Of course, do you? — Janus

Looks like we are equally biased. You seem to admire/see value in, a two faced god, whereas I prefer the 'ness' part I have (and you have,) of the universe.

Humans are able to reduce human suffering, so the antinatalist remains a boring defeatist imo. — universeness

:up:

There are of course opposite utilitarian reasons to believe such as.

1. Making ones work easier
2. Co-operativism such as alliviating the work for mutual benefit where skill transferability is possible to the workforce.
3. Use of material and materialism.

You might ask well what does this have to do with religion and wanting to believe well most faiths promise to make this earthly drudgery easier.

well most faiths promise to make this earthly drudgery easier. — invicta

Well, that would only be of any value, at all, to those who choose to label their life on Earth as a drudge.
Divine hiddenness demonstrates that god(s) do 0 to alleviate any suffering of anything on Earth.
Most faiths offer relief from the drudgery YOU have decided to highlight, as a glass half empty style preference, only after you are DEAD and only if you agree to their terms, despite the truth of:
However, let no one say there's no cure: salvation is offered, redemption, indeed, is promised, at the low price of the surrender of your critical faculties. - Christopher Hitchens ( and he even had Christ in his first name!!) :scream:

It is a poor author that makes a living bashing faith be it of any denomination.

The concept of god creating and abandoning creation is not new.

The thought I had the other day was what if he created the universe and then went on to do bigger better things but then one of his attributes is LOVE.

You do not abandon things you love…or do you?

It is a poor author that makes a living bashing faith be it of any denomination. — invicta

On the contrary, all hail to those who will speak truth to all manifestations of power, especially religious faith based power, regardless of their toothless threat of eternal damnations. If those who peddle religious lies can make a living from doing so, then why would you insult those who make a living combatting such? I made my living from the field of Computer Science (now retired).

The concept of god creating and abandoning creation is not new. — invicta

I know, but the fact that deism is an ancient proposal adds 0 to it's credibility.

The thought I had the other day was what if he created the universe and then went on to do bigger better things but then one of his attributes is LOVE. — invicta

Yeah, 'what if's,' can be entertaining and entertainment is very subjective and preferential, yes?

You do not abandon things you love…or do you? — invicta

So if you love drugs, alcohol, violence, a person who does not love you back, an organisation that totally abuses you and takes all your worldly goods, a lie, etc You would not abandon such love that is proving to be very destructive to you? What aesthetic meaning does a song like this have for you?

It is a poor author that makes a living bashing faith be it of any denomination. — invicta

It is a poor author who makes a living fleecing multitudes with supernatural snake-oil of any kind.

That’s actually a rich one

That’s actually a rich one — invicta

Yeah, rich, evil, vile ....... some folks love their abusers.

Right, but the thrust of the Euthyphro dilemma is the undecidability between whether something is good because the gods love it or whether the gods love it because it is good. The problem comes with the possibility of disagreement between the gods as to what is good, just as it is with humans.

God, however is a single entity, so there is no possibility of disagreement, and thus no inconsistency or contradiction in saying that something is good because God loves it and God loves it because it is good.

Whether there is a God, or whether what God loves is good are separate questions, and nothing to do with the Euthyphro. — Janus

Um, I'm not sure your quibble here, as I see no difference really to what I am saying. The basis of Euthyphro is whether something is good because the gods command it or whether it's the gods command it because it is good.

This goes into what I am saying implying that if a god likes suffering to occur and wants to see this (for whatever reason, whether utilitarian or he just likes seeing it play out a certain way), that implies that god likes (in some aspect, known or unknown as to why to us) suffering. To our mere mortal morality, this calls into question the idea of a "loving" being that likes to see suffering (even if for some grand cause outside the individuals who must endure this suffering from their perspective). At that point, the entity is at odds with our common notions of "good and evil" and then that has even more implications, etc. If suffering is at the caprice of a deity's whim, but commands us to not cause suffering, does god get to subvert his own morality to us, by not setting an example? But even more interesting, is creating a world of suffering and seeing it play out moral in the first place? And if it is, how would you justify morality simply because it is the will of a deity? What makes that moral in itself? If divine morality is immoral or amoral in comparison to human morality, that seems oddly not characteristic of a "loving" and kind-hearted god. And in that case, indeed look at the Gnostics.

Humans are able to reduce human suffering, so the antinatalist remains a boring defeatist imo. — universeness

Fair enough, and I'm not arguing for it, but this still sounds like optimistic progress narrative to me. I don't object to that narrative. I'm just making it explicit. A 'young' humanism is going to build a real heaven down here...or at least try. An older and maybe rancid humanism becomes more ironic and ambivalent, still faithful to rationality but not so sure that the species is going anywhere better.

I like the idea of punk sages. Not the front men or the bands, but say a Pythagorean Punk.

We can think of reason as a network of semantic norms which is used on itself. Philosophy rationally articulates in an accumulating way what it means to be rational. Neurath's boat. We take most of these norms (meanings of concepts, legitimacy of inferences) for granted as we argue for exceptions and extensions to those same norms. — plaque flag

That's interesting! I think I'd say boats -- as a metaphor for a tradition. Then there are boat builders of various kinds.

I much prefer the maritime metaphor for terra incognita.

That's interesting! I think I'd say boats -- as a metaphor for a tradition. Then there are boat builders of various kinds. — Moliere

:up:
Fair enough ! I joke about being a HegelBot because I focus on the most self-referential aspect of the world, trying to see our seeing, know our knowing. But others have to study particles and puppies and parabolas. Are all of the boats connected ? How about a fleet ?

I much prefer the maritime metaphor for terra incognita. — Moliere

Same here, very much so. It's about sanity and self-esteem. Even in evolution, which is historical in its own way, the little organism has to be coherent enough to make puppies, the keep the game of invention going. To me is what it means to be thrown. We can't fuck with all of the boat at the same time or we will drown. And if we need tools to work on the boat, we break off a plank or something to use as a hammer. Bricoleurs !

The bricoleur, says Levi-Strauss, is someone who uses 'the means at hand,' that is, the instruments he finds at his disposition around him, those which are already there, which had not been especially conceived with an eye to the operation for which they are to be used and to which one tries by trial and error to adapt them, not hesitating to change them whenever it appears necessary, or to try several of them at once, even if their form and their origin are heterogenous—and so forth. There is therefore a critique of language in the form of bricolage, and it has even been said that bricolage is critical language itself…If one calls bricolage the necessity of borrowing one's concepts from the text of a heritage which is more or less coherent or ruined, it must be said that every discourse is bricoleur.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/53180-the-bricoleur-says-levi-strauss-is-someone-who-uses-the-means

I always appreciate pretty prose but your imagery to me, seems very old. I don't know if your last sentence in the above quote means that you in fact reject the misleading imagery that traditional human mythologies/religions have tried to peddle to us, so that the nefarious few can opiate the masses.
Perhaps you should take more note of the scientific KISS advice. Keep It Simple Stupid! — universeness

<smile>

An anemic mythology is one that's reduced to a minimum of metaphoricity. Note that you use 'opiate' as a metaphor, so that rationality is tacitly a kind of discipline which does not drug itself. I don't think it's necessary or even possible to avoid such tacit mythmaking and myth enacting. I was hinting in general that humanism is not crystalline and ahistorical.

I think Popper is wise on this. Science offers myths, but its myths are better than others because they are developed within a 'secondorder' tradition of criticism and synthesis. No idea is sacred except for that idea itself, that no idea is sacred. Because no idea is sacred and no metaphor is final, the system can endlessly fall forward and upward. Its (anti-)conclusions are just the least stupid (most comprehensive, most compact,...) ideas/myths so far.

Looks like we are equally biased. You seem to admire/see value in, a two faced god, whereas I prefer the 'ness' part I have (and you have,) of the universe. — universeness

The universe is a two faced god and we are its two faced acolytes..

I like the idea of punk sages. Not the front men or the bands, but say a Pythagorean Punk. — Moliere

They have strict codes of conduct those Pythagorean Punk sages: don't bring up the square root of two. A looser punk sage was Diogenes.

Um, I'm not sure your quibble here, as I see no difference really to what I am saying. The basis of Euthyphro is whether something is good because the gods command it or whether it's the gods command it because it is good. — schopenhauer1

My point has just been it is only an either/ or question in the context of the Greek gods, not in the context of Abrahamic theology. Anyway I am not a believer in God, so the question doesn't matter much to me.

And in that case, indeed look at the Gnostics. — schopenhauer1

Yaldabaoth, the flawed creator of a flawed creation?

The universe is a two faced god and we are its two faced acolytes.. — Janus

The most recent data shows that the universe contains 8 billion human faces, all on different heads!
For a non-theist, you do seem to like and find employment for a lot of their woo woo.

Can you cite anywhere where I've peddled any magical theory?

Yes! You chose to represent yourself using a non-existent two faced god!

All that signifies for me is the seeing of both sides of the argument. I don't hold any magical views, but I also don't dismiss the possibility.

The universe is a two faced god and we are its two faced acolytes.. — Janus

The above quote also has a theistic flavour. My point is not a strong criticism of you, its more just a 'heads up' that some of what you type, along with your chosen handle could be misinterpreted, as you holding or being sympathetic to, 'magical' views. I just could not be bothered dealing with having to counter the misinterpretations and either explain the apparent imbalance or insist that I don't care what impressions others have.

What god is there other than the universe? It presents us with the face of the knowable and the face of the unknowable. We cannot but be its followers, but the stories it tells us are endlessly interpretable. It just depends on what our basic presuppositions or interests are. I am not responsible for what you can or cannot be bothered with.

What god is there other than the universe? — Janus

Death.

'... closer to you thqn your jugular ...'

What god is there other than the universe? — Janus

I find that question more of a special plead, than a serious question. You will not be surprised that my answer as an atheist, is obviously going to be that I am convinced 99.999% that there are no, nor has there ever been, an entity/existent, that qualifies for the god label, due to it's irrefutable DEMONSTRATION, that it possesses all of the required omni qualifications. Perhaps you have some other notion that you would personally label god. The universe demonstrates none of the omni qualifications required, that I have saw evidence of. The only activity I am aware of that is, and forever will be, an asymptotic effort to reach the omni qualifications, is human intent and purpose. This emergent property of the intent and purpose of any lifeform that exists within the universe and is of the universe will forever fall short of the god label, in the same way that the numerical value, referred to as a googolplex, falls short of the infinity label.

It presents us with the face of the knowable and the face of the unknowable. We cannot but be its followers, but the stories it tells us are endlessly interpretable. It just depends on what our basic presuppositions or interests are. I am not responsible for what you can or cannot be bothered with. — Janus

Most of this quote seems to agree with my position, except for the slightly anthropomorphic references to the universe as if it had intent. I was not assigning YOU responsibility, for what I cannot be bothered with, I was merely explaining to you, why I think a non-believer, (such as you have presented yourself,) choosing a handle like Janus is rather bizarre, but I accept that is only my opinion.

My point has just been it is only an either/ or question in the context of the Greek gods, not in the context of Abrahamic theology. Anyway I am not a believer in God, so the question doesn't matter much to me. — Janus

I actually agree in a sense that some things cannot be divorced from their cultural context. For example, Pauline Christianity subverts more-or-less a ethno-religion (Judaic/Israelite Practice/belief) and makes it universalized it into a more Platonic Greco-Roman (a kind of New Age religion) context. Perhaps this is the same in the opposite direction. That is to say it is taking the Israelite deity and imputing Greco-Roman sensibilities to it.

Yaldabaoth, the flawed creator of a flawed creation? — Janus

Correct. So I guess. I don't care if you use strictly "Euthyphro" or not. I am just interested in debating the argument I have been laying out and you keep pointing to Euthyphro being out of context. That's fine, but let's debate what I am debating then, whatever you want to call it and stop debating semantics at this point.

Right, death is the other face of the manifest universe, the twin of non-being to the universal being, the dark unknowable counterpart to the sunlit knowable.

I find that question more of a special plead, than a serious question. You will not be surprised that my answer as an atheist, is obviously going to be that I am convinced 99.999% that there are no, nor has there ever been, an entity/existent, that qualifies for the god label, due to it's irrefutable DEMONSTRATION, that it possesses all of the required omni qualifications. — universeness

I'm not pleading for anything, special or otherwise. You're right your answer doesn't surprise me, and it probably won't surprise you to learn that what you are convinced of means little to me, and that in any case I don't believe in the God of theology.

Most of this quote seems to agree with my position, except for the slightly anthropomorphic references to the universe as if it had intent. I was not assigning YOU responsibility, for what I cannot be bothered with, I was merely explaining to you, why I think a non-believer, (such as you have presented yourself,) choosing a handle like Janus is rather bizarre, but I accept that is only my opinion. — universeness

I haven't implied that the universe has intent. The god of new beginnings, Janus, is not at all associated with the Abrahamic pantheons. That you might think my choice "bizarre" is none of my concern. Happy trails anyway...

I think you're right about the Greco-Roman influences on Christianity.

Correct. So I guess. I don't care if you use strictly "Euthyphro" or not. I am just interested in debating the argument I have been laying out and you keep pointing to Euthyphro being out of context. That's fine, but let's debate what I am debating then, whatever you want to call it and stop debating semantics at this point. — schopenhauer1

Aesthetics is a matter of taste. If someone finds Christianity and the idea of God beautiful, I have no argument with them believing. You seem to find life mostly ugly, I don't; I find it mostly beautiful, so we are coming at this from different ends of the stick. Finding life ugly can actually be a motivation for religious faith. The lesson here is that not everyone does, or should, see things just the way you or I do. It's not really a matter of argument at all in my view.

Aesthetics is a matter of taste. If someone finds Christianity and the idea of God beautiful, I have no argument with them believing. You seem to find life mostly ugly, I don't; I find it mostly beautiful, so we are coming at this from different ends of the stick. Finding life ugly can actually be a motivation for religious faith. The lesson here is that not everyone does, or should, see things just the way you or I do. It's not really a matter of argument at all in my view. — Janus

This wasn’t my argument though either.

Aesthetics is a matter of taste. If someone finds Christianity and the idea of God beautiful, I have no argument with them believing. You seem to find life mostly ugly, I don't; I find it mostly beautiful, so we are coming at this from different ends of the stick. Finding life ugly can actually be a motivation for religious faith. The lesson here is that not everyone does, or should, see things just the way you or I do. It's not really a matter of argument at all in my view. — Janus

Nicely constructed.

This wasn’t my argument though either. — schopenhauer1

Apparently I misunderstood you then; my apologies.



Cheers Tom.

You're right your answer doesn't surprise me, and it probably won't surprise you to learn that what you are convinced of means little to me — Janus

Perhaps that is the most significant difference between us. What people are convinced of and what level of evidence is sufficient to convince individuals to support or hold a particular viewpoint, means a great deal to me, as it is the source of the actions they take.