Lord, deliver us from lying to ourselves

[PureX]

I totally agree. We functionally have free will, for the purpose of going about our lives and interacting with other people, even if technically we probably don't have free will.

The only gripe I really have is when religious people impose blame on humans for acting according to how they claim a god created them via perfect foreknowledge, having the ability to create them differently if that god chose to do so. This seems like a logical contradiction, clearly establishing a god whose perfect, pre-ordained plan we must necessarily adhere to irrespective of our choice or will, while also establishing that this god shall justly punish us for adhering to his plan. And they call this good and just, and insist that free will is why humans deserve infinite violent punishment. It just seems contradictory, ridiculous, and morally incoherent.

But judging omniscience from a non-omniscient perspective is equally incoherent, and doomed to failure. So why bother? An omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God is incomprehensible. So by what criteria are we going to pass judgment on such a God?

 

[AlexanderG]

But judging omniscience from a non-omniscient perspective is equally incoherent, and doomed to failure. So why bother? An omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God is incomprehensible. So by what criteria are we going to pass judgment on such a God?

I'm saying it's a direct logical contradiction. I think that's pretty good criteria by which to judge the truth of a claim.

Also, by your standards, your god could be evil and a liar, and you would never know because you'd been taught to dismiss any red flags as "mysterious" and "incomprehensible" and "not to be questioned."

 

[PureX]

I'm saying it's a direct logical contradiction. I think that's pretty good criteria by which to judge the truth of a claim.

I would actually disagree. The older I get, the more I realize that the truth appears to the human mind as paradox. That's because of the way the human mind cognates information (compare/contrast/repeat). When this process fails to gain resolution, it perceives paradox and contradiction. But the truth is a singular whole (the truth is the whole of what is). Which means it's always going to be 'bigger' than our minds can cognate or comprehend by comparing and contrasting relative bits of information. So it would be a mistake for us to dismiss such unresolved paradox and contradiction as being "untrue", as, in fact, it's the very signature of a 'greater truth'.

Also, by your standards, your god could be evil and a liar, and you would never know because you'd been taught to dismiss any red flags as "mysterious" and "incomprehensible" and "not to be questioned."

I don't see how this relates to the subject at all.

 

[AlexanderG]

I would actually disagree. The older I get, the more I realize that the truth appears to the human mind as paradox. That's because of the way the human mind cognates information (compare/contrast/repeat). When this process fails to gain resolution, it perceives paradox and contradiction. But the truth is a singular whole (the truth is the whole of what is). Which means it's always going to be 'bigger' than our minds can cognate or comprehend by comparing and contrasting relative bits of information. So it would be a mistake for us to dismiss such unresolved paradox and contradiction as being "untrue", as, in fact, it's the very signature of a 'greater truth'.
I don't see how this relates to the subject at all.

This is where I am ok ending this line of conversation. You've admitted that you're alright accepting logical contradictions within your worldview. That seems to be acceptable for you. For me, it's an indication that you're comfortable with a high amount of cognitive dissonance and that your beliefs are almost certainly wrong, which is acceptable to me. So we're both happy.

My second point was to show you that your line of argument, namely that any discrepancies, contradictions, or moral red flags in your worldview can be ad hoc dismissed by appealing to "mysterious stuff that justifies my belief but that we can't understand or evaluate as humans," can in turn be used to equally justify literally any kind of god or any kind of belief, including an evil god. When a form of reasoning can be used to justify anything, including mutually contradictory conclusions, then this is the hallmark of a fallacious argument. It explains nothing, supports nothing, and is evidence of nothing.

 

[Kooky]

But judging omniscience from a non-omniscient perspective is equally incoherent, and doomed to failure. So why bother? An omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God is incomprehensible. So by what criteria are we going to pass judgment on such a God?

We can judge and understand it to the extent that we created the concept with our words and thoughts.

 

[PureX]

We can judge and understand it to the extent that we created the concept with our words and thoughts.

Sure, but that isn't judging God. It's just judging our conception of God. Which is almost certainly inaccurate, anyway.

 

[Kooky]

Sure, but that isn't judging God. It's just judging our conception of God. Which is almost certainly inaccurate, anyway.

We can only talk about our conception of God, so in practical terms the difference is irrelevant.

 

[PureX]

We can only talk about our conception of God, so in practical terms the difference is irrelevant.

It's only irrelevant to those who want to pass judgment on God so badly that they are willing to ignore the fact that they have no real idea what God is, or does, or doesn't do. That the God they are judging (and condemning, of course) is in fact a 'straw god'.

 

[Kooky]

It's only irrelevant to those who want to pass judgment on God so badly that they are willing to ignore the fact that they have no real idea what God is, or does, or doesn't do. That the God they are judging (and condemning, of course) is in fact a 'straw god'.

God exists as a concept in human minds, so we actually have a pretty good idea what Gods are and what they do and don't do.

 

[PureX]

God exists as a concept in human minds, so we actually have a pretty good idea what Gods are and what they do and don't do.

But the idea of God that we have is only an idea we have. And the condemnation only applies to the idea.

 

[Kooky]

But the idea of God that we have is only an idea we have. And the condemnation only applies to the idea.

Exactly, God is an idea we have, and all we talk about refers to that idea.

 

[PureX]

Exactly, God is an idea we have, and all we talk about refers to that idea.

So you're condemning the idea.

That was my point.

If I were holding onto an idea of God that cause me that much cognitive dissonance, I'd reinvent my idea of God.

 

[Kooky]

So you condemning the idea.

I didn't do anything of the sort.

 

[PureX]

I didn't do anything of the sort.

Whatever.