amazed at the infinite beauty of the universe.

 

[NAMELESS]

That's if causes and consequences are a thing. But we simply might be limited to our understanding and conception of space time here. It seems to be possible (once again, I'm only repeating the understanding of the theories I've heard) that time and the rules of physics as we know it might be completely different before the big Bang. Cause and effect might be something that didn't apply to the singularity (The state of the universe as a hot dense point before the Big Bang).

So.. There might simply be no need for a beginning (as we understand it) at all.. we do not know.

That's why my question is rather : how can there be something rather than nothing ?

I don't know the answer to your question. I don't think such an answer exists. Still, does it matter? Here we are. We do exist. Even if we live in a Matrix like simulation.

 

[Logiko]

I don't know the answer to your question. I don't think such an answer exists. Still, does it matter? Here we are. We do exist. Even if we live in a Matrix like simulation.

But even if we are in a simulation, this simply extend the problem and our frontiers of understanding.

 

[Zenos7]

rely on it and champion it as the best method to get to the truth?

Because it is

Post automatically merged: Aug 21, 2024

science says something created everything

Science actually says "we dont know".

Which is perfectly fine and reasonable.

I'd much rather do that than to make a baseless assertion of a supernatural perfect being

Post automatically merged: Aug 21, 2024

Also science doesn’t really make the claim that something created everything. Rather the discourse is far more divided: some scientists posit that the universe has an origin, others don’t. And those that do believe in the universe having an origin or beginning…present different theories which even they haven’t fully mapped out yet while others have been shot down or are just mere speculation. Quantum mechanics is the most current paradigm iirc and it’s complex, by the end of it they’ll probably falsify it too upon further inquiry. Goes to show how science isn’t a reliable method for the bigger questions.

There are also theistic scientists who believe god did it.

Post automatically merged: Aug 21, 2024

If classical theism is wrong then I will be the first to say that atheism is right (If I dont do that is because I will be

Wdym by classical theism?

And since atheism at the core is just the lack of a belief in a deity/deities, its not really about right or wrong. Unless you are talking about hard atheism where the existence of god(s) is straight up denied

Post automatically merged: Aug 21, 2024

either way neither can be proven

So we dont know either way. And its only one side claiming otherwise really

Post automatically merged: Aug 21, 2024

Yeah it works but it doesn’t represent the truth

Depends. The earth being a rotating spheroid thats orbiting the sun is factually correct. You can google now when the next eclipses occur because our understanding pf celestial bodies and their movements make us able to accurately predict this shit.

Post automatically merged: Aug 21, 2024

The moment someone questions you on your beliefs and what grounds it stands on it’s suddenly “idc” but when you hear the theist position you come running from the other side of town to condemn it.

1) i dont care about something very specific that i mentioned
2) im not per se condemning theists position, im questioning and disagreeing. (Though there are surely some concepts i would condemn, like the death penalty for homosexuals)
3) you still didnt adress what i asked you about

Post automatically merged: Aug 21, 2024

Especially when it’s so mutable and subject to change?

It being a self-improving system is one of the pros, not a con

Post automatically merged: Aug 21, 2024

I think I remember Zoro saying something about this once ''even if God exists, I still would not kneel before him'' I take a pretty similar stance to this when it comes to religion.

The existence of a God is way less interesting to me than the hypothetical of if he absolutely did exist. The only people who would be different human beings are the ones who do it out of fear. Presumably, an omniscient deity would see through this too and they would still be punished later on.

For me, whether God exists or not, I still wouldn't be willingly sending prayers and singing hymns to him. I don't even do that with my parents and they factually created me.

Eh if you dont commit any sins you should be fine.

If i would know a particular god exists, i would definitely pray as much as he would like. Aint no way im choosing hell over heaven

 

[NAMELESS]

I'd much rather do that than to make a baseless assertion of a supernatural perfect being
So we dont know either way. And its only one side claiming otherwise really

You have a beef with religion,don't you? Why answer like that?

 

[Zenos7]

god will is just love unconditionaly, because he is perfect and thats it.

Thats not the maniac thats the abrahamic god you are talking about then.

 

[NAMELESS]

Thats not the maniac thats the abrahamic god you are talking about then.

Yeah,i suspected you were this kind of atheist. Now you confirmed it.

 

[Zenos7]

If god see the suffering and love, why aren't they acting ? It's contradictory to the notion of love.

And thats why the 4 omnis dont work together

Post automatically merged: Aug 21, 2024

Without God, in this era of atheism, I have seen humanity lose it's way.

Atheists and theists alike hold a multitude of values. You can see issues in both communities

Post automatically merged: Aug 21, 2024

did not need to see to believe; even though I have seen and felt God (this is not hyperbole, though many might just call me crazy for believing this).

Thats great for you. For me it didnt work despite being a believer for half of my life

Post automatically merged: Aug 21, 2024

You have a beef with religion,don't you? Why answer like that?

Not a fan of Religion, sure. I dont think all of religion is bad though. Even as an atheist, i had phases where i regularly went to church for the community aspect and i enjoyed the time there more than some of the christians lol.

I answer like that because its the case. Except for a small minority among atheists,atheists usually hold the "i dont know" position. Whereas most religious people claim god created everything, despite also not really knowing.

 

[NAMELESS]

And thats why the 4 omnis dont work together

Post automatically merged: Aug 21, 2024

Atheists and theists alike hold a multitude of values. You can see issues in both communities

Post automatically merged: Aug 21, 2024

Thats great for you. For me it didnt work despite being a believer for half of my life

Post automatically merged: Aug 21, 2024

Not a fan of Religion, sure. I dont think all of religion is bad though. Even as an atheist, i had phases where i regularly went to church for the community aspect and i enjoyed the time there more than some of the christians lol.

I answer like that because its the case. Except for a small minority among atheists,atheists usually hold the "i dont know" position. Whereas most religious people claim god created everything, despite also not really knowing.

I'm not calling you out on your beliefs. I'm calling you out on how you express your beliefs. There are more respectful ways to answer people. You developed a grudge against religion and its followers.

 

[Zenos7]

Yeah,i suspected you were this kind of atheist. Now you confirmed it.

Yeah i only need to read up until the adam and eve story to think that god is a maniac. The snake unironically told the truth (eating a fruit from the tree wont kill you - a lie told by god) and god chose to punish adam, eve and all of their descendents despite them quite literally not being able to know better.

I guess you can handwave it away by saying its not to be taken literally, and thats fine, but its also not the only example

Post automatically merged: Aug 21, 2024

I'm not calling in out on your beliefs. I'm calling you out on how you express your beliefs. There are more respectful ways to answer people. You developed a grudge against religion and its followers.

I dont have a grudge against its followers. Most of my family is still christian, with now a couple muslims as well.

But fair enough, i will try to be more respectful. As much as i can

Post automatically merged: Aug 21, 2024

If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." - Romans 12:18.

That would be great.

But loving your enemies is a tall fucking order

 

[NAMELESS]

Yeah i only need to read up until the adam and eve story to think that god is a maniac. The snake unironically told the truth (eating a fruit from the tree wont kill you - a lie told by god) and god chose to punish adam, eve and all of their descendents despite them quite literally not being able to know better.

I guess you can handwave it away by saying its not to be taken literally, and thats fine, but its also not the only example

Great, that is a better way to word out things. Yeah, the entire "God is good" argument boils down to: We don't think like God. We actually DON'T know what is and isn't good. To us, some of the events described in the Bible might be perceived as episodes of sadism and cruelty on God's part(like God ordering tribes to be exterminated), but in reality God's ways are different from ours. We do cruel things in name of justice too, but we don't have perfect discernment, sometimes we are unfair. God is never unfair. Sometimes cruelty itself is justice. Heinous crimes need to be punished severely. The entire concept of hell revolves around the idea that crimes/sins that are nasty will be punished by extreme suffering. " You reap what you sow".
Feel free to bring in the bible quotes that you think represent God being unfair and cruel. I'm willing to have this debate. I'm not the best guy to do it, but i will make an effort.

Post automatically merged: Aug 21, 2024

That would be great.

But loving your enemies is a tall fucking order

Yeah...God can love his enemies. We have a hard time doing so.

Post automatically merged: Aug 21, 2024

Post automatically merged: Aug 21, 2024

I dont have a grudge against its followers. Most of my family is still christian, with now a couple muslims as well.

But fair enough, i will try to be more respectful. As much as i can

Ok, fine. Its cool.

 

[Zenos7]

Great, that is a better way to word out things. Yeah, the entire "God is good" argument boils down to: We don't think like God. We actually DON'T know what is and isn't good. To us, some of the events described in the Bible might be perceived as episodes of sadism and cruelty on God's part(like God ordering tribes to be exterminated), but in reality God's ways are different from ours. We do cruel things in name of justice too, but we don't have perfect discernment, sometimes we are unfair. God is never unfair. Sometimes cruelty itself is justice. Heinous crimes need to be punished severely. The entire concept of hell revolves around the idea that crimes/sins that are nasty will be punished by extreme suffering. " You reap what you sow".
Feel free to bring in the bible quotes that you think represent God being unfair and cruel. I'm willing to have this debate. I'm not the best guy to do it, but i will make an effort.

If it boils down to "we dont think like god therefore we cant understand" i dont think we need to talk about it lol

Post automatically merged: Aug 21, 2024

Yeah...God can love his enemies. We have a hard time doing so.

Super hard time

 

[Logiko]

We actually DON'T know what is and isn't good.

Hm.. yes we do.



What you are saying is a way to rationnalize the impassibility of "god" in front of suffering. But we DO know what good is.

We do cruel things in name of justice too, but we don't have perfect discernment, sometimes we are unfair

A omnipotent and infinitely good god should NOT have ANY limits to make good. For example, when policemen are forced to kill a terrorist (and thus doing an act of murder, which is not a good thing) but a necessary one... God should not be forced to do do a cruel thing for a good thing to happen... since they are omnipotent !

This means that no matter the context, there is no context where god can have an excuse to do bad things or to let bad things happen to people.

Hell, for example, is an example of that. The concept of hell is derivated from the notion of punishment. But God, if all loving, should not be allowing this to happen, even to people who have done horrible things.

But that concept of punishment is a very human and anthropomorphic thing. In reality, punishment is only here as an vengefull action against those who act against the "good"... but we now know that people who act against the good.. even horrible people, are simply sometimes pushed by their environment and their biology to do that.. In reality choice is just an illusion.

This means that if God exist, he created some of us to be turn bad because of their environment and will punish them for being created that way.

From my point of view, this is a pure evil behavior. (and a human one)

In reality, An infinitely good entity should be refusing to inflict any pain on anyone and understand that what they created can turn bad and be able to find a way to turn good.

The concept of hell in itself literally destroys completely the potentiality for the infinite good nature of "God".


If the concept of "good" exist, then the classical god can't.
If the classical god exist, then the concept of "good" completely loses its meaning.